Category: Law

MIL-OSI Australia: (WIP) FPIC in focus: implications of a recent Canadian Federal Court Decision for Australian stakeholders

Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

Exploring the ‘gold standard’ in Indigenous engagement 4 min read

The principle of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) is recognised as a ‘gold standard’ for engaging with First Nations communities in the context of environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.

FPIC is encompassed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which, although ratified by Australia, has not yet been incorporated into domestic law. FPIC is prominent as a consideration for project proponents consulting with First Nations stakeholders in relation to native title approvals for project development, and protection of cultural heritage. Notably, in its current review of the future act regime under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is examining whether the future acts regime adequately reflects internationally recognised principles of human rights, including FPIC.¹

In this Insight, we consider a recent Canadian decision on FPIC and explore its potential impact on FPIC considerations in Australia.

Status of UNDRIP in Canada

In contrast to Australia, Canada has incorporated UNDRIP into its domestic law. As one of the first countries to enact domestic legislation implementing UNDRIP through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (S.C. 2021, c. 14) (UNDA), Canada has been at the forefront of developments in Indigenous rights and consultation.

In Kebaowek First Nation v Canadian Nuclear Laboratories 2025 FC 319, the Federal Court of Canada recently provided clarification on the application of the UNDRIP and FPIC in Canadian law. This decision has the potential to influence how FPIC is approached by other countries, including Australia.

Background

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd (CNL) sought to amend its operating licence for the Chalk River Laboratories site to modernise its nuclear waste disposal facility. The site is situated in Kebaowek First Nation’s traditional territory.

In January 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted CNL’s application. Kebaowek First Nation challenged this decision, including on the ground that the Commission (as an agent of the Crown) failed to consider UNDRIP’s implications in relation to the duty to consult and accommodate the Indigenous owners.

The court’s decision

Federal Court Justice Blackhawk agreed with the Kebaowek First Nation, finding that the Commission’s failure to consider the UNDRIP as an important contextual factor in assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation was an error of law.² The court emphasised that with Canada’s enactment of UNDA, UNDRIP now serves as an interpretative lens in determining whether the relevant duty to consult and accommodate had been discharged.³

Importantly, having considered international scholarship, Justice Blackhawk held that FPIC does not grant a substantive veto right. While FPIC mandates a robust process, this does not extend to a right to a particular outcome.⁴

The court found that the consultation necessary to give effect to FPIC does, however, place ‘a heightened emphasis on the need for a deep level of consultation and negotiations geared toward a mutually accepted arrangement’⁵ and requires ‘significant robust processes tailored to consider the impacted Indigenous Nations laws, knowledge and practices’.⁶

Concerning CNL’s application, the Court found it would have been consistent with the FPIC standard for the Commission to modify the consultation process to address some of the Kebaowek’s suggestions.⁷

The Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back to the Commission.

Implications for the Australian context

The Canadian Federal Court decision clearly articulates that FPIC under UNDRIP necessitates a deep level of consultation with First Nations peoples, but does not extend to a power of veto. This is contrary to the views of some commentators, First Nations peoples and NGOs on UNDRIP, particularly in the context of Article 29.2, which concerns the storage or disposal of hazardous waste (which was of particular relevance in the Keboawek case). Notwithstanding the divergence in views, for Australia, where ALRC discussions around implementing similar standards continue, this case provides insight into how the integration of FPIC into domestic law might be approached.

The Issues Paper released by the ALRC in November 2024 notes that suggestions for reform of the future act regime include ‘more clearly incorporating international law principles such as FPIC in the future acts regime’.⁸ In light of the Keboawek case, it will be preferrable if—as part of any such integration—the parameters of FPIC are clearly delineated, such that litigation is not required for clarification.

Stakeholders will have the opportunity to make submissions on the ALRC reforms when the Discussion Paper is released in May. The ALRC is due to provide its final report to the Attorney-General by 8 December 2025.

MIL OSI News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Changing customer service levels: a lesson in consumer law risks
Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

Lessons from ACCC v Telstra 5 min read

On 21 February 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) handed down its decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 93. The Court found Telstra misled nearly 9000 customers via its Belong broadband service by failing to inform them of a reduction to the maximum upload speed on their internet plans.

The decision is a reminder that not informing customers about changes to a material feature of a product or service can be considered misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), if the circumstances create a reasonable expectation that the service remains unchanged.

In this Insight, we explore the decision and its implications for businesses in Australia.

Key takeaways
- Failure to notify customers about a material change to a product or service can amount to a false or misleading representation, or misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL. This is especially the case where the product or service continues to be marketed, invoiced and administered in the same manner, creating a reasonable expectation amongst consumers that the product or service is the same in all material aspects as it has always been.
- Businesses should be proactive in notifying customers in a timely manner of changes that impact the value or performance of their service to mitigate regulatory and reputational risks.
ACCC allegations
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged that Telstra, operating the Belong brand, contravened the ACL by changing the upload speed of its ‘Premium’ NBN plan from 40Mbps to 20Mbps in late 2020 without notifying affected customers.

The ACCC’s case focussed on two classes of customers who purchased the ‘Premium’ plan prior to being migrated to a slower 20Mbps plan without being notified:
- Cohort A, being 2785 customers who originally signed up to the ‘Premium’ plan when it was expressly advertised in published materials as including 40Mbps upload speeds. These customers were informed of the change retrospectively in 2021 and 2023; and
- Cohort B, being 6112 customers who signed up for the ‘Premium’ plan after Belong had stopped specifying an upload speed in its published materials, referring only to the plan as ‘Premium’.
For both cohorts, the ACCC alleged that Telstra engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to customers that the service they were receiving was the same as what they had originally signed up for, when it was not.

Telstra admitted to having misled Cohort A customers but denied making any misleading representations to Cohort B customers.
The Court’s findings

The Court found that Telstra contravened the ACL by unilaterally migrating its customers to a different plan without notifying them. In respect of Cohort A customers, the Court found this conduct contravened sections 18, 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g) of the ACL.

In respect of Cohort B customers, the Court found this conduct contravened sections 18 and 29(1)(g) (false and misleading representations surrounding the performance characteristics of a good or service) but did not amount to a contravention of section 29(1)(b) (false and misleading representations surrounding the particular standard, quality, value or grade of a service).

Cohort A customers

In respect of Cohort A customers, the Court found that Telstra represented to consumers that the ‘Premium’ plan maintained the same upload speed capabilities after the migration as it did before. This representation arose because customers had a reasonable expectation that they would be notified of any detrimental changes to their service—an expectation created by Belong’s silence contextualised by the published assertions about the plan’s characteristics (including explicit references to the plan possessing maximum upload speeds of 40Mbps) and the ongoing administration of the service as if nothing had changed.

In these circumstances, the Court held that on and from the date of the migration, and until Belong corrected the representations in 2021 and 2023, Telstra’s silence amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct for the purposes of section 18 of the ACL, and constituted a false and misleading statement regarding the standard of the service and the service’s performance characteristics, amounting to contraventions of sections 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g) respectively.

Cohort B customers

In the case of Cohort B customers, Telstra denied it made any false or misleading representations to consumers. While Belong did not expressly state the maximum upload speed to these customers at the time of purchase, the ACCC alleged that Telstra nevertheless represented to consumers that their service was the same as it was at the time of purchase. This representation was said to be created by Telstra’s silence contextualised by Belong’s terms and conditions (which provided that Belong could migrate customers to alternative services provided ‘reasonable notice’ was given to customers) (Terms and Conditions Conduct), the continued marketing of the plan as a ‘Premium’ plan (Marketing Conduct), and the continued invoicing of the ‘Premium’ plan (Invoicing Conduct).

The Court found that the upload speed was ‘sufficiently critical’ to the character of an NBN plan that customers would reasonably expect to be advised of a detrimental change to it. The Court also considered that Telstra’s silence combined with the Marketing Conduct and Invoicing conduct, created a representation that a consumer’s service had not changed in any material respect (including upload speed). It followed that, by failing to notify customers of their migration to plans with slower upload speeds, Telstra falsely represented to customers that their plans continued to have the same maximum upload speeds as they always had, when in fact they did not. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered various combinations of Telstra’s Terms and Conditions Conduct, Marketing Conduct, Invoicing Conduct and silence to identify which combinations had the effect of creating a false representation.

Ultimately, the Court found that Telstra engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct for the purposes of section 18 of the ACL, and made a false and misleading statement regarding the service’s performance characteristics in contravention of section 29(1)(g). Telstra was not found to have contravened section 29(1)(b), as Belong did not represent the particular standard of the service, only that the service continued to provide the same upload speeds as at the time of purchase.

What this means for businesses in Australia

This case highlights the critical importance of transparency and clear communication with consumers.

Businesses must ensure that any changes to their service terms, especially changes that could be perceived as detrimental, are clearly and proactively communicated to customers. This is particularly the case where the change relates to a term which is material to the service, such that customers would reasonably expect to be notified of any change.

MIL OSI News –
April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, Warren Seek Watchdog Investigation of Potential Trump Administration Violations of Taxpayer Privacy Laws

US Senate News:

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

Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, Warren Seek Watchdog Investigation of Potential Trump Administration Violations of Taxpayer Privacy Laws

New request for investigation comes as Treasury Secretary agrees to leak millions of protected records to DHS, multiple senior IRS officials announce intent to leave agency

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) urged the acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to investigate several reports that the Trump Administration is potentially violating strict taxpayer privacy laws by providing highly sensitive and legally protected taxpayer data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and personnel affiliated with Elon Musk across various federal agencies. The Senators’ request comes after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to provide an unprecedented level of access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxpayer data for open-ended investigations.

“Taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions, including up to five years in prison. Congress passed these protections in the 1970s after President Nixon weaponized the IRS against his political enemies. These legal protections for taxpayer data apply to all taxpayers and are an essential foundation for our tax system, which requires the voluntary submission of information to the government. Voluntary tax compliance depends on taxpayers having faith that their confidential information will not be used for anything other than tax administration,” wrote the Senators.

The letter also follows several high-ranking IRS officials, including the acting commissioner and chief privacy officer, announcing their imminent departures from the agency.

“Immediately following Bessent’s execution of the [agreement with DHS], several IRS leaders announced their resignations, including Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause and Chief Privacy Officer Kathleen Walters, raising further questions about whether they resigned to avoid being a party to a criminal conspiracy to violate tax privacy law,” continued the Senators.

“The risks created by these activities cannot be overstated… [IRS] data can be inaccurate because of identity theft, keypunch errors, obsolete address information, and a wide range of other reasons. If DHS relies on the same data to deport millions of people without validating its accuracy, it is likely to end up making grave errors that impact American citizens and immigrants with valid legal status,” added the Senators.

In addition to Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, and Warren, the letter was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Last month, Senators Padilla, Cortez Masto, and Wyden condemned the IRS’ plan to provide sensitive taxpayer information to DHS to locate suspected undocumented immigrants. The Senators also led a letter to IRS and DHS leadership raising the alarm on reports that DHS and the Department of Government Efficiency illegally requested sensitive taxpayer information from the IRS.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Acting Inspector General Hill:

We write to request an investigation into alarming reports about improper access to tax return information at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Elon Musk’s associates at the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and others, potentially violating the privacy of every taxpayer. As you know, violations of the tax privacy rules are punishable by civil and criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison.

Following the abrupt departure of the Acting Chief Counsel and Acting IRS Commissioner on April 7, 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent signed a memorandum of understanding that gives ICE unprecedented access to return information in an apparent attempt to weaponize the tax system against up to seven million people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The MOU cites Internal Revenue Code section 6103(i)(2), which permits certain limited disclosures for active criminal investigations individually approved by high level officials, but there were only 30,538 disclosures for all such investigations in the U.S. in 2023 and 14,640 in 2022, raising questions about whether it would be possible for ICE to have a valid reason for obtaining information on up to seven million people.

Immediately following Bessent’s execution of the MOU, several IRS leaders announced their resignations, including Acting IRS Chief Counsel Melanie Krause and Chief Privacy Officer Kathleen Walters, raising further questions about whether they resigned to avoid being a party to a criminal conspiracy to violate tax privacy law.

DOGE has also sought access to the IRS’s most sensitive systems to create a “mega-API,” that insiders have said is an “open door controlled by Musk for all American’s [sic] most sensitive information with none of the rules that normally secure that data.” This proposed “hackathon” by Musk and third parties could result in the exporting of taxpayer data to private entities and compromise the privacy of millions of Americans. DOGE has also requested an “omnibus” agreement with federal agencies that would allow a broad swath of federal officials to cross-reference benefits rolls with taxpayer data.

Finally, Treasury and IRS are requiring IRS employees, including employees in service centers who do not have a government-issued computer, to send emails listing five things they did each week to an external email address at OPM without any pre-screening to ensure no return information is included. Agencies are permitted to opt out of this requirement, but the IRS has not.

The risks created by these activities cannot be overstated. The data in IRS systems cannot necessarily be relied upon for non-tax purposes. The IRS suspends the processing of millions of returns each year and flags millions of others for follow-up because the information in its files does not match what is on the taxpayer’s return. The data can be inaccurate because of identity theft, keypunch errors, obsolete address information, and a wide range of other reasons. If DHS relies on the same data to deport millions of people without validating its accuracy, it is likely to end up making grave errors that impact American citizens and immigrants with valid legal status.

Moreover, taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions, including up to five years in prison. Congress passed these protections in the 1970s after President Nixon weaponized the IRS against his political enemies. These legal protections for taxpayer data apply to all taxpayers and are an essential foundation for our tax system, which requires the voluntary submission of information to the government. Voluntary tax compliance depends on taxpayers having faith that their confidential information will not be used for anything other than tax administration. Otherwise, those who value their privacy are less likely to file and pay what they owe.

There are already projections that taxpayers are paying $500 billion less in taxes this year, which could be explained, in part, by a lack of confidence that their tax return information will be kept confidential. Experts estimate that this MOU could reduce revenue by $25 billion in 2026 and $313 billion over a ten-year period. If that trend continues, it will undermine the finances of Medicare and Social Security, which the Trump Administration is already dismantling and Elon Musk has said is a Ponzi scheme.

While there are procedures by which agencies can gain access to return information, they generally require a determination that the information is required in a specific case for a lawful purpose. IRS employees may not access such information without proper training, and the information cannot be transmitted to another party without proper safeguards. The administration has thus far failed to timely respond to a congressional request on March 14, 2025, for information about the legal basis for the spate of recent requests for access to return data.

1. Concerning DHS’s request for return information about ITIN holders, please provide:

a. A complete unredacted copy of the MOU and any related agreements (including the separate implementation agreement referenced in the redacted MOU);

b. Any documented concerns raised by any senior IRS officials;

c. Any statements received describing the intended use of the information;

d. Any parties, officers, or agencies to whom the requester intended to redisclose any or all of the information; and

e. The legal basis for authorizing disclosures under this MOU; and

f. The extent to which such disclosures would be unprecedented.

2. Please provide any other requests for access to taxpayer or other sensitive information the IRS received from any agency in the executive branch (including DHS, SSA, DOGE, and the Office of Personnel Management) during this administration for return or other sensitive information or access to IRS systems containing such information, which was not subject to judicial review or routinely granted during the last administration.

3. Please also provide any requests for taxpayer or other protected information received from the President or the Executive Office of the President (EOP) during this administration, including the Office of Management and Budget, DOGE, and Elon Musk.

4. In each instance described in #2 or #3, please explain how the requestor proposed to use the information requested, the IRS’s response to the request, and the legal basis for the IRS’s response.

5. Every month until the end of this administration, please provide a copy of any new request that would fall into any of these categories and the IRS’s response.

6. Please also provide a list of all non-IRS employee(s) currently detailed to, or working with, the IRS as part of DOGE or its affiliates and provide a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding(s) allowing them to do so.

7. Every month until the end of this administration, provide an update on any modifications to any of the agreements referenced above to share return information.

8. Please provide an analysis of the risk that the “5-things” emails IRS employees are required to send to OPM contain information protected by section 6103 or protected by other provisions (e.g., the Privacy Act).

9. Please provide an estimate of the number of 6103 or other statutory violations the management of the IRS and Treasury are allowing to occur by requiring 5-things emails to OPM.

10. Please provide information about the nature and scope of the “mega API” and “hackathon” activity, which was reported in the press, including what sensitive data the vendor has access to, how the contract for services was negotiated, and whether there were any violations of federal contracting regulations.

11. Please provide an estimate of the percentage of individuals who have been given access to return or other sensitive information for the first time during this administration without first completing all of the training that IRS employees are required to take before having such access. Please provide a list of their titles.

12. To the extent new individuals or agencies have been granted access to return or other sensitive information during this administration, please estimate the percentage who did not properly secure and safeguard such information as required. Please provide a list of any agencies and the titles of any individuals.

13. To the extent that improper access or disclosures of return or other sensitive information have occurred during this administration, please describe the circumstances of the disclosure, provide an estimate of the number of taxpayers affected, and whether they have been notified that their information has been improperly accessed or disclosed.

Please provide us with this information as soon as it is available, provide us with a briefing by May 8, 2025, and complete this work by September 30, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Current major party policies fall short for Indigenous communities. Here’s a better path forward

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bartholomew Stanford, Senior Lecturer of Indigenous Studies, Indigenous Education and Research Centre, James Cook University

Since the Voice to Parliament referendum in 2023, the Indigenous Affairs portfolio has not featured prominently in policy debates at the national level.

As the election campaign continues, there’s yet to be much substantive discussion about how to improve the lives of First Nations people.

But what do we know about Indigenous policy under a continuing Albanese Labor government, or a new one led by Peter Dutton?

And more importantly, what does the evidence suggest the government, regardless of persuasion, should do with the Indigenous Affairs portfolio and areas where Indigenous policy needs reform to meet international standards?

What’s happened since the referendum?

The government has all but walked away from the Uluru Statement from the Heart since the referendum.

The statement was the result of unprecedented, widespread consultation with Indigenous people nationwide in 2016 and 2017.

Anthony Albanese committed to implementing the statement in full. It includes two other principles in addition to the Voice to Parliament: a Truth-Telling Commission and Treaty.

But the government appears to have no appetite for these matters at the moment. The failure of the referendum is also something the prime minister would likely want to distance his government from in the re-election bid.

After the referendum in October 2023, the government made a significant change in direction from Indigenous rights to economic initiatives for Indigenous communities. In December of that year, the government began public consultations to investigate how to strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy.

In February 2025, the government announced reforms to the policy. It committed to new procurement targets, with an intention of reaching 4% of all Commonwealth procurement being from Indigenous businesses by 2030.

There have been criticisms of this policy and the Indigenous business sector however, with concerns about Indigenous identity fraud and misuse of the policy.

What has Labor pledged?

Labor has committed to a continuation of efforts to close the gap. This is despite clear deficiencies within the policy to address socioeconomic disadvantage and the growing incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians.

The government has flagged the potential for more economic based policies instead of returning to the prior focus on Indigenous rights, recognition and truth-telling.

Labor has also committed to more Indigenous engagement at the international level. This is mostly through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s First Nations Ambassador initiatives, Indigenous foreign policy and public diplomacy.

What about the Coalition?

The Liberal and National parties are using the referendum outcome as a barometer to gauge the public’s attitudes towards Indigenous affairs. They are largely opposed to increased Indigenous rights and recognition.

This has already started at a state level. The Queensland Liberal National Party, for instance, walked back their support for a state treaty just a week after the referendum result.

The federal Coalition has since been vocal about curtailing Indigenous recognition and placing greater scrutiny on Indigenous funding and programs.

Peter Dutton has expressed an interest in removing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags at government press conferences. He also wants to scrap the First Nations ambassador role.

Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wants the Coalition to audit government spending on Indigenous programs. She also wants a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.

Read more:
A royal commission won’t help the abuse of Aboriginal kids. Indigenous-led solutions will

It’s safe to assume the Coalition will have no interest in revisiting any aspects of the Uluru Statement.

Dutton has indicated, however, that a referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition could be reconsidered, if it had bipartisan support.

But he seems very uncertain on this issue. It’s unclear if he or the Coalition would even support this.

The direction of conservative politics in Australia is following trends happening in New Zealand. Indigenous rights there are very much in the crosshairs of policy debate and political attack.

The missing policy pieces

So what does the evidence say about what politicians should be doing to improve outcomes for First Nations people?

The first thing to do is come up with a plan. We, as a nation, must move past the referendum result and present a clear roadmap for addressing Indigenous rights and ongoing marginalisation.

Second, work on implementing the Uluru Statement remains unfinished. Truth and Treaty can still be acted on. The recognition so resoundingly called for in the statement remains elusive.

And if not a Voice to Parliament, government needs to work with First Nations people to determine a path forward for legislating a representative Indigenous national body that both sides of politics will support.

The Closing the Gap policy needs also needs massive overhaul. Of the 19 targets, only five are on track to be met.

The Productivity Commission, which monitors the progress on the targets, has said the program will fail “without fundamental change”.

Some improvements have been made, but closing the gap in life expectancy and addressing the over-representation of Indigenous people in incarceration continue to be areas of vital concern.

Finally, Australia has not yet lifted Indigenous policy to international standards. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has existed since 2007. Australia officially endorsed it in 2009.

But, according to the Law Council of Australia, legal recognition of the declaration, and the rights it accords, is only recognised in a “piecemeal manner”.

This means there is no comprehensive or consistent legal provision for Indigenous rights in Australia.

And with no Treaty, there are limited safeguards for Indigenous cultures, creating further uncertainty which perpetuates and exacerbates Indigenous disadvantage.

Bartholomew Stanford receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Current major party policies fall short for Indigenous communities. Here’s a better path forward – https://theconversation.com/current-major-party-policies-fall-short-for-indigenous-communities-heres-a-better-path-forward-253331

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI China: Israel says arrested ‘senior terrorist’ in West Bank

Source: China State Council Information Office

Palestinians confront Israeli forces during clashes in the Balata refugee camp, east of Nablus in the northern West Bank, on April 9, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

Israeli security forces arrested a senior militant in Nablus, West Bank, according to a joint statement issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the Israel Police on Wednesday.

The statement said that during counterterrorism operations conducted on Tuesday night, special police forces arrested Muhammad Bana, “a senior terrorist in the dismantled Lion’s Den terrorist network,” and weapons were confiscated.

It noted that during the apprehension, Bana, armed with an M-16 rifle and a spray grenade, attempted to flee and was shot in his leg.

The statement added that he was involved in shooting and explosive attacks toward the security forces in the West Bank and had planned other attacks.

In addition, the IDF’s Duvdevan Unit apprehended Khalil Hanbali, “who was wanted by security forces due to his involvement in terrorist activity,” according to the statement.

He was involved in shooting attacks against IDF soldiers, served as a key weapon supplier, and had also attempted to plan additional attacks, it added.

Israeli security forces have recently conducted frequent security operations in the West Bank.

Earlier in the day, the IDF said in a statement that its forces demolished the West Bank home of a slain Palestinian who fatally shot an Israeli soldier on March 22.

The Palestinian, Mujahid Mansour, fired at a passenger van at a junction west of Ramallah, causing damage but no casualties, and fled the scene, according to the statement.

During a chase that lasted about five hours, an Israeli soldier was killed and six other Israeli fighters were wounded. Mansour was eventually killed by a missile fired from a combat helicopter.

Israel captured East Jerusalem, along with the rest of the West Bank, in the 1967 Six-Day War. Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory, and its annexation by Israel is deemed illegal.

MIL OSI China News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Mixed results in Medibank class action on privilege claims over investigation reports
Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

Multi-purpose reports remain most challenging for privilege 9 min read

A recent Federal Court decision has further highlighted the challenges of maintaining privilege claims over third-party investigation reports. This is particularly relevant where those reports are—or become—relied on for non-legal purposes, including operational, regulatory and public or investor relations.

Medibank has had mixed results in defending challenges to privilege claims over a series of third-party reports relating to its 2022 major data breach. It successfully defended claims over narrower and more targeted reports and communications with CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence, including, eg, those concerning negotiations with the threat actor.

However, Medibank failed to sustain its claim over three wider-ranging reports prepared by consultant Deloitte, which the court found had multiple purposes, with the legal purpose not being predominant.

While the court’s reasoning is consistent with the Full Federal Court’s decision in Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Robertson [2024] FCAFC 58 (see our previous Insight), it demonstrates that the challenges of maintaining privilege claims can remain even when detailed witness evidence is carefully prepared to support those claims.

Medibank has sought leave to appeal the court’s decision in relation to the reports by Deloitte.

This Insight considers the implications of the decision and outlines practical steps to take when an investigation report is commissioned for a legal purpose.

Key takeaways
- The Federal Court has rejected Medibank’s privilege claims over three factual investigation reports prepared by Deloitte following a major data breach, but has accepted communications and reports from cybersecurity firms CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence as privileged.
- The decision is largely consistent with the Full Federal Court’s recent decision on similar privilege claims in the Optus data breach class action, further highlighting the difficulties associated with claiming privilege over investigation reports prepared for multiple purposes, including legal, governance, regulatory compliance and/or operational purposes.
- The legal purpose for preparing a report must predominate other purposes—this is generally assessed at the time the report was commissioned, but later evidence can inform this assessment, particularly where the purpose evolves.
- It is not sufficient merely to assert that a document is privileged or, for that matter, to adduce evidence only from inhouse counsel. Courts will rigorously examine the nature of the document and the surrounding circumstances to determine the document’s dominant purpose. In this case, that process involved focused cross-examination of Medibank’s CEO and chair.
- The decision also further highlights the risks associated with making public statements about investigation reports, particularly the potential for those statements to highlight a material non-legal purpose of the document or otherwise to waive any legal privilege that attaches to it.
Background

From August to October 2022, Medibank experienced a cyber incident where cyber criminals accessed its IT systems and exfiltrated customer data. In a subsequent class action against Medibank, the applicants sought production of several reports prepared by Deloitte, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence, as well as communications involving CyberCX and Coveware. Medibank claimed legal privilege over these documents, contending that were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or for use in any litigation relating to the cyber incident.

CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence reports privileged

Justice Rofe held that Medibank’s communications with, and reports prepared by, cybersecurity experts CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence were privileged because the evidence established that those firms were engaged by Medibank’s lawyers for the dominant purpose of providing technical assistance and advice to enable Medibank’s lawyers to provide legal advice, including in relation to legal proceedings. For example, the reports were used for the purposes of briefing counsel, responding to regulatory notices, and preparing Medibank’s defence in the proceeding.¹

Importantly, even though the scope of services provided by those firms to Medibank’s lawyers was not, in many cases, materially different from the scope of services already being provided to Medibank under previous direct engagements, Justice Rofe held that the relevant consideration is the purpose for which the relevant documents came into existence, and that the scope of services was only one factor to consider. In these cases, the documents being created possessed a dominant legal purpose.²

Deloitte reports not privileged

Justice Rofe decided that the three reports prepared by Deloitte were not privileged because the provision of legal advice was not the dominant purpose for which they were commissioned. Rather, the following purposes were found to be ‘at least equally dominant, if not more dominant’:³
- Assuaging market and consumer concerns: Medibank made numerous public references to the commissioning of the external review and the appointment of Deloitte, including in ASX announcements and communications with employees, customers and health partners. These statements stated that Medibank, not its lawyers, were responsible for commissioning the report, and that the purpose of the report was to ‘protect and safeguard customers’.⁴ These statements were considered strong evidence that one of the dominant purposes of the report was assuaging market and consumer concerns.
- Avoiding independent APRA review: evidence was given that a key concern for Medibank was to avoid the need for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to conduct its own review of the data breach, which it was highly unlikely to avoid unless Medibank conducted a review in accordance with APRA’s requirements. The close communication between APRA and Medibank regarding the scope of the review (which notably did not copy in any of Medibank’s lawyers in most instances) and the ‘tri-partite’ meetings between Medibank, APRA and Deloitte were considered strong evidence that one of the dominant purposes of the report was avoiding an APRA investigation.⁵
The applicants also submitted that the board’s oversight role in the production of the reports demonstrated a further governance purpose. While Justice Rofe did not decide that this governance purpose was equally dominant as the legal purpose, her Honour did find that certain factors weighed against the dominant purpose being the legal purpose, including the board’s desire for an overview of what had occurred, rather than for unvarnished legal advice, and the direct reporting by Deloitte to the board, rather than via Medibank’s lawyers.⁶

Although Justice Rofe found that the Deloitte reports were not privileged from the outset, her Honour decided that Medibank’s public statement, which referred to the implementation of one of the Deloitte reports’ recommendations, would have waived privilege in the document because Medibank was seeking to take advantage of its implementation of the recommendations resulting from the external incident review to deflect criticism, and enhance or maintain its good standing in the eyes of its shareholders and customers, and its share price. In the circumstances, her Honour observed that Medibank ‘cannot at the same time maintain privilege in that part of the report setting out the recommendations to enhance Medibank’s IT processes and systems‘.⁷

Consistency with Optus’s privilege claims

Justice Rofe’s reasoning is largely consistent with the Full Federal Court’s recent decision in the Optus data breach class action. In that case, Optus’s privilege claim over the Deloitte report failed because it was not created for the dominant purpose of legal advice or litigation, but rather for multiple purposes, including operational, governance, regulatory and public relations purposes.⁸

The failure of the privilege claim in that case was, in large part, because testimonial evidence of Optus’s general counsel to the effect that the legal purpose of the investigation report was the dominant purpose was contradicted by Optus’s public statements and board materials.

In contrast, in this case, Medibank adduced very detailed and focused testimonial evidence of the Deloitte reports’ legal purpose, including from their CEO and chair. Even adopting that approach, Justice Rofe decided that the testimonial evidence was insufficient to outweigh contemporaneous documentary evidence, including Medibank’s repeated public references to the review’s purpose being to learn from the incident so as to protect customer data, as well as the close ongoing communication between Deloitte and APRA without Medibank’s lawyers. This contextual evidence tended to indicate that, despite the testimony given by various executives, parts of the business were not aligned on the legal purpose being the dominant one, with the board using the reports for a variety of functions. This further highlights that courts will not hesitate to disregard witness testimony where there is contradictory contextual evidence, and underscores the importance of ensuring whole-of-business alignment in treating documents in a practical sense as being for a legal purpose, rather than simply agreeing that they are.

Implications

This decision highlights the challenges in seeking to claim privilege over investigation reports and root cause analyses that follow material events, such as cyber incidents, and demonstrates that oral testimony, including statements of individuals’ subjective intentions, will not necessarily be determinative of the question of whether a legal purpose is dominant.

It demonstrates the importance of carefully considering the purpose(s) that the report is intended to serve before it is commissioned. Where it is likely to be used for multiple purposes, separate, dedicated reports may be more appropriate. Where it is intended that the dominant purpose of any report is a legal one, it is critical that the entire business is aligned on that purpose and that no steps are taken, such as making public statements or statements to regulators, that could compromise that alignment by exposing the existence of another non-legal purpose.

As noted above, Medibank has sought leave to appeal the court’s decision in relation to the reports by Deloitte.

Practical steps to take
When an investigation report is commissioned for a legal purpose, it is important to:
- Go beyond declarations of privilege: ensure that there is alignment across the business on the dominance of the legal purpose and that the business acts consistently with that alignment, including by:
  
  ensuring that the terms of reference and engagement are formulated to confine the scope of the report to legal advice;
  
  avoiding or otherwise limiting public statements or statements to regulators that could compromise that alignment, eg by suggesting the existence of material non-legal purposes or by waiving any privilege that subsists in the report; and
  
  communicating through appropriate legal channels, including ensuring that internal or external lawyers, rather than the board, have responsibility for oversight of the investigation.
- Consider commissioning separate investigation reports: where a factual investigation is intended to be taken for legal and non-legal purposes, consider commissioning separate legal and non-legal reports. The utility and effect of this approach will depend, at least in part, on the extent to which the content of each report will differ. The courts will be sceptical of so-called privileged reports that cover matters of operational significance that are not also covered in the non-privileged report.
MIL OSI News –
April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto Joins Press Conference Highlighting Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Invest in Local Law Enforcement

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

FTPs for TV stations is available here.

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) spoke at a press conference to highlight the urgent need to pass her bipartisan Invest to Protect Act. She was joined by Representatives Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.-05) and John Rutherford (R-Fla.-05) who introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, as well as by local law enforcement officers.

“Local police departments are the backbone of public safety for communities across the Silver State, but in conversations with law enforcement officers, I have heard over and over again that they need more resources,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This bipartisan, bicameral legislation gives small departments across the country a boost in funding for training, recruitment, and mental health support. It’s commonsense, and it’s time to get it done.”

“The bipartisan Invest to Protect Act will make critical investments in our departments and ensure that our police officers in smaller towns across New Jersey, and our nation, have the resources and training they need to keep themselves and communities safe,” said Congressman Gottheimer. “If you want to make something better, you don’t get there by cutting or defunding. You need to make smart, targeted investments. You must invest, not defund. You can have both justice and public safety. You don’t have to pick between one or the other. This bipartisan legislation will help ensure we have both and protect our communities and officers.”

“Small police forces are often the most resource constrained agencies and suffer the most from a lack of operational equipment and services,” said Congressman Rutherford. “As a former sheriff and career law enforcement officer, I am proud to join Congressman Gottheimer to reintroduce the Invest to Protect Act in the House to make trainings, retention tools, and mental health care resources more readily available for departments with fewer than 175 officers. It’s important we streamline the grant process for smaller law enforcement agencies to provide them with the resources they need to protect our communities nationwide.”

The majority of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are smaller than 175 full-time sworn officers, including all of Nevada’s rural sheriff’s departments and key suburban departments such as the Sparks Police Department. In Nevada and nationwide, these small departments often struggle to access critical resources. Cortez Masto’s bipartisan Invest to Protect Act would establish a grant program through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to provide $250 million specifically to help these small law enforcement agencies make meaningful investments in their officers and communities. This bill is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations.

As the former top law enforcement official in Nevada, Senator Cortez Masto has been a leading advocate in the Senate for our police officers and is part of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. She has secured historic funding for the Byrne JAG grant program, the leading source of criminal justice funding in the country. Her bipartisan bills to combat the crisis of law enforcement suicide and provide mental health resources to police officers have been signed into law by presidents of both parties. Her BADGES for Native Communities Act, to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs with law enforcement recruitment and retention, passed the Senate last Congress.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy reintroduces bill to stop online exploitation of America’s children

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today reintroduced the Targeting Child Predators Act to help stop children from being exploited online.
“Innocent children are uniquely vulnerable to wicked people who commit one of the worst crimes imaginable in the internet’s shadows. Law enforcement should have every resource at their disposal to stop and punish child predators, and this bill delivers a critical tool for the good guys,” said Kennedy.
Current law gives suspected predators opportunity to evade prosecution and criminal accountability when electronic communication service (ECS) providers alert them to potential law enforcement investigations.
When law enforcement investigates online child exploitation cases, they typically match an IP address to a suspected predator. Officials may then use this evidence to obtain a subpoena to collect the name of the person attached to the IP address from an ECS provider.
ECS providers comply with these subpoenas, but often inform users of the search—in these cases, suspected child predators—of the request. Suspects who discover that law enforcement is investigating them regularly erase their internet search footprints, which can make prosecuting online child predators nearly impossible.
The Targeting Child Predators Act would allow law enforcement to block ECS providers from notifying suspected child predators that they are being investigated for at least 180 days if law enforcement certifies that doing so is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence, flight and other misconduct.
Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) cosponsored the bill.
“We live in a digitally dominated world and while there are many positive benefits that come with that, there’s also a dark underbelly. This legislation would support law enforcement’s efforts to mitigate the dangerous threats that lurk behind the screens we look at daily and safeguard Texas children from harm,” said Cornyn.
The Targeting Child Predators Act does not expand what type of evidence law enforcement can collect and allows for judicial review of a nondisclosure requirement attached to a subpoena.
The Child Rescue Coalition, Raven, Major County Sheriffs of America and the National Fraternal Order of Police support the Targeting Child Predators Act.
“The TCPA will streamline data access for law enforcement in child exploitation cases, without compromising their investigations, or repeatedly burdening the Judiciary, enabling quicker investigations to protect and rescue victims from online predators,” said Greg Schiller, CEO, Child Rescue Coalition.
“This bill will prevent tech companies from notifying child predators of subpoena service which will keep vital evidence from being destroyed and increase law enforcement’s ability to rescue victims,” said Jennifer Dunton, Director of Legislative Affairs at Raven.
“MCSA commends Senator Kennedy for introducing the Targeting Child Predators Act. If those who target and exploit children are tipped off when a criminal investigation is underway, they can destroy evidence and as a result complicate the recovery of evidence. This bill would help to minimize this possibility and improve our chances of putting them behind bars. We encourage Congress to act on this important legislation,” said Sheriff Bill Brown, President, Major County Sheriffs of America.
“The ‘Targeting Child Predators Act’ makes a common-sense change that ensures that law enforcement has the necessary time to conduct thorough investigations and build strong cases against offenders. This change would ultimately help remove predators from our neighborhoods and make our internet communities safer for children and families,” said Patrick Yoes, National President, National Fraternal Order of Police.
The full bill text of the Targeting Child Predators Act is available here.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Cornyn Requests Full Retroactive Payments for Texans Under Social Security Fairness Act

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) sent a letter with a group of his Senate colleagues to Social Security Administrator (SSA) Leland Dudek requesting that SSA review agency policy and grant maximum retroactive payments to all qualified spouses under the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA). The SSFA, which Sen. Cornyn voted for, restores earned Social Security benefits for millions of employees and their spouses by repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. The SSFA also provided for retroactive payments to January 2024.

The Senators wrote: “Over the past few weeks, several constituents have contacted our offices regarding the retroactivity of their spousal benefits under the Social Security Fairness Act. The law provides for retroactivity to the year the bill was introduced, first being applied to the January 2024 payment.”

“We ask SSA to review the agency’s policy and grant maximum retroactivity payments to all spouses who were protected on prior applications and wrongly advised by employees of SSA not to apply for spousal benefits when they first inquired.”

“We appreciate your swift implementation of the law and SSA’s progress in adjusting more than 2 million records to date. We look forward to continuing to work together on behalf of those who have been affected by this error.”

The full text of the letter is available here and below. The letter was led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and also signed by Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and John Fetterman (D-PA).

April 1, 2025

The Honorable Leland Dudek

Acting Commissioner

Social Security Administration

6401 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21235

Dear Acting Commissioner Dudek,

We write to you concerning an issue related to the Social Security Fairness Act (Public Law No:118-273). Over the past few weeks, several constituents have contacted our offices regarding the retroactivity of their spousal benefits under the Social Security Fairness Act. The law provides for retroactivity to the year the bill was introduced, first being applied to the January 2024 payment. These spouses, including widows and widowers, have shared with me that when they contacted the Social Security Administration (SSA) years ago inquiring into spousal benefits, they were told by SSA employees that their spousal benefits would be reduced to $0 due to the Government Pension Offset; and therefore, there was no need to file an application for spousal benefits. Now, these same spouses are being told to file a claim for spousal benefits yet are only being granted a maximum of six months retroactivity from their most recent date of contact with the SSA. According to SSA policy, GN00204.010A5 if the spouse was protected on the worker’s application and never properly closed out, the protective filing remains open indefinitely. Subsequently, per GN00204.025B1, the claimant should be given the opportunity to elect the earlier filing date to allow for maximum retroactivity.

As noted, we have assisted spouses who have contacted our offices questioning the retroactivity. They have shared that even if they question the retroactivity with the SSA employees during their recent appointment to apply for benefits, the applicants are only granted six-months retroactivity from the most recent contact date. We ask SSA to review the agency’s policy and grant maximum retroactivity payments to all spouses who were protected on prior applications and wrongly advised by employees of SSA not to apply for spousal benefits when they first inquired.

Thank you for taking the time to address this important matter. We appreciate your swift implementation of the law and SSA’s progress in adjusting more than 2 million records to date. We look forward to continuing to work together on behalf of those who have been affected by this error.

Sincerely,

/s/

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA News: Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance

Source: The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The commercial shipbuilding capacity and maritime workforce of the United States has been weakened by decades of Government neglect, leading to the decline of a once strong industrial base while simultaneously empowering our adversaries and eroding United States national security. Both our allies and our strategic competitors produce ships for a fraction of the cost needed in the United States. Recent data shows that the United States constructs less than one percent of commercial ships globally, while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is responsible for producing approximately half.
Rectifying these issues requires a comprehensive approach that includes securing consistent, predictable, and durable Federal funding, making United States-flagged and built vessels commercially competitive in international commerce, rebuilding America’s maritime manufacturing capabilities (the Maritime Industrial Base), and expanding and strengthening the recruitment, training, and retention of the relevant workforce.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.

Sec. 3. Maritime Action Plan. (a) Within 210 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) the APNSA deems appropriate, shall submit a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) to the President, through the APNSA and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) to achieve the policy set forth in this order.
(b) The OMB Director, in coordination with the APNSA, shall be responsible for all legislative, regulatory, and fiscal assessments related to the MAP.
(c) The MAP shall, to the extent permissible and consistent with applicable law, including the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301–8305), reflect actions taken pursuant to sections 4 through 21 of this order.

Sec. 4. Ensure the Security and Resilience of the Maritime Industrial Base. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide to the APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP an assessment of options both for the use of available authorities and resources, such as Defense Production Act Title III authorities, and for the use of private capital to the maximum extent possible to invest in and expand the Maritime Industrial Base including, but not limited to, investment and expansion of commercial and defense shipbuilding capabilities, component supply chains, ship repair and marine transportation capabilities, port infrastructure, and the adjacent workforce. The Secretary of Defense shall pursue using the Office of Strategic Capital loan program to improve the shipbuilding industrial base. As part of their assessment, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) identify key maritime components in the supply chain that are essential for rebuilding and expanding the Maritime Industrial Base and that should be prioritized for investment;
(b) ensure that their recommendations of public and private investments are made according to a clear metric, derived in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, of return on invested capital for the United States taxpayer and to the economic and national security of the United States; and
(c) ensure that their recommendations take into consideration the projected increases to commercial and defense capabilities, the projected growth in economic activity, and the projected benefits for taxpayers and the workforce.

Sec. 5. Actions in the Investigation of the PRC’s Unfair Targeting of Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors. (a) With respect to the actions, if any, that the USTR determines to take consistent with the USTR’s notice of public hearing entitled Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of the PRC’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance, 90 Fed. Reg. 10843 (February 27, 2025), the USTR shall:
(i) coordinate with appropriate agencies to collect additional information, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, in support of administering such actions; and
(ii) coordinate with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate steps to enforce any restriction, fee, penalty, or duty imposed pursuant to such actions.
(b) Based on the USTR’s determinations arising out of its Section 301 investigation into the PRC’s targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors, the USTR shall also consider taking all necessary steps permitted by law to propose the following actions:
(i)   tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes manufactured, assembled, or made using components of PRC origin, or manufactured anywhere in the world by a company owned, controlled, or substantially influenced by a PRC national; and
(ii) tariffs on other cargo handling equipment.

Sec. 6. Enforce Collection of Harbor Maintenance Fee and Other Charges. In order to prevent cargo carriers from circumventing the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) on imported goods through the practice of making port in Canada or Mexico and sending their cargo into the United States through land borders, and to ensure the collection of other charges as applicable, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all necessary steps, including proposing new legislation, as permitted by law to:
(a) require all foreign-origin cargo arriving by vessel to clear the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry process at a United States port of entry for security and collection of all applicable duties, customs, taxes, fees, interest, and other charges; and
(b) ensure any foreign-origin cargo first arriving by vessel to North America clearing the CBP process at an inland location from the country of land transit (Canada or Mexico) is assessed applicable customs, duties, taxes, fees (including the HMF), interest, and other charges plus a 10 percent service fee for additional costs to the CBP, so long as the cargo being shipped into the United States is not substantially transformed from its condition at the time of arrival into the country of land transit (with the discretion for such decisions to be determined by CBP).

Sec. 7. Engage Allies and Partners to Align Trade Policies. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the USTR, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, shall engage treaty allies, partners, and other like-minded countries around the world with respect to their potential imposition of any actions taken pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of this order. The USTR shall deliver an engagement plan and progress report on these engagements to the President.

Sec. 8.  Reduce Dependence on Adversaries through Allies and Partners. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall recommend to the APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the United States to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the United States.

Sec. 9. Launch a Maritime Security Trust Fund. In conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget, the OMB Director shall, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, develop a legislative proposal, which shall be described in detail in the MAP, to establish a Maritime Security Trust Fund that can serve as a reliable funding source to deliver consistent support for MAP programs. This proposal shall consider how new or existing tariff revenue, fines, fees, or tax revenue could further the goal of establishing a more reliable, dedicated funding source for programs support by the MAP.

Sec. 10. Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program. In conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget and consistent with the findings of the report required under section 12 of this order, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a legislative proposal to the APNSA and the OMB Director, which shall be described in detail in the MAP, that establishes a financial incentives program with broad flexibility to incentivize private investment in the construction of commercial components, parts, and vessels; capital improvements to commercial vessel shipyards; capital improvements to commercial vessel repair facilities and drydocks through grants; and Federal Credit Reform Act-compliant loans and loan guarantees. Such proposal may augment or replace existing programs with similar purpose including the Small Shipyard Grant Program and the Federal Ship Financing (Title XI) Program.

Sec. 11. Establish Maritime Prosperity Zones. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall deliver a plan to the President through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP that identifies opportunities to incentivize and facilitate domestic and allied investment in United States maritime industries and waterfront communities through establishment of maritime prosperity zones. The proposal shall: (a) model these maritime prosperity zones on the opportunity zones established pursuant to section 13823 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054), which I signed into law during my first Administration;
(b) include stipulations for appropriate regulatory relief in the establishment of such zones; and
(c) provide for zones that are outside of traditional coastal shipbuilding and ship repair centers and are geographically diverse, including river regions as well as the Great Lakes.

Sec. 12. Report on Maritime Industry Needs. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall deliver a report to the OMB Director and APNSA for inclusion in the MAP that inventories Federal programs that could be used to sustain and grow the supply of and demand for the United States maritime industry. The report and inventory shall include:
(a) any Federal programs that provide financial and regulatory incentives for United States shipping, shipbuilding, and shipbuilding supply chains, including the training of shipbuilders and United States-credentialed mariners;
(b) Maritime Administration programs such as the Tanker Security Program, Cable Security Fleet, Maritime Security Programs, Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program, Title XI, Assistance to Small Shipyards, Port Infrastructure Development Program, the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), and programs that support the State Maritime Academies;
(c) existing domestic cargo preference laws, including the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 2631) and the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as amended, (46 U.S.C. 55304), and whether and how they can be used to ensure that United States cargo is transported on United States-built and flagged vessels, including a review of the existing waiver process and all current waivers to ensure they are consistent with the promotion of American domestic shipping;
(d) other available means that could further support the industry, including modifications of existing programs, establishment of new programs, and tax and regulatory relief; and
(e) in coordination with the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget, the costs and benefits of increased cargo preference rates, including on liquid cargo carriers, tankers, and military useful vessels, and options for increasing cargo preference compliance and directing open market procurement of shipping to meet urgent military needs for maritime vessels.

Sec. 13. Expand Mariner Training and Education. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deliver a report to the President through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP with recommendations to address workforce challenges in the maritime sector through maritime educational institutions and workforce transitions.
(a) In preparing their report, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult, as needed, with industry stakeholders including private industry and labor organizations.
(b) The report shall:
(i)    include the current number of credentialed mariners and estimate the additional credentialed mariners required to support the policies described in this order;
(ii)   analyze the impact of establishing new and expanding existing merchant marine academies as a means of educating, training, and certifying the additional credentialed merchant mariners estimated under subsection (b)(i) of this section;
(iii) identify any requirements for credentialing mariners that are unnecessary, insufficient, or unduly burdensome and provide recommendations for reform;
(iv)   inventory existing educational and technical training grants and scholarships to colleges and vocational-technical training institutions for critical shipbuilding specialties and other maritime studies, and provide recommendations for enhancement; and
(v)    assess the United States Coast Guard credentialing program applicability to United States Navy Active Duty and Reserve sailors to increase opportunities for sailors to transfer into the Merchant Marine with validated skills.
(c) Consistent with the findings of the report and in conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deliver a legislative proposal to the APNSA and the OMB Director that:
(i)    reflects the recommendations of the report required under this section;
(ii)   establishes national maritime scholarships to send promising maritime experts abroad to learn cutting edge techniques and subjects, such as innovative maritime logistics, clean fuels and advanced nuclear energy, human-machine teaming, and additive manufacturing and other advanced technologies; and
(iii) offers scholarships to maritime experts from allied countries to teach at United States institutions.

Sec. 14. Modernize the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(a) The Secretary of Transportation shall:
(i) within 30 days of this order consistent with applicable law and available appropriations, take action to hire the necessary facilities staff and reprogram budgetary resources needed to execute urgent deferred maintenance projects and any other mission critical repair works at the USMMA;
(ii) take immediate action to finalize a long-term master facilities plan (LMFP) for the modernization of the USMMA campus and submit such plan to the APNSA and OMB Director for concurrence; and
(iii) within 90 days of the concurrence described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section, in consultation with the Department of Government Efficiency, submit a 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) consistent with the LMFP to the APNSA and OMB Director that includes capital project budgets, schedules, and sequencing, as well as an inventory of deferred maintenance items necessary to sustain campus operations through completion of the CIP.
(b) All actions taken pursuant to this section shall be detailed in the MAP.

Sec. 15. Improve Procurement Efficiency. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall develop a proposal for improved acquisition strategies processes for United States Government vessels and submit such proposal to APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP. The proposal shall: (a) have as its objective providing American shipbuilders with market forecasting needed to justify investments in infrastructure, workforce, and intellectual property to meet United States demand;
(b) include reforms recommended by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security related to:
(i) staff structure and innovations in acquisition strategies that will improve Federal vessel procurement; and
(ii) reductions of the layers of approval needed to execute, build, and improve the vessel acquisition process, including by utilizing commercial acquisition and modular design practices that reduce complexity and prevent frequent changes to ship designs;
(c) identify for elimination excessive requirements, including the number of Government reviews and onerous regulations that add to ship design and acquisition delays; and
(d) consider use of broad industry standards and American-made readily available parts and components to drive up production volume while shrinking the iterative design process, which historically has led to delays and cost increases.

Sec. 16. Improve Government Efficiency. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Department of Government Efficiency shall begin a separate review of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security vessel procurement processes and deliver a proposal to the President, through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes.

Sec. 17.  Increase the Fleet of Commercial Vessels Trading Internationally under the flag of the United States. Within 180 days of the date of this order, in conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget and consistent with the findings of the report required under section 12 of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, deliver a legislative proposal to the APNSA and OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP that:
(a) is designed to ensure that adequate cubed footage and gross tonnage of United States-flagged commercial vessels can be called upon in times of crisis, while limiting the likelihood of Government waste;
(b) provides incentives that will:
(i)   grow the fleet of United States built, crewed, and flagged vessels that serve as readily deployable assets for national security purposes; and
(ii) increase the participation of United States commercial vessels in international trade; and
(c) enhances existing subsidies to include coverage of certain construction or modification costs in a manner designed to enhance incentives for the commercial shipping industry to operate militarily useful ships that trade internationally under the flag of the United States.

Sec. 18. Ensure the Security and Leadership of Arctic Waterways. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall develop a strategy that identifies the vision, goals, and objectives necessary to secure arctic waterways and enable American prosperity in the face of evolving arctic security challenges and associated risks, and deliver it to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP.

Sec. 19. Shipbuilding Review. Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a review of shipbuilding for United States Government use and submit a report to the President with recommendations to increase the number of participants and competitors within United States shipbuilding, and to reduce cost overruns and production delays for surface, subsurface, and unmanned programs. This report must include separate itemized and prioritized lists of recommendations for the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard and shall be included in the MAP.

Sec. 20. Deregulatory Initiatives. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a review of their regulations, and implementation thereof, across all components pertaining to the domestic commercial maritime fleet and maritime port access to determine where each agency may be able to deregulate within the framework of Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), to reduce unnecessary costs and clear barriers to emerging technology and related efficiencies. Each agency will submit a report of its findings to the OMB Director and to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP.

Sec. 21. Inactive Reserve Fleet. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review and issue guidance on the funding, retention, support, and mobilization of a robust inactive reserve fleet. This review and guidance shall be delivered to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP.

Sec. 22. Coordination. Unless otherwise specified in this order, the plans, reports, reviews, and recommendations that are required to be submitted to the President by this order shall be developed through interagency coordination in accordance with National Security Presidential Memorandum 1 of January 20, 2025 (Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees), or its successors.

Sec. 23. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 24. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    April 9, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA News: Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey

Source: The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Background. Lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts. My Administration must also take appropriate and necessary measures to guard against the actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that arise when the Government funds, engages with, or otherwise devotes resources to law firms and their clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.
I have determined that action is necessary to address the significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest associated with Susman Godfrey LLP (Susman). Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections. Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.
Susman itself engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race. For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.

Sec. 2. Security Clearance Review. (a) The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.
(b) The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Susman. The heads of agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.

Sec. 3. Contracting. (a) To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, activities that are not aligned with American interests, including racial discrimination, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Susman and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.
(b) The heads of agencies shall review all contracts with Susman or with entities that disclose doing business with Susman under subsection (a) of this section. To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall:
(i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Susman has been hired to perform any service; and
(ii) otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Susman or with entities that do business with Susman effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.

Sec. 4. Racial Discrimination. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the action authorized by section 4 of Executive Order 14230 of March 6, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP).

Sec. 5. Personnel. (a) The heads of agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Susman when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States. In addition, the heads of agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Susman employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.
(b) Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Susman, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 9, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA News: Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base

Source: The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. As Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that the United States military possesses the most lethal warfighting capabilities in the world. America’s defense industrial base is central to this effort. Similarly, the defense acquisition workforce is a national strategic asset that will be decisive in any conflict, where the factory floor can be just as significant as the battlefield.
Unfortunately, after years of misplaced priorities and poor management, our defense acquisition system does not provide the speed and flexibility our Armed Forces need to have decisive advantages in the future. In order to strengthen our military edge, America must deliver state‐of‐the‐art capabilities at speed and scale through a comprehensive overhaul of this system.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States Government to accelerate defense procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base to restore peace through strength. To achieve this, the United States will rapidly reform our antiquated defense acquisition processes with an emphasis on speed, flexibility, and execution. We will also modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce, as well as incentivize and reward risk-taking and innovation from these personnel.

Sec. 3. Acquisition Process Reform. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President a plan to reform the Department of Defense’s acquisition processes that, to the maximum extent possible, incorporates the following:
(a) Utilization of existing authorities to expedite acquisitions throughout the Department of Defense, including a first preference for commercial solutions and a general preference for Other Transactions Authority, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptative Acquisition Framework. Starting upon issuance of this order, and during the formation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall prioritize use of these authorities in all pending Department of Defense contracting actions and require their application, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, for all Department of Defense contracting actions pursued while the plan directed by this section is under consideration.
(b) A detailed process review of each functional support role within the acquisition workforce to eliminate unnecessary tasks, reduce duplicative approvals, and centralize decision-making. These reviews should also include evaluations of program managers, contracting officers, engineering authorities, financial managers, cost estimators, and logisticians.
(c) A detailed process by which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Service Acquisition Executives, and Component Acquisition Executives can effectively manage risk for all acquisition programs through a formal steering board known as a Configuration Steering Board.

Sec. 4. Internal Regulations Review. The Secretary of Defense shall oversee the review of and, as appropriate, propose revisions to relevant Department of Defense instructions, implementation guides, manuals, and regulations relating to acquisition to:
(a) Eliminate or revise any unnecessary supplemental regulations or any other internal guidance, such as relevant parts of the Financial Management Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
(b) Promote expedited and streamlined acquisitions. Where new supplemental regulations or internal guidance is proposed, the Secretary of Defense shall apply the ten-for-one rule as described in Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).

Sec. 5. Acquisition Workforce Reform. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall develop and submit to the President a plan for consideration to reform, right-size, and train the acquisition workforce that includes the following components:
(a) The restructuring of performance evaluation metrics for acquisition workforce members to include the ability to demonstrate and apply a first consideration of commercial solutions, adaptive acquisition pathways through the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, and iterative requirements based on the perspective of the end user.
(b) An analysis of acquisition workforce staff levels required to develop, deliver, and sustain warfighting capabilities.
(c) The establishment of field training teams by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, led by senior acquisition executives or managers with expertise in innovative acquisition authorities and commercial solutions, and modeled after field training teams authorized by section 832 of Public Law 118-159 (10 U.S.C. 1749). These teams should provide hands-on guidance, deliver templates and case studies of successful approaches for implementing innovative acquisition authorities, and should assist integrated functional program teams in completing acquisition and sustainment tasks.
(d) The development and implementation of policies, procedures, and tools to incentivize acquisition officials to, in good faith, utilize innovative acquisition authorities and take measured and calculated risks.

Sec. 6. Major Defense Acquisition Program Review. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall complete a comprehensive review of all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs), as defined in section 4201 of title 10, United States Code, to determine if any such programs are inconsistent with the policy objectives set forth in section 2 of this order. As part of the review of all MDAPs:
(i) any program more than 15 percent behind schedule based on the current Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), 15 percent over cost based on the current APB, unable to meet any key performance parameters, or unaligned with the Secretary of Defense’s mission priorities, will be considered for potential cancellation. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the potential cancellation list to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for future budget determinations.
(ii) the Secretary of Defense shall provide a listing of all MDAPs contracts, along with performance against original and approved Government cost estimates to the Director of OMB for review within 90 days from the date of this order.
(b) Following this comprehensive review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the Director of OMB with a plan for reviewing all remaining major systems, as defined in section 3041 of title 10, United States Code, that are not MDAPs.

Sec. 7. Requirements. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System within 180 days of the date of this order, with the goal of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.

Sec. 8.  Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term “Adaptive Acquisition Framework” means the series of acquisition pathways that enable the workforce to deliver “effective, suitable, survivable, sustainable, and affordable solutions to the end user in a timely manner,” as stated in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02.
(b) The term “Acquisition Program Baseline” means the formally established cost, schedule, and performance baselines of a program, as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
(c) The term “commercial solutions” means any of the methods for procurement of a commercial product or service described in part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, subpart 212.2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, or subpart 212.70 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; or other industry solutions funded by private investment that meet military needs.
(d) The term “Configuration Steering Board” means an annual review of potential requirements changes, critical intelligence parameter changes, and any significant technical configuration changes as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
(e) The term “innovative acquisition authorities” means Other Transactions Authority, commercial solutions, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.
(f) The term “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System” means the formally established Department of Defense process used to identify, assess, and prioritize joint military capability requirements across the Department of Defense.
(g) The term “Other Transactions Authority” means the ability of the United States Government to enter into contracts other than standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.
(h) The term “Rapid Capabilities Office” means the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, Naval Air Warfare Rapid Capabilities Office, Department of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, or Space Force Rapid Capabilities Office.

Sec. 9.  General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    April 9, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Off ‘ya bike: Driver gets ride impounded

Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

A man on a moped who failed to stop for Police will have to find another way of getting around town after his scooter was impounded.

Just after 1am, Police on patrol in Wesley noticed a suspicious moped driving around the area and signalled for it to stop.

Auckland City West Area Commander, Inspector Alisse Robertson, says the driver didn’t stop, and instead fled on the moped around the Sandringham and Mount Roskill areas using the walkways.

“The rider used alleyways and parks to avoid detection, however the Police Eagle helicopter was able to provide commentary as the moped driver eventually abandoned the bike in Stoddard Road and ran off on foot.

“Cordons were put in place and the Police dog unit has tracked the alleged offender to where he was hiding behind a property on Glenarm Avenue.”

Inspector Robertson says the driver was quickly taken into custody without incident.

“His moped has been impounded for six months and enquiries are ongoing.

“Police are committed to ensuring the community is safe, especially on our roads.

“We ask anybody who witnesses antisocial road behaviour to contact Police, on 111 if it is happening currently, or 105 if it is after the fact.”

Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS.

Holly McKay/NZ Police

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Pfluger’s Bills to Counter the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence in America Pass Through Committee

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, participated in the full committee legislative markup. The markup included two of Chairman Pfluger’s bills, the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025” and the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act.” Both bills passed through committee by voice with bipartisan support.

In his remarks on the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025”, Chairman Pfluger said in part, “The Chinese Communist Party, the Iranian regime, and other malign entities have reached into American soil to silence American citizens and residents who defend human rights and advocate for free speech. These unacceptable acts of hostility are a direct challenge to our nation’s sovereignty and the rule of law, and the U.S. government must respond to defend the homeland…A proactive approach is crucial and especially urgent considering the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive activities, which include an illegal CCP pseudo-police station in New York City the Justice Department says was used to monitor and intimidate dissidents.”

Watch Chairman Pfluger’s full remarks on the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025” HERE.

In his remarks on the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act”, Chairman Pfluger said in part, “I am deeply concerned about the threats the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses to our homeland. National security experts and law enforcement officials have continuously raised alarms about the CCP’s increasing subversive activities inside our country through organizations like the CCP’s Confucious Institutes and their affiliate groups…This bill would play a vital role in protecting our students, our intellectual property, and our national security.”

Watch Chairman Pfluger’s full remarks on the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act” HERE.

Background:

In March, Chairman Pfluger reintroduced the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025″ to combat the threat of transnational repression within the United States by strengthening the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) response and coordination to these threats.

Chairman Pfluger also penned an op-ed in the Washington Times outlining the threat of transnational repression in the United States and the need for his legislation. Chairman Pfluger’s constituent, Dr. Bob Fu, has been directly impacted by transnational repression and detailed this in a Wall Street Journal op-ed he recently wrote.

Earlier this year, Chairman Pfluger also introduced the

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: High Volume Central Oregon Fentanyl Trafficker Sentenced to More than 11 Years in Federal Prison

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

EUGENE, Ore.—A known, high-volume Central Oregon drug trafficker was sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison today following a multi-agency investigation led by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office.

Ricky Fontaine, 32, of Bend, Oregon, was sentenced to 135 months in federal prison and five years of supervised release.

“This case is the result of excellent collaboration among the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit, the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon,” said William M. Narus, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. “We thank the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office for partnering with us to prosecute this case in federal court.”

According to court documents, on April 1, 2023, after obtaining information that Fontaine was actively selling drugs—including fentanyl—in Deschutes County, detectives from the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Fontaine. Fontaine, who at the time of the stop had an unrelated active felony arrest warrant, attempted to walk away from the traffic stop on foot, but was quickly apprehended by the detectives.

The detectives searched Fontaine’s vehicle and found more than 1,000 grams of fentanyl, a .22 caliber handgun, scales and drug packaging materials. The detectives also found several photographs of Fontaine posing with large quantities of packaged fentanyl pills. A few hours later, the detectives executed a second search warrant on Fontaine’s residence and found additional fentanyl pills, scales and packaging materials.

On January 18, 2024, Fontaine was charged by superseding indictment with possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl and illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On December 4, 2024, he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl.

This case was investigated by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit with assistance from the Central Oregon Drug Enforcement Team (CODE) and Redmond Police Department. It was prosecuted by Andrew R. Doyle, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 80 to 100 times more powerful than morphine and 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin. A 3-milligram dose of fentanyl—a few grains of the substance—is enough to kill an average adult male. The wide availability of illicit fentanyl in Oregon has caused a dramatic increase in overdose deaths throughout the state.

If you are in immediate danger, please call 911.

If you or someone you know suffers from addiction, please call the Lines for Life substance abuse helpline at 1-800-923-4357 or visit www.linesforlife.org. Live phone support is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

MIL Security OSI –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Lawler Reintroduces Bill to Keep Those Who Rape and Murder Children in Jail Without the Possibility of Release

Source: US Congressman Mike Lawler (R, NY-17)

Washington, D.C. – 4/8/2025… Today, during Child Abuse Prevention Month, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17) reintroduced the Paula Bohovesky and Joan D’Alessandro Act, a critical public safety bill in honor of the lives of Paula Bohovesky, a Rockland County native, and Joan D’Alessandro, who lived in Bergen County, New Jersey.

In 1973, Joan D’Alessandro was seven years old and had just left her house to sell Girl Scout cookies in her New Jersey hometown. Making only the mistake of knocking on a neighbor’s door, she was sexually assaulted, beaten, and strangled to death. Over two decades later in 1998, Congress passed legislation to prevent early release for criminals who killed a child under age 14.

Similar to Joan, Paula Bohovesky was 16 years old when she was beaten, stabbed, sexually assaulted, and murdered by two men in Rockland County, NY. But because Paula was 16 at the time of her death, one of the men responsible for her death was granted parole in August of 2021.

This legislation modifies an existing ban on early release eligibility for criminals, specifying that those who murdered and sexually assaulted a minor up to the age of 18 are also included in this prohibition.

“The brutal murders of Joan D’Alessandro and Paula Bohovesky devastated Rockland County and the entire region,” said Congressman Lawler (NY-17). “The unspeakable happened in our own backyard, and the impact of these tragedies still reverberates through our community.”

“With the reintroduction of the Paula Bohovesky and Joan D’Alessandro Act in the 119th Congress, I’m strengthening federal law to ensure families never have to face the trauma of watching their child’s killer walk free,” concluded Congressman Lawler. “This legislation honors the memory of Joan and Paula and seeks to bring some measure of justice to families across the country.”

“The most heinous crimes are those perpetrated against minors, and those who prey upon our children represent the worst in our society,” said NYPD Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA) President Vincent Vallelong. “Unfortunately, a technicality in federal law prevents us from providing the full measure of justice to victims such as Paula Bohovesky and her family by ensuring that violent killers are kept in prison where they belong. The Paula Bohovesky and Joan D’Alessandro Act enhances the protection of our nation’s children, and the SBA is grateful for the strong leadership of Rep. Lawler in continuing to fight for this important and long overdue fix to federal law.”

“The Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) strongly supports the Paula Bohovesky and Joan D’Alessandro Act, as it delivers justice for victims of the most heinous crimes. Law enforcement is united in safeguarding our communities by ensuring that those who commit brutal acts against children are held fully accountable. We stand ready to support efforts to advance this critical bipartisan measure,” said Megan Noland, Executive Director of MCSA.

“The Paula Bohovesky and Joan D’Allesandro Act is a significant step in protecting our communities from the most heinous crimes against children. This important legislation spares victims’ families from the emotional burden of facing repeated parole board hearings, allowing them to focus on healing without the added trauma of reliving their loss every few years. It is our moral duty to protect children and their families from dangerous offenders. We thank Congressman Lawler for introducing this bill, which takes a crucial step toward restoring a sense of safety and peace for those affected by such devastating crimes,” said Executive Director Theresa Roth of the New York State Children’s Alliance.

“The current state statute under Joan’s Law at the federal level applies to all children under 14 years old. This bill will extend justice to all minors under 18, including those at a particularly vulnerable age. This law must be passed to ensure justice for all children,” said Rosemarie D’Alessandro, mother of Joan and child safety advocate who also founded the Joan Angela D’Alessandro Memorial Foundation. “When I first brought this to Congressman Lawler’s attention, he was ready to see it passed. It’s heartwarming to see so many people support this legislation.”

Congressman Lawler is one of the most bipartisan members of Congress and represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is just north of New York City and contains all or parts of Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester Counties. He was rated the most effective freshman lawmaker in the 118th Congress, 8th overall, surpassing dozens of committee chairs.

###

Full text of the bill can be found HERE.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Rosen Helps Reintroduce Bill to Protect the Ruby Mountains from Oil and Gas Drilling Pushed by the Trump Administration

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) joined Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) in reintroducing legislation to expand protections for and prohibit oil and gas development in Nevada’s beautiful and pristine Ruby Mountains. Their reintroduction of the Ruby Mountains Protection Act follows the Trump Administration’s reckless decision to reopen the Rubies to speculative oil and gas drilling. Last Congress, this bill advanced out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support.
“Instead of taking meaningful action to bolster American energy independence, the Trump Administration is taking reckless and unproductive steps that endanger Nevada lands with low likelihood of oil and gas production,” said Senator Rosen. “That’s why I’m introducing this bill with Senator Cortez Masto to fight back against President Trump’s efforts and protect the Ruby Mountains from drilling. I’ll keep pushing back against this wrongheaded approach that threatens the Ruby Mountains and other beautiful parts of our state.”
“The natural beauty of the Ruby Mountains, Nevada’s Swiss Alps, is beloved by locals and draws tourists from across the country,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “Unproductive oil and gas drilling would only harm Northern Nevada’s tourism economy and keep this natural treasure from generations of future Nevadans. There’s bipartisan support for my legislation, and there is no reason not to pass it into law.”
The Ruby Mountains Protection Act would withdraw approximately 450,000 acres of National Forest land, comprising the Ruby Mountain Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, from any eligibility for oil and gas leasing. The bill will also expand protection to the 39,926-acre Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Ruby Mountains Protection Act would not affect any recreational use of these pristine lands, including for hunting, hiking, and fishing.
Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto are champions for Nevada’s great outdoor spaces and public lands. They recently joined Nevada’s Congressional delegation in urging the Trump Administration to preserve national monument designations in Nevada. The Senators passed critical legislation to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which protects public lands in Nevada and across the U.S. They also passed bipartisan, bicameral legislation to reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and they delivered critical funding to protect Lake Tahoe in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Last year, Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto announced over $375 million for recreation and conservation projects across Nevada.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Previously Convicted Felon Sentenced to More Than 26 Years in Federal Prison for Possessing a Firearm in Connection With Drug Trafficking Fentanyl, Wire Fraud, and Aggravated Identity Theft

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Defendant convicted after trial on drug and firearms offenses and thereafter pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft

Baltimore, Maryland – Today, Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell, III, sentenced Ryan E. Dales, 36, of Baltimore, to 26 years in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release. Dales, a previously convicted felon, was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.

Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the sentence with Special Agent in Charge William J. DelBagno of the Federal Bureau of Investigation – Baltimore Field Office, and Special Agent in Charge Troy W. Springer, of the National Capital Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG).

“Mr. Dales’s criminal activity was callous, dangerous, and with complete disregard for his victims,” Hayes said. “Thanks to our federal, local, and state law-enforcement partners, we’re showing Mr. Dales and others that engaging in criminal activity comes with a price. We’re serious about holding those accountable who commit illegal acts and terrorize our community with fentanyl, firearms, and fraud. Fortunately, Mr. Dales will have plenty of time to think about his actions while in prison.”

“This sentence of 26 years reflects the seriousness of Dales’ actions which include drug and weapon offenses as well as identity theft and fraud schemes. As a repeat offender, Dales knew the consequences of his wrongdoing yet chose to continue dealing drugs and committing crimes,” DelBagno said. “The FBI has no tolerance for repeat offenders who threaten the safety and security of our communities.”

“Ryan Dales engaged in a multi-faceted pandemic-relief fraud scheme by filing fraudulent UI claims in the names of identity theft victims. Dales stole benefits intended for unemployed American workers who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Springer said. “The significant prison sentence imposed today is the direct result of outstanding collaboration with our partners at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the FBI in ensuring the integrity of these critical benefit programs. This is particularly true when it involves firearms and drug trafficking as well as other violent crimes in our communities.”

On December 9, 2024, a federal jury found Dales guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Additionally, Dales faced a second trial on wire fraud and aggravated identity theft charges, but on January 10, 2025, Dales pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

According to the evidence presented at trial, on January 20, 2023, authorities arrested Dales pursuant to a federal arrest warrant, and law enforcement executed a federal search warrant the same day at Dales’s residence. Dales resided in a luxury apartment building in Locust Point. During the search, law enforcement located and seized, among other things, various items used in connection Dales’s illegal business selling drugs, including two loaded firearms, specifically, a stolen Smith & Wesson firearm, and one which was a privately made “ghost gun” Polymer80 9mm firearm with no serial number, and a box containing 28 rounds of 9mm ammunition, including hollow point ammunition. In addition, law enforcement seized numerous packages of controlled dangerous substances, including hundreds of grams of fentanyl packaged for street level distribution, multiple digital scales, sifters, a heat sealer, a bag containing 10,000 empty capsules meant to package drugs, other drug packing materials, various cutting agents, a respirator, and six cell phones.

Later, Dales voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and admitted to living in his apartment alone and that the firearms seized in his apartment were his. He also told law enforcement that he was a “very resourceful person,” referring to his livelihood as a drug dealer. Dales’ DNA was later determined to be present on both firearms and their magazines.

Law enforcement’s later review of Dales’s cell phones revealed the existence of numerous Telegram chats where he negotiated purchasing drugs and cutting agents from multiple people, including mass producers of fentanyl in China. Investigators further found evidence that about a month before the execution of the search warrant, Dales traveled to Boston with a firearm (identical in appearance to the ghost gun found in his apartment) and a bag full of cash to purchase drugs. Dales’s device search history included searches for where fentanyl is produced in China, how to dye powders, and how many bullets a Smith and Wesson M&P 9c firearm — the same type seized from his apartment — can hold.

After his conviction at trial on the drug and firearms offenses, Dales pled guilty to a fraud scheme in which he used victims’ identities to obtain various high-end lawnmowers on credit and received fraudulent unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. From December 2020 through September 2022 — while serving a federal sentence for bank-fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft — and living in a halfway house while on federal supervised release in the District of Maryland, Dales engaged in various fraudulent schemes. Dales attempted to defraud the State of Maryland, Maryland Department of Labor (MD-DOL), the Small Business Administration, and various businesses and financial institutions to obtain more than $25,000 in unlawful COVID-19 benefits funds though the submission of fraudulent claims for UI benefits; more than $95,000 worth of high-end riding lawn mowers on credit using the stolen personal identifiable information (PII) of seven victims information —such as names, dates of birth, social security numbers, and addresses of real persons — and attempting to fraudulently obtain an $8,000 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL).

During the execution of the residential search warrant, law enforcement seized various items used in connection with Dales’s fraud and identity theft schemes, including multiple computers, an embosser and ID card printer, laminate sheets with security holograms, gift cards in various denominations, a card printer and card reader, bulk packages of shrink-wrapped white PVC cards; and multiple fraudulent and fabricated South Carolina driver’s licenses made by Dales containing PII of various victims, but which displayed Dales’s photograph.

Dales used the fabricated driver’s licenses in connection with the fraudulent purchases of riding mowers and other impermissible uses. He also obtained the identity theft victims’ PII on the dark web. The total amount obtained by Dales from the UI fraud scheme, as well as the fraudulent purchase of the lawnmowers on credit was $121,242.51.

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

The District of Maryland Strike Force is one of five strike forces established throughout the United States by the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute COVID-19 fraud, including fraud relating to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The CARES Act was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The strike forces focus on large-scale, multi-state pandemic relief fraud perpetrated by criminal organizations and transnational actors. The strike forces are interagency law enforcement efforts, using prosecutor-led and data analyst-driven teams designed to identify and bring to justice those who stole pandemic relief funds.

For more information on the Department’s response to the pandemic, visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus. Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the FBI and DOL-OIG for their work in connection with the investigation. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul A. Riley and Reema Sood, who prosecuted the federal case. She also recognized the assistance of the Maryland COVID-19 Strike Force Paralegal Specialist Joanna B.N. Huber.

For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach

# # #

MIL Security OSI –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Pasadena Woman Pleads Guilty to Stalking Campaign Against Victims and Threatening to Bomb U.S. Consulate in Vietnam

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LOS ANGELES – A San Gabriel Valley woman pleaded guilty today to federal criminal charges for stalking a victim then impersonating him and his wife to further stalk government employees at a United States consulate in Vietnam, which she threatened to bomb.

Natalie Nguyen, 39, of Pasadena, pleaded guilty to one count of stalking and one count of threat by interstate commerce to kill another person and to damage and destroy buildings by fire and explosives.

Nguyen has been in federal custody since February 2024.

According to her plea agreement, Nguyen stalked a victim – identified in court documents as “T.H.” – from April 2023 to February 2024, sending emails threatening to kill him and his wife. One of the emails contained screenshots of a text conversation about paying a hitman $15,000 to kill the victim’s wife.

Nguyen also began stalking five employees at the U.S. consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. At times, she impersonated T.H.’s wife, including in an August 2023 email in which she threatened to “bomb the [expletive] consular in Ho Chi Minh City.”

In October 2023, Nguyen – impersonating T.H. and using T.H.’s email account without permission – sent an email to three government employees at the U.S. consulate stating, “i wil [sic] kill every [expletive] one of you who has been delaying issuing my wife visa.”

In January 2024, Nguyen – impersonating T.H.’s wife – sent a message to U.S. officials through an online portal stating, “Device will be detonated at America consular in Saigon and in San Francisco. All of you will be exploded for causing my separation with my husband for this last year. Everything will be exploded around new year or after.”

The following month, Nguyen impersonated T.H. and sent an inquiry to a U.S. Embassy online portal threatening to explode grenades around the time of the lunar new year at the consulate. Several minutes later, Nguyen, impersonating T.H., sent an email to the Vietnamese consulate stating, “i have a grenade set to be exploded this lunar new year at the consulate. my wife is ready.”

United States District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett scheduled a June 18 sentencing hearing, at which time Nguyen will face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison for the stalking count and up to 10 years in federal prison for the threats count.

The FBI investigated this matter with assistance from the Diplomatic Security Service.

Assistant United States Attorney Diane Roldán of the Violent and Organized Crime Section is prosecuting this case.

MIL Security OSI –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester join in introducing bill to fully fund special education

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
WASHINGTON – Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester (both D-Del.) joined in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act, legislation to ensure Congress finally fulfills its commitment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Fifty years ago, Congress passed IDEA to ensure that every child with a disability has access to educational opportunity. This law was an historic step forward, but since its passage Congress has failed to provide the funding it promised. The legislation is cosponsored by over 30 members in the Senate and more than 60 members in the House of Representatives and is endorsed by 60 organizations.
Under IDEA, the federal government committed to pay 40 percent of the average per student expenditure for special education; however, that pledge has never been met. According to the Congressional Research Service, current funding is at less than 12 percent, and the IDEA shortfall in the 2024-2025 school year nationwide was $38.66 billion. Under full funding, Maryland alone would have received $671.6 million. The IDEA Full Funding Act would require regular, mandatory increases in IDEA spending to finally meet our obligation to America’s children and schools.
“The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act made a promise to children with disabilities and their families that they would be provided a free, public, and individualized education––but our government has never fulfilled this promise,” said Senator Coons. “While Trump and DOGE are taking illegal steps to dismantle the Department of Education and slashing billions of dollars in education-related research and programs, we must not retreat and forget our promise to Delaware’s kids.”
“Every student deserves to have access to a high-quality education, regardless of their disability status,” said Senator Blunt Rochester, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “At a time when the Trump administration is doing all they can to make it harder for people to get the resources and services they need, I am proud to support this legislation on behalf of students with disabilities and their families in Delaware and across the nation. I look forward to working with Senator Van Hollen and our colleagues to finally honor our commitment and fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”
“Fifty years ago, Congress passed the IDEA Act, and with it, made a promise to children with disabilities and their families – but we have fallen short of that promise every year since. While Donald Trump and Elon Musk are illegally gutting public education in America, we are fighting to strengthen it. Our bill will ensure that Congress finally meets its commitment to fully fund IDEA, putting us closer to delivering equal access to high-quality education for every student in this country,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Our government works best when it serves its people – especially our most vulnerable communities. 50 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support our children with disabilities and ensure they had access to an appropriate education – we built up our children, gave them protections and supports. Yet for years, IDEA has been underfunded, creating burdens for districts and threatening access to services for students and families. This President and his callous Administration is intent on tearing things down instead of building them up. Now, more than ever, we need to fully fund IDEA,” said Senator Alsobrooks.
“Our legislation makes necessary investments in programs that students with disabilities across the country depend on to access high-quality education that meets their individual needs. President Trump’s destruction of the Department of Education has made it all the more clear: we must fully and permanently fund special education services so that every student—no matter where they live—has the opportunity to succeed,” said Senator Blumenthal.
“Decades after the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act became law, the federal government has still not fully funded the law to help ensure children with disabilities have equal opportunities to succeed in the classroom,” said Senator Duckworth. “Our legislation would help make long overdue investments in special education that would help support children with disabilities, their families and the educators who serve them.”
“Our nation’s children are our future, and we must ensure that every child has access to high-quality education that meets their individual needs. It is critical that we honor our commitment to properly fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” said Senator Durbin. “That is why I am joining my colleagues in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act to ensure students with disabilities are receiving access to high-quality services and education, which they are entitled to under law.”
“I am proud to cosponsor the IDEA Full Funding Act, which will ensure that our government upholds its responsibility to give every child with disabilities access to educational opportunities,” said Senator Gillibrand. “All students deserve a high-quality education and school systems with the resources to support them. This bill will help Congress fulfill its promise to fund special education programs, making sure that we meet our obligation to give every child the best chance at success.”
“We promised families we’d have their backs, and for decades, we’ve fallen short on that promise. Because IDEA hasn’t been fully funded, parents and teachers have been working overtime to make up for the missing resources their students desperately need,” said Senator Fetterman. “Making IDEA whole is how we guarantee students with disabilities get the support they need to thrive in school. I’m proud to join my colleagues in championing this legislation amid continued threats to public school students and educators.”
“As Donald Trump continues working to illegally dismantle the Department of Education, securing funding for crucial resources like IDEA is more important than ever,” said Senator Hirono. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation so Congress can finally fulfill its commitment to fully fund the IDEA for the first time since its passage in 1975. This investment in IDEA will help ensure that every student with disabilities in this country can receive the quality education they deserve.”
“Students with disabilities, like any student, deserve access to a high-quality public education,” said Senator Kaine. “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a crucial component of making that ideal a reality, but the IDEA is underfunded, leaving Congress’ promise of equal opportunity to students with disabilities unfulfilled—and as a former Mayor and Governor, I’m acutely aware of how federal underfunding of the IDEA puts tremendous pressure on local and state budgets. It’s imperative that we fully fund the IDEA to help schools offer the education, services, and supports that help students thrive.”
“As Trump and Musk continue their assault on public education, Congress must act to ensure every student has equal access to learning across our country,” said Senator Kim. “Educators and parents across my state of New Jersey are terrified about what comes next for essential programs like IDEA while Trump dismantles the Department of Education. This legislation is critical to help secure schools the resources they need to support students with disabilities’ education and futures.”
“A half a century ago, Congress enshrined into law the right of students with disabilities to access free and quality public education. Yet, every year, Congress fails to appropriate the funding necessary to fulfill that promise and guarantee that all students are not only integrated into our education system, but thrive in it. And now, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are attacking federal education funding and our entire public school system,” said Senator Markey. “Congress must fully fund the IDEA so that disabled students can thrive, families can be assured their children will receive world class education, educators have the resources they need to provide that education, and communities aren’t left scrambling to fill federal funding gaps.”
“Across Nevada, I have heard from the parents of children with disabilities, and all they want is for their children to have the same opportunities as any other child,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “The government has already committed to fund the IDEA program, yet it has consistently failed to do so. This legislation fulfills the government’s promise and provides essential funding for schools across the Silver State.”
“All students, regardless of ability, deserve access to a quality education. Yet, President Trump’s cruel dismantling of the Department of Education is putting millions of students with disabilities at risk of losing essential IDEA funding. The IDEA Full Funding Act upholds our commitment to offer every student a chance at the American dream by working to close longstanding opportunity gaps in our education system. This investment serves our students, supports our educators, and strengthens our economic future,” said Senator Padilla.
“Every student in Nevada deserves equal access to high quality public education, but the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the Department of Education is taking away resources and protections for children with disabilities,” said Senator Rosen. “I’m helping to introduce this bill to make sure Congress fully funds the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and provides equal opportunity for every child to have a shot at accessing quality education. I’ll keep fighting back against all attempts to cut funding from our children’s education.”
“Every child across America deserves access to quality education and a chance to succeed,” said Senator Shaheen. “For too long, Congress has fallen short of its promise to students with disabilities by failing to provide adequate funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Our legislation will right that wrong and help ensure schools have adequate resources to give students in New Hampshire and across the nation the education they deserve.”
“A good education has the power to transform lives, and Congress needs to fully fund the educational resources that support children with disabilities and their families. Every child deserves a quality education and the chance to meet their full potential in life. At a time when support for special education is threatened, I join my colleagues in insisting that Congress deliver on its promise to fund these vital services so that every student has access to a quality education,” said Senator Schiff.
“It’s time for Congress to finally fulfill our promise to deliver quality public education to every student across the country. As Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue their senseless attacks on public education, it’s more important than ever to stand up for all students no matter their disability or zip code,” said Senator Warner.
“As a former special education teacher, I’ve seen first-hand how this funding is transformational for students with disabilities. It means our schools have elevators to help with mobility, provides aides that help students communicate, and tailored programs to best meet their learning needs,” said Senator Warren. “With public education under attack, I am deeply grateful for Senator Van Hollen’s leadership in the fight to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
“While we’ve made substantial progress to fund special education services in recent years, we still have important work left to do to live up to the original commitment Congress made,” said Rep. Jared Huffman. “All children – no matter their zip code, race, disability, or any other factor – should be able to access a full, exceptional education, and this legislation will help school districts provide the necessary resources to make this vision a reality. The current chronic underfunding leaves an unfair burden on students, teachers, schools, and families. Our bill holds up the federal government’s end of the bargain to fully fund special education services on a permanent basis and set all students up for long-term success.”
The legislation is cosponsored in the Senate by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Penn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The legislation is co-led in the House by Representatives G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.-15), Joe Neguse (D-Colo.-02), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.-01), Angie Craig (D-Minn.-02), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.-08), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.-05), Don Bacon (R-Neb.-02), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.-14), and Mike Bost (R-Ill.-12), and cosponsored by over 60 additional members of the House.
This legislation is supported by a broad and diverse group of over 50 national organizations, including The School Superintendent Association (AASA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT),American Occupational Therapy Association, Assistive Technology Industry Association, Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO), Autism Society of America, Center for Learner Equity, Council for Exceptional Children, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Down Syndrome Congress, National Education Association, and The Arc of the United States.
The bill is also supported by: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Psychological Association, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents, Association of Latino Superintendents and Administrators, Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE), Autism Speaks, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, CAST, Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education, Coalition for Community Schools, Consortium of State School Boards Associations (COSSBA), Council for Learning Disabilities, Council of Administrators of Special Education, EDGE Consulting Partners, EdTrust, Education Reform Now, First Focus Campaign for Children, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Institute for Educational Leadership, Learning Disabilities Association of America, NAESPA (National Association of ESEA State Program Administrators), National Association for Music Education, National Association for Pupil Transportation, National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS), National Association of Private Special Education Centers, National Association of School Psychologists, National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPEID), National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Down Syndrome Society, National PTA, National Rural Education Association, National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC), Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, Teach For America, The Advocacy Institute, and The New Teacher Project (TNTP).
You can read the full text of the bill here.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: First-ever MHRA analysis of UK clinical trial applications finds new opportunities to drive medical breakthroughs for patients
Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

Press release

First-ever MHRA analysis of UK clinical trial applications finds new opportunities to drive medical breakthroughs for patients

New analysis of the current clinical trial landscape in the UK shows clear opportunities to shape the future of medical research and patient care.
The first-ever analysis of the UK clinical trial landscape by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the University of Liverpool reveals the UK is a global leader in clinical research – and sets out key opportunities to deliver even more life-changing treatments for patients.

Published today in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, the report offers the most detailed picture yet of the UK’s clinical trials landscape. It finds strong innovation – but also a concentration of research in certain disease areas, and opportunities for increased representation of certain patient groups.

A roadmap for stronger, more inclusive research

The MHRA is using the insights to build upon the country’s world-leading clinical research and deliver its new clinical trials regulations to create a more efficient, streamlined and adaptable regulatory framework. Working in partnership with patients, the NHS, industry and academia, the MHRA will support increased research into underrepresented conditions, improve diversity in trial participation, and attract further global investment in innovation.

Professor Andrea Manfrin, lead author of the study and MHRA Deputy Director, Clinical Investigations and Trials, said:

“Clinical trials are the backbone of medical progress, essential for developing new medicines and advancing our understanding of diseases. This analysis shows clearly where the UK is leading – and where we need to work with our stakeholders to go further. By working together with patients, the NHS, industry, and researchers across the life sciences ecosystem to identify and maximise these opportunities, we can ensure clinical trials are faster, fairer, and more inclusive. Better trials mean better, more effective treatments, reaching NHS patients as quickly and as safely as possible.”

Professor Sir Munir Pirmohamed, co-author of the study at the University of Liverpool, said:

“The analysis from the MHRA clinical trials database shows the richness of UK clinical trial activity involving medicines. Importantly it also provides a baseline which can be used to increase future UK clinical trial activity, which is important for improving both patient outcomes and economic investment.”

With the global clinical trials market expected to nearly double to over £80 billion by 2032, insights from the analysis will help shape policies that can bring innovative, new medicines to patients, attract investment, accelerate medical innovation, and expand trial access for UK patients.

Key findings from the MHRA and University of Liverpool’s analysis of all 4,616 clinical trials submitted between 2019 and 2023:

The UK is a hub for pioneering research, with one in eight trials testing treatments in humans for the first time. There is strong commercial investment in UK trials, with 85% industry sponsored. A smaller share (15%) comes from universities, hospitals, and charities.

Cancer trials dominate, making up nearly a third of all studies, but other major diseases lag behind. Heart disease – the world’s biggest killer – receives just 5.2% of research focus. Trials for conditions such as chronic pain, respiratory conditions and mental health disorders were among the least common, despite their major impact on public health.

Both sexes were included in most trials (90%), however male-only trials (6.1%) were nearly twice as common as female-only studies (3.7%). Pregnant and breastfeeding women were represented in 1.1% and 0.6% of trials, respectively, which could impact treatment suitability for these groups.

Cutting-edge treatments, such as gene and cell therapies, represent a growing clinical area but make up only 3.4% of trials, despite their potential to transform care for patients with limited treatment options.

Partnership working to strengthen UK clinical research

The report sets a baseline to track progress and inform future funding, policy and regulation. The MHRA is already working with partners across the life sciences sector to increase research and streamline approvals in areas of unmet need through the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP); improve diversity in trial participation through the development of joint guidance with the Health Research Authority (HRA) so trials reflect the populations they aim to serve; and support more advanced therapy trials through collaboration with researchers via the Centres of Excellence for Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSIs).

These initiatives form part of wider clinical trials reform, including new legislation we are committed to implementing that will streamline how clinical trials are run in the UK. Backed by the MHRA and healthcare system partners, the changes aim to protect patient safety, boost global investment, and cut unnecessary red tape – helping bring new treatments to patients faster.

As the government pushes forward the development of the Life Sciences Sector Plan and the 10 Year Health Plan, these findings come at a crucial time. They can be used to shape policies that ensure clinical trials deliver maximum benefit for patients, the NHS and the wider economy.

Health Minister Karin Smyth said:

“The government is determined to make Britain a world leader in life sciences, developing groundbreaking treatments focused on the conditions that matter most to patients.

“As part of our Plan for Change, we’re laying the foundations for a modern, resilient health system that delivers, which is why the Prime Minister announced £520 million investment this week to turbocharge medical research.

“By driving forward research and expanding access to clinical trials, we can ensure patients benefit from cutting-edge treatments quicker, while creating high-quality jobs and attracting global investment.

“Strengthening the trial environment will help ensure we have an NHS fit for the future – one that harnesses innovation to improve outcomes for patients.”

Science Minister Lord Vallance said:

“As home to a thriving life sciences sector and the NHS, the UK is uniquely placed to host the trials and research that are taking the fight to a host of devastating health conditions. But as this data shows, we can go further and move faster through targeted investment, and smart regulation.

“We are committed to doing precisely that – through this year’s record £13.9 billion funding for R&D in life sciences and beyond, as well as the efforts of our new Regulatory Innovation Office. We must make sure that trials of new medicines are available to everyone to take part.”

Matt Westmore, Health Research Authority Chief Executive:

“Health and social care research should be done with, and for, everyone.

“We know that trials that involve a diverse group of participants help provide a better understanding of how effective a treatment is for different groups of people. In turn this helps us support efforts to address health inequalities.

“We are pleased to be working alongside the MHRA to develop new guidance designed to make it easier for researchers to ensure they are designing trials that are more representative of the people it is for and about.”

Lawrence Tallon, MHRA Chief Executive, said:

“This first-of-its-kind analysis builds on our important work to strengthen clinical research in the UK. We are committed to implementing a flexible and risk-proportionate regulatory approach for clinical trials, which accelerates patient access to potentially life-saving medicines without compromising safety.

“We’re making the UK one of the best places in the world to run clinical trials, with combined review approval times with the Health Research Authority now at 60 days or less for all trials. These changes not only benefit patients today but are laying the groundwork to accelerate innovation and deliver life-changing treatments to patients faster.”

The MHRA will continue tracking progress and working with its partners to ensure the UK remains a world leader in medical research, keeping patient safety at the heart of clinical trials.

Notes to editors

Publication: Andrea Manfrin et al. (2025) ‘Analysis of 4616 clinical trial initial submissions received by the MHRA between February 2019 and October 2023’ British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. DOI: 10.1002/bcp.70061.

This analysis includes all 4,616 initial clinical trial submissions of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) received by the MHRA Clinical Trials Unit between February 2019 and October 2023. Other types of studies, such as non-CTIMPs, are not under the MHRA’s remit. For further information, please refer to the publication.

Patients, the NHS and the Life Sciences sector set to benefit from new clinical trials framework being laid in parliament today – GOV.UK

Commercial clinical trials in the UK: the Lord O’Shaughnessy review – GOV.UK

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

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

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

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

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)

Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Published 10 April 2025
MIL OSI United Kingdom –
April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Vehicle crash MacKenzie District on Tekapo-Twizel Road

Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

Police are aware of a crash on Tekapo-Twizel Road Pukaki, MacKenzie District at about 10.15am this morning.

A campervan and car have collided.

The road is closed and at least one person appears to be injured.

Motorists are asked to avoid the area until the road is re-opened.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre.

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1.  Purpose. Federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers. Yet some regulations operate to exclude new market entrants. Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation — as well as the benefits they create for American consumers — should be eliminated. This order commences the process for eliminating anti-competitive regulations to revitalize the American economy.
Sec. 2.  Definitions. (a) “Agency” has the meaning given to it in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, except that it does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof.(b) “Agency head” means the highest-ranking official of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, or Director, unless otherwise specified in this order.
Sec. 3.  Rescinding Anti-Competitive Regulations. (a) Agency heads shall, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (Chairman) and the Attorney General, complete a review of all regulations subject to their rulemaking authority and identify those that:(i)    create, or facilitate the creation of, de facto or de jure monopolies;(ii)   create unnecessary barriers to entry for new market participants;(iii) limit competition between competing entities or have the effect of limiting competition between competing entities;(iv)   create or facilitate licensure or accreditation requirements that unduly limit competition;(v)    unnecessarily burden the agency’s procurement processes, thereby limiting companies’ ability to compete for procurements; or(vi)   otherwise impose anti-competitive restraints or distortions on the operation of the free market.(b) Within 70 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall each provide to the Chairman and the Attorney General a list of regulations identified by the categories specified in subsection (a) of this section. Agency heads shall also include a recommendation as to whether each of the listed regulations warrants rescission or modification in light of its anti-competitive effects. For recommended modifications, agency heads shall briefly specify what modification is appropriate. For regulations that are anti-competitive by design, agency heads shall provide a justification for their anti-competitive effects if the agency head is not proposing rescission or modification.(c) In conducting the review required by subsection (a) of this section, agency heads shall prioritize review of those rules that satisfy the definition of “significant regulatory action” in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.(d) Within 10 days of the date of this order, the Chairman shall issue a request for information (RFI) that seeks public input on the identification of regulations that fall within the categories specified in subsection (a) of this section, as well as comments explaining the proposed classifications. The request shall remain open for 40 days. Upon the close of the RFI period, the Chairman shall convey any relevant responses to the agency with rulemaking authority over the identified regulation.(e) Within 90 days of receipt of the agency lists specified in subsection (b) of this section, the Chairman, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the relevant agency heads, shall provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a consolidated list of regulations that warrant rescission or modification in light of their anti-competitive effects, along with recommended modifications. The Chairman may include on the consolidated list regulations not originally included on an agency list if such regulations fall within at least one of the categories outlined in subsections (a)(i)-(vi) of this section.(f) Upon receipt of the consolidated list described in subsection (e) of this section, the OMB Director, through the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall consult with the Chairman, the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the relevant agency heads to decide whether to incorporate the proposed rescissions or modifications into the Unified Regulatory Agenda developed pursuant to Executive Order 14219 of February 19, 2025 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative).
Sec. 4.  General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,    April 9, 2025

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers. Yet some regulations operate to exclude new market entrants. Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation — as well as the benefits they create for American consumers — should be eliminated. This order commences the process for eliminating anti-competitive regulations to revitalize the American economy.
Sec. 2. Definitions. (a) “Agency” has the meaning given to it in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, except that it does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof.
(b) “Agency head” means the highest-ranking official of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, or Director, unless otherwise specified in this order.
Sec. 3. Rescinding Anti-Competitive Regulations. (a) Agency heads shall, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (Chairman) and the Attorney General, complete a review of all regulations subject to their rulemaking authority and identify those that:
(i)    create, or facilitate the creation of, de facto or de jure monopolies;
(ii)   create unnecessary barriers to entry for new market participants;
(iii) limit competition between competing entities or have the effect of limiting competition between competing entities;
(iv)   create or facilitate licensure or accreditation requirements that unduly limit competition;
(v)    unnecessarily burden the agency’s procurement processes, thereby limiting companies’ ability to compete for procurements; or
(vi)   otherwise impose anti-competitive restraints or distortions on the operation of the free market.
(b) Within 70 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall each provide to the Chairman and the Attorney General a list of regulations identified by the categories specified in subsection (a) of this section. Agency heads shall also include a recommendation as to whether each of the listed regulations warrants rescission or modification in light of its anti-competitive effects. For recommended modifications, agency heads shall briefly specify what modification is appropriate. For regulations that are anti-competitive by design, agency heads shall provide a justification for their anti-competitive effects if the agency head is not proposing rescission or modification.
(c) In conducting the review required by subsection (a) of this section, agency heads shall prioritize review of those rules that satisfy the definition of “significant regulatory action” in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.
(d) Within 10 days of the date of this order, the Chairman shall issue a request for information (RFI) that seeks public input on the identification of regulations that fall within the categories specified in subsection (a) of this section, as well as comments explaining the proposed classifications. The request shall remain open for 40 days. Upon the close of the RFI period, the Chairman shall convey any relevant responses to the agency with rulemaking authority over the identified regulation.
(e) Within 90 days of receipt of the agency lists specified in subsection (b) of this section, the Chairman, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the relevant agency heads, shall provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a consolidated list of regulations that warrant rescission or modification in light of their anti-competitive effects, along with recommended modifications. The Chairman may include on the consolidated list regulations not originally included on an agency list if such regulations fall within at least one of the categories outlined in subsections (a)(i)-(vi) of this section.
(f) Upon receipt of the consolidated list described in subsection (e) of this section, the OMB Director, through the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall consult with the Chairman, the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the relevant agency heads to decide whether to incorporate the proposed rescissions or modifications into the Unified Regulatory Agenda developed pursuant to Executive Order 14219 of February 19, 2025 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative).
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    April 9, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: DIRECTING THE REPEAL OF UNLAWFUL REGULATIONS
Promoting economic growth and American innovation are top priorities of this Administration. Unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous regulations impede these objectives and impose massive costs on American consumers and American businesses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that recognize appropriate constitutional boundaries on the power of unelected bureaucrats and that restore checks on unlawful agency actions. Yet, despite these critical course corrections, unlawful regulations — often promulgated in reliance on now-superseded Supreme Court decisions — remain on the books.
Consistent with these priorities and with my commitment to restore fidelity to the Constitution, on February 19, 2025, I issued Executive Order 14219 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative). It directed the heads of all executive departments and agencies to identify certain categories of unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations within 60 days and begin plans to repeal them. This review-and-repeal effort shall prioritize, in particular, evaluating each existing regulation’s lawfulness under the following United States Supreme Court decisions:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020).
In effectuating repeals of facially unlawful regulations, agency heads shall finalize rules without notice and comment, where doing so is consistent with the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act. That exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Retaining and enforcing facially unlawful regulations is clearly contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, notice-and-comment proceedings are “unnecessary” where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Agencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations.
Accordingly, I hereby direct:
Following the 60-day review period ordered in Executive Order 14219 to identify unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations, agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or the portion of any regulation, that clearly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful. Agencies should give priority to the regulations in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decisions listed earlier in this memorandum. The repeal of each unlawful regulation shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons that the “good cause” exception applies.
Within 30 days of the conclusion of the review period directed in Executive Order 14219 to identify unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations, agencies shall submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a one-page summary of each regulation that was initially identified as falling within one of the categories specified in section 2(a) of that Executive Order, but which has not been targeted for repeal, explaining the basis for the decision not to repeal that regulation.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: DAUPHIN COUNTY – Pennsylvania State Police to Make Announcement on Body-Worn Camera Initiative

Source: US State of Pennsylvania

April 10, 2025 – Harrisburg, PA

ADVISORY – DAUPHIN COUNTY – Pennsylvania State Police to Make Announcement on Body-Worn Camera Initiative

The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) will hold a news conference at Department Headquarters tomorrow to make an announcement regarding its initiative to equip all patrol troopers with body-worn cameras.

PSP’s initiative involved outfitting more than 3,000 troopers with body-worn cameras and upgrading the mobile video recorders in more than 1,400 patrol vehicles.

Media outlets planning to attend should RSVP to ra-pspcomm@pa.gov. Visitor parking is available.

WHAT:
Pennsylvania State Police to Make Announcement on Body-Worn Camera Initiative

WHEN:
Thursday, April 10, 2025, 10:00 AM

WHERE:
1800 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: DAUPHIN COUNTY – Shapiro-Davis Administration andStatewide Advocates Highlight Victims’ Rights Week, Governor Shapiro’s Proposed $9 Million Investment in Victim Compensation

Source: US State of Pennsylvania

April 10, 2025 – Harrisburg, PA

ADVISORY – DAUPHIN COUNTY – Shapiro-Davis Administration andStatewide Advocates Highlight Victims’ Rights Week, Governor Shapiro’s Proposed $9 Million Investment in Victim Compensation

In honor of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and Office of Victim Advocate will team up with statewide victim service organizations to highlight the importance of supporting survivors of crime, raising awareness of their rights, and Governor Shapiro’s proposed $9 million investment in the Victims Compensation Assistance Program (VCAP) in the 2025-26 state budget.

Over the past five years, PCCD has paid more than 67,000 VCAP claims totaling $67 million to financially support victims of crime across all 67 Pennsylvania counties with medical costs, counseling, relocation, and more.

WHO:
Kathy Buckley, Office of Victims’ Services Director, PCCD
Suzanne Estrella, Pennsylvania Victim Advocate
Rebecca Buckham, Communications Manager, Children’s Advocacy Centers of PA
Gabriella Romeo, Public Policy Director, PA Coalition to Advance Respect
Jenna Mehnert Baker, Policy Director, PA Coalition Against Domestic Violence

WHEN:
Thursday, April 10, 2025 at 2 PM

WHERE:
PCCD Headquarters
3101 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110

RSVP:
Press who are interested in attending must RSVP to algantz@pa.gov.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Gulf of America Act PASSES House Natural Resources Committee

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA, 14)

Today, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Gulf of America Act was favorably reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee, advancing it for a vote by the full House.

Following the favorable reporting of Congresswoman Greene’s Gulf of America Act, the Congresswoman released the following statement:

“I am grateful to Chairman Westerman and the House Natural Resources Committee for favorably reporting my Gulf of America Act out of committee. My bill is an important step in codifying President Trump’s America First Agenda into law.

The American people are footing the bill to protect and secure the Gulf of America’s maritime waterways for commerce to be conducted. Our U.S. armed forces protect the area from any military threats from foreign countries.

It’s our gulf. The rightful name is the Gulf of America and it’s what the entire world should refer to it as.

My bill directs the Chairman of the Board on Geographic Names under the Secretary of the Interior to permanently rename all federal documents and maps within 180 days of being signed into law.

Congress has to take the Trump Agenda mandate seriously and that means acting fast to enact it. That’s exactly what this bill does by codifying one of President Trump’s most important executive orders into law. This prevents any possible future Democrat regime from reversing this order through executive action.

I urge my colleagues to join me to quickly pass this bill.”

The bill’s 16 cosponsors include Rep. Mary Miller (IL), Rep. Barry Moore (AL), Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY), Rep. Mike Collins (GA), Rep. Randy Weber (TX), Rep. Andy Ogles (TN), Rep. Mike Lawler (NY), Rep. Mike Haridopolos (FL), Rep. Greg Steube (FL), Rep. Eric Burlison (MO), Rep. Brian Babin (TX), Rep. Michael Rulli (OH), Rep. Troy Nehls (TX), Rep. Brandon Gill (TX), Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (NY), and Rep. Daniel Webster (FL).

Read Congresswoman Greene’s bill recognizing the Gulf of America here.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: Government meeting (2025, No. 12)

Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

1. On the draft federal law “On Amendments to Articles 162 and 264 of Part Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation”

The bill proposes not to impose value added tax on funds received by an energy sales organization authorized to carry out the purchase and sale of electrical energy (capacity) for the purpose of supplying electrical energy (capacity) in the territories of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation until January 1, 2028.

2. On the draft federal law “On Amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” (in terms of budget monitoring and other issues of organizing the budget process)

The draft law is aimed, among other things, at implementing certain instructions of the President of Russia in terms of organizing control over the inclusion in state (municipal) contracts, agreements, contracts (contracts) of provisions on treasury support in cases established by the budget legislation of the Russian Federation.

3. On the draft federal law “On Amendments to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses”

The bill is aimed at establishing administrative liability for violations of the provisions on treasury support.

4. On the draft amendments of the Government of the Russian Federation to the draft federal law No. 107057-7 “On Amendments to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”

The draft amendments were developed in connection with the need to create a mechanism for legal regulation of state registration of the housing stock.

5. On the allocation to the Ministry of Construction of Russia in 2025 from the reserve fund of the Government of the Russian Federation of budgetary appropriations for the provision of subsidies from the federal budget to the budgets of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Zaporizhia region for the purpose of co-financing the expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation arising from the implementation of measures to build apartment buildings, the developers or owners of which have not been determined

The draft order is aimed at ensuring the completion of construction and commissioning of multi-apartment residential buildings in the territories of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Zaporizhia Oblast, the developers or owners of which have not been identified.

6. On the draft federal law “On Amendments to Article 2516–1 of the Federal Law “On the Procedure for Leaving the Russian Federation and Entering the Russian Federation”

The development of the bill was dictated by the need to create favorable conditions for increasing the number of foreign citizens entering the country for tourism, business, humanitarian and guest purposes, while maintaining the proper level of migration control and national security requirements.

7. On the draft amendments of the Government of the Russian Federation to the draft federal law No. 810019-8 “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources””

The draft amendments are aimed at clarifying certain provisions of the bill concerning the procedure for re-registering and terminating agreements for the use of fishing areas.

8. On amending the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 15, 2018 No. 682 (in terms of amending the Regulation on the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation)

The draft resolution is aimed at bringing the powers of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia into line with Article 179.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

9. On the allocation by the Ministry of Education of Russia in 2025 from the reserve fund of the Government of the Russian Federation of budgetary appropriations for the provision, within the framework of the state program of the Russian Federation “Development of Education”, of a subsidy from the federal budget to the budget of the Arkhangelsk Region for the purpose of co-financing the expenditure obligations of the Arkhangelsk Region arising from the construction of schools

The adoption of the Government order will help resolve a socially significant issue for the Arkhangelsk region in terms of increasing the availability of general education in the region.

10. On the allocation to the Ministry of Transport of Russia in 2025 from the reserve fund of the Government of the Russian Federation of budgetary appropriations for the provision of one-time financial assistance in the form of a subsidy from the federal budget to the budget of the Saratov Region in order to reimburse the expenses incurred by the budget of the Saratov Region arising from the implementation of measures to update public transport

The draft order provides for the allocation of funds to provide financial assistance to the budget of the Saratov region in order to reimburse part of the costs incurred in the acquisition of two-section trams.

Moscow, April 9, 2025

The content of the press releases of the Department of Press Service and References is a presentation of materials submitted by federal executive bodies for discussion at a meeting of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

MIL OSI Russia News –

April 10, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: ICE arrests Tren de Aragua gang member illegally residing in Houston area

Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

HOUSTON – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI and the Texas Department of Public Safety arrested Jesus Alberto Escalona-Mujicas, a 47-year-old illegal alien from Venezuela and documented Tren de Aragua gang member, April 9, in Bryan, Texas.

Escalona-Mujicas was arrested during routine targeted multi-agency enforcement operations that are being conducted around the United States to restore integrity to U.S. immigration laws and bolster public safety, national security and border security.

Escalona-Mujicas was taken into ICE custody and transported to the Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas, pending his removal from the U.S.

Escalona-Mujicas illegally entered the U.S. on an unknown date and at an unknown location. He was encountered by the U.S. Border Patrol April 10, 2023, near Brownsville, Texas, and was taken into custody and placed into immigration proceedings. An immigration judge from the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review ordered Escalona-Mujicas removed March 6, 2024, but he absconded from authorities before his removal could be carried out.

“The law enforcement community in South Texas is united in our determination to restore integrity to our nation’s immigration laws and sovereignty over our southern border,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Houston Field Office Director Bret Bradford. “Every transnational gang member or dangerous criminal alien that we remove from the community is another life saved, and another violent crime prevented. This is especially true for Tren de Aragua gang members who are known to be among the most brutal transnational gangs with a presence in the U.S. Our immigration officers have witnessed firsthand the devastating impact that transnational gang violence can have on a community, and they are committed to work tirelessly to prevent that from taking hold in Texas.”

For more news and information on ICE’s efforts to enforce our nation’s immigration laws in Texas follow us on X at @EROHouston.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 10, 2025