The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres:
The Secretary-General is alarmed by the continued escalation of violence in Suweida, a Druze-majority area, which has reportedly claimed the lives of hundreds of people, including civilians, and injured and displaced many more.
He unequivocally condemns all violence against civilians, including reports of arbitrary killings and acts that fan the flames of sectarian tensions and rob the people of Syria of their opportunity for peace and reconciliation after 14 years of brutal conflict.
He extends his heartfelt condolences to all Syrians and reiterates his call for an immediate de-escalation of violence and urgent measures to restore calm and facilitate humanitarian access.
The Secretary-General takes note of the statement by the Office of the Presidency condemning the violations and committing to investigating and holding to account those responsible for them. He reiterates his appeal for the transparency of the process.
The Secretary-General further condemns Israel’s escalatory air strikes on Suweida, Daraa and in the centre of Damascus, as well as reports of the Israel Defense Forces’ redeployment of forces in the Golan. He calls for an immediate cessation of all violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for respect for the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement.
The Secretary-General reiterates that it is imperative to support a credible, orderly and inclusive political transition in Syria in line with the key principles of Security Council resolution 2254 (2015).
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Two papers published in NEJM look at the use of mitochondrial donation an preimplantation genetic testing for mitochondrial disease.
Dr David J Clancy, Lecturer in Biogerontology, Lancaster University, said:
“This comment is to discuss Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) in terms of costs and benefits in light of what we now know.
Benefits
“Mitochondrial replacement therapy allows women with pathogenic mitochondrial DNA to have a baby which bears her own chromosomes, while reducing or replacing the pathogenic mtDNA. If the primary purpose is to avoid mitochondrial disease, then women could also have IVF by donor sperm or donor egg (or donor embryo), or they might choose adoption if IVF technologies don’t suit them for clinical or personal reasons.
“In chromosomal dominant diseases like Huntington’s disease, affected people are offered pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) and they are also offered IVF using donor eggs or embryos if the patient is a woman. For these sorts of genetic disease there is currently no alternative. In these cases a woman cannot have a child bearing her own chromosomes.
“When having a family there are two ways to break genetic lineages – inheritance down generations: one is to adopt and another is to have IVF by donor sperm or donor egg (or donor embryo). It is difficult to value genetic lineage. It will be more valuable to some, less to others. While maternity is never in doubt, paternity often is. Perhaps we should then value maternal genetic lineage more than paternal. Mitochondrial replacement therapy allows unbroken maternal lineage.
I cannot determine whether the Mitochondrial Reproductive Advice Clinic suggests IVF by donor egg or embryo (or adoption). The paper says “Patients with heteroplasmy (part pathogenic mitochondrial DNA, part healthy) were offered PGT, and patients with homoplasmy or elevated heteroplasmy (all or mostly pathogenic mitochondrial DNA) were offered pronuclear transfer.”
Costs
“The money cost is presumably significant. The work was funded by Wellcome and NHS England and carried out by Newcastle University, UK and the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Presumably they could give an idea of the cost. This might be considered important, in an environment of limited resources for national healthcare.
Possible harms
“Because these babies would not exist without the MRT intervention, we want to know about possible problems; in medicine the saying is “First, do no harm”, though in current healthcare, harm is often inevitable. While the babies so far seem probably unaffected, assessing the potential for future harm as they develop by looking at the degree of heteroplasmy in the infants is a large part of the reason for the publications.
“Measurements were on white blood cells so we don’t know about tissue mosaicism, which is where you can have high heteroplasmy in some tissues and low in others, and is common in many mitochondrial diseases. In tissues demanding high energy production (e.g. neurons), lower levels of heteroplasmy can still be symptomatic. In a mouse model, a proportion of >20% energy-deficient neurons in the brain was necessary for observable symptoms.
“Three of eight newborns from MRT had heteroplasmy levels of 5%, 12%, and 16% (the other five were
“All of these things were mostly known before these publications, so apparently the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), who approved it, is happy with the cost-benefit ratio. It also appears that other countries also approve, because the technique is spreading; there is a clinic in North Cyprus, and Prof Mary Herbert, the study’s lead, has moved to a pioneer institution in IVF, Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, partly to introduce a mitochondrial replacement program.”
Prof Joanna Poulton, Professor and Honorary Consultant in Mitochondrial Genetics, Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, said:
“From this study, it isn’t clear that MD (mitochondrial donation) has any advantage over PGT (pre-implantation genetic testing, an alternative strategy) for heteroplasmic mtDNA disorders (where patients have mixtures of normal and mutant mtDNA and severity depends on the “dose” of mutant). The “take home baby” rate and the reduction in mutant load is similar (if anything less good for MD).
“MD has a clear theoretical advantage for homoplasmic disorders (where the mother’s mtDNA is 100% mutant), because while PGT while can be used to reduce risk, it cannot be used to reduce the load of mutant mtDNA. Over half of the MD children were from Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON) families, where the chance of male offspring going blind in adolescence is around 20% but only 4% for females. The risk of blindness can be reduced 5 fold using PGT to select female embryos, but they risk transmitting it to their children. Happily, male identical twins were born by MD with undetectable mutant mtDNA, they will be very low risk for blindness and as males, they will not transmit the problem to their children (because LHON is a maternally transmitted disorder). Slightly worryingly, one baby from a m.4300A>G family, where the mother has a heart disorder (cardiomyopathy) for which she may ultimately need a heart transplant, has an unspecified heart defect: they conclude it is probably unrelated to m.4300A>G but this remains uncertain. Another from a m.3260A>G family had a mutant load of 16% in blood. While this probably means the risk of symptoms is low, one symptomatic m.3260A>G woman had a blood level that was lower than this (11% with 81% in muscle). Happily, male identical twins were born by MD with undetectable mutant mtDNA, they will be very low risk for blindness and as males, they will not transmit the problem to their children because LHON is a maternally transmitted disorder.
“A great deal of research funding has been channelled into the centre that has developed MD. While this has generated fascinating scientific data and this treatment option is now available on the NHS, it hasn’t yet resulted in a dramatic clinical advance. Time will tell.”
Prof Dusko Ilic, Professor of Stem Cell Science, King’s College London, said:
“A remarkable accomplishment! State-of-the-art technology. Kudos to the team!”
Prof Dagan Wells,Professor of Reproductive Genetics, University of Oxford, and Director, Juno Genetics, Oxford, said:
“This is an important study which has been eagerly anticipated ever since the first license to carry out mitochondrial replacement therapy to avoid mitochondrial disease was granted eight years ago.
“The results indicate that established methods for avoiding mitochondrial DNA diseases, such as preimplantation genetic testing, perform well and will be suitable for most women at risk of having an affected child.
“A minority of patients are unable to produce any embryos free of mitochondrial disease, and for those women the study provides hope that they may be able to have healthy children in the future.
“The treatment has succeeded in producing 8 babies, and although mitochondrial DNA mutations can be detected in the cells of most of the children, the great majority of their mitochondria are functional, and consequently they do not have mitochondrial disease.
“The published results are very valuable, but some scientists will be a little disappointed that so much time and effort has, so far, only led to the birth of 8 children.
“Larger studies will be needed to truly understand the value of mitochondrial replacement therapy, and to understand whether there are any risks associated with the treatment.
“Three of the eight children born have some evidence of ‘reversal’, a phenomenon where the therapy initially succeeds in producing an embryo with very few defective mitochondria, but by the time the child is born the proportion of abnormal mitochondria in its cells has significantly increased.
“It is not understood why reversal sometimes occurs. Taking data from the new study as well as previous research, it seems that it may affect as many as one-third of embryos produced using mitochondrial replacement therapy. Importantly, all the children in the study have low levels of abnormal mitochondria in their cells, including those where a degree of reversal has occurred. However, the fact that reversal can happen suggests there is a chance that mitochondrial replacement therapy might occasionally fail, and consequently the procedure should be seen as a way of reducing the risk of mitochondrial disease inheritance, not guaranteeing it.”
Dr Andy Greenfield, Honorary Fellow at the Nuffield Department of Women’s & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, said:
“Mitochondria are the energy-producing organelles of the body’s cells. They contain DNA (mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA) and as such are prone to changes to that DNA (mutations) that can disrupt mitochondrial function and cause disease. The paper by Hyslop et al describes the first clinical use in the UK of a technique – mitochondrial donation (MD) – aimed at reducing the risk of transmitting a class of mitochondrial diseases (mtDNA diseases) from mother to offspring. This is an often devastating and life-limiting group of diseases for which no curative treatments exist. The specific technique described, based on IVF, is pronuclear transfer (PNT), one of the two MD techniques made lawful in the UK in 2015. The last preclinical review of the safety and effectiveness of MD, commissioned by the HFEA and published in 2016, recommended its clinical use as a risk reduction strategy – to be used only in those women for whom preimplantation genetic testing (PGT, an established procedure that is used to detect genetic abnormalities, including the amount of disease-causing (pathogenic) mtDNA, in an embryo) followed by selection of an embryo with low levels of pathogenic mtDNA for transfer was unlikely to be a successful strategy i.e. only in those women with high levels of pathogenic mtDNA (elevated heteroplasmy) in all eggs or with exclusively pathogenic mtDNA in their eggs (homoplasmy). This cautious approach is at the heart of this new report, which, along with an accompanying paper by McFarland et al, assesses MD alongside PGT in an integrated programme performed at Newcastle Fertility Centre, UK, under the regulatory framework developed by the HFEA.
“Whilst PGT for mtDNA is an established procedure that acts as a useful comparator, the attention here will be rightly focused on the MD clinical data: 22 women at high risk of transmitting mitochondrial disease to their offspring were treated using PNT, resulting in 8 live births and one ongoing pregnancy. Firstly, this headline result alone is highly significant: PNT is compatible with embryo viability in humans. Secondly, levels of pathogenic mtDNA (in blood) from the infants varied from 0% to 16%. Whilst the last figure hints at a degree of reversion to the maternal mtDNA type, it is also sufficiently low to conclude that the procedure has successfully reduced the risk of mtDNA in all children born. The amount of maternal mtDNA could, however, vary from tissue to tissue and so follow-up of these children is vitally important. McFarland et al report that none of the children has any health condition that could be straightforwardly attributed to the presence of mtDNA disease. As the authors note, there are reasons to be optimistic about the outcome of this first MD treatment in the UK.
“The data in the last paragraph, whilst summarised very briefly, are the culmination of decades of work: from the earliest investigations in mice aimed at understanding the impacts of nuclear transfer, through to targeted experiments in human embryos to provide preclinical evidence of safety and effectiveness. But this is to focus only on some of the scientific/technical challenges that have been overcome. There were parallel activities over a similar time frame concerning ethical inquiry, public and patient engagement, law-making, drafting of regulations and execution of those regulations by committees. And last but not least: the careful establishment of a clinical pathway by which the health of the mothers and infants born could be monitored and they could be cared for (detailed in McFarland et al). This all represents a vast amount of work by a large number of people over a long period.
“The Hyslop et al paper itself is a treasure trove of data, which will likely to be the starting points of new avenues of research and opportunities for refinement. What is the explanation for the somewhat elevated maternal mtDNA levels (still beneath the clinical threshold for disease) detected in two babies born following PNT? Further studies of mitochondrial DNA replication, segregation and interaction with the nuclear DNA may provide clues. The reduction in normally fertilized eggs in the PNT group also requires explanation and may indicate that some mtDNA pathogenic variants can compromise fertilisation of the egg, which is an energy-demanding process. This observation opens up a whole area of research concerning the role of played by mitochondria in fertility. Of course, numbers analysed here are still low and a larger and more diverse cohort will be required to draw firm conclusions about efficacy and safety of MD at a population level. We can look forward to future assessments of maternal spindle transfer (the other lawful MD technique in the UK) and even, possibly, the use of targeted, enzymatic degradation of pathogenic mtDNA to eliminate the risk of carry-over and reversion.
“How do we summarise what this all means? It is a triumph of scientific innovation in the IVF clinic – a world-first that shows that the UK is an excellent environment in which to push boundaries in IVF; a tour de force by the embryologists who painstakingly developed and optimised the micromanipulation methods; an example of the value of clinical expertise, developed over decades of working with children and adults suffering from these devastating diseases, being used to support a new intervention and subsequent follow-up, potentially for many years. And it is so much more, depending on whether one’s perspective is that of an historian, sociologist, ethicist or philosopher. It is tempting to suggest that this report marks the end of a process – but it is actually the beginning, of a new era in which technologies that change how we think about human reproduction are introduced into a tightly regulated environment – the only way in which they should be introduced.
“In time, there will no doubt be retrospective studies and assessments of how all this was done – some critical – and there will be much to learn. It is hoped that other papers will follow, detailing different aspects of the process by which these first UK children were born, because this whole exercise has been a steep learning curve for all involved and future progress relies on such learning being shared. Safety assessment should be at the heart of all these and future reports. Some may wonder about the time taken for these current reports to see the light of day – but that would be to underestimate what is required to transition from preclinical research activities in an academic setting to offering a bona fide clinical service on the NHS (with the spanner of COVID-19 thrown into the works for good measure). Others will wonder whether supporting the desire to have biological children merits all this time and effort, when ‘unmet clinical need’ is the focus and budgetary constraints are the norm. But this evaluation unnecessarily attempts to marginalise a human activity – ‘having children’ – that is actually central to the health and wellbeing of a significant proportion of the population. And those ordinary resemblances that parents and children often share also matter to them. Of course, the results of clinical follow-up of the children born using PNT will be a major determinant of the future prospects for mitochondrial donation in the IVF clinic, as this report acknowledges.
“There will be many responses to this work, but I see these reports, despite their matter-of-fact understatement, as an extraordinary reminder of what well intentioned science, collaborating with medicine, can do to improve the lives of human beings.”
Mr Stuart Lavery, Divisional Clinical Director Women’s Health and Consultant in Reproductive Medicine/Honorary Associate Professor, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said:
“The concept of nuclear transfer has attracted much commentary and occasionally concern and anxiety.
“The Newcastle team have demonstrated that it can be used in a clinically effective and ethically acceptable way to prevent disease and suffering.
“The HFEA has shown that regulation need not always be restrictive, and that permissive regulation can lead to innovation at the highest level, allowing scientists to push boundaries, patients to be successfully treated and the public to be reassured.
“This truly represents the very best of British science and regulation.”
Prof Bert Smeets, Professor in Clinical Genomics with focus on Mitochondrial Diseases, said:
“These are papers, the scientific community has waited for, for a long time, as they describe the experience of the Newcastle team on pronuclear transfer to prevent the transmission of mtDNA disease, for which they got approval in 2017. The papers describe the current experience in PNT and PGT for preventing the transmission of mtDNA disease. It is good to present a reproductive care pathway, although it is not fully complete and some of the criteria might be reevaluated based on the presented data. The care pathway starts with carriers of mtDNA mutations. I would also include women who have affected children with de novo mtDNA mutations. This concerns about 25% of the mtDNA patients. The recurrence risk is low and generally prenatal diagnosis is offered for reassurance. Furthermore, women with a very low mtDNA mutation load, with skewing mtDNA mutations or large scale deletions could also opt for prenatal diagnosis. For a reproductive care pathway for mtDNA disease, these groups should be included as well. It is clear that for the remainder according to the HFEA guidelines PNT should only be offered if PGT is unsuitable. It is great that the PNT as an addition to the reproductive choices for mtDNA disease seems to deliver as 8 children without the mtDNA condition were born. However, there are still concerns, as 2 PNT children had a higher mutation load than the carry-over, which means that reversal can occur and could be a risk for having affected children in future treatments. Also, two children had rare medical complications, which according to the authors were not related to the treatment, as this would then be expected for all of them. I do not think that is true as technical variation occurs and donors will be different. It is good to carefully monitor this, as one of the aims of HFEA guided clinical application is to find-out if PNT by itself is safe, not only to prevent mtDNA disease. The discussion on this is not very strong. Finally, a key unanswered question is why it took so long to come out with these results. Eight births with no mtDNA disease in 7 years deviates largely from the expected150 yearly births, as described by the same group in NEJM in 2015, if all women would opt for this procedure. It seems that the children born are quite recent (only one >18 months), so one wonders if there is a learning curve, change in procedure or whatsoever, explaining the increasing success rate. It would be fair to discuss this in more detail as it would make it much clearer and more realistic which women of the target group will benefit from MD. And that is still a positive message.”
Comments on the broader story:
Kevin McEleny, Chair, British Fertility Society, said:
“These landmark papers provide compelling evidence that mitochondrial donation through pronuclear transfer can massively reduce the transmission of pathogenic mitochondrial DNA variants and are a terrific example of how a regulatory framework can be adapted to permit world-leading scientific discovery. Although the number of babies conceived through this novel treatment is small and their long-term follow-up will be required, the study provides hope to people affected by mitochondrial DNA disease and their loved ones.”
Sarah Norcross, Director of the Progress Educational Trust (PET), said:
“We could not be more delighted by the news that eight babies with donated mitochondria have been born in the UK, and that all of these children have made normal developmental progress.
“Our charity spent many years campaigning for UK law to be changed, to permit the use of mitochondrial donation in treatment. We salute the patients who had the courage to attempt these novel treatments, and we thank the team at Newcastle for justifying patients’ confidence in them.
“Mitochondrial donation will not necessarily be appropriate for every patient who carries disease-causing mitochondrial DNA mutations – rather, its appropriateness depends on various factors that are explored in detail in the new studies. Importantly, the studies place mitochondrial donation within the context of a broader NHS care pathway, that offers a variety of options for people carrying mitochondrial DNA mutations who wish to have children.
“Nonetheless, the studies demonstrate that mitochondrial donation is a feasible option – indeed, a positive reproductive choice – for some patients. An important consideration is that women considering mitochondrial donation are advised to start their fact-finding early, because of the decline of egg quality with age.
“The medical and scientific work at Newcastle, and the policy and legal work that preceded it, have set a high standard for introducing new reproductive technology in a careful and scrupulously regulated way. We are pleased to see that Australia is following a similarly responsible path, having recently introduced its own law that permits the use of mitochondrial donation for the purpose of avoiding mitochondrial disease.
“The work at Newcastle will no doubt inform – and in future, will perhaps also be informed by – the mitoHOPE pilot programme for mitochondrial donation in Australia.”
Nick Meade, Chief Executive Genetic Alliance,said:
“Most rare conditions do not yet have a cure or treatment, so for families affected, reproductive choice techniques are the only opportunities to take control of the impact of the condition. For serious conditions caused by nuclear DNA, these opportunities have existed for many years (through preimplantation genetic testing), with today’s news, we know more families have that opportunity now. These techniques have the potential to work for hundreds of conditions caused by mitochondrial DNA, and they are an example of how innovative research can be applied to take steps forward for multiple rare conditions in parallel. With more than 7,000 rare conditions affecting people in the UK, we need this kind of progress.”
Beth Thompson, Executive Director for Policy & Partnerships at Wellcome, said:
“This is a remarkable scientific achievement, which has been years in the making and we are overjoyed for the families of the eight children born so far.
“The pioneering work behind mitochondrial donation is a powerful example of how discovery research can change lives. The UK has led the way and has demonstrated the importance of science grounded in close and careful co-ordination between researchers, funders and regulators – and, very importantly, working closely with families affected.
“Wellcome has proudly supported this work since the earliest days, including advocating for legislation and licensing. As the science progresses, we will continue championing brave investment in science and for policy and regulation to keep pace. The success of this research should inspire us move forward on other updates, opening the way for further innovation. The groundwork for review of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, for example, has been done, it now needs to move forward. We must ensure the UK stays a world leader in life sciences.”
Danielle Hamm, Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, said:
“Today we have seen the first evidence that for a small number of UK families the use of pronuclear transfer (PNT) to prevent the transfer of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA disorders has resulted in what everyone hoped it would: children who are thriving and appear free of the devastating symptoms of mitochondrial disease.
“The Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ landmark ethical review of techniques for the prevention of maternally inherited mitochondrial disorders has been instrumental in creating the right regulatory environment to allow this innovative treatment to reach the clinic and change lives for the better.
“The HFEA’s licensing conditions followed our recommendation and ensured that PNT is only available through a specialist centre. The establishment of the NHS Highly Specialised Mitochondrial Reproductive Care Pathway has ensured that families referred to the service are fully supported and have access to appropriate information, and that long term follow up of participants has been secured.
“We welcome this great progress, but continued follow-up is crucially important to inform our understanding of the long-term efficacy of the treatment.”
Peter Thompson, Chief Executive of the HFEA, said:
“Ten years ago, the UK was the first country in the world to licence mitochondrial donation treatment to avoid passing the condition to children. For the first time, families with severe inherited mitochondrial illness have the possibility of a healthy child. Although it’s still early days, it is wonderful news that mitochondrial donation treatment has led to eight babies being born.
“Only people who are at a very high risk of passing a serious mitochondrial disease onto their children are eligible for this treatment in the UK, and every application for mitochondrial donation treatment is individually assessed in accordance with the law. These robust but flexible regulatory processes allow the technique to be used safely for the purposes that Parliament agreed in 2015.”
Prof Frances Flinter, Chair of the HFEA’s Statutory Approvals Committee, said:
“We are pleased to see the peer-reviewed papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine that explain what has happened to those patients who the HFEA authorised to have mitochondrial donation treatment at the Newcastle Centre at Life. These are patients for whom there was no other option to have a healthy baby who is genetically related to them, and we are delighted for those families.
“The HFEA will continue to oversee the safe use of mitochondrial donation treatment and assess each application as families come through the programme. These results are testimony to how the UK continues to be a world leader in the use of new medical techniques to change lives.”
Comment from the editor of the journal the papers are published in (so NOT third party):
Eric Rubin, MD, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, The New England Journal of Medicine, said:
“These studies unite scientific rigor, clinical innovation, and deep ethical reflection to illustrate the full research continuum from bench to bedside. At the New England Journal of Medicine, we chose to publish this work in its full context, not only to highlight the outcomes, but also to surface the critical questions it raises about translating breakthroughs into patient care. Where allowed by government regulations, this research has the potential to prevent serious inherited disease and gives parents truly meaningful new options for their children. Its publication also reminds us that preserving the infrastructure and integrity of biomedical research in the U.S. and around the world is essential if we are to continue delivering such transformative treatments to patients.”
Comments via colleagues at other international SMCs:
Prof. Dr. Marcus Deschauer, Head of the Working Group on Rare Hereditary Neurological Diseases and Senior Physician at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), said:
“To my knowledge, this is the first publication of a larger cohort of families/mothers with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorders who have given birth to children after pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or mitochondrial donation. The work is therefore very important for assessing the effectiveness and risks of these methods in practice.”
“Per se, the study includes well-studied families with reliable data, but it was not possible to prevent the transmission of the disease-causing mtDNA variants in all families.””A certain carry-over of mtDNA with a disease-causing variant occurs during pre-cell nucleus transfer. It cannot be ruled out that the proportion of mutated mtDNA will continue to increase over the course of a lifetime after carry-over. However, this is unlikely: for example, in patients with the m.3243A>G variant, the degree of heteroplasmy in the blood decreases over the course of life.“
”The follow-up periods are not yet sufficient to assess the risks of later disease. Manifestation of an mtDNA disease at a later stage is conceivable in children.””A pathological mtDNA variant is identified in women who can pass it on by means of molecular genetic testing if the woman has symptoms of a mitochondriopathy. There are also cases in which molecular genetic diagnostics are performed for another indication – such as the search for another genetic disease – and a pathological mtDNA is detected. However, according to the ACMG recommendations, this should not be disclosed by genetic laboratories.“
”Until now, the lack of data has made it difficult to advise women with mitochondrial diseases on their desire to have children. The DGN guideline ‘Mitochondrial Diseases’ states: ‘Human genetic counselling is particularly complex when it comes to the desire to have children. Prenatal diagnosis can be routinely performed for nuclear mutations, but is more limited for mutations of mitochondrial DNA. The data on preimplantation diagnosis as a means of preventing or reducing the risk of inheritance of pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations is extremely limited, and the method is subject to the Preimplantation Diagnosis Ordinance in Germany. These two studies from Newcastle are helpful for counselling.“
”Whether a woman with mtDNA disease can expect an uncomplicated pregnancy also depends on the manifestation/severity of the woman’s disease. In cases of significant muscle weakness (including respiratory muscle weakness), this may increase during pregnancy. Natural childbirth may be difficult, making a caesarean section necessary.”
“If the mitochondrial donation procedure were also permitted in Germany, this would be an option for selected women with an mtDNA disease to significantly reduce the risk of passing on a disease-causing mtDNA variant with a heteroplasmy level above a disease-causing threshold. This would increase the chances of healthy children for families.”
“However, the data from Newcastle do not suggest that the methods used can guarantee that the disease will not be passed on. In some mtDNA variants, the severity of the disease clearly depends on the degree of heteroplasmy in the blood, so that a reduction in the degree of heteroplasmy in such cases could lead to a milder form of the disease in children.”
“In the short term, there are no good therapeutic methods for treating mtDNA diseases, so preventing the transmission of mtDNA diseases is the better option. I also consider it difficult to successfully treat children who have inherited an mtDNA variant in the medium term, as gene therapy must reach the DNA in the mitochondria. There is the example of 5q-associated spinal muscular atrophy, in which infants diagnosed in newborn screening can be treated very successfully. Unfortunately, this is not expected to be the case for mtDNA diseases in the near future.””I consider it unlikely that the two children who were symptomatic have a maternally inherited mitochondriopathy. In the case of the child with epilepsy, I would even classify this as very unlikely. I consider the authors’ assessment that the reproductive technology procedure itself or pregnancy complications or metabolic disorders in the mother may be responsible for the symptoms of the two children to be plausible.”
Nuno Costa-Borges, researcher and embryologist, scientific director and CEO of Embryotools, Barcelona Science Park, says:
“As a pioneering center in mitochondrial replacement therapies (MRT), Embryotools welcomes the recent publication by Hyslop et al. in The New England Journal of Medicine, reporting outcomes from pronuclear transfer (PNT) to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disease. The study reports the birth of eight babies—four girls and four boys, including one set of identical twins—born to seven women at high risk of transmitting severe mtDNA disorders. Importantly, all infants are healthy and show no signs of mitochondrial disease. However, the detection of low-level postnatal mtDNA heteroplasmy (“reversal”) in 3 of the 8 infants (5%–16%) deserves particular discussion.
“Due to UK regulations that prohibit testing for heteroplasmy in embryos, the timing of this reversal could not be pinpointed. Their analysis relied on arrested embryos and blood samples from newborns, which limits interpretation. In contrast, our recent pilot trial using maternal spindle transfer (MST)—a form of MRT where mitochondrial replacement occurs in the oocyte before fertilization—in infertile patients led to seven live births, two of which also showed reversal, a comparable frequency. However, our approach included direct assessment of heteroplasmy in blastocysts and, longitudinally, in multiple tissues including amniotic fluid. This allowed us to accurately define that reversal occurred between the blastocyst stage and mid-gestation (~15 weeks), reinforcing the importance of prenatal testing to detect reversal early and guide clinical decision-making. In our study, all infants are also healthy and have been followed up showing no adverse events.
“This phenomenon—mtDNA ‘reversal’—has previously been described in human cells in vitro but not in MRT-derived children. Minimal levels of maternal mtDNA carryover can expand substantially, potentially compromising the efficacy of MRTs to prevent mitochondrial disease. The biological mechanisms underlying this selective amplification remain unclear but appear to occur early in development, and instances may therefore be detectable using prenatal testing. It is worth noting that the impact of mtDNA reversal in infertility treatments is likely less concerning, as maternal mtDNA in these cases does not carry pathogenic mutations. Moreover, with appropriate matching of mtDNA haplotypes between the mother and donor, the biological consequences of low-level heteroplasmy could be further minimized or even rendered clinically irrelevant.
“Currently, only the UK and Australia have regulated the use of MRT to prevent transmission of mtDNA mutations. We believe that other countries should adopt similar regulatory models. In particular, MRT should also be contemplated for infertility treatment. Infertility is a disease recognized by the WHO, and MRT can offer a genetic link to the mother for patients who would otherwise rely on egg donation. This justification aligns with the ethical principles underpinning MRT for disease prevention. As a pioneer group in this technology, Spain should lead in regulating these applications to ensure patient safety and prevent reproductive tourism to countries where such techniques may be offered without appropriate oversight.
“In light of these findings, we reaffirm the urgent need to continue performing well-regulated, larger, long-term studies to fully evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical implications of MRTs. Ongoing research under appropriate oversight is essential to ensure the responsible development of these technologies, improve genetic counseling, and support informed decision-making by patients and clinicians alike.
“We also advocate for thoughtful regulatory evolution that upholds patient autonomy, scientific excellence, and the principle of reproductive justice.”
Dr. Dunja M. Baston-Büst, Deputy Head of the IVF Laboratory, UniCareD Cryobank, and UniKiD Research, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany, said:
“Since there are currently no curative therapies for mitochondrial diseases, advances in assisted reproductive technology open up new possibilities for reducing the transmission of such variants. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is commonly used to detect defects in nuclear DNA, can also be used to identify embryos with a low proportion of maternal pathogenic mitochondrial DNA variants, thereby reducing the risk of disease.
“The replacement of the donor’s zygote pronuclei with the patient’s pronuclei was successful in 127 of 160 cases (79.4 per cent). Of the 127 embryos resulting from this, 122 (96.1 per cent) were still intact on the following day (day 1). The number of intact zygotes per pre-nuclear transfer performed (33 procedures in total) ranged from zero to seven.
“In 37 of the 39 patients (95 per cent) in the preimplantation diagnosis group, the embryos were assessed on the third day after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). For preimplantation diagnosis, a blastomere was biopsied on day three of embryonic development and transfer was usually performed in the fresh cycle after analysis of the mitochondrial DNA from the blastomere.
“Implementation in Germany is not possible under the current legal requirements (Embryo Protection Act), as egg donation is prohibited.
“The earlier and more severe a mitochondrial disease occurs, the earlier patients can be identified. Patients in Germany receive comprehensive human genetic or interdisciplinary counselling in accordance with the current S1 guideline ‘Mitochondrial Diseases’. A decision regarding the options for reproductive measures and possible preimplantation diagnosis is made in consultation with the patients and depending on the degree of heteroplasmy. Pre-implantation genetic screening is not possible in Germany due to the ban on egg donation. The alternatives are egg donation abroad or adoption.
“A patient registry for mitochondrial diseases was established in Germany in 2009. It would be beneficial for reproductive medicine if reproductive outcomes were also collected there, or analysis results if preimplantation diagnosis was performed. Unfortunately, there is no cross-linking between the registries. “Furthermore, the search for biomarkers is generally supported in Germany in order to increase the diagnostic accuracy for mitochondrial diseases.
“For reproductive medicine, I currently see no application of the technology presented in the study in Germany without a comprehensive revision of the Embryo Protection Act and the legalization of egg donation.
“The new EU SOHO Regulation will come into force in the next few years. Its main purpose is to provide greater protection for the genetic background of children born from egg and sperm donation (in addition to the amendments to the sperm donation register), so that many questions will still arise in the case of three-parent constellations.
“In mitochondrial donation using pre-nucleation transfer, the nuclear genome is transferred from a fertilized egg cell of the affected woman to an enucleated, fertilized egg cell from a healthy donor. The pronuclei are removed individually from the patients’ zygotes and, after brief treatment with a fusion agent (haemagglutinating virus from the Japanese shell), are placed together under the zona pellucida (protective shell around the egg cell; editor’s note) of the enucleated donor egg cell. Based on findings from preclinical studies, it is standard practice to freeze (vitrify) the eggs of patients for whom pre-nuclear transfer is planned, as donor eggs are not always available at the same time and in sufficient quantities.
“Pathological variants of mitochondrial DNA can be either homoplasmic (present in all mitochondrial DNA copies) or heteroplasmic (present in only some of the copies). Homoplasmic variants are passed on completely to all offspring, but their expression (penetrance) can vary from individual to individual.
“Clinical pregnancies were confirmed in eight of 22 patients (36 per cent) who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as part of preimplantation genetic testing, and in 16 of 39 patients (41 per cent) who underwent ICSI as part of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Pronuclear transfer resulted in eight live births and one ongoing pregnancy. PGD resulted in 18 live births.
“Heteroplasmy levels in the blood of the eight infants after pronuclear transfer ranged from undetectable to 16 per cent. Compared to the enucleated zygotes, the proportion of diseased maternal mitochondrial DNA was reduced by 95 to 100 percent in six newborns and by 77 to 88 per cent in two newborns. Heteroplasmy data were also available for ten of the 18 infants after preimplantation genetic diagnosis, with values ranging from undetectable to seven percent.
“For reasons that are still unclear, the small amount of transferred maternal mitochondrial DNA can rise to homoplasmic levels in about 20 per cent of embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos after mitochondrial donation. In addition, one in six infants born after maternal spindle transfer for the treatment of infertility had elevated heteroplasmy levels (40 to 60 per cent) of maternal mtDNA. These observations raise the question of whether mitochondrial donation can reliably prevent the transmission of diseased mitochondrial DNA in all cases, especially in homoplasmic variants.
“Approximately one in 5,000 people develop a mitochondrial disease, making it one of the most common hereditary diseases, although the symptoms can often vary greatly. The symptoms of mitochondrial diseases are very diverse and can affect various organs, for example the muscles with muscle weakness and pain, the nervous system with encephalopathy, epilepsy and neurological disorders, the heart with heart muscle disease, the eyes with blindness and visual impairment, the ears with hearing loss and the endocrine system with diabetes mellitus.
“Other examples of mitochondriopathies with named syndromes include: autosomal dominant optic atrophy (ADOA) with slowly progressive, usually bilateral, central vision loss; Kearns-Sayre syndrome with cardiac conduction disorders, degenerative changes in the retina, and external ophthalmoplegia; chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia, which is an incomplete form of Kearns-Sayre syndrome and is characterized by external ophthalmoplegia; MERRF syndrome with cerebellar ataxia, myoclonus, generalized seizures, short stature, and dementia; MELAS syndrome with seizures, dementia, and headaches.
“In addition to the disease entities listed here, there are a number of other, sometimes very rare syndromes that can be classified as mitochondriopathies but have often been little researched or not yet described.”
Dr Holger Prokisch, Head of the Mitochondrial Genetics Research Group, Helmholtz Centre Munich – German Research Centre for Health and Environment, Munich, said:“The field of mitochondrial medicine has been eagerly awaiting the results of this study. The robust data describe a real breakthrough for women with a (nearly) homoplasmic pathogenic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variant in terms of their ability to probably have healthy genetically related children. The risk of the children to develop the disease after preimplantation genetic testing is minimal. All gene variants tested require very high heteroplasmy for the disease to manifest, or are typically homoplasmic.“”There is an observation in the literature that in a few cases, the mother’s mutated DNA is revised. Interestingly, this also involves an LHON mutation (Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy) [3][4], which is almost always homoplasmic in the population and, according to recent data, has a low penetrance of less than five percent for LHON disease [5](only five percent of gene carriers also develop the disease; editor’s note). In this respect, the selection of mutation carriers for this study with four LHON mutations is not entirely fortunate. The homoplasmy of the LHON variants suggests that they may offer a selective advantage [6]. Since mitochondrial transfer does not eliminate the mutation, there is a risk that the mutation will be passed on to the next generation. This often leads to significant shifts in heteroplasmy, sometimes to the detriment of patients. However, disease-causing variants tend to have a selection pressure [6].“Human studies show no risk of incompatibility between the donor mtDNA and the parents’ nuclear DNA.””There is no newborn screening for mitochondrial DNA mutations. Women are identified as mutation carriers when they or one of their children develop the disease. Prediction or risk assessment for the next generation is difficult for mtDNA mutations in the mother. Many centers for mitochondrial diseases work with the group in Newcastle to provide information about the options available there or to offer preimplantation genetic diagnosis.”[3] Hudson G et al. (2019): Reversion after replacement of mitochondrial DNA. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1623-3. [4] Kang E et al. (2016): Mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes carrying pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature20592. [5] Mackey DA et al. (2022): Is the disease risk and penetrance in Leber hereditary optic neuropathy actually low?. The American Journal of Human Genetics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.11.014. [6] Kotrys AV et al. (2024): Single-cell analysis reveals context-dependent, cell-level selection of mtDNA. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07332-0.
Prof. Dr. Nils-Göran Larsson, Group Leader “Maintenance and expression of mtDNA in disease and ageing”, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska-Institut, Stockholm, Schweden, said: “The study in NEJM is very important and represents a breakthrough in mitochondrial medicine. It should be remembered mitochondrial diseases can be devastating and cause substantial suffering in affected children, sometimes leading to an early death. Families are profoundly affected and the paper in NEJM describe how birth of affected children can be prevented by mitochondrial donation.
“This advanced procedure is not a disease-treatment but rather an intervention that minimizes the transmission of mutated mtDNA from mother to child. For affected families this is a very important reproductive option. The paper describes a relatively small series of 8 babies born after mitochondrial donation by pronuclear transfer. The paper is carefully done and of very high quality but as always in science the results need to be confirmed by independent studies. Also, long-term clinical follow-up studies of born babies will give additional information about the safety and efficacy of mitochondrial donation.”
“Before this procedure was applied to human reproduction there was a very long development and evaluation process. There has been a lot of constructive discussion in the scientific community, and the UK Parliament approved legislation allowing mitochondrial donation in 2015.”
“Mitochondrial donation by the pronuclear transfer procedure always leads to carry-over of some mitochondria from the mother and mutant mtDNA can be transferred. The data presented in the NEJM paper shows that mutant mtDNA was not detected in blood of 5 of the born children. However, in three children, low levels of mutant mtDNA were detected in blood. These low levels of mutant mtDNA are unlikely to cause mitochondrial disease but additional follow-up studies are needed. As pointed out by the authors, the mitochondrial donation by pronuclear transfer should be regarded as a risk-reduction strategy. As always, when it comes to new medical procedures there is a need for validation by independent studies. Also, additional long-term follow-up studies of children born after mitochondrial donation will be needed.”
“The authors report that the transferred mtDNA has no mutations and the donor mtDNA is therefore unlikely to cause disease or impact ageing. During normal ageing, mtDNA acquires mutations (somatic mutations), e.g., during the massive cell division when the embryo is formed and develops. These mutations are typically present at low levels but accumulate to high levels in a subset of cells in many different ageing tissues. The mitochondrial donation involves transfer of mtDNA without mutations and there is no reason to believe that the donor mtDNA will additionally impact the ageing process.”
“When it comes disease-causing mtDNA mutations that are present in all copies (i.e., homoplasmic mtDNA mutations) there is currently no alternative to mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mutated mtDNA from mother to child. It is possible that alternate methods will be available in the future, e.g., correction of mutant mtDNA by gene editing techniques. There are currently a few promising pharmacological therapies for mitochondrial disease, e.g., nucleoside therapy for mtDNA depletion disorders. It is likely that more treatments will be available in the near future because this field is rapidly developing.”
Prof. Dr. Heidi Mertes, Associate Professor in Medical Ethics, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Belgien, said:
“I am happy to see that the first results from the Newcastle University group are now finally published, after being granted a license by the HFEA in 2017, and that the eight resulting children are in good health. However, while the results show that the technique is feasible and can lead to a substantial reduction of the mutation load in the resulting children, it also shows that we need to tread very carefully.”
“In line with previous research by the group of Nuno Costa-Borges [1], this research confirms the possibility of reversal (meaning that although there is only a small fraction of the intended mother’s mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the embryo, this fraction sometimes increases substantially as the foetus develops), which could still result in mitochondrial diseases in the resulting children. Fortunately, preliminary research does indicate that while the mutation loads appear to increase between the embryonic phase and birth, they appear to remain stable after birth.”
“These are very important results as there was a lot of uncertainty over the safety of MRT. Using PGT when possible and reserving MRT for those cases in which PGT cannot offer a solution was a prudent approach given the experimental nature of MRT. It will be interesting to see more data in the future on whether reversal is more frequent in MRT or PGT, so that the safest procedure can be selected.”
“Although the heteroplasmy-levels are limited in this study, it does show that reversal is a real danger for the offspring, which can have serious health implications. At least three things follow from this.”
“First, people entering into this and future clinical trials will need to be extensively counselled that this is not a risk-elimination treatment, but a risk-reduction treatment.” “Second, we need more research into the mechanisms that trigger reversal, so that it can be prevented before this technique is implemented in routine care + We need follow-up research in the children born after MRT.”
“Third, it is important to keep in mind that by framing this as a risk-reduction strategy, we are ignoring the possibility of conceiving through a traditional egg donation procedure. While genetic parenthood is evidently important to many people, the trade-off that we are making here is that between a genetically related child with a high risk of mitochondrial disease (natural conception), a genetically related child with a reduced risk of mitochondrial disease (PGT or MRT) and a non-genetically related child with the near-absence of a risk of mitochondrial disease (through donor conception). If people who would have chosen for donor conception now opt for MRT, this is actually a risk-increasing technology, rather than a risk-reducing one.”
“This strategy lowers the risk of mitochondrial disorders in the children when the point of comparison is natural reproduction by the parents, but the safest option is still donor conception, which eliminates the risk of passing on the mitochondrial condition, rather than reducing it.”
“While the donor plays an essential role in the birth of the child, attributing them a parenthood-status based on a small genetic contribution appears unwarranted. At the same time it would be correct to call them a ‘genetic progenitor’ or ‘genetic contributor’.”
“While the group of Nuno Costa-Borges ([1] [2]) received a lot of backlash for performing their MRT clinical trial in people with repeated IVF failure, rather than people with mitochondrial diseases, we must acknowledge in hindsight that given the phenomenon of reversal, their approach might have been the more prudent one. In their study they observed reversal in one infant going from
Prof David Thorburn, co-Group Leader of Brain & Mitochondrial Research at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne, said:
“Mitochondrial donation was legalised in the UK in 2015 and in Australia in 2022. It was clearly a complex process in the UK to develop the approvals processes, the clinical and lab pathways, cope with delays from COVID and accumulate sufficient outcomes to publish them without impinging on the privacy of the families involved.So it is very exciting to see the first publications describing results for the first 8 babies born in the UK program. The initial results demonstrate that the approach is effective in reducing the risk of having a child with mitochondrial DNA disease for women who are at high risk. For about three quarters of couples participating in the pronuclear transfer method, at least one suitable embryo was generated. About 40% of these couples had a baby and all were healthy and had undetectable or low levels of the abnormal mitochondrial DNA. Three babies had short-term symptoms that resolved and did not appear to relate to mitochondrial disease. All babies are developing normally to date, with the oldest 5 years of age.The studies emphasise that longer-term followup needs to be performed, and the efficiency of the method could be further improved to achieve higher pregnancy rates. They demonstrate the value of offering the program in conjunction with other reproductive options, such as pre-implantation genetic testing, which can be effective in women with lower risk. I regard these results as very encouraging and supporting the ongoing development and use of mitochondrial donation in the UK and Australia.
Dr Santiago Restrepo Castillo, biomedical engineer and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas at Austin (USA), said:
“Mitochondrial diseases are a group of chronic metabolic disorders that can be fatal. These diseases are caused by mutations in the human genome, which consists of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. In particular, metabolic disorders caused by mutations in mitochondrial DNA, which affect one in five thousand people, are maternally inherited and currently incurable. In recent years, there have been major advancements in the development of strategies for the treatment or prevention of genetic disorders caused by mutations in nuclear DNA. In contrast, similar strategies for diseases caused by alterations in mitochondrial DNA have remained largely understudied. Aiming to establish a preventive strategy for metabolic diseases caused by mitochondrial DNA mutations, the authors of this pair of studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine developed an integrated program of preimplantation genetic testing and pronuclear transfer (PGT and PNT, respectively). In this program, female patients carrying mitochondrial mutations underwent PGT to identify embryos with low levels of mitochondrial DNA mutations. In cases where an embryo with these characteristics was identified, the embryo was implanted in the patient and the course of the pregnancy was monitored. In addition, in cases where it was not possible to identify embryos with low levels of genetic alterations, the patients underwent PNT, a procedure in which mitochondrial DNA without mutations is obtained from a donor. Encouragingly, through this integrated PGT and PNT program, at the time of publication, the authors have already demonstrated a significant reduction in the maternal transmission of mitochondrial mutations in eight cases. Furthermore, the children born from these cases have shown normal development. In conclusion, this study represents a major advancement in the field of medical genetics and genomics. Understanding the current limitations of mitochondrial gene editing, which would allow genetic alterations to be corrected in different contexts, the authors chose to explore a procedure that cuts the problem off at the root by preventing the transmission of the mutated genetic material. Furthermore, this pair of studies demonstrates clinical benefits in children who, without the integrated PGT and PNT program, would likely have been born with debilitating or fatal genetic mutations. It will be exciting to see if the benefits are maintained over time, and it will be critical to further develop this integrated process to increase its success rates”.
Prof Lluís Montoliu, Research Professor at the National Biotechnology Centre (CNB-CSIC) and at the CIBERER-ISCIII, Spain, says:
“In 2016, John Zhang, a specialist doctor at an assisted reproduction clinic in New York called the New Hope Fertility Center, crossed the border into Mexico to perform a procedure that was banned in the US and not yet regulated in Mexico. A couple from Jordan had come to this clinic hoping to have viable offspring. The couple had already had two children who had died from Leigh syndrome, one of several mitochondrial diseases that are often devastating and untreatable. Mitochondria (our energy factories) are usually inherited from the mother, from the egg. The mother had approximately 25% of her mitochondria affected, and these were the ones she had passed on to her two deceased children. Dr. Zhang did not use the procedure pioneered in the UK because of the couple’s Muslim faith, which opposed the destruction of human embryos. Instead, he chose to extract the nucleus from the mother’s egg (actually the metaphase plate, an incomplete nuclear division, which is the stage at which all eggs are ready for fertilization) and transferred it to the egg of another woman (with healthy mitochondria), from which he had also previously removed the nucleus. Once the nucleus from the mother had been transferred to the egg of the second woman, he used this resulting egg to perform in vitro fertilization with sperm from the father to obtain embryos. Dr. Zhang created five embryos in this way, only one of which developed normally, was implanted in the mother’s uterus, and resulted in the birth of a healthy baby. It was the first newborn obtained using the “three-parent technique”: two mothers and one father.
“In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) had approved another procedure in 2015, technically different but also called the “three-parent technique,” to solve problems related to mitochondrial diseases. In this case, the father’s sperm is used to fertilize (through intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI) two eggs, one from the mother carrying the affected mitochondria and one from another woman with healthy mitochondria. After fertilization begins, the two pronuclei (paternal and maternal) that appear temporarily are destined to fuse and form the first nucleus of the zygote. Before this happens, researchers can extract the two pronuclei from the in vitro fertilization between the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm and transfer them to the egg of the woman fertilized by the same sperm from the father, from which the pronuclei will have been previously removed. The result is that the egg with the woman’s healthy mitochondria hosts the two pronuclei of the couple, whose baby will be born without the mitochondrial genetic disease and will be genetically from both the father and the mother. The healthy mitochondria will come from the female donor. In this procedure, which is methodologically somewhat more aggressive than the previous one but less risky, one embryo is destroyed to create another, something that the Muslim couple assisted by Dr. Zhang considered unacceptable. The first baby in the United Kingdom obtained through the authorized British three-parent procedure was born in 2023.
“Ten years later [after the approval of this technique in the UK], a team of British and Australian doctors and researchers published the results of applying the British “three-parent” technique to 22 women carrying pathogenic mutations in their mitochondria (and therefore at high risk of having children born with these incurable diseases) in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Of the 22 women treated, only 8 gave birth (36%), and one more pregnancy is still in progress. The eight babies born are healthy, with no signs or very low levels of affected mitochondria, which are not sufficient to cause the disease. So far, all eight children are doing well. Only a couple of them developed minor clinical problems, initially unrelated to the procedure, which were resolved with treatment or spontaneously. In addition, the researchers applied a second technique (preimplantation genetic testing, or PGT) to women with heteroplasmy (a mixture of healthy and affected mitochondria) to assess the percentage of affected mitochondria in babies obtained through in vitro fertilization and select those with lower values of affected mitochondria. In this case, they obtained 16 pregnancies from 39 women (41%) with the result of 18 babies born with a percentage of affected mitochondria of less than 7%.
“In Spain, our Law 14/2006 of May 26 on assisted human reproduction techniques does not explicitly refer to this technique (which did not exist when this legislation was passed), so sensu stricto the procedure is neither expressly prohibited nor explicitly authorized in our country. Essentially, it is not regulated. The legal and ethical doubts that remain have so far prevented the three-parent technique from being applied in Spain.However, this new study shows that the technique has a remarkable success rate (36%) that could well be offered to couples in which the mother is a carrier of affected mitochondria to have offspring free from terrible mitochondrial diseases. Personally, I believe that we should allow this technique in our country in assisted reproduction clinics that have adequate training in this sophisticated method of embryo intervention.”
Dr Paul Wuh-Liang Hwu, Professor, College of Medicine, Pediatrics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan / Distinguished Research Fellow, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, said:
“In this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, two research articles published by groups of researchers from the UK describe the success of mitochondrial donation treatments for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diseases. Each human cell contains a few hundred mitochondria. The mitochondrion is a double membrane-bound organelle, and each mitochondrion contains a few copies of double-stranded, circular DNA molecules of around 16,500 genetic units (base pairs).
“Mitochondria are responsible for energy (ATP) production, fatty acid oxidation, and some other functions for the cells. Pathological variations or deletions of mitochondrial DNA can impair mitochondrial function, and when the proportion of defective mitochondria (heteroplasmy level) is high, cause serious symptoms involving the brain, muscle, and metabolism. During reproduction, all mitochondria are inherited from the mother (the egg). However, the level of defected mitochondria in offspring can be very different from their mothers, leaving reproduction planning almost impossible.
“In the two studies, mitochondrial donation by pronuclear transfer (PNT) was conducted to reduce the reproductive risk of women with mitochondrial diseases. Both the mitochondrial donor and patient eggs were fertilized first. The nucleus of the donor’s fertilised egg was removed and discarded, leaving behind a fertilised egg without a nucleus but with healthy mitochondria. The nucleus from the patient’s fertilised egg was then transferred into this enucleated donor egg.
“The PNT zygote was then cultured and implanted to continue pregnancy. All live births were in good health and with low levels of defective mitochondria. PNT has been widely used in animal research and now proved to be safe and efficient in humans. This breakthrough gives a reproductive choice for women affected with mitochondrial diseases, which is very important for the patients and their families. However, this study also broke the ban for continuing pregnancy of genetically manipulated human embryos. One argument is that PNT does not really touch the genetic materials but only provides normal mitochondria. The excellent outcome of this study also eases the concerns of nuclear/mitochondrial genome compatibility and other safety issues. Nevertheless, one may still worry if this technology will be abused to improve human physiological quality, for example, creating a body with more efficient energy production. Then, how about adding a little bit of normal, or good, DNA to the nuclear genome, if we can do that safely?
“As doctors and researchers who take care of patients with genetic disease, we welcome inventions, including reproduction medicine, that can help patients. Certainly, before the safety of new treatments can be confirmed, they should be used in patients with no other choices, or with a favorable benefit over risk. Recently, gene therapies, including gene editing treatments, are rapidly developing, offering hope to patients who previously have no option for treatment. However, we need to ask people to restrain themselves, not to apply PNT or gene therapy to improve the health of people without a medical condition, but to let these new treatments be developed to rescue lives of patients.”
Prof Lee Chung-HisProfessor, Graduate Institute of Health and Biotechnology Law, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, said:
“Pronuclear Transfer Technology: Advancing with Cautious Innovation and International Consensus. While early clinical results show promise in reducing the level of pathogenic mitochondrial DNA in newborns, the application of Pronuclear transfer (PNT) raises significant ethical and regulatory questions that must be addressed through both national oversight and international dialogue. From a bioethical standpoint, germline modification—defined as altering genetic material in a way that affects future generations—has long been met with caution. This is because it involves irreversible changes to the human genome, with potential consequences not only for the individuals born from such interventions but also for society’s understanding of what it means to be human.
“Pronuclear transfer, however, occupies a unique space in this debate. It targets mitochondrial DNA, which, although essential for cellular energy production, contributes relatively little to traits traditionally associated with identity, such as physical appearance, personality, or intelligence. Because of this limited influence on key phenotypic characteristics, PNT is viewed by some as an acceptable “ethical testing ground” for germline-level intervention. Rather than resorting to high-risk gene therapy after the onset of a hereditary disease, using PNT technology to reduce the likelihood of disease is a more ethically acceptable option. It provides a possible pathway to explore the responsible use of reproductive technologies without crossing the bright-line boundaries typically drawn around nuclear DNA modification.
“Nonetheless, mitochondrial DNA modification is not without ethical complexity. Even if its direct functional role is narrower, it still involves heritable changes and the creation of embryos with genetic contributions from three individuals—the intended mother and father, and a mitochondrial donor. This raises questions about identity, kinship, and the rights of the resulting child, especially regarding disclosure and autonomy. Moreover, the long-term health effects of such interventions remain unknown. To prevent a gradual erosion of ethical boundaries, transparent ethical review processes and long-term clinical monitoring must be established as foundational requirements for any country considering the use of PNT.
“From a clinical perspective, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) should remain the first-line option for reducing the risk of mitochondrial disease transmission. PGT is a more established and less invasive method that allows for the selection of embryos with minimal or undetectable levels of pathogenic mitochondrial DNA. In many cases, this approach has proven effective and carries fewer biological and ethical uncertainties than PNT. In contrast, PNT is a more complex and experimental procedure that combines nuclear DNA from the parents with mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg, and it may result in lower fertilization rates or higher embryonic loss. Therefore, in keeping with the precautionary principle in bioethics, PNT should be considered only when PGT is not feasible or has been shown to be ineffective.
“The United Kingdom currently leads in the clinical implementation of PNT, having established a strict licensing and regulatory regime through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The UK’s model reflects a commitment to enabling scientific advancement while maintaining ethical vigilance. However, reproductive technologies such as PNT are inherently transnational. If only a few countries offer access to such procedures, it may prompt “reproductive tourism”, whereby patients travel abroad to seek unregulated or less strictly governed treatments, potentially undermining safety standards and ethical norms.
“For this reason, a coordinated international approach is urgently needed. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Medical Association (WMA) are well-positioned to initiate global discussions and help formulate shared ethical guidelines and governance frameworks. These discussions should encompass not only scientific and medical dimensions but also social, cultural, and legal implications. Establishing minimum ethical standards and oversight mechanisms will help ensure that the benefits of PNT are pursued responsibly and that global health equity and ethical integrity are preserved.”
‘Mitochondrial Donation and Preimplantation Genetic Testing for mtDNA Disease’ by Louise A. Hyslop et al. and ‘Mitochondrial Donation in a Reproductive Care Pathway for mtDNA Disease’ by Robert McFarland et al. was published in The New England Journal of Medicine at 22:00 UK time on Wednesday 16th July.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2415539
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2503658
Declared interests
Dr David J Clancy: No interests to declare
Prof Joanna Poulton: Nothing to declare
Prof Dusko Ilic: No conflicts of interest
Prof Dagan Wells: I don’t think I have any declarations relevant to this.
Dr Andy Greenfield: Andy was a member of the board of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA) from 2009 to 2018; he was a member of its Scientific & Clinical Advances Advisory Committee (SCAAC) and Chair of its Licence Committee. He chaired the 3rd and 4th preclinical scientific reviews of the safety and efficacy of mitochondrial donation, in 2014 and 2016. Andy chairs the Independent Advisory Committee of the MitoHOPE Program in Australia. He is also a member of the board of the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), the Regulatory Horizons Council (RHC), the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) and Singapore’s Ministry of Health Regulatory Advisory Panel. Andy’s programme of research in developmental genetics was funded by the Medical Research Council at its Harwell Unit from 1996 to 2021. All opinions expressed are his own and not necessarily shared by any organisations with which he is associated.
Mr Stuart Lavery: No DOIs
Prof Bert Smeets: I am scientific advisor for the HFEA on PNT applications.
Sarah Norcross: PET – https://www.progress.org.uk/ – is a charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions, and that campaigned for the introduction of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 into UK law.
Beth Thompson: Wellcome funded research into mitochondrial donation and co-funded the clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of the treatment.
Danielle Hamm: The Nuffield Council on Bioethics conducted an ethical review of new techniques that aim to prevent the transmission of maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA disorders in 2012. The report and key findings of the review are available here.
HFEA: As of 1 July 2025, 35 patients have been given approval for mitochondrial donation treatment by the HFEA Statutory Approvals Committee. These decisions are made on an individual case by case basis where there are no other options for the families involved and in strict accordance with the law. The published papers set out that 25 of those patients have undergone pronuclear transfer (mitochondrial donation treatment.)
Prof. Dr. Marcus Deschauer: “Apart from the fact that I spent six months as a researcher in the Mitochondrial Research Group over 20 years ago and subsequently collaborated with the group on scientific projects, and that I am of course well acquainted with some of the co-authors of the two papers, I have no conflicts of interest.”
Dr. Dunja M. Baston-Büst: “I have no conflict of interest.”
Dr Holger Prokisch: “I have no conflicts of interest.”
Prof. Dr. Nils-Göran Larsson: “I have no conflicts of interest with this work.”
Prof. Dr. Heidi Mertes: “I have no conflicts of interest.”
Prof David Thorburn: David has declared he has no financial conflicts of interest and has the following unpaid positions:
Board Member of the Mito Foundation (the major relevant mito advocacy group) and he played a prominent role in their advocacy for legalising mitochondrial donation in Australia.
He is also a Member of the MitoHOPE Executive, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund to deliver an Australian clinical trial of mitochondrial donation.
Dr Santiago Restrepo Castillo: No conflicts of interest
Prof Lluís Montoliu: He declares that he has no conflicts of interest
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — A new ceasefire agreement was reached between Syria’s interim government and the Druze community in the southern province of As-Suwayda on Wednesday, aiming to end days of deadly clashes and return the province to full government control, Syrian authorities said.
According to a statement by the Syrian government published by the state news agency SANA, the agreement envisages a complete ceasefire and the deployment of internal checkpoints throughout the city of As-Suwayda. The province of the same name, which has seen intense fighting since July 13, will be fully reintegrated into the Syrian state.
The spiritual leader of Syria’s Druze community, Sheikh Youssef Jarbu, confirmed the agreement in a statement, outlining its key terms. These include an immediate halt to all military operations, the withdrawal of army units to barracks, and the establishment of a joint monitoring committee of government officials and Druze clerics to oversee the ceasefire.
The truce followed four days of violent clashes that left at least 248 people dead, including civilians, soldiers and Bedouin tribal fighters, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Roza Otunbayeva, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, made the appeal during a visit to the Islam Qala border crossing with Iran on Tuesday where she witnessed the daily influx of tens of thousands of returnees.
She also met returnee families, aid partners and regional de facto officials.
Alarm bells should be ringing
“What should be a positive homecoming moment for families who fled conflict decades ago is instead marked by exhaustion, trauma, and profound uncertainty,” said Ms. Otunbayeva, who also heads the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).
“The sheer volume of returns – many abrupt, many involuntary – should be setting off alarm bells across the global community,” she added.
“It is a test of our collective humanity. Afghanistan, already grappling with drought, and a chronic humanitarian crisis, cannot absorb this shock alone.”
Local communities overstretched
Since January, more than 1.3 million have been largely compelled to head back to Afghanistan – a country where 70 per cent of the population lives in poverty.
Women and children face the gravest risks, UNAMA said, as they are returning not only to dire economic hardships but to a context where their access to basic services and social protections remains severely constrained.
The UN has repeatedly highlighted the assault on women’s rights under Taliban rule, including bans affecting higher education, employment and freedom of movement.
Reintegration support critical
The returns are happening at a time when humanitarian operations remain woefully underfunded, forcing agonising choices between food, shelter, and safe passage.
Ms. Otunbayeva also underscored the critical need for immediate reintegration assistance as initial evidence shows that stabilising return communities requires urgent livelihood programmes and community infrastructure investments.
She warned that without swift interventions, remittance losses, labour market pressures, and cyclical migration will lead to devastating consequences.
These could include the further destabilization of both returnee and host populations, renewed displacement, mass onward movement, and risks to regional stability.
‘We cannot afford indifference’
She urged donors, development partners, and regional governments not to turn away and abandon Afghan returnees.
“What we are witnessing are the direct consequences of unmet global responsibilities,” she said. “We must act now – with resources, with coordination, and with resolve.”
Meanwhile, the UN in Afghanistan is calling for an integrated approach that resources humanitarian needs while scaling up assistance in areas of return.
At the same time, regional dialogue – including with Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asian states – must be prioritized to halt disorderly returns and uphold the principle of voluntary, dignified and safe repatriation.
“Afghanistan’s stability hinges on shared responsibility: We cannot afford indifference,” said Ms. Otunbayeva. “The cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost and conflicts reignited.”
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3
Speech
With each day that passes, the suffering increases. We urge the parties to secure an immediate ceasefire: UK statement at the UN Security Council
Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward, UK Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on Gaza.
The United Kingdom, together with Denmark, France, Greece and Slovenia, called for this meeting out of deep concern for the Israeli government’s inhumane approach to the crisis in Gaza.
This week marks 650 days since the horrific Hamas attacks of October 7th.
With each day that passes, the hostages suffer yet more agony, in appalling conditions and deprived from contact with their loved ones.
And with each day that passes, the people of Gaza suffer death, desperation and displacement.
This conflict has gone on for far too long.
There is a deal to be done.
We urge the parties to engage in the spirit of compromise to secure an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a pathway towards lasting peace.
I will make three points.
First, it is imperative that Israel lift its restrictions on aid entering Gaza.
Without fuel, water systems and hospitals in Gaza are on the verge of collapse.
Without medical supplies, treatable illnesses are costing lives.
And without food, Palestinians are dying from malnutrition or forced desperately to scramble for supplies.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has acknowledged that the UN has the unique capacity to meet the immense humanitarian need.
So we call on Israel to allow the UN to save lives immediately and without obstruction.
The United Kingdom welcomes the agreement between the EU and Israel, but we need to see words turned into action.
Second, we strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations.
We urge Israel immediately to implement and enforce robust measures to protect civilians.
In the past four months, more than 1,000 children have been killed.
Palestinians have also been fired upon by the IDF while desperately seeking food, with 800 people killed at aid sites.
This is abhorrent.
Third, the United Kingdom is appalled by the Israeli Defence Minister’s comments on forced displacement of Palestinians to Rafah.
This would contravene the fundamental principles upon which the UN was founded.
Palestinian territory must not be reduced, and civilians must be able to return home.
President, the path forward lies in diplomacy and compromise to deliver lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
We commend the leadership of France and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in co-chairing the upcoming conference on a Two-State Solution, which offers us a crucial opportunity to advance this goal.
Priority question for written answer P-002844/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Costas Mavrides (S&D)
Journalist and editor Şener Levent, a Cypriot citizen and recipient of the European Citizen’s Prize (2018) who lives in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, received a ‘court notice’ to surrender for imprisonment in Türkiye. The Turkish court sentenced him in absentia to two and a half years in prison due to his articles’ criticism of the Erdoğan regime. The sentence has become final due to procedural limitations on appeal.
The charges – including public insult to Turkish institutions – reflect a clear attempt to silence any criticism of Ankara. The use of so-called ‘judicial assistance’ between Türkiye and its subordinate regime in the occupied part of EU territory, constitutes an alarming influx of political persecution into the EU.
1.What immediate steps will the Commission take, both to prevent the enforcement of a politically-motivated foreign prison sentence against a European citizen within EU territory, and to safeguard his fundamental rights, including freedom of expression?
2.Given Türkiye’s continuous disregard for human rights and EU principles, both domestically and through its proxy regime in the occupied area of Cyprus, does the Commission intend to take immediate and effective measures, including imposing sanctions, to prevent further abuse?
The dire humanitarian situation in Gaza is a priority for the EU. The EU has consistently called on the Israeli government to lift the blockade on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza[1].
The EU reiterates that humanitarian aid must never be politicised or militarised and stressed the role of the United Nations (UN) in distributing humanitarian assistance[2].
The EU continues to voice its urgent call for the immediate, unimpeded and sustained resumption of delivery of aid at scale, fully in line with humanitarian principles and according to the needs of the civilian population in Gaza, as expressed in a joint statement by the High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) with the Commissioner for the Mediterranean and the Commissioner for Equality on 7 May 2025[3] and in a joint donor statement on humanitarian aid to Gaza on 19 May 2025[4].
A diplomatic solution is the only way forward. The EU continues to support the efforts by the mediators to reach a permanent ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The HR/VP is engaging in diplomatic efforts with all relevant actors, including the UN and regional partners, to help end the conflict in Gaza.
Since the onset of the conflict in Gaza, the EU has deployed all available humanitarian instruments to ease the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank.
The EU announced initial humanitarian funding of EUR 120 million for Gaza in 2025, and then allocated an additional EUR 50 million to address the urgent needs.
This brings total EU humanitarian assistance since October 2023 to over EUR 500 million (EUR 103 million in 2023 and EUR 237 million in 2024).
Following the fall of the Assad regime, the EU adopted a gradual and reversible approach in order to support Syria’s transition and economic recovery.
On 24 February 2025, the EU suspended some of its economic sanctions and amended the humanitarian exceptions[1]. The EU has been assessing whether further suspensions could be made, based on close monitoring of the situation on the ground[2].
On 27 May 2025, the EU lifted all economic sanctions on Syria in order to support the country’s socioeconomic recovery, with the exception of those based on security grounds. The EU maintained sanctions on Assad and his accomplices, in line with its call for accountability and its support to a peaceful transition[3].
While the humanitarian exceptions already ensured the continued provision of humanitarian assistance, the step of lifting of economic sanctions was broadly welcomed by the humanitarian community in Syria as a way to further enhance the delivery of critical assistance. The lifting of economic sanctions is vital for the swift socioeconomic recovery of Syria that the EU is strongly supporting, including through its recent EUR 175 million package[4].
On 28 May[5] and 23 June 2025[6], the EU introduced additional listings under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, targeting several individuals and entities for serious human rights abuses in Syria, including in relation to the deadly violence and horrific crimes against civilians in the coastal areas in March 2025.
The EU remains attentive to the actions of the new authorities in ensuring the protection of all Syrians without any kind of discrimination and continues to call for accountability, inclusivity and tolerance. It stands with the Syrian people and remains in close contact with partners in the region and key international partners.
The European Council in March 2025[1] deplored the breakdown of the ceasefire in Gaza and called for an immediate return to the full implementation of the ceasefire-hostage release agreement. It stressed the need for a ceasefire leading to the release of all hostages and a permanent end to hostilities.
The EU has been consistently calling for the immediate resumption of humanitarian aid at scale into Gaza. The High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) of the Commission, the Commissioner for the Mediterranean and the Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management called for the lifting of the blockade on humanitarian aid into Gaza (statements of 12 April 2025[2] and 7 May 2025[3]).
Following the exchange at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 May 2025, with the support of the majority of Member States, the HR/VP announced the review of Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement in view of the untenable humanitarian situation in Gaza.
This was discussed with Member States at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June 2025 as well as the European Council on 26 June 2025. The Foreign Affairs Council will revisit the issue on 15 July 2025. It will be up to Member States to decide the next steps, if any.
The Commission has allocated EUR 170 million of humanitarian assistance for Gaza and the West Bank in 2025 so far. This brings the total support to over EUR 500 million since 2023 (EUR 102 million in 2023 and EUR 237 million in 2024).
The Commission continues its utmost efforts to ensure full compliance with IHL and advocate for unimpeded access for all its humanitarian partners.
Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)
FRONT Act would require U.S. nonprofits to register under FARA if they accept funds from hostile nations
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) led his colleagues in introducing the Foreign Registration Obligations for Nonprofit Transparency (FRONT) Act today, which would require nonprofits in the United States that receive funding from foreign principals in countries of concern, such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The bill would also require nonprofits to disclose the activities they use foreign funds to engage in to mitigate future unrest.
“There are serious indicators recent left-wing riots, protests, and rallies resulting in violence and political unrest are funded by foreign agitators. It’s time for American nonprofit organizations to be transparent about where they are getting their funding from. No foreign country with hostile intentions should be meddling in our democratic process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FRONT Act to increase transparency and help put a stop to this,” said Senator Budd.
“Let me just say this and be clear: foreign influence in our country’s nonprofits ends now. The FRONT Act ensures that any money coming from our adversaries, like China, will be fully disclosed. This bill is common-sense, provides much needed transparency, and I’m proud to join Senator Budd in this effort,”saidSenator Justice.
“I am concerned that U.S. non-profits are receiving foreign funding from our adversaries and countries of concern. Senator Budd’s FRONT Act hardens the United States’ ability to monitor potentially malign influence of non-profits from foreign adversaries. In order to stop adversaries such as Communist China, Russia, and Iran, we must have the tools to better understand their efforts to infiltrate our American system and influence our institutions,”saidSenator Ricketts.
Senators Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) joined Senator Budd in introducing the bill.
Read the full bill text HERE.
Background
Recent civil unrest has raised alarms about possible foreign influence impacting U.S. nonprofits that organize and provide material support for protests.
For example, when it comes to riots against ICE enforcement operations, FBI Director Kash Patel has publicly stated, “The FBI is investigating any and all monetary connections responsible for these riots.” Reports have also indicated that “[the] socialist group [which] promoted the chaotic anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles…is tied to a network of groups bankrolled by a pro-China millionaire.”
But this is just the surface of a deeply troubling trend of foreign interference in our political processes. As former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines claimed, “We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters,” following the October 7 attacks.
What we’re witnessing is not isolated. Safeguarding our political system from continued foreign interference must be a top national security priority to protect the integrity of our democracy.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Maxwell Frost Florida (10th District)
July 15, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10) issued a statement following reports of the horrific murder of Florida resident, Saifullah Kamel Musallet, a Palestinian-American visiting family in the West Bank.
In a statement, Rep. Frost says:
“The horrific and cold-blooded murder of an American citizen by Israeli settlers in the West Bank cannot be ignored. Saifullah Kamel Musallet, a Palestinian-American and Floridian, was brutally murdered, and his attackers reportedly deliberately obstructed medical assistance to ensure he would die.
“The loss of his life serves as a stark reminder of the pain, suffering, and conflict ongoing in the West Bank and Gaza.
“As our country’s self-proclaimed peacekeeper, Donald Trump has a moral and constitutional obligation to direct the Department of State to conduct a thorough investigation and, more importantly, to demand full justice and accountability for those responsible for this heinous act. Our country must ensure the protection and safety of Americans abroad.”
The Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit (ICIEC) (https://ICIEC.IsDB.org), a Shariah-based multilateral insurer and member of the Islamic Development Bank Group, and Al Baraka Islamic Bank BSC Bahrain signed a Documentary Credit Insurance Policy (DCIP). The policy aims to strengthen support for Shariah-compliant trade finance, enabling greater security and confidence in the international trade ecosystem.
The agreement was signed by Dr. Khalid Khalafalla, Chief Executive Officer of ICIEC, and Dr. Adel Salem, Chief Executive Officer of Al Baraka Islamic Bank BSC Bahrain, in a joint effort to enhance the capacity of Islamic financial institutions to manage trade-related risks more effectively.
Under this partnership, ICIEC will provide insurance coverage for the confirmation of Letters of Credit (LCs) issued by Al Baraka Islamic Bank in connection with the import and export of eligible Shariah-compliant goods and services. This solution will help mitigate payment risks associated with cross-border trade while promoting sustainable growth in ICIEC’s member states.
Dr. Khalid Khalafalla, CEO of ICIEC, stated: “This strategic collaboration with Al Baraka Islamic Bank reflects ICIEC’s unwavering commitment to advancing intra-OIC trade and investment. By supporting Shariah-compliant trade finance through our Documentary Credit Insurance Policy, we are facilitating secure trade flows while empowering Islamic banks to broaden their offerings to clients. This partnership demonstrates the power of multilateral cooperation in achieving shared development goals.”
For his part, Dr. Adel Salem, CEO of Al Baraka Islamic Bank BSC Bahrain, stated: “We are delighted to partner with ICIEC on this pioneering Credit Insurance Policy, which empowers us to extend Shariah‑compliant trade finance to our clients, bolster Bahrain’s role as a regional hub for Islamic banking, and stimulate sustainable economic growth across member states worldwide.This collaboration underscores our unwavering commitment to innovation and robust risk management, giving the businesses we serve greater confidence to expand in global markets.”
The DCIP serves as a vital tool for Islamic banks, enhancing their ability to expand trade finance operations with reduced exposure to commercial and political risks. The policy also complements ICIEC’s broader mandate to promote economic resilience, financial inclusion, and private sector development in member countries.
Both institutions reaffirmed their shared dedication to expanding the reach of Islamic finance, strengthening risk mitigation tools, and contributing to inclusive and sustainable economic development.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit (ICIEC).
About The Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit (ICIEC): As a member of ‘AAA’ rated Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), ICIEC commenced operations in 1994 to strengthen economic relations between OIC Member States and promote intra-OIC trade and investments by providing risk mitigation tools and financial solutions. The Corporation is the only Islamic multilateral insurer in the world. It has led from the front in delivering a comprehensive suite of solutions to companies and parties in its 50 Member States. ICIEC, for the 17th consecutive year, maintained an “Aa3” insurance financial strength credit rating from Moody’s, ranking the Corporation among the top of the Credit and Political Risk Insurance (CPRI) Industry. Additionally, S&P has reaffirmed ICIEC “AA-“ long-term Issuer Credit and Financial Strength Rating for the second year with Stable Outlook. ICIEC’s resilience is underpinned by its sound underwriting, global reinsurance network, and strong risk management policies. Cumulatively, ICIEC has insured more than USD 121 billion in trade and investment. ICIEC activities are directed to several sectors – energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, healthcare, and agriculture.
About Al Baraka Islamic Bank BSC: Al Baraka Islamic Bank (AIB) is one of leading financial institutions in the Islamic banking sector within Bahrain. Throughout its history of more than four decades (since its establishment in 1984), the Bank has played a prominent role in building the infrastructure of the Islamic finance industry. The Bank also played a significant role in promoting the Islamic finance industry and publicizing its merits.
AIB offers innovative financial products, including investments, international trading, management of short-term liquidity and consumer financing, all of which are all based on Islamic financing modes. Such financing includes Murabaha, Wakala, Istisna, Musharaka, Mudarabah, Salam, and Ijara Muntahia Bittamleek.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, today urged his colleagues to reject President Donald Trump’s efforts to enact a harmful $9 billion cut to foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Republican rescissions bill would devastate public TV and radio stations across the country, making it more difficult for people – especially those in Native communities and rural areas – to get news and critical emergency alerts. The bill would also gut lifesaving foreign aid programs that millions of people around the world rely on.
“Being part of the Article One branch means something very specific, and it means that we’re the legislature, and we control the purse strings,” said Senator Schatz. “This bill reduces funding for Ukraine. It reduces funding for global health. It continues to reduce funding for public television and public radio. Republicans don’t actually have to do this.”
The full text of Schatz’s remarks can be found below. Video is available here.
Republicans don’t actually have to do this. I understand as well as anybody wanting to go along with your party’s president, especially in the early months. But being part of an independent and co-equal branch has to mean something. Being part of the Article One branch means something very specific, and it means that we’re the legislature and we control the purse strings.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it. And what worries me the most about this rescissions package, if it passes it is one thing for the president’s signature accomplishment, signature policy priority to be supported by Republicans in the legislature. I understand that. I understand the inevitable political momentum behind that. But this isn’t that. And we have now gone six months. Without a single instance of Republicans and Democrats coming together and establishing that there are some limitations on this president’s power.
And if you remember the first Trump term, there were a couple of moments when the legislature actually stood up to the president, overrode a veto of his rejected a rescissions package. They stood up for their prerogatives. And you know what happened next? Nothing. Why? Because that’s actually how the system is supposed to work. We are not a parliamentary system. We are not a monarchy where the president says by tweet, by tweet, if you don’t adopt this exactly how it’s written, you will not receive my political support. Thank you for your attention to this matter. And that set us on a course towards passing this legislation, which I know a dozen, at least a dozen Republicans hate.
It reduces funding for Jordan. It reduces funding for Ukraine. It reduces funding for global health. It did reduce funding for PEPFAR. It continues to reduce funding for public television and public radio. By the way, public radio is not just National Public Radio. If you were on a reservation. If you were in a very rural part of your state, it’s often not just the only radio station, the only communications infrastructure that exists in a rural area. So it’s the only platform for news. That’s true. It’s also the only emergency communications infrastructure, because still many places across the United States lack internet. And so Mike Rounds got his deal so that his tribes will be taken care of and I’m glad for him. But there are 49 other states where your emergency communications infrastructure is about to be defunded. Nobody likes that. Some people are pissed off about NPR’s coverage or PBS’s coverage. But come on, you defund an agency because you disagree with their editorial choices? Which country is this? Which country is this?
I want to tell you something a little technical, but I think it gives away the whole game. So I’m the top Democrat on the foreign ops subcommittee. What does that mean? We do funding for U.S. aid in the State Department and a few other things. When we do the appropriations process, we get letters from every other member. They’re private letters, and a lot of people sign them and they say, “could you please give more money to whatever it is, maternal and child health or malaria prevention or, the PEPFAR program, the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission.” So we get a bunch of letters saying “please plus up this, please, plus up that” bipartisan letters. And we are trying to write a bill that accommodates all these needs. A lot of people who are about to vote to cut all the stuff are on the side writing me a letter saying, “please increase these accounts.” And why does this matter? This matters because nobody’s voting – I shouldn’t say nobody – many, many people are not voting their conscience tonight. And that’s just a fact.
There’s a there’s a characterization in poker when you know you’re beat and someone puts money in on the river and you call anyway, it’s called a crying call. You give away your money sort of crying. This is a crying call. This is a “I know I’m beat, I vote aye,” and here’s the thing: we don’t actually have to do this.
President Trump’s attention is famously divided, and if something pops next week, he will be on that thing next week. He did not wake up every morning thinking, I want to defund UNICEF. I want to defund PEPFAR. His attention will be divided, and the moment the legislature stands up for himself, usually what he does is he understands power and he says, “okay, those guys are asserting themselves. They’re a co-equal branch of government, and I’m going to have to move on from this.” Because why do I know this? We literally did the same thing. There was a rescissions package, which nobody remembers. Why? Because we quietly with Dick Shelby and others appropriators, all said “no, we hold the purse strings here. We write the laws that determine appropriations.” We’re not going to do this thing on a bipartisan basis, enact a spending plan, and then come in on a partisan basis and say, you know, that wasn’t actually the spending plan. That was just the spending cap. And the administration is going to come in and do whatever it wants on a partisan basis. And so what happened is they rejected the rescissions package on the motion to discharge, which is happening in about an hour and five minutes. And then you know what happened? Nothing. Nothing politically. Nothing substantively, except that we kept the appropriations process alive. We kept the filibuster alive. We kept bipartisanship alive. And in this instance, it’s not just about this institution. It is literally about people being kept alive.
For the last five months, because of the United States’ actions, tens of thousands, at least, maybe hundreds of thousands of babies have gotten HIV/AIDS from their moms because we pulled funding. Because Elon Musk had some bug in his ear about USAID. And one weekend he said, we’re going to feed this thing to the woodchipper. And because Democrats too and pundits decided, you know what, foreign aid isn’t so important to voters. I don’t care if it’s important to voters, if it ranks on the number one, number two, or number three. We’re the United States of America and one of the reasons that we have such a strong reputation is that we do things that are right because they’re right, not because our voters are going to reward us immediately, not because we get some geopolitical advantage, but because we’re the damn good guys.
And right now, we are ratifying a bunch of decisions against our will. We don’t have to do this. Donald Trump will move on to the next thing tomorrow. And if it’s not on this thing which has low salience for the voters, is 18 months from the next election. If it’s not on this, at what point are my Republican colleagues going to stand up for this branch of government?
I remain ready to work with anybody on anything. I have talked to Chairman Graham about the possibility of literally enacting these rescissions, or at least a portion of them in the state and foreign ops mark, and yet they choose this legislative violence. We don’t have to do this. We don’t have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful. He’s the most powerful president. He owns the legislature in a way that no president has ever owned the legislature. And we all act like we’re just sort of observers, like clicking on the TV and seeing how our fantasy football team is doing this Sunday.
We have agency tonight to reestablish that. We are the Article One branch of government, and that means something.
Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty
WASHINGTON—Yesterday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking and Appropriations Committees and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, joined Mornings with Maria on Fox Business to discuss Senate action on the rescissions package, his stablecoin legislation to strengthen digital asset regulation, and President Donald Trump’s strategy to end the war in Ukraine through tough secondary sanctions on Russia’s trading partners.
*Click the photo above or here to watch*
Partial Transcript
Hagerty on the rescissions package and fiscal responsibility: “It’s amazing what we found when we looked into it, and the amount of this rescissions package is just a start. I think your interview with the Speaker [of the House Mike Johnson] was absolutely wonderful in terms of laying out the fact that we’re on a progression to bring fiscal responsibility back to America. It’s going to take several steps, but this rescissions package that’s coming before us this week is an incredibly important first step. What we’re going to see is a cutback on programs that have been wildly mismanaged. If you think about the way these programs have been allowed to grow– I mean, we’re funding lesbian programs in Canada. That’s absolutely ridiculous that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for these types of boondoggles. This is a major first step. I’m looking forward to getting it passed this week and continuing down the path of fiscal responsibility.”
Hagerty on digital asset legislation and American innovation: “The most important thing to understand is the fact that the United States is turning the tide. The Biden administration did everything it could to wage war on the crypto industry in America, to shove that sort of innovation offshore. We’ve taken major steps with this legislation to bring it back, to create a regulatory framework that actually works here in America. I’m the author of the stablecoin legislation. I’ve had great assistance from our chairman Sen. Tim Scott, from Sen. Cynthia Lummis, and members of the Banking Committee. [Representative] French Hill and his team in the House have been absolutely wonderful to work with. And we’ve put together something on stablecoins that the president will be ready to sign at the end of this week. Stablecoins are a new payment system. It puts us into the digital asset arena, and it takes us off of a system that was designed in the 1970s and 80s– very clunky, sometimes taking five to 10 days to clear– and moves it onto the blockchain. It’s far more efficient, far more secure, and it sets the groundwork for the entire crypto industry to thrive here in America. That’s what the Clarity Act is about. That’s what the Anti-Central Bank Digital Currency Act is about. It’s moving this technology forward here in America and making certain we own this innovation going forward.”
Hagerty on reinforcing the U.S. dollar and countering surveillance: “It [The GENIUS Act] will make it easier to move dollars, which again reinforces the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency. Each of these digital dollars is going to be backed one-for-one by U.S. Treasury securities. That’s going to stimulate demand for U.S. Treasurys, and the increased demand will bring rates down, which will be very positive for our borrowing cost right now at a time when we need it. There are many reasons to love this bill– the working capital it brings back into the system, the immediate access for small and mid-sized businesses. But importantly, we’re going to see this technology thrive here in America. There is a large number of my colleagues here in the Senate, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the leader of this group, who are proponents of central bank digital currencies, meaning they’d like to be able to surveil every transaction Americans make. I don’t think Americans want that at all. They’ve seen Operation Choke Point take many different forms. We do not want to empower the federal government to do that yet again.”
Hagerty on President Trump’s Russia-Ukraine strategy: “I think it’s a very positive development. President Trump has gotten to the end of his rope dealing with Vladimir Putin and [Volodymyr] Zelensky, trying to resolve this conflict in Ukraine. And what he’s done is taken a major step forward, demonstrating his resolve, but he’s done it in a way that takes the American taxpayer off the hook. He’s putting the Europeans on the front line. He’s going to be depleting their stockpiles, not America’s, and they’re going to be paying for it. That moves us in the direction he’s been articulating for some time.”
Hagerty on the 50-day deadline for Russia: “He’s issued a 50-day timeline. Just ask the Iranians– when President Trump issues a timeline, he expects it to be followed. And if it’s not, the consequences can be serious when he talks about sanctions at this level. I worked on imposing secondary sanctions in the first Trump administration. My job was to work on the Iranian regime and to stop countries around the world from buying Iranian crude oil. I got that done in Japan. It happened around the world. We brought Iran to its knees. And had it not been for voices like John Kerry pleading with them to wait until after the election to see if Joe Biden might win, we’d have had a very different situation in the Middle East. We’re coming back to that strategy now. President Trump has more than three years ahead of him to impose these sanctions, and they’re going to be crippling. The Russians understand this, and most importantly, they know President Trump means business.”
Hagerty on restoring U.S. sanctions enforcement: “I can’t underscore this enough: Putin knows, and President Trump has demonstrated, that 50 days means 50 days. And if he violates that timeline, the consequences will be severe. Now, under [Treasury] Secretary Scott Bessent, we finally have the capacity to enforce our sanctions. Under Joe Biden, sanctions enforcement went away. That’s sad, because we had capable people at the U.S. Treasury who were responsible for doing this, and they were told to stand down. Now, Secretary Bessent is bringing in a team that understands exactly how to do this. We’re going to see real results.”
Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty
WASHINGTON—Yesterday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, joined America Reports on Fox News to discuss concerns with the United Nations and the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Representative Mike Waltz.
*Click the photo above or here to watch*
Partial Transcript
Hagerty on the current state of the United Nations: “I think that [Representative] Mike Waltz did a good job in the hearing. He’s taking on a very challenging organization–that’s the United Nations. If you think about it, the original charter of the U.N. was about bringing peace, justice, and human rights to the world. And it’s so far divorced now from what it was originally intended to be. Today, it’s a completely politicized organization, very often working counter to the interests of the United States and our allies. Frankly, far too often, it’s been captured by authoritarian regimes to do their bidding. The United Nations has a lot of room to improve.”
Hagerty on U.N. bias and October 7 attacks: “One of the most egregious examples that came up a couple of times during the hearing with Mike Waltz was what happened on October 7, 2023. At that point, Hamas was assisted by U.N. personnel in attacking Israelis. The United Nations has done everything to dismiss that. Yet, at every turn, their leadership seems to want to criticize Israel. There are real problems at the U.N., and I think it’s an opportunity to send a leader in to make quite a difference for the United States. We need to make certain, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, that our dollars are being spent in a way that’s effective and works well for the American people, not being abused in the way they have been up to this point by the leadership of the United Nations.”
Hagerty on the Signal chat controversy: “As he [Waltz] said, and as many people have said, the information that was passed was not classified. Would I have done it that way? Would you have done it that way? In retrospect, perhaps not. I think there was a serious mistake made–a glitch, if you will– in how the name roster was managed and the fact that somebody was there in the wrong spot. But with all that said, there wasn’t classified information involved. I don’t believe it’s disqualifying in any respect.”
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
July 16, 2025
Special interests seemingly seeking favors from Donald Trump have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump’s presidential library
Recent Paramount settlement, $400M Qatari jet gift raise questions about potential influence-peddling
Bill Text (PDF) | Bill One-Pager (PDF)
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, along with Representatives Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) unveiled the Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act to close loopholes that allow presidential libraries to be used as tools for corruption and bribery.
Giant corporations, at least one foreign government, and other entities have promised donations collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars to President Donald Trump’s future library while he has the power to impact those same entities’ futures, from mega-merger approvals, to the preservation of the U.S. military base in Qatar, to Big Tech regulation, and more. The contributions, many in the form of settlements to Trump-filed lawsuits, raise serious ethics concerns about potential bribery and influence-peddling.
“Companies like Paramount and Meta and foreign governments like Qatar may be paying off Donald Trump in plain sight — and right now, there are no rules to stop them,” said Senator Warren. “I’m leading the fight to rein in this avenue for corruption. Government should work for the American people, not just whichever giant company or foreign government can dump the most money into the president’s future library.”
“President Trump’s acceptance of an extravagant plane from the Qatari government for eventual use in his Presidential Library is corruption plain and simple. Without any restrictions on donations to Presidential Libraries, other foreign governments can potentially extract policy favors from the White House in exchange for gifts and benefits. Our bill closes these loopholes for good so that Presidential Libraries cannot be used as backdoor tools for influence and corruption,” said Senator Blumenthal.
“Presidential libraries are an incredible resource for American families to learn about our history and the people who shaped it—but it’s also important we know who’s funding that history. Right now, these libraries are a black box, allowing for anonymous donors and even foreign governments to give unlimited amounts of money,” said Representative Moskowitz. “This bill reforms the process so presidents of all parties are subject to commonsense ethics rules. I led this effort last Congress and am doing it again now because the American people deserve the transparency created under this bill, and all presidents should be subject to it.”
“I’m proud to co-lead this legislation, which would impose commonsense safeguards on fundraising for presidential libraries,” said Representative Raskin. “Our bill would ensure that presidential libraries are tools for teaching and preserving presidential history, and not just another corrupt self-enrichment scheme for the president. Our bill would ban the use of library donations for personal expenses, ensure quarterly disclosures of contributions made while the president is still in office, and prevent presidential library donations from being used as a backdoor tool by powerful corporations, lobbyists and foreign governments to influence the president and foreign and domestic policy.”
Unlike presidential campaigns or inaugural committees, Presidential Libraries are subject to almost no restrictions on donations. Presidents can raise funds for their libraries, even while still in office, and accept donations from anyone — including foreign nationals, lobbyists, people seeking presidential pardons, and corporations with matters before federal agencies. These donations can be unlimited and donor names do not have to be disclosed.
Just weeks ago, Paramount settled President Trump’s seemingly meritless lawsuit for $16 million — with the money funneling straight into Trump’s future library. Paramount is currently vying for the Trump administration’s approval of its proposed mega-merger with Skydance. In May 2025, President Trump announced that he would accept a free luxury jet — worth about $400 million — from the government of Qatar, and that the jet would be donated to his Presidential Library after he leaves office.
Senator Warren this week published a new analysis revealing that companies seeking favorable outcomes from the Trump administration have pledged to funnel at least $63 million into Trump’s future presidential library. Other gifts and in-kind donations — including the luxury Qatari jet, expensive candlelight dinners at Mar-a-Lago, leftover inauguration donations, revenue from sales of Trump-themed merchandise, and more — bring the total value of gifts flowing into Trump’s library to roughly half a billion dollars.
The Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act would:
Ban fundraising while the President is in office, with a carveout for nonprofits: Require that Presidential Libraries wait until the President leaves office before fundraising or accepting donations, except from 501(c)(3) organizations (mirroring the standard adopted by the Obama Foundation).
Establish a contribution cap: For 501(c)(3) organizations that can donate while a president is still in office, limit donations to $10,000 total.
Impose a cooling-off period for donations from foreign nationals, lobbyists, contractors, individuals seeking pardons: For an additional 2 years after the President leaves office, prohibit donations from foreign nationals or foreign governments, registered lobbyists, federal contractors, and individuals seeking presidential pardons.
Ban conversion of donations to personal use: Bar the use of Library donations for personal expenses or unrelated financial obligations.
Mandate quarterly disclosures: During the President’s time in office and for 5 years after, require all donations of $200 or more to be disclosed to the National Archives each calendar quarter. Publish donor information (including name, employer, and date and amount of the donation) online in a searchable, downloadable format.
Prohibit straw donations: Make it illegal to donate in someone else’s name, or to knowingly allow your name to be used for a straw donation.
The following senators joined as cosponsors: Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The bill is also cosponsored by Representatives Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Emmanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.).
The bill is endorsed by the following: Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Democracy Defenders Action (DDA), Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Freedom of the Press Foundation, Public Citizen, Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Demand Progress, and American Governance Institute.
“The Presidential Library system was created by FDR to be a gift to the people and posterity – not a grift for a greedy president or a conduit for favor-seekers and influence peddlers. The Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act turns off this firehose of corruption and restores Presidential Libraries to their original mission: to enable the American people to access presidential papers so they can learn from the past and build a better future,” said Jon Golinger, Democracy Advocate at Public Citizen.
“For far too long, presidential libraries have operated without sufficient transparency or guardrails. Recent reporting that the Trump administration plans to accept a luxury jet from the Qatari government to be donated to President Trump’s presidential library foundation raises significant concerns regarding the use of gifts from foreign actors to curry favor with the president,” said Debra Perlin, Vice President for Policy at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Senator Warren’s Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act of 2025 would bring urgently needed reform to presidential libraries by prohibiting presidents from fundraising or accepting most donations until after they leave office and impose an additional two year ban on any donations from foreign nationals, lobbyists, contractors or individuals seeking pardons. CREW enthusiastically endorses this legislation and urges the Senate to pass it expeditiously.”
“There are already too many ways for powerful interests to game the system, peddle influence and capture institutions,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, Vice-President of Policy and Government Affairs at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). “The fact that it appears as though presidential libraries have become yet another vector of potential corruption and pay-to-play is deeply disturbing. It only makes sense to enact some commonsense guardrails and rules around how donations to presidential libraries can be made, when, in what amounts and by who, similar to campaign finance rules. Senator Warren and her colleagues should be commended for introducing this bill and leading the way on these anti-corruption reforms.”
“The American people deserve to know which self-interested corporations, billionaires and foreign nationals are funneling millions of dollars to the president. The Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act is a commonsense reform that brings needed transparency to the legal wild west of presidential library donations. We thank Sen. Warren for working to stop this corruption and for holding presidents of both parties accountable,” said Emily Peterson-Cassin, Corporate Power Director of Demand Progress.
“Donations to presidential libraries are the soft belly of political corruption, providing an opportunity for foreign nations and unscrupulous actors to bribe sitting presidents with gifts of unlimited funds for their post-presidential projects. The Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act provides critical limits and accountability to reign in corrupt practices that have besmirched presidents for decades,” said Daniel Schuman, Executive Director of the American Governance Institute.
“Campaign Legal Center (CLC) strongly supports the Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act and thanks its sponsors for introducing this vital legislation,” said Erin Chlopak, Senior Director of Campaign Finance at Campaign Legal Center. “Presidential libraries are supposed to be about our nation’s history. However, donations to these institutions are increasingly being used as a loophole for wealthy special interests, corporations, and even foreign governments to seek favor with the president and gain undue influence. Because existing laws that regulate money in politics don’t extend to presidential libraries, new rules are needed to prevent them from becoming another avenue for corruption that undermines trust in our government. CLC urges Congress to pass this legislation and safeguard the integrity of our democracy without delay.”
Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) discussed the importance of our allies enacting snapback sanctions against Iran with Michael Waltz, nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations.
“It’s absolutely critical that the E3 do those snapback sanctions. Will you [Waltz] commit to working with them to push them to get that snapback in place?” said Ricketts. “One of the things that Iran always says is that they want this program for peaceful means, yet there’s no reason they need an enrichment program. 23 other nations have nuclear power without enrichment facilities. The only way we can ensure they don’t have a nuclear program, is if they don’t have any enrichment facilities.”
Ricketts also discussed anti-Semitism at the United Nations.
“You mentioned in your opening remarks the anti-Semitism that is rampant in the United Nations. You gave the statistic that there were more resolutions targeting Israel than all other nations combined—by double,” said Ricketts. “I have seen nothing from the U.N. calling on Hamas to surrender. That is exactly how this conflict would end. The people in Gaza would be able to start looking for a better way of life once that terrorist organization surrenders.”
Click here to watch more.
The hearing considered the nominations of John Arrigo, to be Ambassador to Portugal; Christine Toretti, to be Ambassador to Sweden; and Michael Waltz, to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Shutter Local Public Radio, TV Stations Across America
FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Gut Bipartisan Foreign Policy Investments
ICYMI: Vought Refuses to Rule Out More Illegal End-Runs Around Congress & Refuses to Detail How Trump Will Execute Cuts If Rescissions Bill Passes
***WATCH: Senator Murray’sfloor remarks***
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor slamming Senate Republicans for moving forward with President Trump’s devastating rescissions package and continuing to urge a no vote on final passage:
[LAUGHABLE CLAIMS OF “FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”]
“Two weeks ago, Republicans were jamming through the most expensive bill in the history of the country. And now, they say they are worried about the debt.
“Two weeks ago, Republicans said four trillion bucks in tax cuts for the richest people in the world was nothing—literally. And now, they are saying a truly tiny fraction of that for rural radio is just too much.
“So, I have to ask: Is this a joke? Are they really that bad at math?
“First, Republicans were saying trillions in tax cuts were free. Get real.
“Andnow, they are pretending to be fiscal hawks by shutting down local news, and letting epidemics go unchecked around the world.
“Well, here’s another math lesson for my colleagues, Republicans could cut every dollar ever spent on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since it was created—down to the last dime—and it still would not cover the cost of the bill Republicans just jammed through.
“Republicans could actually cut every dollar we have spent on foreign aid since World War II—and that would still fall short compared to the cost of the Republican tax cuts.
“Republicans could even cut the amount in this first rescissions bill—every single day for a year—and it still would not equal their tax cuts to help their rich donors.
“So, make no mistake, if Republicans choose to do Trump’s bidding, if they push through this package to rip away funding for emergency alerts and global health programs, it is not because they take the debt seriously.
[MORE REQUESTS COMING]
“And that will be just as true for the next package, because let’s be clear, if Republicans go along with this package, despite the fact they clearly have issues with it, and despite the fact Russ Vought has refused to answer the most basic questions—even from the Republican Chair of the Appropriations Committee—about which programs he is going to cut.
“If all of that is not enough to give Republicans just some pause, and they let Russ Vought steamroll them through this package, don’t be surprised when he sends more cuts down the pike. “It could be medical research, and after school programs, maybe heating assistance, workplace safety, road maintenance. Everything is going to be on the chopping block. And all of our time here in the Senate is going to be spent on those requests.
[SPENDING PRIORITIES]
“And here’s the kicker—no matter how many rescissions Russ Vought sends, no matter how many rescissions Republicans roll over and let pass, they will never offset the trillions in tax cuts they just passed without blinking an eye. “Because you could rescind the entire FY25 spending bill—twice over—and it still would not cover the four trillion in tax cuts Republicans just showered on the richest people in this country.
“So, however this vote goes, expect to hear more from me on this every time Republicans try to pretend we don’t have money for child care, or medical research, or other programs that our families rely on.
“Now, M. President. I’ve said a lot about how patently absurd it is for Republicans to pretend they are passing these cuts because they care about the debt. But I do not want to lose sight of the larger issues. It’s not just that Republicans’ play acting about the debt is absurd, the bigger problem here is that these cuts would be devastating for our communities and for American interests around the globe.
[SHUTTING DOWN LOCAL STATIONS]
“When it comes to local news, these cuts could force local stations that people know and trust—know and trust—off the air. This isn’t just about a program or two taking a haircut. Trump wants to slash every penny of federal funding that supports over 1,500 local TV and radio stations.
“Those stations, and those funds, reach 98% of all Americans. And they are especially crucial for serving our rural areas and Tribal communities. Dozens of these stations rely on these investments for half of their funding, some rely on it for as much as 99 percent!
“If these cuts go through, these stations go dark. Weather forecasters communities have turned to for years, news anchors that are trusted voices, local reporters who track down answers their communities need and hold their officials to account, will be sent packing. And those stations will go silent.
“Do we want our farmers to have good local coverage of weather, and market conditions? Do we want our tribal communities to know what is going on at the state capitol? Do we want families to have updates about the local school board, or community events?
“Because this package of cuts throws all of that in jeopardy.
“To say nothing of emergency alerts. These stations can be a lifeline when disaster strikes. They are a trusted source of information, and sometimes the only source people have access to.
“When the devastating wildfires hit southern California earlier this year, public radio broadcasts let millions of people know how to stay safe. When Hurricane Helene battered North Carolina, a local public radio station was the only source of information for many people.
“And, in fact, many stations use their towers to actually deliver emergency alerts to people’s cell phones when cell towers go down. This funding supports stations who play an integral role in many states’ emergency planning.
“Do you think our communities should have less warning in an emergency? Do you want to leave folks back home with less information when they are in harm’s way?
Well, I guess you vote for this bill if that’s how you feel. Want you to know, I’m a hard no.
[SIDE DEAL TO ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL]
“And let’s not pretend a secret deal from Trump and Vought, to reallocate $10 million dollars, is somehow a serious fix to this. It is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the massive cuts being pushed through here. In fact, it’s less than 1% of the overall funding that this package would rip away for public broadcasting and those alerts.
[KIDS PROGRAMMING]
“And don’t forget, these cuts are going to impact some of our kids’ and parents’ favorite educational shows. Sesame Street, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Daniel Tiger, PBS Kids has a long track record of creating shows that are beloved.
“Not just because they keep kids entertained, but because they are thoughtfully crafted to help them learn and grow, to stoke their curiosity, to teach them caring and empathy. Any parent will tell you that is a worthwhile investment.
“And any parent will also warn you, if you take away shows like this that gets kids engaged and gets them thinking, take that away, then there is an avalanche of brain-rot television that’s waiting to fill that void. Content that is crafted, not to get kids thinking, but to keep them watching at all costs.
“We have to save Sesame Street. We have to tell Trump and Vought, Big Bird is not on the chopping block in this country. And we have to send this rescissions package to Oscar’s place—AKA the trash can.
[AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD]
“And M. President, I want to talk as well about the devastating cuts this package proposes to foreign assistance. I thought America’s leadership was important to Republicans?
“But apparently, they want to penny pinch when it comes to keeping our commitments across the world, apparently, they want to save money by letting families starve, and kids die of preventable diseases. Because that is what this package will do.
“And this isn’t some thought exercise—we have already seen how the first round of reckless DOGE cuts are working out.
“There’s already a growing death toll and a huge leadership void that our competitors are racing to fill, people who needed health care—but Elon Musk shut down the only clinic for miles, kids contracting diseases like HIV and Malaria—because Trump totally upended our global health response, and let’s not forget, they’re going to destroy contraceptives we’ve already purchased rather than distribute them.
“And people are starving to death while food supplies from American companies are sitting rotting in ports. That’s another part of why America’s farmers are coming out in opposition to this bill by the way.
“This week, 500 tons of high energy biscuits expired. Food that we already paid for. Food that was meant to save lives. And because Trump and Elon Musk blasted USAID to smithereens and couldn’t be bothered to fix the mess that they caused, this food is now going to be incinerated—even as people we promised to help watch their kids starve.
“That is outrageous, and it is infuriating.
“Is that what Republicans think of as world leadership? Is it leadership to Republicans when Trump fires thousands of State Department workers who keep our nation safe, and make our voice heard in the world?
“Is it leadership to Republicans when we pull investments out of international organizations, and create a void that our adversaries like China will be all too happy to fill?
“We already know the DOGE cuts were devastating. We know that! What I don’t know is why on earth Republicans are getting ready today to double down and codify them by passing this bill. And no—‘because Trump said so’—is not a good answer.
“Especially when it’s clear Russ Vought is the one steering this particular ship. I’m not even sure Trump knows what a rescission is! But I’m sure Republicans know better than to think these cuts will make our nation strong.
“I know that because we passed these investments in a bipartisan way. And because I have heard them speak out about how much they hate these cuts. You can go back and watch our hearing on this, many of our colleagues across the aisle during that hearing voiced deep concern with these cuts, that they now intend to pass today.
“Because we all know these investments benefit American businesses who help feed the world.
“They help stop outbreak, they stop diseases abroad before they spread and threaten us here at home. They help promote stability and avoid chaos and conflict that can put our interests—and our servicemembers—in harm’s way.
“They help us advance America’s interests and keep our country safe and prosperous.
“That’s the smart thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. And of course, it is also the right thing to do.
“So, it’s worth saying, cutting these investments is just down right wrong.
“We should not be voting to let children starve or die from preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to the world.
Saving a couple pennies is not worth losing our credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe.
“It is not even close.
[DOESN’T NEED TO BE THIS WAY]
“And M. President. I want to impress upon one final point. And that’s this, it did not have to be this way, and it still does not have to be this way.
“In fact, if Republicans come to their senses, and vote this thing down, we still can go a different route. We can do what we have always done and consider bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process. That offer has always been on the table. And it still is. “I’ve heard Republicans say they don’t like this package, in fact they are trying to dial it back the tiniest bit.I’ve also heard that they don’t want to spend the next several months processing these requests out here on the floor, instead of focusing on our annual funding bills—or any number of other pressing priorities.
“So: don’t vote for it!
“Work with us to write bills that make targeted rescissions on a bipartisan basis. You don’t work for Donald Trump. You don’t work for Russ Vought. You actually work for your constituents. You can put them first. And you can vote this package down.
“That has some real benefits compared to going down the path of this unprecedented—unprecedented— partisan rescissions.
“I am serious—I want my Republican colleagues to think about that. And I mean really think about it.
“For one thing, if we do things the normal, bipartisan way, you get to assert your say as a Senator about what is getting targeted, it’s not just ‘this is what Russ Vought says—take it or leave it.’ You can actually be a part of the discussion and speak out for what is important to you.
“For another thing: If we go the bipartisan route, you don’t have to get jammed by this deadline.
“Instead of rushing through cuts this week without fully getting to consider and debate them, instead of being told ‘No, you can’t change this, we don’t have time.’ We can all sit down, make thoughtful decisions, and maybe even worthwhile changes as we go.
“And here’s an important point, if we do rescissions together through our appropriations bills, instead of just letting Trump and Russ Vought jam through whatever they want, my colleagues would actually know what in the world they are voting for.
[NO INFORMATION ON WHAT WILL BE CUT]
“Becauselet’s get one thing straight, Republicans don’t actually know what programs are going to get cut if they pass this package. “We don’t know! It’s one of the great outrages of this package. Russ Vought is just outright refusing to tell us what programs he is going to cut if this package passes.
“At our hearing with him, he refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked and we asked. The Chair, the Republican Chair, even asked him about this.
“But OMB would not tell us! The question is: What will you cut? The answer has been: Pass it, we’ll see.
“That is why the Republicans decided to protect just a handful of programs without actually reducing the funding associated with them, because they do not know the impact.
“So, they preserve funding for Jordan, Egypt, and a few university partnerships. What about our allies in the Indo-Pacific? What about the implementers of these programs in our states?
“None of us should accept not having those answers. And I’m sure my colleagues were told their priorities won’t be impacted, but Director Vought cannot keep that promise given the scale of these cuts. The math simply does not add up!
“Even if you believe we should make cuts, you should be joining us to demand we actually know what is being cut. And, if we do this the right way, the bipartisan way, we would know. Because we would be writing the bill.
“Now, doesn’t that sound a lot better, than just passing this pandora’s box, and finding out later what got cut?
[IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SENATE]
“Finally, I have said this before, several times, but I want to warn my colleagues once again, if you keep going down this path you are going to further undermine our bipartisan process.
“We have never, never before seen bipartisan investments, slashed through a partisan rescissions package. Do not start now. Not when we are working, at this very moment, in a bipartisan way to pass our spending bills.
“As I said earlier, bipartisanship doesn’t end with any one line being crossed, it erodes, it breaks down bit by bit, until one day there is nothing left.
Sure, a few members may be willing to stick it out and work as hard as they can to get a result.
“But this Senate doesn’t work off a few members—it works off consensus building. And the more bridges you burn, the fewer paths you leave to get things done.
“So, M. President, why go down this partisan path? Why vote to spend the next many weeks considering more of these packages? And why do it for a set of cuts that are so damaging? A set of cuts, many of you have serious concerns with?
“We are at the table right now, the Appropriations Committee, writing bipartisan spending bills. And we can and absolutely discuss bipartisan rescissions.
“Why don’t you join us and make that work easier, instead of making that work harder by passing this bill and setting a very painful new precedent.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Donald Norcross (1st District of New Jersey)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee and Member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Congressman Donald Norcross (D-NJ), advanced the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) out of committee and secured priorities that invest in South Jersey and increase national defense innovation. This is the 65th year that the NDAA, the largest authorization bill in Congress with a budget of $882.6 billion, passed out of committee, continuing the tradition of bipartisan cooperation on this bill.
“The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was passed out of committee is a commitment to our nation’s security and a steadfast investment in the courageous men and women in our armed forces. It ensures that we have what every commander wants for their troops: that they are manned, trained, and equipped with the best to carry out our nation’s mission and return home safely. It provides a $3.8% pay raise to all servicemembers and it cuts down on red tape to make certain that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to keep our country safe,” said Congressman DonaldNorcross. “This bipartisan legislation strengthens our industrial base, reinforces Buy American principles, supports our allies, and includes the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery (SPEED) Act to streamline procurement and decision-making. As ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strengthen our national defense, continue investing in our industrial base, and deliver for South Jersey.”
The FY26 NDAA improves military readiness and strengthens American industry by cutting red tape, fixing outdated systems, and supporting defense innovation. The FY26 NDAA also includes a 3.8% pay raise for all servicemembers and a 60 percent increase in the Family Separation Allowance which increases the monthly allowance to military families separated due to mission requirements.
Rep. Norcross authored an amendment that was adopted in a bipartisan vote to protect Department of Defense employees by restoring their collective bargaining rights after President Trump illegally issued an executive order that stripped these rights away.
Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA Priorities Secured by Rep. Norcross:
Over $618 million for CH-47 helicopters, which will be manufactured by South Jersey workers.
Over $2.5 billion for the KC-46 refueler aircraft, which flies out of Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst.
$5 million to Rowan University for research, development, and engineering to enable rapid entry and sustainment in the Arctic and other cold regions being conducted.
Protected Buy American principles, American jobs, and manufacturing by making sure defense programs continue using U.S.-made parts and materials, keeping our industrial base strong
Required a detailed Pentagon briefing on how it will spend reconciliation funds to strengthen and modernize the munitions industrial base, holding the Pentagon accountable for how it will use the funds.
Required a DoD study on the state of the skilled trade workforce essential to Navy shipbuilding to strengthen the training and workforce pipeline and increase our shipbuilding capacity.
Protected the E-7 Wedgetail program from cancellation, ensuring $800 million in continued investment in this critical airborne warning and control capability.
$9.9 million investment to enhance Army command and control for unmanned systems and their defense which will be developed by South Jersey workers.
$10 million for research and development of man-portable doppler radars for Army Network Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence (C3I) Technology.
$50 million to support U.S.-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
ALMATY, July 16 (Xinhua) — Construction of a new transport and logistics complex (TLC) “Tobyl” has begun in the northern Kazakh city of Kostanay, the press service of the Kazakh Prime Minister reported on Wednesday.
The area of the logistics complex will be 133.6 hectares, the total investment volume will be 64 billion tenge /about 121.3 million US dollars/.
The design capacity of the TLC “Tobyl” will be up to 400 thousand TEU (twenty-foot container equivalent) per year, or over 11 million tons of cargo.
The complex will be integrated into international transport corridors linking China, Central Asia, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe.
An increase in cargo turnover is expected on the Northern Kazakhstan – Southern Urals route and in the direction of China.
Completion of construction of the TLC “Tobyl” is planned for 2027. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — Israel launched intense air strikes on the presidential palace area in the Syrian capital Damascus on Wednesday, partially destroying the Syrian army’s headquarters, local media and eyewitnesses reported.
As noted, the strikes were directed against the interim authorities of Syria due to clashes between the government army and the Druze community in the province of As-Suwayda in the south of the country.
Israel carried out at least five airstrikes on Wednesday afternoon, mostly targeting the Syrian army’s General Command, destroying part of the building, according to local media and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Local television footage showed smoke rising from the headquarters in Umayyad Square in central Damascus.
Another strike hit the area of the Syrian presidential palace, Qasr al-Shaab, sending plumes of white smoke rising over the mountain on which the palace is located.
There have been no reports of casualties or official comments yet.
Following the previous strike on the headquarters early Wednesday morning, Syrian state television channel Al-Ikhbariya reported that two civilians were wounded as a result of “Israeli aggression.”
The Israeli military campaign is part of a larger effort to support the Druze community in As-Suwayda, where deadly clashes have escalated between local Druze militias, Bedouin tribes and interim government forces. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
LOS ANGELES — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested an Iranian national July 10 upon arriving at Los Angeles International Airport for U.S. export violations.
“The circumvention of export laws to provide Iran with U.S. origin sensitive technologies is a huge national security concern,” said Homeland Security Investigations Los Angeles Special Agent in Charge Eddy Wang. “This arrest has taken a dangerous member of an Iranian procurement network off the street.”
Bahram Mohammad Ostovari is alleged to have unlawfully exported U.S.-made electronic components used in railway signaling and telecommunications systems from the United States to an Iranian company by using his own companies in the United Arab Emirates as conduits.
Ostovari, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged with violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, unlawful export information activities, outbound smuggling, conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses and money laundering.
From May 2018 to July 2025, Ostovari and his co-conspirators obtained and shipped to Iran sophisticated computer processors and railway signaling equipment. Many of these items were controlled under federal regulations and their export to Iran without a license is prohibited.
After Ostovari became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in May 2020, he continued to export, sell, and supply electronics and electrical components to a Tehran-based engineering company he owned, operated, and controlled. This firm — identified in the indictment as “Company A” — secured contracts to supply signaling and communications systems to Iran and its government, including on projects for the Islamic Republic of Iran Railways.
Ostovari, aware of U.S. sanctions against Iran, directed a co-conspirator to provide false information to a federal export control officer regarding the end use of the U.S.-origin goods they were shipping.
Furthermore, he directed co-conspirators at a UAE company to acquire the electronics and other components, including U.S. export-controlled items and other U.S.-origin items, for his company in Iran. Ostovari and his co-conspirators intentionally concealed from companies based in the U.S. and elsewhere the true identifies of the ultimate end users of the goods by providing false and misleading information about those end users.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
If convicted, Ostovari would face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for each count.
This is a collaborative investigation between ICE HSI Los Angeles, the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations.
Anyone with information on the illegal export of U.S. sensitive technologies is encouraged to call the ICE Tip Line at 1-866-347-2423.
Learn more about HSI’s mission to investigate violations of U.S. export laws at @HSILosAngeles.
The Secretary-General is alarmed by the continued escalation of violence in Suweida, a Druze-majority area, which has reportedly claimed the lives of hundreds of people, including civilians, and injured and displaced many more.
He unequivocally condemns all violence against civilians, including reports of arbitrary killings and acts that fan the flames of sectarian tensions and rob the people of Syria of their opportunity for peace and reconciliation after fourteen years of brutal conflict.
He extends his heartfelt condolences to all Syrians and reiterates his call for an immediate de-escalation of violence and urgent measures to restore calm and facilitate humanitarian access.
The Secretary-General takes note of the statement by the Office of the Presidency condemning the violations and committing to investigating and holding to account those responsible for them. He reiterates his appeal for the transparency of the process.
The Secretary-General further condemns Israel’s escalatory airstrikes on Suweida, Daraa and in the center of Damascus, as well as reports of the IDF’s redeployment of forces in the Golan. He calls for an immediate cessation of all violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for respect for the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement.
The Secretary-General reiterates that it is imperative to support a credible, orderly and inclusive political transition in Syria in line with the key principles of Security Council resolution 2254 (2015).
“I am outraged by the brutal murder of Saif Musallet, a Palestinian American, by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. There must be a full investigation, and those responsible must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
“Since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, I have repeatedly warned of the dangers of escalating violence against Palestinian civilians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. This conduct erodes democracy in Israel and the possibility of peace in the region, and I urge the Israeli government to enforce the rule of law by ensuring accountability for those who perpetrated this act.
“My heart goes out to Saif’s family. I will continue to push for justice and democracy in the West Bank in pursuit of a lasting peace in the region.”
Israel’s military said it struck the entrance to the Syrian defence ministry in Damascus on Wednesday, stepping up attacks on the Islamist-led authorities with the declared aim of protecting the Druze minority from harm by government forces.
It marked the third day in a row that Israel has struck Syria where government security forces have clashed with local Druze fighters in the southern city of Sweida.
Security sources from within the defence ministry told Reuters that at least two drone strikes had hit the building and that officers were taking cover in the basement. State-owned Elekhbariya TV said the Israeli strike wounded two civilians.
The Israeli military said it had “struck the entrance gate of the Syrian regime’s military headquarters complex” in Damascus and that it continued “to monitor developments and the actions being taken against Druze civilians in southern Syria”.
Syria’s state media and witnesses said Israeli strikes throughout Wednesday also struck the predominantly Druze city of Sweida, where a fourth day of fighting swiftly collapsed a ceasefire announced the previous evening.
Syrian government troops were dispatched to the Sweida region on Monday to quell fighting between Druze fighters and Bedouin armed men but ended up clashing with the Druze militias themselves.
Local news outlet Sweida24 said the city of Sweida and nearby villages were coming under heavy artillery and mortar fire early on Wednesday. Syria’s defence ministry, in a statement carried by state news agency SANA, blamed outlaw groups in Sweida for breaching the truce.
The defence ministry called on residents of the city to stay indoors. Some residents that Reuters was able to reach by phone said they were holed up at home in fear with no electricity.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — A new ceasefire agreement was reached between Syria’s interim government and Druze leaders in the southern province of As-Suwayda on Wednesday, aiming to end days of deadly clashes and return the province to full government control, the Syrian government said. -0-
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
When the FIFA World Cup hits North America in June 2026, 48 teams and millions of soccer fans will be traveling to and from venues spread across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
It’s a dramatic expansion – 16 more teams will be playing than in recent years, with a jump from 64 to 104 matches. The tournament is projected to bring in over US$10 billion in revenue. But the expansion will also mean a lot more travel and other activities that contribute to climate change.
The environmental impacts of giant sporting events like the World Cup create a complex paradox for an industry grappling with its future in a warming world.
A sustainability conundrum
Sports are undeniably experiencing the effects of climate change. Rising global temperatures are putting athletes’ health at risk during summer heat waves and shortening winter sports seasons. Many of the 2026 World Cup venues often see heat waves in June and early July, when the tournament is scheduled.
Some athletes are speaking out for more sustainable choices and have called on lawmakers to take steps to limit climate-warming emissions. At the same time, the sport industry is growing and facing a constant push to increase revenue. The NCAA is also considering expanding its March Madness basketball tournaments from 68 teams currently to as many as 76.
Park Yong-woo of team Al Ain from Abu Dhabi tries to cool off during a Club World Cup match on June 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C., which was in the midst of a heat wave. Some players have raised concerns about likely high temperatures during the 2026 World Cup, with matches scheduled June 11 to July 19. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson
Estimates for the 2026 World Cup show what large tournament expansions can mean for the climate. A report from Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that the expanded World Cup could generate over 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, nearly double the average of the past four World Cups.
This massive increase – and the increase that would come if the NCAA basketball tournaments also expand – would primarily be driven by air travel as fans and players fly among event cities that are thousands of miles apart.
A lot of money is at stake, but so is the climate
Sports are big business, and adding more matches to events like the World Cup and NCAA tournaments will likely lead to larger media rights contracts and greater gate receipts from more fans attending the events, boosting revenues. These are powerful financial incentives.
In the NCAA’s case, there is another reason to consider a larger tournament: The House v. NCAA settlement opened the door for college athletic departments to share revenue with athletes, which will significantly increase costs for many college programs. More teams would mean more television revenue and, crucially, more revenue to be distributed to member NCAA institutions and their athletic conferences.
When climate promises become greenwashing
The inherent conflict between maximizing profit through growth and minimizing environmental footprint presents a dilemma for sports.
Several sport organizations have promised to reduce their impact on the climate, including signing up for initiatives like the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework.
However, as sports tournaments and exhibition games expand, it can become increasingly hard for sports organizations to meet their climate commitments. In some cases, groups making sustainability commitments have been accused of greenwashing, suggesting the goals are more about public relations than making genuine, measurable changes.
For example, FIFA’s early claims that it would hold a “fully carbon-neutral” World Cup in Qatar in 2022 were challenged by a group of European countries that accused soccer’s world governing body of underestimating emissions. The Swiss Fairness Commission, which monitors fairness in advertising, considered the complaints and determined that FIFA’s claims could not be substantiated.
Alessandro Bastoni, of Inter Milan and Italy’s national team, prepares to board a flight from Milan to Rome with his team. Mattia Ozbot-Inter/Inter via Getty Images
Aviation is often the biggest driver of emissions. A study that colleagues and I conducted on the NCAA men’s basketball tournament found about 80% of its emissions were connected to travel. And that was after the NCAA began using the pod system, which is designed to keep teams closer to home for the first and second rounds.
These solutions are frankly not practical, in my view, nor do they align with other positive developments. The growing popularity of women’s sports shows the challenge in limiting sports events – more games expands participation but adds to the industry’s overall footprint.
Further compounding the challenges of reducing environmental impact is the amount of fan travel, which is outside the direct control of the sports organization or event organizers.
Many fans will follow their teams long distances, especially for mega-events like the World Cup or the NCAA tournament. During the men’s World Cup in Russia in 2018, more than 840,000 fans traveled from other countries. The top countries by number of fans, after Russia, were China, the U.S., Mexico and Argentina.
There is an argument that distributed sporting events like March Madness or the World Cup can be better in some ways for local environments because they don’t overwhelm a single city. However, merely spreading the impact does not necessarily reduce it, particularly when considering the effects on climate change.
How fans can cut their environmental footprint
Sport organizations and event planners can take steps to be more sustainable and also encourage more sustainable choices among fans. Fans can reduce their environmental impact in a variety of ways. For example:
Avoid taking airplanes for shorter distances, such as between FIFA venues in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and carpool or take Amtrak instead. Planes can be more efficient for long distances, but air travel is still a major contributing factor to emissions.
While in a host city, use mass transit or rent electric vehicles or bicycles for local travel.
Consider sustainable accommodations, such as short-term rentals that might have a smaller environmental footprint than a hotel. Or stay at a certified green hotel that makes an effort to be more efficient in its use of water and energy.
Engage in sustainable pregame and postgame activities, such as choosing local, sustainable food options, and minimize waste.
You can also pay to offset carbon emissions for attending different sporting events, much like concertgoers do when they attend musical festivals. While critics question offsets’ true environmental benefit, they do represent people’s growing awareness of their environmental footprint.
Through all these options, it’s clear that sports face a significant challenge in addressing their environmental impacts and encouraging fans to be more sustainable, while simultaneously trying to meet ambitious business and environmental targets.
In my view, a sustainable path forward will require strategic, yet genuine, commitment by the sports industry and its fans, and a willingness to prioritize long-term planetary health alongside economic gains – balancing the sport and sustainability.
Brian P. McCullough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Golden oyster mushrooms, with their sunny yellow caps and nutty flavor, have become wildly popular for being healthy, delicious and easy to grow at home from mushroom kits.
In a study we believe is the first of its kind, fellow mycologists and I demonstrate that an invasive fungus can cause environmental harm, just as invasive plants and animals can when they take over ecosystems.
A scientist documents golden oyster mushrooms growing wild in a Wisconsin forest, where these invasive fungi don’t belong. DNA tests showed the species had pushed out other native fungi. Aishwarya Veerabahu
Native mushrooms and other fungi are important for the health of many ecosystems. They break down dead wood and other plant material, helping it decay. They cycle nutrients such as carbon and nitrogen from the dead tissues of plants and animals, turning it into usable forms that enter the soil, atmosphere or their own bodies. Fungi also play a role in managing climate change by sequestering carbon in soil and mediating carbon emissions from soil and wood.
Their symbiotic relationships with other organisms also help other organisms thrive. Mycorrhizal fungi on roots, for example, help plants absorb water and nutrients. And wood decay fungi help create wooded habitats for birds, mammals and plant seedlings.
However, we found that invasive golden oyster mushrooms, a wood decay fungus, can threaten forests’ fungal biodiversity and harm the health of ecosystems that are already vulnerable to climate change and habitat destruction.
The dark side of the mushroom trade
Golden oyster mushrooms, native to Asia, were brought to North America around the early 2000s. They’re part of an international mushroom culinary craze that has been feeding into one of the world’s leading drivers of biodiversity loss: invasive species.
As fungi are moved around the world in global trade, either intentionally as products, such as kits people buy for growing mushrooms at home, or unintentionally as microbial stowaways along with soil, plants, timber and even shipping pallets, they can establish themselves in new environments.
Where golden oyster mushrooms, an invasive species in North America, have been reported in the wild, including in forests, parks and neighborhoods. Red dots indicate new reports each year. States in yellow have had a report at some point. Aishwarya Veerabahu
Many mushroom species have been cultivated in North America for decades without becoming invasive species threats. However, golden oyster mushrooms have been different.
No one knows exactly how golden oyster mushrooms escaped into the wild, whether from a grow kit, a commercial mushroom farm or outdoor logs inoculated with golden oysters – a home-cultivation technique where mushroom mycelium is placed into logs to colonize the wood and produce mushrooms.
As grow kits increased in popularity, many people began buying golden oyster kits and watching them blossom into beautiful yellow mushrooms in their backyards. Their spores or composted kits could have spread into nearby forests.
In our study, designed by Michelle Jusino and Mark Banik, research scientists with the U.S. Forest Service, our team went into forests around Madison, Wisconsin, and drilled into dead trees to collect wood shavings containing the natural fungal community within each tree. Some of the trees had golden oyster mushrooms on them, and some did not.
We then extracted DNA to identify and compare which fungi, and how many fungi, were in trees that had been invaded by golden oyster mushrooms compared with those that had not been.
We were startled to find that trees with golden oyster mushrooms housed only half as many fungal species as trees without golden oyster mushrooms, sometimes even less. We also found that the composition of fungi in trees with golden oyster mushrooms was different from trees without golden oyster mushrooms.
For example, the gentle green “mossy maze polypore” and the “elm oyster” mushroom were pushed out of trees invaded by golden oyster mushrooms.
Mossy maze polypore growing on a stump. This is one of the native species that disappeared from trees when the golden oyster mushroom moved in. mauriziobiso/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Given what my colleagues and I discovered, we believe it is time to include invasive fungi in the global conversation about invasive species and examine their role as a cause of biodiversity loss.
That conversation includes the idea of fungal “endemism” – that each place has a native fungal community that can be thrown out of balance. Native fungal communities tend to be diverse, having evolved together over thousands of years to coexist. Our research shows how invasive species can change the makeup of fungal communities by outcompeting native species, thus changing the fungal processes that have shaped native ecosystems.
The golden oyster mushrooms’ invasion of North America should serve as a bright yellow warning that nonnative fungi are capable of rapid invasion and should be cultivated with caution, if at all.
Golden oyster mushrooms are now recognized as invasive in Switzerland and can be found in forests in Italy, Hungary, Serbia and Germany. I have been hearing about people attempting to cultivate them around the world, including in Turkey, India, Ecuador, Kenya, Italy and Portugal. It’s possible that golden oyster mushrooms may not be able to establish invasive populations in some regions. Continued research will help us understand the full scope of impacts invasive fungi can have.
What you can do to help
Mushroom growers, businesses and foragers around the world may be asking themselves, “What can we do about it?”
For the time being, I recommend that people consider refraining from using golden oyster mushroom grow kits to prevent any new introductions. For people who make a living selling these mushrooms, consider adding a note that this species is invasive and should be cultivated indoors and not composted.
If you enjoy growing mushrooms at home, try cultivating safe, native species that you have collected in your region.
Most mushrooms you see in the grocery store are grown indoors.
There is no single right answer. In some places, golden oyster mushrooms are being cultivated as a food source for impoverished communities, for income, or to process agricultural waste and produce food at the same time. Positives like these will have to be considered alongside the mushrooms’ negative impacts when developing management plans or legislation.
In the future, some ideas for solutions could involve sporeless strains of golden oysters for home kits that can’t spread, or a targeted mycovirus that could control the population. Increased awareness about responsible cultivation practices is important, because when invasive species move in and disrupt the native biodiversity, we all stand to lose the beautiful, colorful, weird fungi we see on walks in the forest.
Aishwarya Veerabahu receives funding from UW-Madison Dept. of Botany, the UW Arboretum, the Society of Ecological Restoration, and the Garden Club of America. Aishwarya Veerabahu was an employee of the USDA Forest Service.
But what makes a power “great” in the realm of international relations?
Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.
The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.
Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.
This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state’s control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.
From great to ‘super’
Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.
In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.
During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era’s two “superpowers,” dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.
Toward a multipolar world
The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.
However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.
In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.
And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.
Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.
Challenging greatness
Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today’s great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.
Instead, today’s great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.
Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.
As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.
Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.
Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Conflict in Syria has escalated with Israel launching bombing raids against its northern neighbour.
It follows months of fluctuating tensions in southern Syria between the Druze minority and forces aligned with the new government in Damascus. Clashes erupted in the last few days, prompting Israeli airstrikes in defence of the Druze by targeting government bases, tanks, and heavy weaponry.
a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay.
Despite the incendiary language, a ceasefire has been reached, halting the fighting – for now.
Syrian forces have begun withdrawing heavy military equipment from the region, while Druze fighters have agreed to suspend armed resistance, allowing government troops to regain control of the main Druze city of Suwayda.
What do the Druze want?
The Druze are a small religious minority estimated at over one million people, primarily concentrated in the mountainous regions of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan.
In Syria, their population is estimated at around 700,000 (of around 23 million total Syrian population), with the majority residing in the southern As-Suwayda Governorate – or province – which serves as their traditional stronghold.
Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, the Druze have maintained a degree of autonomy, successfully defending their territory from various threats, including ISIS and other jihadist groups.
They advocate for a decentralised model that would grant greater autonomy to regional communities.
However, the transitional government in Damascus is pushing for a centralised state and seeking to reassert full control over the entire Syrian territory. This fundamental disagreement has led to periodic clashes between Druze forces and government-aligned troops.
Despite the temporary ceasefire, tensions remain high. Given the core political dispute remains unresolved, many expect renewed conflict to erupt in the near future.
Why is Israel involved?
The ousting of the Assad regime created a strategic opening for Israel to expand its influence in southern Syria. Israel’s involvement is driven by two primary concerns:
1. Securing its northern border
Israel views the power vacuum in Syria’s south as a potential threat, particularly the risk of anti-Israeli militias establishing a foothold near its northern border.
The Israeli Defence Forces will not allow a military threat to exist in southern Syria and will act against it.
Likewise, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has stated he will not allow Syrian forces south of Damascus:
We are acting to prevent the Syrian regime from harming them [the Druze] and to ensure the demilitarisation of the area adjacent to our border with Syria.
In line with these warnings, the Israeli Air Force has conducted extensive strikes against Syrian military infrastructure, targeting bases, aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry.
These operations are intended to prevent any future buildup of military capacity that could be used against Israel from the Syrian side of the border.
2. Supporting a federated Syria
Israel is backing the two prominent allied minorities in Syria — the Kurds in the northeast and the Druze in the south — in their push for a federal governance model.
A fragmented Syria, divided along ethnic and religious lines, is seen by some Israeli policymakers as a way to maintain Israeli domination in the region.
This vision is part of what some Israeli officials have referred to as a “New Middle East” — one where regional stability and normalisation emerge through reshaped borders and alliances.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently echoed this strategy, stating:
A single Syrian state with effective control and sovereignty over all its territory is unrealistic.
For Israel, the logical path forward is autonomy for the various minorities in Syria within a federal structure.
The United States’ role?
According to unconfirmed reports, Washington has privately urged Israel to scale back its military strikes on Syria in order to prevent further escalation and preserve regional stability.
The US is promoting increased support for Syria’s new regime in an effort to help it reassert control and stabilise the country.
There are also indications the US and its allies are encouraging the Syrian government to move toward normalisation with Israel. Reports suggest Tel Aviv has held talks with the new Sharaa-led regime about the possibility of Syria joining the Abraham Accords (diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab states), which the regime in Damascus appears open to.
US Special Envoy Tom Barrack has described the recent clashes as “worrisome”, calling for de-escalation and emphasising the need for
a peaceful, inclusive outcome for all stakeholders – including the Druze, Bedouin tribes, the Syrian government, and Israeli forces.
Given the deep-rooted political divisions, competing regional agendas, and unresolved demands from minority groups, the unrest in southern Syria is unlikely to end soon.
Despite another temporary ceasefire, underlying tensions remain. Further clashes are not only possible but highly probable.
Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.