Category: Donald Trump

  • MIL-OSI Global: Russia is facing fresh sanctions, but Putin is used to dealing with a struggling economy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yerzhan Tokbolat, Lecturer in Finance, Queen’s University Belfast

    The UK and the EU have agreed to hit Russia with a raft of new economic sanctions after hopes of a ceasefire with Ukraine came to nothing. One French minister commented that it is time to “suffocate” the Russian economy.

    Since the country’s fullscale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that economy has certainly suffered. Sanctions on Russia have already led to a depreciation of the rouble, high inflation, very high interest rates and a stagnating economy.

    But it remains unclear what effect any new measures will have. And Vladimir Putin has a history of riding out economic hardship.

    When he became president of Russia just over 25 years ago, the country’s economy was in dire straits. Attempts by his predecessors Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to build a more open and capitalist system had not worked well for most Russian citizens.

    Instead, a rapid wave of privatisations, which reformers hoped would build strong institutions, had mostly benefited a small group of oligarchs who exploited a weak and corrupt state to seize key oil, gas and mineral assets.

    Those oligarchs resisted legal reform, moved wealth abroad, failed to invest in the domestic economy, and gradually gained control of major corporations and media, expanding their political influence. By 1995, nearly half of Russians were living in poverty.

    The 1998 crisis worsened the situation, as a global recession and falling commodity prices led to fiscal imbalances and doubts about Russia’s ability to service its debt and uphold the fixed exchange rate. The central bank raised interest rates to 150% to try and stabilise the rouble, but this failed.

    It eventually allowed the rouble to float, and the currency lost about two-thirds of its value. When he came to power in 2000, Putin was then confronted with the challenge of rebuilding the Russian economy.

    Luckily for him, between 2000 and 2008, an oil and gas boom drove GDP growth, increasing incomes, and allowing for early repayment of national debts. Putin – and national pride – received a boost.

    Rising energy revenues helped stabilise the economy and enabled the state to tighten its grip on the energy sector. By 2006, Gazprom accounted for 20% of government tax revenue.

    Putin then shifted his focus to Europe. With German support, the Nord Stream pipeline was completed in 2011, enabling direct gas exports to western Europe while bypassing Ukraine. This increased European dependence on Russian energy.

    But Putin’s oil and gas-driven economic model struggled to sustain growth, and by 2013, his approval ratings had fallen to their lowest point since 2000.

    The annexation of Crimea in 2014, along with a very expensive Winter Olympics in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, temporarily boosted his popularity.

    Running on empty

    However, these accomplishments did little to address Russia’s core economic problems, particularly its failure to build a diversified economy.

    By 2018, Russia’s economy was again stagnant, with a weak currency and declining living standards, and Putin’s popularity fell in part due to unpopular budget-saving reforms, including raising the retirement age.

    There was widespread doubt about Putin’s model of lasting prosperity, which relied on state-led growth, but was marked by instability, resource dependence and growing geopolitical ambition.

    In this light, Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 appeared to be a familiar tactic to boost support. Indeed, his approval jumped to 83% after invading Ukraine, matching levels seen after the 2014 Crimea annexation. His ratings have remained high since, with recent polls still showing approval levels above 80%.

    But the Russian economy will still be a worry. Sustaining a “war economy”, where manufacturing and investment are focused on conflict cannot go on forever, particularly as the manufacturing product is being rapidly depleted as the Russian military uses it the field. And reliance on commodities has amplified the impact of sanctions, hitting key banks and energy firms such as Gazprom and Rosneft.

    Meanwhile, the US has significantly expanded its presence in Europe’s energy market, supplying nearly 50% of the EU’s liquid natural gas imports after tripling exports between 2021 and 2023.

    Major Russian pipeline projects such as Nord Stream 2 and Power of Siberia 2 remain in limbo. And the decline in oil prices in April 2025, the biggest since November 2021, poses further risks.

    If a ceasefire is agreed, a pause in the war could offer Russia the chance to regroup and recover economically. Sanctions are often temporary, and global demand for oil and gas remains strong. Some countries may re-engage in trade.

    But future economic stagnation could once again fuel aggression. Unless Russia undertakes structural reforms and redefines its role in the global economy by reducing reliance on resource exports and engaging more constructively with global markets, the cycle of confrontation may repeat itself, with far-reaching global consequences.

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

    ref. Russia is facing fresh sanctions, but Putin is used to dealing with a struggling economy – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-facing-fresh-sanctions-but-putin-is-used-to-dealing-with-a-struggling-economy-255732

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: History shows that Donald Trump is making a serious error in appeasing Vladimir Putin

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham University

    The policy of appeasement – strategic concessions to an aggressor that are designed to avoid war – is generally most closely associated in the UK with the Conservative leader Neville Chamberlain, prime minister between May 1937 and May 1940.

    When Chamberlain moved into 10 Downing Street, Adolf Hitler’s willingness to ignore international agreements was already apparent, having broken the Versailles treaty with a massive expansion of Germany’s armed forces, the occupation of the Rhineland.

    Faced with the prospect of Germany moving on Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain continued to work to appease Hitler by agreeing to territorial concessions in his favour. He believed that by appeasing the Führer, Europe could avoid war and save lives.

    Chamberlain’s failure, and the subsequent outbreak of the second world war after Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, are recognised as evidence that the appeasement of expansionist nationalists always fails. Such leaders will simply take all that is offered and demand more.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    There are parallels with the relationship between the current US president, Donald Trump, and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Trump and his senior officials have also repeatedly suggested that Ukraine should secure a peace deal by acquiescing to Putin’s demands, including for sovereign Ukrainian territory and assurances that Ukraine won’t be allowed to join Nato.

    This makes it seem as if Trump believes that peace can be achieved by appeasing Putin. Like Chamberlain at Munich, Trump has suggested offering the sovereign territory of an independent nation to appease a bully.

    Trump is not the first American president to make this mistake. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served between March 1933 and April 1945, also tried to appease Hitler. The historian Frederick W. Marks III notes that “the keynote of his approach … beginning in 1933 was appeasement”.

    Before he was inaugurated, Roosevelt sought to persuade Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador to the US between 1930 and 1939, that Poland should be persuaded to concede the Polish Corridor to Germany. When German troops seized the Rhineland, Roosevelt’s White House made no protest.

    Between 1935 and 1937, Roosevelt made speeches condemning autocracy – but his actions did not match his words. In 1938, he appointed the appeaser Joseph Kennedy as US ambassador to the UK. Kennedy assured the German ambassador in London that he “sympathised not only with Germany’s racial policy but also with her economic goals”.

    In Berlin, the US ambassador, Hugh Wilson, insisted that defence of Czechoslovakia’s borders would be unrealistic. The Czechs should surrender the Sudetenland to Germany. Roosevelt continued his efforts to arrange a compromise peace when German forces seized Poland in September 1939.

    Echoes of the past

    The parallels continue. Confronted by Russia’s invasion of its democratic neighbour and relentless attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities, Trump’s response, shortly after taking office, was to bully the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and negotiate directly with Russia. This approach signally failed and the killing continued and even intensified.

    Now, following his two-hour conversation with Putin on Monday, Trump has abandoned his insistence on an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. He now insists that the war is not his to fix. The US will step back. It is another hard blow to Ukrainian hopes for negotiation and compromise.




    Read more:
    After another call with Putin, it looks like Trump has abandoned efforts to mediate peace in Ukraine


    To a much greater extent than Roosevelt, Trump appears to treat weakness as evidence of moral inadequacy. In a recent essay, Ivan Mikloš, the former deputy prime minister of Slovakia who has advised successive Ukrainian governments in various capacities, writes of what he sees as Trump’s “affinity for the Kremlin boss”. Miklos believes that Trump admires Putin, and concludes that:

    President Putin, of course, sees that Mr Trump has a soft spot for him. This does not deter him in his maximalist demands, it encourages him even more.

    The US president’s treatment of Zelensky in the Oval Office at the end of February, and repeated statements since, suggest he lacks the patience for diplomacy – a concern that has been widely reported. Trump is said to admire Putin because the Russian president exercises power with minimal restraint.

    Meanwhile, Zelensky must plead for the military and financial support he requires to continue fighting a foe with a population four times larger.

    Lessons from history

    There is scant evidence that Trump pays attention to history. He should, because for Putin, history is central to strategy. A graduate of law who studied at Leningrad State University, graduating in 1975, Putin appears to have embraced an idealist version of his homeland as it operated in his youth as the Soviet Union – under the hardline leadership of Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko.

    That Soviet Union included all of the territory of modern Ukraine. Putin aspires to recapture it. His vision is a Russia restored to a status comparable to that of the Soviet Union during the cold war years of his youth.

    Trump appears to forget that throughout the cold war, the Soviet Union’s powerful armed forces and ideological hostility to democracy cost the US an average of 3.6% of its GDP in defence spending each year. It’s one thing for Trump to demand that the European members of Nato must increase their defence budgets. It’s another to imagine that Nato can immediately provide a reliable deterrent to Russian aggression without US involvement.

    Trump’s newly appointed defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, suggested at a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Brussels in February that the US would reorientate its security policy away from Europe, saying Europe must “take ownership of conventional security on the continent”.

    This is essential, Hegseth said, because China is the real threat, and the US lacks the military resources to face in two directions simultaneously. It was a confession of weakness that places both America and Europe at increased risk.

    The philosopher George Santayana is credited with the warning: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”. Chamberlain’s version of appeasement failed to prevent Adolf Hitler’s aggression in the 20th century. Trump’s version appears equally incapable of deterring Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions in the 21st.

    Tim Luckhurst has received funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a member of the Society of Editors and the Free Speech Union

    ref. History shows that Donald Trump is making a serious error in appeasing Vladimir Putin – https://theconversation.com/history-shows-that-donald-trump-is-making-a-serious-error-in-appeasing-vladimir-putin-257252

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s proposed Golden Dome missile defence system – an expert explains the technical challenges involved

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack O’Doherty, PhD Candidate in Nuclear Strategy, University of Leicester

    The Trump administration’s recent announcement of a “Golden Dome” strategic missile defence shield to protect the US is the most ambitious such project since President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) of the 1980s.

    The SDI programme – better known by its somewhat mocking nickname of “Star Wars” – sparked a heated debate over its technical feasibility. Ultimately, it would never become operational. But do we now have the technologies to realise the Golden Dome shield – or is this initiative similarly destined to be shelved?

    A completed Golden Dome missile defence shield would supposedly defend the US against the full spectrum of air and missile threats, including long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and those with shorter ranges – any of which could be armed with nuclear warheads.

    But Golden Dome would also aim to work against cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons such as boost-glide vehicles, which use a rocket to reach hypersonic speeds (more than five times the speed of sound) before continuing their trajectory unpowered.

    The missile defence shield could theoretically also protect against warheads placed in space that can be commanded to re-enter the atmosphere and destroy targets on Earth – known as fractional orbital bombardment systems.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Ballistic missiles arguably pose the biggest threat because of the sheer numbers in the hands of other nuclear armed nations. ICBMs follow a three-phase trajectory: the boost, midcourse and terminal phases.

    The boost phase consists of a few minutes of powered flight as the missile’s rocket engines propel it into space. In the midcourse phase, the missile travels unpowered through space for about 20-25 minutes. Finally, during the terminal phase, the missile re-enters the atmosphere and hits the target.

    Plans for the Golden Dome are likely to involve defensive weapons that target ballistic missiles during all three phases of their trajectory.

    Boost-phase missile defence is attractive because it would only require shooting down a single target. During the midcourse phase, the ballistic missile will deploy its warhead – the section that includes the explosive charge – but could also release several decoy warheads. Even with the best radar systems, discriminating the real warhead from the decoys is incredibly difficult.

    One part of Golden Dome will involve targeting ballistic missiles during their boost phase.
    US Air Force

    However, there are big questions over the technical feasibility of targeting ballistic missiles during their boost phase – and there is also a limited time window, given that this phase is relatively short.

    The weapons platforms designed to target a ballistic missile in its boost phase could consist of a large satellite in low-Earth orbit, armed with multiple small missiles called interceptors. An interceptor could be deployed if a nuclear armed ballistic missile is launched at the US.

    One study conducted by the American Physical Society suggested that, under generous assumptions, a space-based interceptor platform might be able to destroy a target from 530 miles (850km) away. This measure is known as the weapon’s “kill radius”.

    Even with a kill radius of this size, a space-based interceptor system would require hundreds or even thousands of satellites, each armed with small missiles to achieve effective regional coverage. It might be possible to get round this constraint, though, by using directed-energy weapons such as powerful lasers or even particle beam weapons, which use high-energy beams of atomic or subatomic particles.

    A critical vulnerability of such a system, however, is that an adversary could use anti-satellite weapons – missiles launched from the ground – or other offensive actions such as cyberattacks to destroy or disable some of the interceptor satellites. This could establish a temporary corridor for an adversary’s ballistic missile to pass through.

    ‘Brilliant Pebbles’

    An idea for a space-based boost-phase defence system called Brilliant Pebbles was proposed towards the end of the 1980s. Rather than having large satellites with multiple missiles, it entailed having around 1,000 small individual missiles in orbit. It would have also used about 60 orbiting sensors called Brilliant Eyes to detect launches.

    Brilliant Pebbles was cancelled by President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1994. But it provides another template for technologies that could be used by Golden Dome.

    Options for destroying ballistic missiles during the midcourse of their trajectories include existing weapons systems such as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and the US Navy’s ship-based Aegis platform.

    Unlike midcourse-phase missile defence (which must cover a large geographical area), terminal-phase interception is a last line of defence. It usually involves destroying incoming warheads that have re-entered the atmosphere from space.

    A plan for destroying single warheads during the terminal trajectory phase could use future versions of existing weapons platforms, such as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 Missile Segment Enhancement or the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.

    However, while there has been progress in this technology in the decades since Star Wars was proposed, the debate continues over whether these systems work effectively.

    Ultimately, it is the huge costs, as well as political opposition, that could pose the biggest hurdles to implementing an effective Golden Dome system. Trump’s proposal has revived the idea of missile defence in the US. But it remains unclear whether its most ambitious components will ever be realised.

    Jack O’Doherty is affiliated with the NATO Defense College, as a Junior Associate Fellow.

    ref. Trump’s proposed Golden Dome missile defence system – an expert explains the technical challenges involved – https://theconversation.com/trumps-proposed-golden-dome-missile-defence-system-an-expert-explains-the-technical-challenges-involved-257473

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Trump’s ratings slide, polling data reveals the scale of Fox News’s influence on US politics

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

    Donald Trump’s ratings continue to slide on most issues. Recent Economist/YouGov polling across the US, completed on May 9-12, shows 51% think the country is on the wrong track, while only 45% have a favourable impression of his job as president. On inflation and prices in the shops, only 35% approve of his handling of this policy.

    Trump seems to be scoring particularly badly with young voters. Around 62% of young people (18 to 29s) have an unfavourable opinion of the president, compared with 53% of the over-65s.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pursue an agenda to close down, or shackle, much of the media it considers not on his side.

    Funding for national public service radio NPR and television PBS, as well as the global news service Voice of America, is under threat. Some national news outlets are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their coverage.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    In a speech in March, Trump said broadcasters CNN and MSNBC, and some newspapers he didn’t name “literally write 97.6% bad about me”. He added: “It has to stop. It has to be illegal.”

    The Trump team clearly see the role of the media as important to establishing and retaining support, and have taken steps to shake up White House coverage – including by changing who can attend the White House press pool.

    About seven in ten members of the American public say they are following the news for updates on the Trump administration. It is interesting, therefore, to consider the role of the media in influencing Trump’s popularity, and insights can be found in the massive US Cooperative Election Study, conducted during the presidential contest last year.

    That survey showed 57% of Americans had watched TV news in the previous 24 hours. Around 81% had used social media during the same period, but only 20% had used it to comment on politics.

    There is a lot of attention being paid to fake news on the internet, which is helping to cause polarisation in the US. But when it comes to news about politics, TV coverage is still very important for most Americans.

    The survey asked respondents about the TV news channels they watched, and Fox News came out on top with 47% of the viewers. ABC came second with 37%, and CBS and CNN tied on 35%. Fox News is Trump’s favourite TV station, with its rightwing populist agenda and regular output of Trump-friendly news.

    Relationship between Trump voters and Fox News’s audience in 2024 US presidential election:


    Source: Author graph based on Cooperative Election Study 2024, CC BY

    The Cooperative Election Study had 60,000 respondents, which provides reasonably sized samples in each of the 50 states. The Trump vote varied quite a lot across states, with only 34% of voters in Maryland supporting him, compared with 72% in Wyoming. The electoral college formally decides the results of presidential elections, and this is based on states – so, looking at voting in this way can be quite revealing.

    The connection between watching Fox News and Trump’s vote share can be seen in the chart above. It varies from 21% who watched the channel in Vermont to 60% in West Virginia.

    Vermont is represented in Congress by Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from a radical political tradition, and only 32% voted for Trump there. In contrast, West Virginia is part of the rust belt of impoverished states hit by deindustrialisation and the decline of the coal mining industry, and 71% voted for Trump there.

    We can use a regression model (which looks at the relationship between variables) to predict support for Trump using key measures that drive the vote share for Trump in each state. The model uses three variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy, which means while not perfect, it gives a very accurate prediction of Trump’s vote.

    Not surprisingly, partisanship – that is, the percentage of registered Republicans in each state – is one of the key metrics. In addition, ideology – the percentage of respondents who say they are conservatives – is another.

    Perhaps more surprisingly, the third important predictor is viewership of Fox News. The relationship between watching the channel and voting for Trump is very strong at the state level. Also, the more time people spend watching the channel, the more likely they are to have voted for Trump.

    Impact of key factors on Trump voting in 2024 US election:


    Source: Author based on Cooperative Election Study , CC BY

    This chart calculates the relationship between watching Fox News and other factors and the strength of a state’s support for Trump in 2024. If a variable is a perfect predictor of Trump voting, it would score 1.0 on the scale. If it is a perfect non-predictor, it would score 0.

    So, the most important predictor of being a Trump voter was the presence of conservatives in a state, followed by the percentage of registered Republicans, and the third was watching Fox News. A high score on all three meant greater support for Trump.

    To illustrate this, 45% of Texans considered themselves conservatives, 33% were registered Republicans, and 51% watched Fox News. Using these measures, the model predicts that 57% would vote for Trump. In fact, 56% voted for him in that state in 2024. So, while the prediction was not perfect, it was very close.

    A similar predictive model can be used to forecast former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s vote shares by state. In her case, we need four variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy – the percentage of registered Democrats, liberals and moderates in a state, and also Fox News viewership.

    Not surprisingly in Harris’s case, the relationship between Fox News viewing and voting is strongly negative (correlation = -0.64). When viewership was high, the Harris vote was low.

    Years ago, the “fairness doctrine” used to mandate US broadcasters to fairly reflect different viewpoints on controversial issues in their coverage. Candidates for public office were entitled to equal air time.

    But this rule was removed by the FCC in 1987, and has led to an era of some broadcasters becoming far more partisan. The FCC decision followed a period of debate and challenges to the fairness doctrine. This led to its abolition under Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who inspired Project 2025 – the document that in turn appears to be inspiring the Trump government’s policy agenda.

    When the Trump era is over, incumbent Democrats are going to have to repair US institutions that this administration has damaged. If they want to do something about the polarisation of US politics, they may also need to restore the fairness doctrine.

    Had it not been removed in the first place, it is possible that Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election, since Fox News would not exist in its present form. Whatever happens next, the US media is likely to play an important role.

    Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

    ref. As Trump’s ratings slide, polling data reveals the scale of Fox News’s influence on US politics – https://theconversation.com/as-trumps-ratings-slide-polling-data-reveals-the-scale-of-fox-newss-influence-on-us-politics-256274

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner & Kaine: Under GOP Tax Plan, Virginia Children will Go Hungry to Pay for Tax Cuts for Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – As Republicans in Congress continue to push forward on a partisan tax plan that cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by more than 20 percent, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (D-VA) issued the following statement condemning GOP efforts to make drastic cuts to a vital nutrition lifeline in order to pay for tax cuts for the richest Americans:
    “Gutting nutrition assistance in order to pay for tax breaks for billionaires is both morally wrong and economically shortsighted. At a time when families are grappling with the rising cost of living, Donald Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ rips food off the tables of working parents, children, seniors, and veterans. In Virginia alone, more than 200,000 people, including many children, could go hungry if President Trump and Republicans ram this partisan proposal through Congress. We strongly urge our Republican colleagues in the Senate to reject this cruel legislation and stand with the American families who will bear the brunt of its consequences.”
    Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to approve Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” in the dawn hours of Thursday morning, and the Senate is expected to take up the bill for consideration after the Memorial Day state work period. Warner and Kaine have been sounding the alarm about the effects of the GOP plan on Virginia if Republicans in Congress continue to insist on gutting vital programs in order to pay for tax breaks for the richest Americans, noting that the GOP bill would strip health insurance from more than 262,000 Virginians, raise energy costs for Virginia households, jeopardize more than 20,000 Virginia jobs, and raise taxes on minimum wage workers while giving the richest 0.1% a $188,000 tax cut.
    Nationwide, the harsh cuts in the House-passed bill would take food assistance away from nearly 11 million people – about 1 in 4 SNAP participants – including more than 4 million children and more than half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities nationwide. In Virginia, at least 204,000 people – including children – are in danger of losing some SNAP benefits under the Republican proposal, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
    Additionally, the bill includes a cost-share proposal that would shift tens of billions in SNAP costs onto states – creating an unfunded mandate that would almost certainly require states to cut benefits and eligibility. Under that proposal, Virginia would be expected to come up with as much as $439 million in state funds in order to fill the hole or be forced to make further cuts to food benefits by 2028, according to CBPP.
    In 2024, 827,800 Virginia residents received assistance from SNAP, with an average benefit of $5.83 per day. More than 2/3 of SNAP participants in Virginia are in families with children, and SNAP benefits help keep them fed when their families would otherwise struggle to put food on the table.
    Beyond the immediate impact cuts will have on SNAP recipients, cuts to SNAP benefits will also create downstream economic harms. The National Grocers Association, which represents America’s independent grocers, recently released a report that found SNAP funding supports approximately 16,173 Virginia jobs and $546,478,800 in direct wages, creating $470,672,400 in direct tax revenue for Virginia. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that in a weak economy, $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.50 in economic activity. Households receive SNAP benefits on electronic benefit transfer cards, which can be used only to purchase food at one of about 6,400 authorized retail locations in Virginia.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy Introduces Bill to Help Secure Border with New Technology

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) introduced the Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act to strengthen U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) ability to combat human and drug trafficking at the southern border using new, innovative technology. The bill makes Innovation Teams—the division within CBP created in 2018 to implement new technologies—permanent.
    “President Trump secured the southern border in his first 30 days. Let’s secure the border forever by using new technology,” said Dr. Cassidy. “Let’s stop fentanyl from flowing into our country.”
    Investments in border security technology will strengthen CBP’s detection and response time to cases of trafficking and illicit border crossings in remote areas.
    The Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act will:
    Authorize the CBP Commissioner to maintain one or more CBP Innovation Teams to research and adapt commercial technologies to assist in border security operations and urgent mission needs;
    Require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a plan to Congress that assesses the performance parameters and security impacts of potential technologies, as well as the deactivation of former CBP technology;
    Require CBP Innovation Teams to make standard operating procedures; and
    Require DHS to submit information to Congress that describes CBP Innovation Team activities and operating procedures.
    Cassidy was joined by U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) in introducing the bill. A similar version of this legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Representatives Morgan Luttrell (R-TX-08) and Lou Correa (D-CA-46).

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: DHS Releases Documents Detailing the Rap Sheets of 8 Criminal Illegal Aliens after Activist Judge Ruling Halts their Deportation

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    President Trump and Secretary Noem are getting vicious criminals out of our country while activist judges are fighting to bring them back onto American soil

    WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today released records on the eight convicted murderers and rapists that an activist judge halted their deportation. All eight of these barbaric criminal illegal aliens have final orders of removal and have been convicted in a court of law. These records reveal even more details about these illegal aliens’ heinous crimes.  

    To download the documents, click here.

    “Today, DHS released the rap sheets for eight of these uniquely monstrous, criminal illegal aliens who have final deportation orders that the U.S. government is actively trying to deport. The American public should know the heinous crimes of these murderers, rapists, and pedophiles that this activist district court judge is trying to bring back to American soil,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “As he spits in the fact of victims, this Massachusetts district court judge is stalling the final removal of these barbaric individuals from the country and wants taxpayers to continue to foot the bill to keep these criminals in DHS custody overseas. It is deranged.”  

    Below are excerpts of the rap sheets of each of the criminal illegal aliens, detailing heinous crimes.  

    Nyo Myint: Convicted sexual assault of a mentally disabled woman 

    Nyo Myint, an illegal Burma and registered sex offender was arrested by ICE St. Paul on February 18, 2025. Myint is convicted of first-degree sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting; sentenced to 12 years confinement. Myint is also charged with aggravated assault-nonfamily strongarm. He was issued a final order of removal on August 17, 2023.

    Enrique Arias-Hierro: Convicted homicide, armed robbery 

    Enrique Arias-Hierro, an illegal alien from Cuba, was arrested by ICE Miami on May 2, 2025. His criminal history includes convictions for homicide, armed robbery, false impersonation of official, kidnapping, robbery strong arm. He was issued a final order of removal on September 13, 1999.

    Tuan Thanh Phan: Convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree assault 

    On May 3, 2025, ICE Seattle arrested Tuan Thanh Phan, an illegal alien from Vietnam. Phan is Convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree assault; sentenced to 22 years confinement. Prior to that, he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon on a school facility as a juvenile in 1999. He was issued a final order of removal on June 17, 2009.

    Jose Manuel Rodriquez-Quinones: Convicted of first-degree murder 

    On April 30, 2025, ICE Miami arrested Jose Manuel Rodriguez-Quinones, an illegal alien from Cuba. He has been convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon, battery and larceny, cocaine possession and trafficking. Additionally, he was charged with attempted first-degree murder, trafficking and possessing cocaine, assault, credit card fraud, and theft. He was issued a final order of removal on December 4, 2012.

    Dian Domach: Convicted of robbery  

    Dian Domach is an illegal alien from South Sudan that ICE first encountered in 2011 and was charged as a deportable alien. While in the U.S. Domach was convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm, of possession of burglar’s tools and possession of defaced firearm and driving under the influence. He was arrested by ICE on May 8, 2024, and was issued a final order of removal on July 19, 2011.

    Thongxay Nilakout: Convicted Murderer Sentenced to Life in Prison 

    Thongxay Nilakout, an illegal alien from Laos, was arrested by ICE Los Angeles on January 26, 2025. Nilakout was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery; sentenced to life in prison. He was issued a final order of removal on July 12, 2023.

    Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez: Convicted murderer sentenced to life in prison 

    On May 12, 2025, ICE Miami arrested Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez, an illegal alien from Mexico. He is convicted of second-degree murder; sentenced to life confinement. He was issued a final order of removed on June 16, 2005.

    Kyaw Mya: Convicted of rape of a child 

    Kyaw Mya, an illegal alien from Burma was arrested by ICE St. Paul on February 18, 2025. Mya is convicted of Lascivious Acts with a Child-Victim less than 12 years of age; sentenced to 10 years confinement, paroled after 4 years. He was issued a final order of removal on March 17, 2022.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Video: MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN 🇺🇸

    Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

    We caught up with MAHA Moms, doctors, business leaders and more at the White House yesterday and that are all excited about president trump’s efforts to MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN

    “We are so excited to be part of this movement… This is a unique moment in the United States. It’s a chance for all of us to think differently about how we’re eating and what we’re doing to live healthier lives.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ZuyPUNSHs

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ernst Details Bipartisan Solution to Supercharge American Manufacturing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
    Published: May 21, 2025
    WASHINGTON – During a Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship hearing featuring Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler, Chair Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) highlighted her bipartisan solution to continue the great American manufacturing resurgence happening under the Trump administration.
    Ernst went on to thank Loeffler for restoring fiscal sanity to the SBA’s flagship 7(a) loan program and ending the era of sloppy underwriting.
    Click here to watch Chair Ernst’s remarks.
    Loeffler praised Ernst’s Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act as a key bipartisan solution that will “supercharge the return of American manufacturing.” Ernst described how doubling the size of crucial manufacturing loans will give small businesses the fuel they need to grow and bring jobs back.
    She then applauded the hard work of Loeffler in righting the ship within the 7(a) loan program after a series of reckless changes by the Biden administration resulted in rising defaults, threatening to force taxpayers to foot the bill.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Trump Approves Governor Kehoe’s Requests for Major Disaster Declaration to Assist Missourians Impacted by March 14-15 and March 30-April 8 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding

    Source: US State of Missouri

    MAY 23, 2025

     — Today, Governor Mike Kehoe announced that President Donald J. Trump has approved two of Missouri’s requests for a major disaster declaration in response to the severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding that impacted the state from March 14-15 and March 30-April 8.

    The additional request for April 29 storms is still under review, and the process to request a major disaster declaration for May 16 storms is still underway.

    “This is important and very welcome news for the Missouri families and communities hit hard by the devastating storms and tornadoes that began in March and have affected so much of our state,” Governor Kehoe said. “The State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) will be working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to move the federal assistance process forward, which will provide millions of dollars in much needed recovery support for individuals, families, and local jurisdictions. We appreciate the work of our federal congressional delegation in advocating for these requests and future assistance for Missourians.”

    Individual Assistance:

    The President’s action makes Individual Assistance available to eligible residents in 18 counties impacted by the March 14-15 storms, including: Bollinger, Butler, Camden, Carter, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Jefferson, Oregon, Ozark, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Louis, Wayne, Webster, and Wright counties.

    Individual Assistance allows eligible residents to seek federal assistance with temporary housing, housing repairs, replacement of damaged belongings, vehicles, and other qualifying expenses.

    Individuals who sustained damage or losses due to the March 14-15 severe weather may now apply for FEMA disaster assistance online at www.disasterassistance.gov or by calling FEMA’s toll-free application line at 1-800-621-3362 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. They can also download the FEMA app to apply. Affected individuals are encouraged to document losses, photograph damage, and retain receipts. The faster Missourians register with FEMA, the faster they may be able to receive assistance.

    The deadline for most Individual Assistance programs is 60 days following the President’s major disaster declaration. Disaster assistance to eligible individuals generally falls into the following categories:

    • Housing Assistance may be available for up to 18 months for displaced persons whose residences were heavily damaged or destroyed. Funding also can be provided for housing repairs and replacement of damaged items to make homes habitable.
    • Disaster Grants are available to help meet other serious disaster related needs and necessary expenses not covered by insurance and other aid programs. These may include replacement of personal property, and transportation, medical, dental, and funeral expenses.
    • Low-Interest Disaster Loans are available after a disaster for homeowners and renters from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to cover uninsured property losses. Loans may be available for repair or replacement of homes, automobiles, clothing, or other damaged personal property. SBA loans are also available to businesses for property loss and economic injury. Businesses can visit sba.gov or call 1-800-569-2955.
    • Other Disaster Aid Programs include crisis counseling, disaster-related unemployment assistance, legal aid and assistance with income tax, Social Security, and veterans’ benefits.

    Public Assistance:

    The President’s action also makes the FEMA Public Assistance program available to local governments and qualifying nonprofits for the repair of damaged roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure as well as reimbursement of emergency response costs.

    For the March 14-15 storms, public assistance is available in the following 20 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Callaway, Carter, Dunklin, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard and Wayne.

    The Governor’s April 2 request for March 14-15 storms included more than $26.9 million in qualifying expenses already identified.

    For the March 30-April 8 storms, public assistance is available in the following 25 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Cooper, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, Maries, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Texas, Vernon, Wayne, and Webster.

    The Governor’s April 30 request for March 30-April 8 storms included more than $25.5 million in qualifying expenses already identified.

    For more information on the federal disaster declaration process, visit this link.

    For additional resources and information about disaster recovery in Missouri, please visit recovery.mo.gov.

    SEMA continues to coordinate with local officials and volunteer and faith-based partners to identify needs and assist impacted families and individuals. Missourians with unmet needs are encouraged to contact United Way by dialing 2-1-1 or www.211helps.org or the American Red Cross at 1-800-733-2767.

    FEMA APPLY FOR IA GRAPHIC.jpg

    The following outlines the current status of Governor Kehoe’s additional federal assistance requests:

    April 29 Storms

    Status: Awaiting Federal Disaster Declaration approval

    Details: On May 19, Governor Kehoe requested that President Donald Trump approve a major disaster declaration to provide federal assistance to six counties that sustained major damage as a result of a cluster of severe storms that swept through the area and produced eight tornadoes on April 29.

    May 16 Storms

    Status: Awaiting Federal Emergency Declaration approval

    Preliminary Damage Assessments for Individual Assistance have now been completed in the St. Louis region, and are ongoing in counties in southeast Missouri. The State anticipates requesting Preliminary Damage Assessments of damage to roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure in St. Louis City and Scott County in the near future in preparation for a request by the Governor for a federal Major Disaster Declaration for these areas.

    Details: On May 19, Governor Kehoe made these requests to expedite federal assistance to Missouri following the severe storms and tornadoes that struck the state on May 16, causing seven deaths and widespread damage in the St. Louis region and areas of southeast Missouri.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Trump Approves Federal Disaster Declaration for March Storm

    Source: US State of Nebraska

    . Damage resulted from a severe winter storm that impacted the state on March 18 and 19. The application for assistance was submitted in mid-April. Cost estimates from that storm exceeded $64.8 million – the bulk of which resulted from downed electrical lines and damaged utility poles.

    Counties eligible under the declaration include Boone, Burt, Butler, Cass, Clay, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Hamilton, Jefferson, Johnson, Lancaster, Nuckolls, Otoe, Platte, Polk, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Seward, Thayer, Thurston, Washington, Webster, and York.

    “This was a significant storm, impacting more than 25 counties and leaving many people without power – some for several days. I appreciate President Trump’s attention to Nebraska and his approval of this disaster request,” said Gov. Pillen. “Federal funding will help cover the tremendous costs that were incurred as a result of this weather event.”

    The Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has begun working with local emergency managers and public entities now eligible for assistance under this declaration.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Applauds Trump’s Approval of Multiple Disaster Declarations For Missouri

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)

    Friday, May 23, 2025

    U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R.-Mo.) announced that President Donald Trump has approved two major disaster declarations for Missouri to unlock federal aid. These disaster declarations will provide much-needed assistance for recovery and rebuilding from storms in March and early April.
    President Trump’s approval comes after Senator Hawley’s Wednesday conversation with the President concerning Missouri disaster assistance.

    Following our discussion Wednesday, President Trump has approved multiple disaster declarations for Missouri
    — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 23, 2025
    Senator Hawley has also called for federal assistance for last week’s storms in Eastern Missouri and spent Monday touring the tornado damage.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: VIDEO: Ricketts Celebrates National Beef Month

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) celebrated Beef Month in America during his weekly press call. Ricketts highlighted his work supporting ranchers and producers. He spoke with members of Nebraska press about National Beef Month:
    “Nebraska’s ranchers feed the world,” said Ricketts. “This month, we honor hard-working cattlemen and women that promote this great industry. Overall, agriculture accounts for $31.6 billion of cash receipts for Nebraska’s economy. Our livestock bring in $18 billion in cash receipts, that’s 7.2% of the U.S.’s total. Nebraska beef production is key to our state’s success.” 
    Watch the video here.
    TRANSCRIPT
    Senator Ricketts: “Thank you for joining our press call today.   
    “Nebraska is the Beef State.  
    “In May, we celebrate National Beef Month. 
    “Agriculture is the heart and soul of our state, and beef is a cornerstone.  
    “Nebraska’s ranchers feed the world.  
    “This month, we honor the hard-working cattlemen and women that promote this great industry.
    “Overall, agriculture accounts for $31.6 billion of cash receipts for Nebraska’s economy.  
    “Our livestock bring in $18 billion in cash receipts, that’s 7.2% of the U.S.’s total.  
    “Nebraska beef production is key to our state’s success.  
    “Last year, we led the nation with over $2 billion in beef exports.  
    “Nebraska also led the nation in commercial cattle slaughter, with 6.8 million head.  
    “We have the top three beef-producing counties in the nation in Cherry, Custer, and Holt Counties.  
    “Much of the land used for livestock production couldn’t be used for anything else.  
    “Agricultural land is divided into two categories: arable land and marginal land. 
    “Arable land, which represents one-third of agricultural land, can be plowed.  
    “That means it’s suitable for growing food.  
    “Marginal land, representing two-thirds of agricultural land, is not suitable for growing food.  
    “Marginal land receives little or no water, has lower quality soils, or is rocky.   
    “Cattle production keeps marginal lands thriving.  
    “Beef production is critical to our state economy and our nation.  
    “Food security is national security.   
    “When I was Governor, I led trade missions to Japan and Vietnam to promote Nebraska beef.  
    “On those trips, I traveled with Nebraska cattle producers and discussed the challenges they faced.  
    “At that time, cow-calf operators shared concerns about market prices.  
    “I told them the answer was premium, diversified trade markets.  
    “Under Joe Biden, the U.S. had an agricultural trade deficit of $32 billion dollars last year.  
    “But with President Trump’s recent trade negotiations, our way of life looks to be growing stronger.  
    “The May 8th trade deal announcement with the U.K. creates $5 billion for new exports of U.S. products.  
    “That includes more than $700 million in ethanol exports and $250 million in other agricultural products like beef.  
    “The U.K. also increased their tariff-free quotas on beef from 1,000 metric tons to 13,000 metric tons.  
    “Meanwhile, the E.U. only imported 13,438 metric tons of beef in 2022, despite a total population over six times as large as the U.K.  
    “I would like to see the final deal more favorable for Nebraska ranchers, with an end to the ban on hormone-treated beef. 
    “But, alongside the other negotiations, the President’s trade strategy is already delivering wins for Nebraska beef.  
    “I’m fighting to ensure our ranchers have what they need to be successful.  
    “I support expanded funding in the farm bill to double trade-promotion. 
    “And I recently led a bicameral letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency, pushing back on radical environmentalists’ anti-ag agenda.  
    “We warned against their agenda advancing harmful health, economic, or food security policies under the guise of human health.  
    “We should be encouraging more beef consumption, not less. 
    “In addition to being tasty, beef is one of the most nutrient-dense foods you can eat.
    “One 6-ounce cooked serving of beef provides 25 grams of protein.  
    “Beef contains ten essential nutrients including iron, zinc, and B vitamins.  
    “It takes more calories of plant protein to equate to similar levels of protein from beef.  
    “And research has linked beef protein to a host of positive health outcomes such as weight loss, muscle retention, and diet satisfaction.  
    “Nebraska ranchers and farmers are the original conservationists. 
    “They understand the science and they know what’s good for the land, animals, and consumers. 
    “They want to preserve the land and animals for the next generation.  
    “But Nebraska beef is not just healthy.  
    “It is our culture and way of life.  
    “This month, and every month, we celebrate our state’s beef industry. 
    “Happy National Beef Month, Nebraska!­­”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Speech: Minister Tim Hodgson at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce

    Source: Government of Canada News

    “Canada Strong: Building the Future of Energy”

    Date of delivery: May 23, 2025

    Introduction

    Hello,

    Thanks for having me here today.

    And above all, thank you for the work you do as a Chamber.

    Your priorities — securing diversified trade, attracting, retaining and investing in talent, and making it easier to do business — are going to keep Calgary strong now and into the future.

    I also see my colleague, MP Corey Hogan, Ministers Jean and Schulz, and Mayor Gondek, as well as several other former or current MPs, MLAs and Mayors in the audience — I want to thank them for being here, and for the work they do to represent and strengthen this province and this city.

    I’ve found that Calgarians are pretty quick to ask me where I’m from.

    My father was in the Canadian Armed Forces … and later on I was in the Forces myself … so when people ask me that, I’ve always said, “where would you like me to be from? Because I can be from there.” 

    Of course … now when I say it … people think I’m just trying to be a politician.

    But it’s true.

    And, I think, a pretty Canadian thing to say.

    So many of us come from somewhere else. Somewhere else in the country. Somewhere else in the world.

    What we have in common is fierce loyalty to where we live. To our cities. To our provinces. But above all, to our country.

    And that is what I want to speak about today.

    About our country. About what unites us as Canadians.

    About this province and city … and the role they will play in making Canada a conventional and clean energy superpower.

    But you likely don’t know much about me.

    Like Johnny Cash sang — I’ve been everywhere, man.

    But my roots are in the Prairies. My grandmother was born in Moosejaw, when it was the Northwest Territories — before Saskatchewan was created. My mum was born in Calgary, and most of her family still live here.

    Following my dad’s example, I joined the Canadian Armed Forces out of high school when I was 17. That stint taught me a lot about service. And if you know anyone who has served, you know that it shapes your life forever.

    Then, I went to work for Goldman Sachs, commuting from New York to Calgary.

    At Goldman, one of my first major deals is also one of the deals I am still the proudest of today: The Alliance Pipeline.

    In the 1990s, there was too much gas in Alberta. Prices were low, and nobody was making money.

    We helped get that project off the ground, delivering rich natural gas and liquids from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin to the Chicago market hub — and putting the basin back in balance.

    That pipeline closed the natural gas price differential, supported jobs, and brought Alberta better royalties and the federal government more revenue. A better price for Canadian energy helped every Canadian — just like more recently, with the building of the TMX expansion.

    My experience in the energy and resource sector did not stop there. I served on the boards of MEG Energy and Hydro One. I’ve helped finance OSB mills in High Level and Grande Prairie. I worked on IPOs, including Cameco’s listing on the NYSE and Capital Power’s IPO here in Alberta. And I helped finance potash projects and even a pulp mill in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan.

    During the global financial crisis, I had the privilege of serving our now-Prime Minister, Mark Carney, as his special advisor at the Bank of Canada. Those were turbulent days, and they taught me that leadership is about action when it matters most.

    But ultimately — that belief in the power of leadership — combined with the deep sense of public service and patriotism I learned in the Forces … led me here today. 

    I’m a pragmatist, a businessman. When I see something that needs changing, I work hard to change it.

    That’s why I joined this government: because I believe in public service that delivers results. And most of all, because I love this country.

    Where We Are Now

    Today, we find ourselves at a pivotal moment. Global economies and markets are volatile. President Trump’s tariffs are disrupting trade, threatening Canadian jobs and industries, and rewriting the rules of the game.

    We did not ask for this trade war. But we are going to win it.

    When President Trump says, “We don’t need Canada’s lumber, energy, autos, or minerals,” it’s not exactly subtle. We know what that really means: the Americans really need all those things.

    The President likes to talk about it like a card game. So, if we’re going to sit across the table from him or anyone else, we need to hold Canada’s best cards. That means being able to sell our products to the world. It means expanding our markets, modernizing our infrastructure, and creating the conditions to compete and win.

    That’s why I’m working with my new Cabinet colleagues and every provincial and territorial government to retool our economy to strengthen Canada’s hand — not just in Washington, but everywhere.

    Ultimately, though, this is not a game.

    Jobs and livelihoods are at risk — from miners in Saskatchewan to forestry workers in B.C., from rigs in Alberta and Newfoundland to Ontario’s auto plants.

    The old economic relationship with the United States is over. We need to accept that. We need to prepare to compete as Canadians, on our terms.

    Prime Minister Carney has laid out a clear strategy: We will be masters in our own home. We will not bow to economic aggression. We will defend our workers, our industries, and our values. And we will build a new foundation — one that delivers the strongest, most resilient economy in the G7.

    We are living through what the Prime Minister calls a “hinge moment” in our national story. This is not a time for half-measures or slow steps. It is a time for bold action, clear decisions, and a renewed spirit of building.

    That means reframing the national conversation.

    No more asking, “Why build?” The real question is, “How do we get it done?”

    That means breaking apart barriers and ripping down red tape. It also means doing things responsibly the first time: meeting our Duty to Consult so Indigenous Peoples are true partners, and protecting our environment so we don’t have to clean up mistakes later.

    I want to be very clear. In the new economy we are building, Canada will no longer be defined by delay.

    We will be defined by delivery.

    Canada as an Energy and Natural Resources Superpower

    So what does delivery look like? It begins with a vision: to build Canada into a conventional and clean energy and natural resources superpower.

    We have the resources. We have the people. We have the ideas. And we now have a government determined to lead and help unlock the potential of Canadian workers and businesses.

    We are taking major steps to back that vision with action.

    First, we will identify and fast-track Projects of National Interest. These are the projects that matter — to our economy, our environment, and our sovereignty. No more five-year reviews — decisions will come in two years for all projects.

    To make that happen, we’re standing up a Major Federal Projects Office. It will be a single window for permits, bringing together what used to be scattered across departments. It’s about making “One Project, One Review” real. Less red tape, more certainty, better outcomes.

    And we’re doing this not just for speed, but for purpose.

    Because Canadian energy is not just about domestic prosperity. It’s a tool for global stability and transformation.

    It’s high time to trade more with people who share our values — not just our border. Your new government will work fast with the provinces and territories, industry and Indigenous partners to diversify our trade and open and expand new markets for energy and natural resources.

    Every barrel of responsibly produced Canadian oil and every kilowatt of clean Canadian power can displace less clean, riskier energy elsewhere in the world. Our exports can help our allies break dependence on authoritarian regimes and help the world reduce our emissions.

    And by working with the energy sector to make investments that fight climate change, we can get more barrels to market while cutting carbon emissions.

    And by the way, the building doesn’t stop with energy: we need housing too, as you in Calgary know well. And that housing needs lumber. Good thing Canadian lumber and engineered wood products are among the best in the world for building.

    This is basic economics: comparative advantage. We’re better at energy, forestry and mining than most of the world. We do it cleaner, safer, and with stronger labour standards and Indigenous rights. Let’s be proud of that. And let’s use the revenues to strengthen our economy, fund public services, and build the next generation of Canadian prosperity.

    I’m not here to waste time — mine, yours, or Canada’s. Like Prime Minister Carney, I have a strong vision for each sector within Canada’s energy and natural resources fabric. So, let’s talk about what that looks like.

    Oil & Gas

    Let’s start with oil and gas.

    Canada will remain a reliable global supplier — not just today, but for decades to come. The real challenge is not whether we produce, but whether we can get the best products to market before someone else does.

    We need infrastructure that gets our energy to tidewater and to trusted allies — diversifying beyond the U.S.

    We will invest in carbon capture, methane reduction, and other technologies to ensure Canadian oil and gas is not only produced responsibly, but is the most competitive in the world.

    All of us — governments and industry — need to get the Pathways Project done.

    This government will not be a government of talk, but a government of action. We need the same from the province of Alberta and the Pathways Alliance.

    Your federal government has committed to certainty, to support, and to making Canada an energy superpower, but we need a partner who is also willing to make good on their promises to Canadians. We need to demonstrate to our customers outside the U.S., and to our fellow Canadians, that we are a responsible industry — and this government believes Pathways is critical to that reality.

    Through it all, we need to ask questions about two things at the same time: economics and security. They run in parallel, but they are not the same. One project can be an answer to both, but first let’s make sure we are asking the right questions.

    I am old enough to remember the oil embargo in 1973, when the SS Manhattan, bound for Quebec, was diverted to the United States, leaving Eastern Canadians vulnerable. We can’t let that happen again. Eastern Canada needs better supply security. We need to reduce our exposure to foreign energy, in a world where we may not be able to rely on trade agreements with our southern neighbours.

    Energy is power. Energy is Canada’s power. It gives us an opportunity to build the strongest economy in the G7, guide the world in the right direction, and be strong when we show up at a negotiation table.

    Hydrogen, Nuclear, and Biofuels

    We can’t end the energy conversation having only talked about oil and gas. We must also invest in promising, scalable energy sources like hydrogen, geothermal, advanced biofuels, renewables and nuclear. These are not speculative bets — they are scalable, exportable solutions with rising global demand that will diversify and strengthen our economy.

    Electricity

    Further, as former Board Chair of Hydro One, I also know one or two things about the power of Canadian electricity.

    I believe our future depends on integrated electricity grids. Our new government will quickly work with provinces and territories on east–west transmission and better integrate our systems. This is part of what the Prime Minister means when he says one economy, not thirteen.

    A pan-Canadian grid means more reliable, affordable, sustainable power for Canadians. It means powering industries from AI to manufacturing. And it means exporting energy between provinces who want Canadian solutions.

    Critical Minerals

    When it comes to mining, we know that Canada also has what the world needs here: lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese and— of course — one of the world’s largest supplies of high-quality uranium.

    But we need to do more than dig. We need to process and refine here at home, and export to the world, not just the U.S.

    Our First and Last Mile Fund will connect remote projects to infrastructure, ensuring our critical minerals get to market with the associated value-added processing.

    This is about creating a secure, vertically integrated supply chain that makes Canada the global supplier of choice.

    Forestry

    Finally, the forestry sector — the lifeblood of some 300 communities across Canada, including here in Alberta.

    Canadian forest companies continue to face unjustified duties when exporting lumber to the U.S. These duties continue to place needless pressure on the Canada–U.S. trading partnership, impacting everyone from workers to home builders to consumers. While we continue to work towards a long-term resolution, we will use more Canadian wood at home to address Canada’s housing and other building needs.

    Alberta and the West

    Now … let’s talk about Alberta, specifically.

    One of my first calls as Minister was to Minister Brian Jean. This relationship matters, and I am committed to a clean slate.

    I may live in Toronto right now, but I was born on the Prairies. I want you to understand that I will be a voice for Alberta and Western Canada at the Cabinet table.

    President Trump has done a lot. But one thing he’s done unintentionally is remind us that we need to act as one Canada. And not just one Canada, but one economy, and one market.

    That includes actively working with provincial and territorial governments to harmonize and link carbon markets across the country.

    Improving our system of carbon markets will make sure that, as Canadian industry reduces emissions, we are still competitive, able to withstand America’s trade war, and positioned to take advantage of new opportunities. I’m working closely with Minister Dabrusin and others to make this a reality.

    The nation-building projects we must deliver cannot be delivered by governments on their own. These projects will be built by the private sector, with the support of Indigenous communities and other stakeholders. Governments can be a catalyst and an enabler — and the federal government is ready to do our part. I know — with your support — we can get this done.

    These projects are crucial because not only are global markets changing but so, too, is our global environment. We need to build to meet both these challenges, and that will not be easy or free. That will involve thinking outside the box, outside of electoral cycles, and digging in on solutions that allow us to hand down a competitive, sustainable economy to our children and grandchildren.

    I also want to say to every energy worker in this province and this country: Thank you. You are an integral part of Team Canada. You make Canada Strong.

    I went to a vocational high school in Winnipeg, and many of my classmates didn’t go to university. One of my best friends spent 25 years on the rigs. His job on those rigs in Alberta bought him a home. It financed a good life. That’s how it should be.

    During the election, I went door to door in my riding. It’s a suburban Toronto riding that would look a lot like the suburban ridings in Calgary or Edmonton. I learned that you can knock on any door, anywhere in Canada, and hear the same thing from new Canadians: We came here to build a better life.

    They know, like we do in this room, that because of the opportunity Canada offers — through jobs in sectors like energy — it is the best country in the world.

    And that’s what we need to protect. A Canada where hard work still pays off. Where good jobs — with or without a degree — are available for future generations.

    This government isn’t just about people in suits in Toronto or Ottawa. It’s about people in hard hats, on the drilling pads, in the forests, and at the mills. From Peace River to Lethbridge, from engineers to rig workers — that work powers our country, and it earns our respect.

    Time to Build

    A strong Canada needs a strong Alberta.

    To be strong, we will build things in this country again. We will make Canada a true conventional and clean energy superpower. That is our promise.

    So let’s work together — government, industry, Indigenous partners, labour — to make it happen.

    The Canadian energy industry is the best in the world. Let’s treat it that way. Let’s keep it that way.

    Thanks for having me today.

    And I’ll be back.

    Because this is just the beginning. Your federal government’s door is open. My door is open.

    Bring your ideas. Bring your ambition.

    And together — let’s build.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Global: 5 years after George Floyd’s murder: How the media narrative has changed around the killing and the protests that followed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Danielle K. Brown, Professor of Journalism, Michigan State University

    Flowers, painted benches and handmade memorials surround a mural of George Floyd at George Floyd Square on May 18, 2025. Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images

    On the evening of May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by police outside a grocery store in Minneapolis.

    From the outset, the incident became a battle of narratives. The local police initially reported Floyd was experiencing “distress” and died from a medical incident. A day later, bystander Darnella Frazier uploaded a video that showed the graphic details, including the police’s excessive use of force leading up to Floyd’s death.

    Floyd’s murder, and Frazier’s documentation of it, spawned what by some measures was the largest protest movement in American history.

    And that, too, became a contest of narratives, this time in the media. A focus on the aftermath of the events in Minneapolis, and elsewhere, were quickly supplanted by stories of lawlessness and violence by protesters.

    For almost a decade, I’ve researched the media’s coverage of protests, focusing extensively on the reporting of modern-day uprisings against police brutality.

    Time and time again, colleagues and I have found that the bulk of news coverage of protests against police brutality tends to focus on protesters’ violence, disruption or sensational actions.

    Protesters hold up their illuminated phones as they block a road beneath a highway in Missouri in June 2020.
    AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

    Yet in reading some of the coverage ahead of the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s death, I have observed a different media trend. With the benefit of time, what was once a news media frenzy focusing on the violence after Floyd’s killing has yielded space for reflection and coverage that legitimizes those who took to the streets.

    In so doing, these narrative changes provide essential opportunities to understand the complexity of journalism and social movements seen from different moments in time.

    Following flames

    Quickly after Floyd’s murder in 2020, it became clear that subjects such as the role of state violence, the sophistication of demands for change and community grief were less likely to make headlines than things such as rioting and lawlessness.

    This pattern is part of what scholars call a “protest paradigm” that explores the relationship between protests, media and the public.

    The paradigm holds that journalism often works against protest movements hoping to change the status quo. The news media’s tendency to emphasize the frivolous, violent or annoying actions of protests rather than the depth of protesters’ demands, grievances and agendas negatively shapes public opinion and affects the public’s willingness to support the movements behind them.

    After Floyd’s death, those closely following the coverage of conservative media were more likely to be exposed to stories that depicted protests as “criminal mobs.”

    But it wasn’t just conservative media. On May 31, 2020, the local paper, the Star Tribune, described the governor’s “show of strength” – a term used to describe the massive deployment of the Minnesota National Guard to help quell the “days of lawless rampage.”

    Most coverage at the time fit a familiar pattern of delegitimizing the protest movement.

    With time and space, the pattern breaks

    Five years later, some delegitimizing news coverage continues to headline. The New York Post, for example, recently published a 13-minute documentary that suggests Minneapolis is still on fire.

    But a good portion of today’s news also presents a different framing. In one five-year anniversary piece, The New York Times described George Floyd Square, the murder-site-turned-place-of-reverance for many activists and local residents, as a “site of protest, art, grief and remembrance.” Another article in The Minnesota Star Tribune describes preservation efforts of street art and murals made by activists after the murder. Other coverage described the complicated process of demanding change and the path that remains ahead.

    A portrait of George Floyd painted on the pavement is at the center of a memorial surrounded by flowers, artwork and tributes outside a storefront at George Floyd Square in Minneapolis, Minn., on May 22, 2025.
    Photo by Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images

    Of course, these are selective snapshots of the coverage. And some media may shy away from covering the anniversary at all.

    But from my standpoint as a media scholar, the coverage that does exist has gone from being dominated by an initial focus on the violent aspects of protest to, in the main, a more reflective look at the meaning — rather than the spectacle — of the unrest.

    That legitimizing trend over time isn’t an isolated phenomenon. My colleagues Rachel Mourão and George Sylvie and I found something similar in previous research looking at the protests that followed the killings of Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012 and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

    In our analysis of the protests following Brown’s death, we observed that the first weeks of coverage focused more on protesters, delegitimizing frames and episodic news – that is, the disruption, destruction and arrests.

    But we saw a dramatic change by the third and fourth weeks of coverage. With the passing of time, more legitimizing frames emerged, describing the protest’s substance and demands, and more thematic and in-depth reporting became apparent.

    We observed a similar trend when we looked out even further from the triggering events. After the trial of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch leader charged and then acquitted over the deaths of Martin, and the grand jury verdict not to indict police officer Darren Wilson over the death of Brown, news coverage of protests was more contextual and thematic. The coverage provided more space and voice to “nonofficial” sources such as protesters and family members.

    A question of journalism

    The protest paradigm’s persistence may be a function of journalistic bias − the adage of “if it bleeds, it leads” talks to the immediate reporting imperative of prioritizing violence and spectacle over issues and meaning. But it can also be a consequence of how journalism operates to inform the public.

    George Floyd family attorney Ben Crump addresses media along with other attorneys and members of Floyd’s family outside the Hennepin County Government Center on March 29, 2021, in Minneapolis where the trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin began.
    AP Photo/Jim Mone

    When uprisings against police brutality first begin, everything is new to the journalist and the public. The initial coverage tends to reflect this newsness and emphasizes breaking news and official narratives − which are often easier to obtain than the statements of protest groups. Police departments, for example, have well-established media relations departments with preexisting relationships with journalists.

    These initial reports also tend to feature information that would have the biggest impact on wider communities − such as blocked highways and potential property destruction − than just the aggrieved community.

    This translates to more coverage generally in the aftermath of a big event − and that reporting is more likely to delegitimize protests.

    These are the first drafts of history, and they are typically incomplete.

    But five years later in the case of George Floyd and protests of his death, coverage looks more complete and complex. That complexity brings more balance, from my perspective.

    What journalists write years later are no longer the first drafts of history reported with limited perspectives. In these subsequent drafts, journalists have a little more time to think, learn and breathe. Immediacy takes a back burner, and journalists have had more time to collect information.

    And it is in these collections of subsequent drafts that the protesters and social movements get a fairer shake.

    Danielle K. Brown receives funding from Lumina Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

    ref. 5 years after George Floyd’s murder: How the media narrative has changed around the killing and the protests that followed – https://theconversation.com/5-years-after-george-floyds-murder-how-the-media-narrative-has-changed-around-the-killing-and-the-protests-that-followed-257199

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner, Kaine Push ICE to Require Agents Identify Themselves, Limit Use of Masks and Face Coverings During Enforcement Operations

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine are pressing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to follow U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations requiring law enforcement to properly identify themselves and limit use of face coverings during official operations. This letter comes following repeated instances of unidentified ICE agents making arrests across the country, including in Virginia, causing panic and danger during arrests. 
    “Across the country and in Virginia, masked ICE officers and agents without clearly visible identification as law enforcement have been arresting individuals on the streets and in sensitive locations, such as courthouses. Such actions put everyone at risk – the targeted individuals, the ICE officers and agents, and bystanders who may misunderstand what is happening and may attempt to intervene,” wrote the senators.
    The senators highlighted that the current alarming trend of ICE agents carrying out arrests while obscuring their faces and failing to identify themselves has increased risk to both officers and the general public alike.
    They continued, “The failure of ICE officers and agents to promptly and clearly identify who they are and the authority under which they are acting has led witnesses of immigration enforcement operations to justifiably question the law enforcement status, authority, and constitutionality of ICE officers and agents and their operations. Such actions compromise the safety of law enforcement officers and agents conducting the operation, the individual(s) being apprehended, bystanders, and other law enforcement who may be called to the scene to respond to a suspected crime.”
    As part of their letter, the senators are requesting DHS and ICE provide policies, guidance, memoranda, legal advice, training materials, and all other relevant documents produced by ICE and DHS that discuss when and how to use face coverings, organizational clothing, or reveal officer and agent identities during immigration enforcement operations.
    Earlier this year, Sen. Warner questioned DHS and ICE regarding their enforcement practices, specifically highlighting a March 5th incident where a U.S. citizen and Virginia resident was stopped and interrogated by ICE. Sens. Warner and Kaine also demanded answers from DHS regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a father who was living legally under protected status in Maryland with his family until he was wrongfully deported without due process by the Trump Administration.
    A copy of letter is available here and text is below.
    Dear Secretary Noem, Mr. Homan, Acting Director Lyons, and Director Hott:
    We are steadfast in our desire to protect the safety of law enforcement and uphold public safety for every person, regardless of their immigration status, when interacting with law enforcement. The two are inexorably interconnected. The public and law enforcement must both be safe during immigration enforcement actions.
    Accordingly, we write to you today regarding ICE’s recent immigration enforcement operations that have taken an alarming and dangerous turn. Across the country and in Virginia, masked ICE officers and agents without clearly visible identification as law enforcement have been arresting individuals on the streets and in sensitive locations, such as courthouses.   Such actions put everyone at risk – the targeted individuals, the ICE officers and agents, and bystanders who may misunderstand what is happening and may attempt to intervene.  
    We urge you to direct ICE officers and agents to promptly and clearly identify themselves as law enforcement officers conducting law enforcement actions when arresting subjects, and limit the use of face coverings during arrests and other enforcement actions to avoid intimidation and reduce safety risks to the public.
    The American public encounters federal, state, local, territorial, campus, and other law enforcement regularly. In the overwhelming majority of these law enforcement encounters, law enforcement officers reveal their faces and identities while in the commission of their duties. There are likely associated risks to doing so, yet the trooper pulling over a driver at night or the officer standing watch at the courthouse as suspected criminals enter manage those risks to their own and the public’s safety in a transparent and accountable fashion.
    The Department of Homeland Security’s regulations provide that, at the time of an arrest, immigration officers must identify themselves if it is practical and safe to do so, and inform the individual of the reason for the arrest.  Additionally, under DHS policy, following a warrantless arrest, ICE officers must submit a write-up documenting the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest, including a statement of how “at the time of arrest, the immigration officer [did], as soon as it [was] practical and safe to do so, identif[ied] himself or herself as an immigration officer who is authorized to execute an arrest; and state[d] that the person is under arrest and the reason for the arrest.” 
    Under the Trump administration, there has been an increase in reported instances of ICE officers and agents apprehending individuals while concealing their faces with masks, balaclavas, or other face coverings, often without clearly displaying their law enforcement credentials through identification, organizational uniform, or insignia.  Historically, the use of face coverings by ICE had been reserved for undercover or sensitive operations, but press reports and public videos indicate that ICE officers and agents have broadened this practice to the arrests of nonviolent individuals without a prior criminal history.  Anecdotally, the increased use of face coverings has been described as a means to conceal ICE officer and agent identities to avoid identification and accountability, particularly as the public has taken to filming immigration enforcement encounters. 
    The International Association of Chiefs of Police warns that, “members of the general public may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.”  The failure of ICE officers and agents to promptly and clearly identify who they are and the authority under which they are acting has led witnesses of immigration enforcement operations to justifiably question the law enforcement status, authority, and constitutionality of ICE officers and agents and their operations.  Such actions compromise the safety of law enforcement officers and agents conducting the operation, the individual(s) being apprehended, bystanders, and other law enforcement who may be called to the scene to respond to a suspected crime. We remain deeply concerned that ICE’s lack of transparency will lead the public to intercede in enforcement efforts, escalating an already tense interaction, and risking an entirely avoidable violent situation. 
    Increased use of face coverings and lack of prompt and clear identification by ICE officers and agents in public is also having unintended consequences. Criminals are taking advantage of ICE’s anonymity and impersonating law enforcement officers and ICE agents.   Recently, this resulted in several criminal acts including harassment, theft, extortion, assault, battery, sexual assault, and kidnapping.  The uptick in ICE officers and agents concealing their identities and ICE affiliation blurs the public’s understanding of what ICE officers and agents look like and do while lawfully conducting their mission.  Bad actors have and will continue to take advantage of ICE’s lack of transparency to perpetrate crimes on the most vulnerable in our society.
    We strongly urge you to take swift action to ensure the safety of the public and your officers and agents during the performance of their duties by reducing unnecessary intimidation tactics that escalate defensive reactions.  Additionally, we ask you to provide us with copies of any policies, guidance, memoranda, legal advice, training materials, and all other relevant documents produced by ICE and DHS that discuss when and how to use face coverings, organizational clothing, or reveal officer and agent identities during immigration enforcement operations by June 6, 2025.
    Sincerely,
     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner, Lankford Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Federal Cybersecurity Measures, Implement Mandatory Vulnerability Disclosure Policies

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and James Lankford (R-OK), a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, have introduced the Federal Contractor Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2025, legislation to strengthen federal cybersecurity by ensuring that federal contractors adhere to guidelines set forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    Vulnerability Disclosure Policies (VDP) provide a way for organizations to receive unsolicited reports of vulnerabilities within their software so that they can be patched before an attack takes place. Receiving reports on suspected security vulnerabilities in information systems is one of the best ways for developers and services to become aware of issues. Currently, civilian federal agencies are required to have VDPs, however there is no requirement for federal contractors – civilian or defense – to have VDPs for the information systems used in the fulfillment of their contracts. This legislation would require the implementation of VDPs among federal contractors and formalize actions to accept, assess, and manage vulnerability disclosure reports in order to help reduce known security vulnerabilities among federal contractors.
    “Vulnerability Disclosure Policies are crucial tools to help ensure that the federal government is operating using safe cybersecurity practices. This legislation will ensure that companies doing business with the federal government are held to the same standards, better securing the entire supply chain and protecting our national security,” Sen. Warner said.
    “Federal agencies and contractors must be quickly made aware of cyber vulnerabilities, so they can resolve them. By strengthening cybersecurity efforts, contractors and agencies can keep their focus on serving the American people and keep data and systems safe from cybercrimes and hacking,” Sen. Lankford said.
    Specifically, the Federal Contractor Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act would:
    Require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee updates to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to ensure federal contractors implement a vulnerability disclosure policy consistent with what is already required by federal agencies;
    Require the Secretary of Defense to oversee updates to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) contract requirements to ensure defense contractors implement the same.
    Sens. Warner and Lankford originally introduced this bipartisan legislation last year. As a leader in the cybersecurity realm, Sen. Warner has led numerous legislative efforts to protect the economic prosperity, national security, and democratic institutions of the United States, Sen. Warner cofounded the bipartisan Senate Cybersecurity Caucus in 2016.  A year later, in 2017, he authored the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act. This legislation, signed into law by President Donald Trump in December 2020, requires that any IoT device purchased with federal funds meet minimum security standards. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Warner also co-authored legislation that was subsequently signed into law that requires companies responsible for U.S. critical infrastructure report cybersecurity incidents to the government.
    “Palo Alto Networks applauds Senator Warner’s continued efforts to promote federal cyber resilience through the Federal Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act. This legislation has strong bipartisan support, and will benefit the entire cybersecurity ecosystem,” said Bruce Byrd, EVP and General Counsel of Palo Alto Networks.
    “With cyberattacks by foreign adversaries and criminals on the rise, this legislation addresses a critical gap in our nation’s defenses,” said Ilona Cohen, chief legal and policy officer at HackerOne. “This common sense legislation brings the practices of federal contractors in line with those of the agencies they serve and is essential to protect the government information and personal data they process.”
    A copy of the legislation is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: After Health Secretary Kennedy Claims Ignorance Of Cuts To Medical Research, Durbin Pens Letter To NIH Director Demanding Answers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
    May 23, 2025
    In hopes that the Director will be prepared to answer Senators’ questions in a June Committee hearing, Durbin sent a letter to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, requesting information about drastic cuts to medical research
    WASHINGTON – Following repeated claims of ignorance by Trump Administration officials during Committee hearings, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Related Agencies, sent a letter to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), requesting specific information on cancelled and paused grant funding for ALS, childhood cancers, Alzheimer’s Disease, and congenital heart research.  Durbin sent the letter to bring transparency to the Trump Administration’s chaotic and harmful attack on medical research, and in hopes that Dr. Bhattacharya will be adequately prepared to answer Senators’ questions during the Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on June 10 that will examine the Trump Administration’s proposed drastic cuts to NIH’s Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget.
    “On Tuesday, June 10, 2025, you will appear before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Related Agencies to discuss the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would slash medical research funding by $18 billion, or 40 percent,” Durbin wrote.
    Referencing HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s inability to offer satisfactory answers to questions about cuts to medical research funding during an Appropriations Subcommittee hearing earlier this week, Durbin expressed frustration at HHS leadership and its nonchalant approach to slashing funding for life-saving medical research.
    “During his appearance before the Subcommittee on May 20, 2025, I asked HHS Secretary Kennedy about reported cancellations and pauses to previously awarded NIH grants.  He did not appear to have any familiarity with these disruptions to medical research funding, which raises serious concerns about the lack of accountability, oversight, and process for the reportedly hundreds, if not thousands, of affected research grants,” Durbin wrote.
    Urging Dr. Bhattacharya to come prepared to the June 10 Committee hearing, Durbin requested a complete list of all cancelled or paused NIH grants and funding awards, since January 20, 2025, related to ALS, Alzheimer’s, childhood cancers, and congenital heart defect research.  Despite repeated inquiries from congressional staff, the Trump Administration refuses to make public an accurate and comprehensive list of cancelled or paused NIH grants.  Rather, the Administration deflects by falsely asserting that they’re only cutting out “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
    “Therefore, in advance of your hearing, I request that you provide me with a comprehensive list of all NIH grants and awards that have either been cancelled or paused since January 20, 2025, related to ALS, Alzheimer’s Disease, childhood cancers, and congenital heart defect research.  For each, please include an explanation as to why you decided that these grants or awards were no longer worthy of NIH funding, despite prior agency review and approval through a rigorous peer review process,” Durbin continued his letter.
    “I request that you provide this information to my office no later than Friday, June 6, 2025.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and I look forward to discussing these terminated or paused grants with you on June 10, 2025.  Families battling ALS, Alzheimer’s, childhood cancers, and congenital heart defects deserve this basic level of transparency,” Durbin concluded his letter.
    Over the past decade, Durbin has pushed for annual, real five percent funding increases for NIH.  Since Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15), because of Durbin’s efforts, Congress has provided NIH with a 60 percent increase in annual funding, raising the appropriations level from $30 billion in FY15 to $49 billion today.  However, President Trump continues to target NIH, by cancelling hundreds of grant awards, firing or forcing out thousands of scientists, and freezing billions of dollars in research funding—which jeopardizes new breakthroughs that provide hope for patients.  Additionally, President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request proposes slashing medical research funding at NIH by 40 percent, which would be the deepest funding cut in NIH history.
    This year, Durbin has twice asked for unanimous consent (UC) to pass a resolution he introduced with U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), as well as 21 other Senators, that would pledge support for NIH.  The resolution simply said that the work of NIH should not be subject to interruption, delay, or funding disruptions in violation of the law, and it reaffirmed that the NIH workforce is essential to sustaining medical progress.  The first UC request was blocked by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and the second was blocked by U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK).
    Durbin has long been a strong advocate for robust medical research.  His legislation, the American Cures Act, would provide annual budget increases of five percent plus inflation at America’s top four biomedical research agencies: NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense Health Program, and the Veterans Medical and Prosthetics Research Program.
    Full text of the letter follows:
    May 23, 2025
    Dear Director Bhattacharya:
                On Tuesday, June 10, 2025, you will appear before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Related Agencies to discuss the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would slash medical research funding by $18 billion, or 40 percent.
                During his appearance before the Subcommittee on May 20, 2025, I asked HHS Secretary Kennedy about reported cancellations and pauses to previously awarded NIH grants.  He did not appear to have any familiarity with these disruptions to medical research funding, which raises serious concerns about the lack of accountability, oversight, and process for the reportedly hundreds, if not thousands, of affected research grants.   
    Therefore, in advance of your hearing, I request that you provide me with a comprehensive list of all NIH grants and awards that have either been cancelled or paused since January 20, 2025, related to ALS, Alzheimer’s Disease, childhood cancers, and congenital heart defect research.  For each, please include an explanation as to why you decided that these grants or awards were no longer worthy of NIH funding, despite prior agency review and approval through a rigorous peer review process.  This limited and defined request does not represent the totality of cancelled or paused research grants pertaining to many other diseases and conditions that impact families nationwide.  But, given how vast the devastation to medical research funding has been over the past few months, and the limited time we have to discuss such matters, I have limited my inquiry to these few devastating diagnoses.
    I request that you provide this information to my office no later than Friday, June 6, 2025.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and I look forward to discussing these terminated or paused grants with you on June 10, 2025.  Families battling ALS, Alzheimer’s, childhood cancers, and congenital heart defects deserve this basic level of transparency.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta, Business Leaders Engage in Roundtable Discussion Addressing the Impact of Tariffs on California Industries

    Source: US State of California

    SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today hosted business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war for a roundtable conversation to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. The roundtable in San Francisco comes on the heels of California filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for its imposition of illegal and chaotic tariffs, and included leaders with a birds-eye view of industries spanning workforce development, global trade, transportation, housing development, and local economies and small businesses. President Trump’s erratic tariffs are wreaking havoc on the U.S. financial system and causing uniquely immense harm to California’s economy, which as the fourth largest economy in the world, remains a major driver of our national economy. 

    The tariffs challenged under California’s current lawsuit are projected to shrink the U.S. economy by $178 billion, cost California consumers $25 billion, and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs throughout California.  

    “The Trump Administration’s chaotic tariffs have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe — and especially here in California, home to the fourth largest economy in the world,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today, I heard from leaders on the front lines concerned about the disastrous impact of tariffs on their industries and businesses. These folks are the bellwethers for our state and have sounded the alarm — I thank them deeply for their time and candor. California will continue to fight on all fronts to end President Trump’s illegal tariffs and restore certainty and vibrancy to our economy.” 

    “Dramatic shifts in trade policy and increases in tariff costs can cause disruptions which threaten millions of jobs and billions of dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue,” said Jennifer Cohen, Vice President of Government Relations for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. “It is critical that we avoid volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace that impedes American access to essential goods, components used in US manufacturing, and export markets for agriculture. The importance of maintaining the integrity of the ports and maritime supply chains on the US West Coast that undergird our international commercial relationships are vital to all Americans, not just Californians.”

    “Uncertainty is never a good thing for businesses of any size, especially those with limited resources who cannot ride out wild fluctuations — particularly in the pricing and availability of goods and services. Small businesses are the heart of our local economies and communities, and operate on razor thin margins. When you combine higher operational costs with the fact that consumers are pulling back on purchases as prices rise, the result is devastating,” said Peter Katz, Co-Chair Silicon Valley Chamber Coalition. “Already, a significant number of family owned restaurants and merchants have seen increased expenses in essential supplies, from food costs to packaging to raw materials. These businesses do not have the luxury of waiting months — or years — for things to normalize.”  

    Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers. On April 16, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs and direct agencies within the administration to implement and enforce those tariffs without the consent of Congress. Last week, California filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to stop the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs while litigation in their case proceeds and filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump, another case also challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs. 

    More information about the lawsuit can be found here. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Fifth round of Iran-US nuclear talks concludes in Rome

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ROME, May 23 (Xinhua) — The fifth round of talks between Iran and the United States to resolve differences over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program ended in Rome on Friday, with limited but inconclusive progress made, an Omani negotiator said.

    “The fifth round of Iranian-American talks concluded today in Rome with some, but not final, progress,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad bin Hamoud al-Busaidi wrote on social media X. “We hope to clarify the remaining issues in the coming days, which will allow us to move towards our common goal of achieving a sustainable and dignified agreement,” the diplomat’s post noted.

    The discussions, held at the Omani embassy in Italy, lasted more than three hours. They were led by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff. Oman acted as an indirect mediator in the talks.

    As reported by Italian media, the main subject of ongoing tensions in relations between the two countries remains the issue of uranium enrichment by the Iranian side. The administration of US President Donald Trump has once again voiced the demand that Iran curtail all uranium enrichment activities, but Tehran has rejected the American proposal for “zero enrichment” and, in turn, demanded the lifting of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: European stocks plummet after Trump threatens 50 percent tariffs on EU imports

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BERLIN, May 23 (Xinhua) — European stocks fell sharply on Friday after U.S. President Donald Trump escalated trade tensions with the European Union by announcing sweeping new tariffs and threatening Apple, reigniting investor fears about the economic impact of a renewed transatlantic trade war.

    D. Trump wrote on a social network that he recommends introducing 50 percent tariffs on all goods imported from the EU starting June 1, explaining this decision by the fact that negotiations with Brussels have reached an impasse.

    “Trade talks are going nowhere,” the American leader said, adding that the EU “was created with the main purpose of benefiting from trade with the United States.”

    Markets reacted swiftly. Europe’s STOXX 600 fell 2.16 percent to 537.39 before paring some of its losses. National indices were also hit hard, with Italy’s FTSE MIB, Germany’s DAX, France’s CAC 40 and Spain’s IBEX 35 all down more than 2 percent. The DAX fell to a two-week low, briefly touching 23,325.5 during the session.

    “This latest threat is worse than the worst-case scenario,” said Fiona Cincotta, senior market analyst at City Index. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Harvard fights to keep enrolling international students – 4 essential reads about their broader impact

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bryan Keogh, Managing Editor

    Graduates of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government celebrate during commencement exercises in Cambridge, Mass. AP Photo/Steven Senne, File

    A federal judge in Boston on May 23, 2025, temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have revoked Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students.

    The directive from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resulting lawsuit from Harvard have escalated the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution.

    It’s also the latest step in a White House campaign to ramp up vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including students.

    Homeland Security officials accused Harvard of creating a hostile campus climate by accommodating “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist agitators.” The accusation stems from the university’s alleged support for certain political groups and their activities on campus.

    In early April, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. The database includes country of citizenship, which U.S. school they attend and what they study.

    Barring Harvard from enrolling international students could have significant implications for the campus’s climate and the local economy. International students account for 27% of the university’s enrollment.

    Here are four stories from The Conversation’s archive about the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard and the economic impact of international students.

    1. A target on Harvard

    This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the university.

    The White House has threatened to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and some media outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is taking steps in that direction.

    But it is illegal to revoke an entity’s tax-emempt status “on a whim,” according to Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, and Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at Ohio State University.

    “Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity,” they wrote. “And it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun.”

    Several U.S. senators, all Democrats, have urged the IRS inspector general to see whether the IRS has begun auditing Harvard or any nonprofits in response to the administration’s requests or whether Trump has violated any laws with his pressure campaign.

    Hackney and Mittendorf wrote that the Trump administration’s moves are part of a larger push to exert control over Harvard, including its efforts to increase its diversity and its response to claims of discrimination on campus.




    Read more:
    Can Trump strip Harvard of its charitable status? Scholars of nonprofit law and accounting describe the obstacles in his way


    .“

    University of Michigan students on campus on April 3, 2025, in Ann Arbor, Mich.
    Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    2. International students help keep ‘America First’

    The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries vie to attract the scholars.

    In a recent story for The Conversation, David L. Di Maria, vice provost for global engagement at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, wrote that stepped-up screening and vetting of students could make the U.S. a less attractive study destination.

    Di Maria wrote that such efforts could hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.

    Trump administration officials have emphasized the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.

    Research shows that international students launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their U.S.-born peers. Roughly 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by former international students, Di Maria noted.




    Read more:
    Deporting international students risks making the US a less attractive destination, putting its economic engine at risk


    3. A boost to local economies

    Indeed, international students have a tremendous economic impact on local communities.

    If these global scholars stay home or go elsewhere, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States, wrote Barnet Sherman, a professor of multinational finance and trade at Boston University.

    With the money they spend on tuition, food, housing and other other items, international students pump money into the local economy, but there are additional benefits.

    On average, a new job is created for every three international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created, Sherman wrote.

    In Greater Boston, where Harvard is located, there are about 63,000 international students who contribute to the economy. The gains are huge – about US$3 billion.




    Read more:
    International students infuse tens of millions of dollars into local economies across the US. What happens if they stay home?


    4. Rising number of international students

    The rising number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has long led to concerns about U.S. students being displaced by international peers.

    The unease is often fueled by the assumption that financial interests are driving the trend, Cynthia Miller-Idriss of American University and Bernhard Streitwieser of George Washington University wrote in a 2015 story for The Conversation.

    A common claim, they wrote, is the flawed assumption that “cash-strapped public universities” aggressively recruit more affluent students from abroad who can afford to pay rising tuition costs. The pair wrote that, historically, shifting demographics on college campuses result from social and economic changes.

    In today’s context, Miller-Idriss and Streitwieser maintain that the argument that colleges prioritize international students fails to account for the global role of U.S. universities, which help support national security, foster international development projects and accelerate the pace of globalization.




    Read more:
    Foreign students not a threat, but an advantage


    This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

    ref. Harvard fights to keep enrolling international students – 4 essential reads about their broader impact – https://theconversation.com/harvard-fights-to-keep-enrolling-international-students-4-essential-reads-about-their-broader-impact-257506

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Senator Mullin on What’s Next for President Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill on Fox Business

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)

    ICYMI: Senator Mullin on What’s Next for President Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill on Fox Business

    Washington, D.C. – On Thursday, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) joined Fox Business’ “Kudlow” to discuss President Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill being sent over to the Senate and where the process stands now. Highlights below.

    Sen. Mullin’s full interview can be found here.
    On Senate input in the Big, Beautiful, Bill:
    “As you know, Larry, we’ve been talking about the reconciliation literally since the November election, and everybody’s had their opportunity to have input. Ron Johnson has had his opportunity to have input, Lindsey Graham, I’ve had my input. Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, even John Thune, everybody has had their opportunity to have input in this bill. And we’re going to continue the one bill, one Big, Beautiful, Bill. President Trump has made the play call. He said, this is what he wants. We’ve debated it, the House has now passed it, they’ve given it to us.”
    On the framework of the Big, Beautiful, Bill:  
    “Why would we tear down the frame that the House has already built? Why don’t we take it? If we’ve got to repaint the interior walls, that’s fine, but at the end of the day, we’re going to vote on reconciliation that the American people want. And it may not be a perfect bill, but we’ve negotiated it, we’ve talked about it, we’ve had conferences on it, we’ve talked about it in our committees.”
    On every Senator having two choices:
    “When it goes to the floor, every member is going to have two choices, and that’s it… You’re going to either vote for the bill and say, I’m going to move forward with what the American people want and move into the Trump era policies, or I’m going to say… we’re going to stay put… we’d rather stay with Biden era policies, because that’s your choices. That’s it, A or B. And we can’t allow perfection to get in the way of good, because this is a better bill than what we’re currently working with.” 
    On the Byrd Rule and restrictions the Senate must comply with:
    “The American people are getting impatient too. We’ve already got constituents who want us to pass this thing tomorrow. What people have to understand is our two chambers operate completely different. So, we have to deal with the Byrd Rule over here, what I call the bird bath. It’s got to come over here, it’s got to get scrubbed.”
    “We’ve got almost 1,100 pages that we have to go through, line by line. And here’s why that’s important. Because if we were to bring this bill to the floor as it is, and the parliamentarian rules that it doesn’t fit underneath the Byrd rule. It can’t fit underneath reconciliation. Reconciliation was reconciled in 1990 which basically said, we can do reconciliation with a slim majority as long as it fits within the Byrd Rule, which is taxes and government spending. And we can do it with a simple majority of 51.”
    “If it doesn’t fit inside the Byrd Rule, we have to go through the appropriation process, which says we’ve got to have 60. So, we have to go through it before we can get started. And I think if President Trump really leans in this, which I’ll be talking to him tomorrow at the White House about it, I think if he really leans in on it, we can maybe do it before July 4th. But July 4th is a tough target if the Senate doesn’t work fast but Larry, I think we can get it done for the American people.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch, Durbin Lead Call for Inspector General to Investigate Emil Bove’s Abuse of Prosecutorial Power at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) referred Emil Bove III to the Office of Inspector General. Senators asked Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate Mr. Bove’s potential abuse of prosecutorial authority within the Civil Rights Division. 
    Public reporting indicates that Mr. Bove used intimidation tactics to stymie protected rights of students, including freedom of speech and freedom of association. Mr. Bove reportedly instructed career prosecutors in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division to obtain a membership list of a student group at Columbia and investigate those students. After career prosecutors raised concerns about whether such actions violated the Constitution, Mr. Bove reportedly demanded prosecutors file for search warrants for the list. A magistrate judge twice rejected this request, finding the investigation initiated at Mr. Bove’s direction lacked probable cause. He then, purportedly, ordered FBI agents to intimidate protestors by putting on their raid jackets and stand in a phalanx formation.  
    “If these reports are accurate, Mr. Bove has abused his prosecutorial and supervisory authority to retaliate against protected First Amendment activity for the purpose of furthering President Trump’s political agenda,” the Senators write. “This matter must be reviewed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). While we acknowledge that DOJ views attorney misconduct as the province of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), OPR is apparently not available to pursue this matter. Since the constructive removal of Jeffrey Ragsdale as Director and Chief Counsel, OPR has no publicly-known leadership, and our understanding is that the office has been shuttered completely. OIG is thus the only available avenue for oversight of attorney professional misconduct.” 
    The letter, led by Senator Welch and Ranking Member Durbin, was signed Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). 
    Read the letter here and below:  
    Dear Inspector General Horowitz:  
    We write to express our concern about grave allegations that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III violated the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Justice Manual, flouted his ethical responsibilities, abused the powers of his office, and exceeded the constitutional limitations on prosecutorial power by initiating pretextual criminal investigations against students at Columbia University and premising investigative steps on protected constitutional activity.  
    According to public reporting, Mr. Bove sought to have career prosecutors in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division obtain a membership list of a student group at Columbia and investigate its members. Prosecutors resisted this request due to the Justice Manual’s prohibition on initiating criminal investigations based on protected constitutional activity, such as freedom of association. These career prosecutors then learned Mr. Bove allegedly sought this list to share with immigration agents, creating a fear that the investigation was a pretextual effort to intimidate students engaged in First Amendment expression with threats of detention and deportation. Separately, Mr. Bove reportedly attempted to employ a different intimidation tactic, instructing Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on the Joint Terrorism Task Force to don their raid jackets and stand in a phalanx near protestors on Columbia’s campus. 
    Subsequently, Mr. Bove ordered prosecutors to obtain a search warrant for the nonpublic data associated with the student group’s Instagram account, based on the premise that the account was used to make a threat—despite the assessment of career prosecutors that the identified statement did not meet the legal definition of a threat. No prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York signed the warrant application, despite the action being brought in their jurisdiction, reportedly due to the same concerns shared by the career prosecutors in the Civil Rights Division. 
    Ultimately, Mr. Bove’s requested warrant application was rejected twice, once on initial review and again on reconsideration, by a federal magistrate judge for failing to establish probable cause. The nature of the second rejection appears to indicate further abuses because the magistrate judge imposed a special condition: if DOJ seeks to refile this search warrant application before another federal judge, they must include a transcript of the sealed discussions of these initial efforts. If these reports are accurate, Mr. Bove has abused his prosecutorial and supervisory authority to retaliate against protected First Amendment activity for the purpose of furthering President Trump’s political agenda.  
    This matter must be reviewed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). While we acknowledge that DOJ views attorney misconduct as the province of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), OPR is apparently not available to pursue this matter. Since the constructive removal of Jeffrey Ragsdale as Director and Chief Counsel, OPR has no publicly-known leadership, and our understanding is that the office has been shuttered completely. OIG is thus the only available avenue for oversight of attorney professional misconduct.  
    Moreover, concurrent jurisdiction exists between OIG and OPR, particularly where misconduct creates waste, fraud, and abuse. The alleged abuse of power and unethical behavior in question involves the type of misconduct that extends beyond an attorney’s professional responsibilities and falls under the jurisdiction of OIG. In this extraordinary circumstance, we urge you to exercise existing concurrent jurisdiction to investigate all alleged misconduct. 
    Sincerely,  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: President Trump Signs Executive Orders to Usher in a Nuclear Renaissance, Restore Gold Standard Science

    Source: The White House

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, as he signs several key executive orders, President Trump is taking decisive action to strengthen scientific discovery in America, rebuild public trust in science, and accelerate advanced nuclear technologies.

    Under President Trump’s leadership, America will usher in a nuclear energy renaissance. After decades of stagnation and shuttered reactors, President Trump is providing a path forward for nuclear innovation. Today’s executive orders allow for reactor design testing at DOE labs, clear the way for construction on federal lands to protect national and economic security, and remove regulatory barriers by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue timely licensing decisions.

    “Over the last 30 years, we stopped building nuclear reactors in America – that ends now. Today’s executive orders are the most significant nuclear regulatory reform actions taken in decades. We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy. These actions are critical to American energy independence and continued dominance in AI and other emerging technologies,” said White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios.

    “For too long, America’s nuclear energy industry has been stymied by red tape and outdated government policies, but thanks to President Trump, the American nuclear renaissance is finally here,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “With the emergence of AI and President Trump’s pro-American manufacturing policies at work, American civil nuclear energy is being unleashed at the perfect time. Nuclear has the potential to be America’s greatest source of energy addition. It works whether the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, is possible anywhere and at different scales. President Trump’s executive orders today unshackle our civil nuclear energy industry and ensure it can meet this critical moment.”

    “President Trump’s executive orders expand America’s Energy Dominance agenda. As energy demand continues to surge, expanding our existing nuclear fleet and investing in advanced nuclear technologies ensures we have reliable energy to power our homes, fuel for President Trump’s manufacturing revolution, and a stronger electric grid,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

    The President also signed an executive order implementing Gold Standard Science to rebuild public trust in the national science enterprise. The EO defines Gold Standard Science and requires federal research agencies to conform their existing programs and activities to these fundamentals. In addition to federal agencies, the Trump Administration is issuing a call to excellence for all American researchers and academic institutions to go back to the basics by restoring Gold Standard Science.

    Gold Standard Science is just that—science that meets the Gold Standard. It’s reproducible, transparent, falsifiable, subject to unbiased peer review, clear about errors and uncertainties, skeptical of assumptions, collaborative, interdisciplinary, accepting of negative results, and free from conflicts of interests.

    “President Trump is making Gold Standard Science the cornerstone of the federal science enterprise and rebuilding public trust in science. With this executive order, we are recommitting ourselves to scientific best practices and empowering America’s researchers to achieve groundbreaking discoveries. Gold Standard Science starts in the policies and programs of our great federal research institutions, and continues with partnership across academia, industry, and philanthropy,” said Director Kratsios.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Griffith Statement on DOE Metallurgical Coal Announcement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright announced on Thursday, May 22, that coal used in steelmaking is now designated as a critical material. U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement:

    “I am excited by this announcement from the Department of Energy.

    “Metallurgical coal is a lifeblood for coal and steel communities across the country, including Virginia’s Ninth District.

    “By designating metallurgical coal as a critical material, the Trump Administration advances the mineral’s status as an important contributor to America’s economy, energy and manufacturing sectors and military preparedness.”

    BACKGROUND

    Rep. Griffith is Co-Chair of the Congressional Coal Caucus.

    In the 118th Congress, Rep. Griffith chaired the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations.

    The 119th Congress is Rep. Griffith’s first term as the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee Chair.

    In April of 2025, Rep. Griffith attended a White House event where President Trump signed a series of executive orders aimed at boosting the American coal industry.

    The designation of metallurgical coal as a “critical material” as any element falls in line with President Trump’s Executive Order “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Energy.”

    The Energy Act of 2020 defines a “critical material” as any element, substance or material that the Secretary of Energy determines (i) has a high risk of supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an essential function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store and conserve energy.

    According to the Virginia Department of Energy, approximately 80% of coal mined in Virginia constitutes metallurgical coal, almost all of which is from Virginia’s Ninth District.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ahead of George Floyd Anniversary, Pressley Reintroduces Suite of Bills to Transform Criminal Legal System, Improve Police Accountability

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    People’s Justice Guarantee | Ending Qualified Immunity Act | Andrew Kearse Act

    WASHINGTON – Today, ahead of the five-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) reintroduced the People’s Justice Guarantee (PJG), the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, and the Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act – a suite of bills that collectively will help build a fair, equitable, and just legal system in America, and improve police accountability.

    “It’s been nearly five years since George Floyd was murdered, and our families and communities continue to be plagued and destabilized by the overlapping crises of mass incarceration, police brutality, and overcriminalization,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “As we approach this somber anniversary and weather an unprecedented assault on Black and brown communities from the Trump Administration, I’m proud to reintroduce bold legislation and continue our push toward accountability, healing, and our collective liberation.”

    The People’s Justice Guarantee is a comprehensive, decarceration-focused resolution that outlines a framework for a fair, equitable and just legal system. The resolution, developed in close partnership with activists, advocates, and those most impacted by criminal and racial injustice, calls for an ongoing and participatory “people’s process” that centers the dignity and expertise of those impacted by the carceral state. The PJG is rooted in five guiding principles – shared power, freedom, equality, safety, and human dignity – and specifically calls for (1) decarceration and the dramatic reduction of jail and prison populations; (2) eliminating wealth-based discrimination and corporate profiteering; (3) transforming the experience of confinement; and (4) investing in historically impacted communities.

    The Ending Qualified Immunity Act, which Rep. Pressley is introducing alongside Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA), would eliminate the unjust and court-invented doctrine of qualified immunity and restore the ability for people to obtain relief when state and local officials, including police officers, violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights. The lawmakers’ bill would permit civil lawsuits against public officials, in their personal capacity, to hold them accountable for their wrongdoing.

    “On the five-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder, we must never forget that true justice requires that victims of police brutality and their families get their day in court,” said Senator Markey. “But all too often, qualified immunity impedes victims from holding government officials accountable. Qualified immunity is a flawed and judge-made doctrine that shields law enforcement officers from being sued for wrongdoing. For decades, courts have been gutting the landmark civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows victims of abuse at the hands of state and local officials to vindicate their rights in court. We must hold accountable the public officials who abuse their positions of trust in our communities.”

    The Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act, which the Congresswoman is introducing alongside Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would hold law enforcement officers criminally liable for failing to obtain medical assistance to people in custody experiencing medical distress. The bill is named after Andrew Kearse, a 36-year-old Black man who on May 11, 2017 died of a heart attack in the back of a police cruiser after begging a police officer for help. Instead of providing Mr. Kearse with medical assistance, the officer dismissed his pleas and waited precious minutes until after Mr. Kearse became nonresponsive to call for medical assistance. Despite failing to seek potentially life-saving care for Mr. Kearse, the officer involved was not charged with a crime.

    “If an officer denies life-saving medical care for people in their custody, they should be held accountable,” said Senator Warren. “This bill is a step towards justice for Andrew Kearse and all who died a preventable death while in custody.”

    Full text of the People’s Justice Guarantee resolution is available here.

    A copy of the Ending Qualified Immunity Act can be found here.

    A copy of the Andrew Kearse Act can be found here and a summary is available here.

    Congresswoman Pressley has introduced over a dozen pieces of precise legislation informed by the People’s Justice Guarantee to fundamentally redefine what justice looks like in America, including the Ending Qualified Immunity Act and Andrew Kearse Accountability for the Denial of Medical Care Act.

    Congresswoman Pressley also led calls in Congress for President Biden to use his clemency authority to address mass incarceration and has applauded the President for granting clemency to thousands of people and commended him for commuting the death sentences of 37 individuals on federal death row.

    • In June 2023, Rep. Pressley and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12)unveiled the Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Reentry and Stable Tenancy (Housing FIRST) Actbold legislation to help people who are formerly incarcerated and those with criminal histories access safe and stable housing.
    • In May 2023, Rep. Pressley reintroduced her Justice for Incarcerated Moms Act to improve maternal health care and support for pregnant individuals who are incarcerated. It was originally introduced in March 2020 and reintroduced in February 2021 as part of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Package—a suite of 12 bills aimed at addressing the Black maternal health crisis.
    • In May 2023, Rep. Pressley and Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-31), Co-Chair of the Mental Health Caucus, requested the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to research post-traumatic prison disorder and share findings related to prevention and treatment for people returning from behind the wall.
    • In April 2023, Rep. Pressley and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) re-introduced their Ending Qualified Immunity Act, legislation that would eliminate the unjust and court-invented doctrine of qualified immunity and restore the ability for people to obtain relief when state and local officials, including police officers, violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights. Rep. Pressley originally introduced the bill in June 2020 with Rep. Justin Amash (L-MI) and reintroduced it with Sen. Markey in March 2021.
    • On April 6, 2023, Rep. Pressley and Rep. Hank Johnson led 25 of their colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in calling on Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to address racial disparities in traffic enforcement.
    • In April 2023, Rep. Pressley, in partnership with Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) and Ilhan Omar (MN-05), re-introduced the Ending PUSHOUT Act, their legislation to end the punitive pushout of girls of color from schools. It was originally introduced in December 2019 and reintroduced in March 2021.
    • In March 2023, Rep. Pressley, Congressman Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Congressman Greg Casar (TX-35) and 27 Members of Congress, alongside more than 300 advocacy organizations and community leaders, reintroduced the New Way Forward Act, a landmark piece of legislation that addresses some of the most harmful provisions of immigration law that drive racist enforcement practices, expanded incarceration in immigration detention centers, and unjust deportations. It was originally introduced in December 2019 by Reps. Chuy Garcia (IL-04), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Karen Bass (CA-37) and was reintroduced in January 2021.
    • In March 2023, Rep. Pressley and her colleagues re-introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act to stop federal entities’ use of facial recognition tools and prohibit federal support for state and local law enforcement entities that use biometric technology. They reintroduced the bill in June 2021.
    • In December 2022, the House passed Congresswoman Pressley’s amendment to strengthen maternal health care for people who are incarcerated.
    • In December 2021, Rep. Pressley unveiled the Fair and Independent Experts in Clemency (FIX Clemency) Act, historic legislation to transform our nation’s clemency system and address the mass incarceration crisis.
    • In March 2021, Rep. Pressley sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to consider H. Res. 266, the People’s Justice Guarantee, as a framework for embedding justice in our criminal legal system and building integrity in the Department of Justice (DOJ). 
    • In February 2021, October 2020, Congresswoman Pressley reintroduced the Mental Health Justice Act with Reps. Katie Porter (CA-45), Tony Cardenas (CA-29), and Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), to support the creation of mental health first responder units that would be deployed in lieu of law enforcement when 911 is called due to a mental health crisis. The lawmakers originally introduced the legislation in October 2020.
    • In January 2021, she reintroduced the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act of 2021 with Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to prohibit the use of the death penalty at the federal level, and require re-sentencing of those currently on death row. The lawmakers originally introduced the bill in July 2019.
    • In August 2020, she introduced the COVID-19 in Corrections Data Transparency Act with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and others, requires federal, state, and local prisons and jails to collect and publicly report COVID-19 data. The legislation was reintroduced in 2021.
    • In July 2020, she introduced the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act with Reps. Ilhan Omar (MN-05) and Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), to prohibit federal funds to support the increased presence of police in K-12 schools and supports school districts that invests in counselors.
    • In June 2020, she introduced the Dismantle Mass Incarceration for Public Health Act with Reps. Tlaib (MI-13) and Barbara Lee (CA-13) to require decarceration to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in prisons and jails.
    • In June 2020, she introduced the Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act with Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ed Markey (D-MA), to hold police officers criminally liable for denying care to those in medical distress.
    • In May 2020, she introduced a resolution with Reps. Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Karen Bass (CA-37) and Barbara Lee (CA-13) to condemn any and all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and militarization and over-policing of Black and brown communities.  
    • In July 2019, she introduced the No Biometric Barriers Housing Act with Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY-09) and Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) that would prohibit the use of biometric recognition technology in most public and assisted housing units funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), protecting tenants from biased surveillance technology. 
    • In June 2019, in conjunction with Gun Violence Awareness Month and the 5th Annual National Gun Violence Awareness Day, she introduced a resolution to honor survivors of homicide victims by establishing National Survivors of Homicide Victims Awareness Month

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Q&A: Ukraine Update

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
    Q: Why did you write to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about Ukraine?
    A: As a Pentagon watchdog, I’ve dedicated decades of congressional oversight to track taxpayer dollars appropriated for national defense, including military dollars assigned to help our allies. From government purchase cards  to $10,000 toilet seat lids and sloppy accounting that allowed a years-long $103 million embezzlement scheme, I keep my nose to the grindstone to root out wasteful spending, mismanagement and defense contractor fraud that run rampant at the Pentagon, no matter who’s in the White House. Under seven administrations, I’ve worked in the U.S. Senate to fix lax financial controls, including my bipartisan bill that would require the Department of Defense (DoD) to pass a full, independent audit. Astonishingly, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that’s been unable to earn a clean opinion on its audit, despite federal law requiring all federal agencies to conduct annual audits since 1990.
    At my annual 99 county meetings, Iowans have shared concerns about the amount of federal spending in support of Ukraine. Since the war started in 2022, Congress has appropriated $175 billion to help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian invasion, support allies in the region and to help avoid World War III. While I strongly support pushing back against Russian aggression, I’m also a relentless taskmaster to ensure scarce taxpayer dollars aren’t squandered once they leave the federal treasury. That’s why I’m asking Defense Secretary Hegseth to account for payments made with money Congress appropriated in national security supplemental bills. While the Pentagon does not send any money to Ukraine, it has received significant funds to replace military stocks delivered to Ukraine and to conduct a range of activities to help Ukraine and our European NATO allies in the region defend themselves. The Pentagon must ensure taxpayer dollars are accounted for and used as Congress intended, but the same problems with poor accounting systems at DoD were evident with the funds from the national security supplemental bills. Last October, the DoD Office of Inspector General (IG) published a report examining how the Pentagon expended the money for Ukraine. Its audit raised alarm bells, and I’ve asked the Secretary of Defense to track down the money trail left behind by the Biden administration. Specifically, the IG’s report revealed that of the 479 disbursements it reviewed, DoD didn’t provide documentation to support the accuracy of 323 transactions. We’re not talking peanuts and cracker jacks. The amount of undocumented expenditures exceeds $1 billion. Without supporting documentation, we don’t know how that money was used. What’s more, as federal auditors conducted the investigation, the Biden administration flunked fundamental fiscal stewardship responsibilities. According to the DoD’s watchdog, the audit team’s requests for information faced noncooperation and insufficient responses, allegedly providing insufficient responses to 52 requests and no response to 14 requests to document where the dollars went. I’m not ever going to let up on my efforts to improve the Pentagon’s financial controls. Protecting taxpayer dollars and strengthening military readiness, including U.S. strategic stockpiles, are too important to allow the Pentagon to go unchecked.
    Q: How are you standing up to Putin on behalf of innocent Ukrainian children?
    A: It’s been more three years since Russia started its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II. The senseless killing of civilians and casualties on the battlefield have led to needless human suffering and geopolitical ramifications around the world. One of the war’s atrocities has far-reaching consequences for Ukrainian society. Russia has abducted tens of thousands of Ukrainian children through unlawful deportations and forced transfers to Russify them. The goal is to erase from memory the children’s Ukrainian names, language and identity. What’s more, the State Department’s 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report found Russia recruits or uses child soldiers, has state-sponsored policy or pattern of human trafficking and is among the worst hubs for human trafficking in the world. In March, I called upon Secretary of State Marco Rubio to continue supporting investigations that are seeking to unravel the whereabouts of these innocent children and bring them back home. As President Trump leads efforts to secure a peace agreement to end the war, I’m leading a bipartisan resolution in the U.S. Senate that calls for the return of kidnapped Ukrainian children before any final peace agreement is reached. It condemns Russia’s abduction and forcible transfer of innocent young children to brainwash them and wipe away their heritage. The mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children by the Russian regime is yet another example of Vladimir Putin’s diabolical mission to restore the former Soviet empire. History shows this is a page out of his KGB-playbook when Stalin’s Soviet regime sent women and children from the Baltic countries to Siberia. The United States ought to demand the innocent children of Ukraine are returned before any agreement to end the war is reached so the Russians cannot use them as bargaining chips.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 22 May 2025 – Brussels – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     253k  688k
    Thursday, 22 May 2025 – Brussels

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 09:00)

     

    2. Choose Europe for Science (debate)

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to present our Choose Europe for Science initiative.

    As President von der Leyen stated in the Sorbonne in Paris a few weeks ago, Europe is determined to start a new age of invention and ingenuity. We are making a clear choice to place research and innovation at the heart of our societies and economies. Europe is choosing science.

    Today, this choice is more urgent than ever. Science is a source of prosperity, but it is also fundamental to our sovereignty and economic security, our resilience, democracy and leading role on the global stage. For example, scientific leadership in AI or quantum is directly linked to the ability of protecting our society and our values. We need talent to progress in those crucial technology domains.

    Countries understand this. Global research and development has recently surpassed EUR 2.5 trillion per year. At the same time, we also see science exploited for political ends, and academic freedom is under pressure.

    Last month, we had the opportunity to discuss developments on the other side of the Atlantic. Their universities, and fields like vaccine science and climate research, are being targeted by funding cuts.

    But it is not only in the United States. Elsewhere in the globe, scientists are instrumentalised, at best, and openly attacked, at worst. In conflict zones, schools and universities are not spared. In Ukraine, Putin’s war has physically damaged over 1 400 science-related buildings, constituting 30 % of all research institutions, and displaced 20 % of the country’s researchers.

    In this context, Europe must do more than hold its ground. We must become the best place in the globe to do research, the place our young people choose for their careers, and the place global talent comes to help us tackle global challenges.

    This is the ambition of Choose Europe for Science. It builds on four dimensions. First: scientific freedom. Europe must remain the global leader in free and open research. We need a research and innovation union where knowledge flows as freely as goods, services and capital. This is why we commit to protecting freedom of scientific research through law with the new European Research Area Act. This is in line with the European Parliament’s resolution of January 2024 on protecting the freedom of scientific research.

    Second: funding. Horizon Europe is already the largest international research programme. It is a global magnet that received applicants from 194 countries, with 90 countries associated and more wanting in.

    In addition, earlier this month, President von der Leyen announced a EUR 500 million package for the programming period 2025–2027. It will include a new seven-year super grant under the European Research Council. We will support the brightest researchers regardless of their origin.

    We are also expanding our Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions with a new pilot starting in October. It will build on the attractive conditions offered by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, with longer contracts and more secure professional perspectives to support excellent early-career scientists choosing Europe.

    For established researchers, we are doubling the top-up funding for grantees moving in Europe. We also work with Member States to reach our 3 % GDP target for R&D by 2030.

    Furthermore, the European Regional Development Fund is spending around EUR 35 billion to increase research and innovation capacity across the Union. This will help reduce the innovation divide by strengthening regional R&I ecosystems. Member States and regions are improving their innovation performance and cohesion, and thus retain their talents and attract new ones. Under the next Framework Programme, we will put forward ambitious proposals on research and innovation funding.

    Third: fast-tracking innovation. We must ensure our excellent research can be translated into breakthrough innovation, so that our citizens can benefit from science. Horizon Europe beneficiaries already submitted over 600 patent applications, and we are going further. Next week I will present Europe’s first start-up and scale-up strategy. Retaining and attracting talent will be a crucial dimension of this strategy. Next year we will table a new European Innovation Act, further simplifying and accelerating the path to market.

    Finally: global talent. If you want the best minds to choose Europe, we need to make it easier for them to come and live here. We are working to make the legal framework for researchers more effective, and to speed up entry to the EU. At the same time, we will strengthen our EURAXESS platform, which already links global researchers with thousands of opportunities across the EU.

    Honourable Members, to achieve this ambition, we also need mobilisation at national level. In the past weeks, we have witnessed our Member States opening their doors to talent, from the Welcome to Poland initiative and Choose France for Science, to Estonia’s Mobilitas 3.0 or Czechia’s Junior Star, and many more.

    Here we need a true Team Europe approach to maximise our efforts. As the European Commission, we stand ready to promote this coordinated approach, including through enhanced public communication, starting from tomorrow’s Competitiveness Council. I wish to thank the Polish Presidency for its leadership on this subject.

    To conclude, the aim of Choose Europe for Science is clear: to make Europe the leading destination for researchers on Earth. We can achieve this together as a Union with the active commitment from the Member States and, of course, with the crucial support of this House. The European Parliament has long championed scientific excellence and academic freedom. Your leadership has paved the way to our action today. So thank you very much and I look forward to working together.

     
       

     

      Christian Ehler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think Choose Europe for Science, the initiative announced by President von der Leyen, is an important signal for Europe and the world, but luckily it had been accompanied also by a press conference where the President had been announcing that there will be a stand‑alone research programme, which necessarily is the base for that ambition.

    I think we should also emphasise that this is not that we want to attract the most talented in the world, it is that we stand in also for the freedom of science. Much smaller programmes, like the programme for researchers at risk, are an expression for that stand-in. Yes, we want to be attractive for the world, but we also are the safe haven for researchers, women researchers in Afghanistan, researchers under pressure in other parts of the world – we are the safe haven for them. So it’s both: our expression for excellence or ambition for excellence, but also our expression for standing in for the freedom of science.

    Basically, we all know that it’s just going to work if we have a strong research programme. We can appeal to the world, but if we do not have a higher ambition in terms of research, it’s not going to be attractive. What we need is, simply put, more money. The last programme had been designed for a budget of EUR 120 billion and we ended up with EUR 80 billion. So, research budgets are in constraints and that is in complete opposition to what our formulated ambition had been – that at least 3 % of the GDP of Europe should be allocated to research and innovation.

    So in a way, ambitions should follow also with the political courage to prioritise research and innovation in Europe. If I may conclude: now that the Commission and even the President have fully recognised the importance of science for the future of Europe, we also expect the Commission’s proposal for FP10 to be a Commission which also chooses science for Europe.

     
       

     

      Giorgio Gori, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, negli ultimi mesi l’amministrazione Trump ha attaccato l’autonomia del sistema educativo e universitario degli Stati Uniti, ha ridotto i finanziamenti agli atenei e limitato la libertà accademica. Queste scelte indeboliscono l’attrattività degli Stati Uniti per ricercatori e talenti globali. La rivista Nature ha rilevato che le domande di lavoro all’estero degli scienziati statunitensi sono cresciute del 32% tra gennaio e marzo 2025 rispetto all’anno precedente.

    La Commissione europea ha colto questa opportunità annunciando un piano da 500 milioni di euro, per il periodo 25-27, volto ad attrarre ricercatori internazionali. Tra le misure previste, una super sovvenzione di sette anni gestita dal Consiglio europeo della ricerca che offre stabilità e incentivi raddoppiati per chi si trasferisce in Europa. Questa iniziativa è un passo nella giusta direzione per rafforzare la posizione dell’Europa nella ricerca scientifica globale.

    Tuttavia, è essenziale fare di più. Negli ultimi venti anni l’Europa ha perso molto terreno rispetto ad altre regioni del mondo – su tutte Cina e Stati Uniti – riguardo alla capacità di attrarre investimenti per la ricerca e di coltivare talenti e progetti nei settori dell’innovazione più avanzata. E questa è una delle cause del declino della competitività europea.

    Non basta, quindi, l’iniziativa della Commissione: gli Stati membri vanno spinti a costruire un quadro legislativo in grado di valorizzare e sostenere stabilmente la capacità dei ricercatori, di quelli che sono emigrati e vogliamo che tornino, di quelli che vogliamo attrarre e, soprattutto, di quelli che sono rimasti ma che vivono e lavorano in condizioni di precarietà.

    Vanno aumentati i finanziamenti nazionali e i salari dei ricercatori, vanno progettati percorsi di carriera solidi e trasparenti e per chi sceglie di venire in Europa vanno semplificate le procedure di visto. Solo così la ricerca potrà fiorire in Europa, diventando motore di innovazione e di ricerca.

     
       

     

      Catherine Griset, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, à la Sorbonne, haut lieu de la culture française, Emmanuel Macron et Ursula von der Leyen ont organisé une mise en scène européiste: faire passer des activistes américains pour des martyrs de la liberté académique. Soyons clairs: ces chercheurs ne sont pas persécutés, ils sont sanctionnés pour avoir transformé les universités en foyer idéologique, où la science cède la place à la propagande.

    Alors qu’on leur déroule le tapis rouge, que devient la recherche en Europe? Elle est noyée sous des financements pour des projets sur le genre, la race ou la déconstruction. Erasmus+ subventionne même des universités islamistes. «Horizon Europe» est devenu un guichet pour l’idéologie. Quant à la Hongrie, elle est exclue, non pour des raisons scientifiques, mais parce qu’elle ose penser autrement. Voilà la liberté académique selon Bruxelles: un outil politique.

    Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, on efface désormais la France, jusque dans sa propre langue. Pour cette opération de communication, le français a été remplacé par un «globish» fade et sans racine. Les identités sont gommées, les cultures sont nivelées et l’Europe est standardisée à coups de slogans creux. C’est plus qu’un renoncement, c’est une soumission culturelle assumée. Cette opération n’a rien de scientifique: il s’agit d’un plan de rééducation idéologique et nous la combattrons.

     
       

     

      Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Widzimy na świecie w tej chwili wyścig nauki w różnych miejscach, w różnych dyscyplinach, ale przede wszystkim w takich obszarach, jak sztuczna inteligencja, rozwój energetyki, biotechnologii, najnowszych technologii informatycznych. W tych obszarach Unia Europejska powinna poczynić wszystko, aby stanąć w tym wyścigu jak równy z równym, w szczególności w kontekście konkurencji ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi czy z Chinami.

    Jest to tylko możliwe wtedy, gdy faktycznie środki finansowe skoncentrujemy na tych najważniejszych obszarach i faktycznie na nich się skupimy. Z racji tego, że oczywiste jest, że zasoby podatkowe, zasoby finansowe, którymi dysponuje Unia Europejska i państwa członkowskie, są ograniczone, musimy podjąć taką decyzję. I musimy też odważnie powiedzieć, że wydatkowanie środków finansowych na lewicowe, ideologiczne badania jest po prostu stratą środków finansowych. Jest stratą nadziei na postęp nauki w takich obszarach, o których przed chwilą powiedziałem. I dzisiaj odważnie lewica musi wybrać, czy chcecie, aby finansować wasze lewicowe pomysły, badania na temat tego, czy jest 30 czy 35 płci, czy chcecie, żeby Europa podążała w wyścigu w zakresie rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji, energetyki czy innych obszarów, które przełożą się na jakość życia obywateli.

    Szanowni Państwo, to nie jest kwestia dyskusji o wolności nauki, bo każdy może prowadzić badania naukowe, jakie sobie chce. Może decydować o tym samodzielnie. To jest decyzja o tym, gdzie idą pieniądze podatników. A pieniądze podatników powinny iść tam, gdzie efekty przełożą się na lepsze życie obywateli.

     
       

     

      Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, «le réchauffement climatique est un canular inventé par les Chinois pour nuire à l’industrie américaine», «le bruit des éoliennes cause le cancer», «le pacte vert pour l’Europe est un manifeste communiste», «un désinfectant est plus efficace qu’un vaccin contre la COVID-19», «l’huile de foie de morue réduit la mortalité liée à la rougeole», «les professeurs sont l’ennemi, nous devons attaquer agressivement les universités». Ces déclarations sont l’œuvre de Donald Trump et de son administration qui ont fait de la science et des scientifiques des ennemis de l’Amérique.

    Mes chers collègues, ce n’est pas seulement aux États-Unis, mais partout dans le monde où les extrêmes progressent, que la liberté scientifique est menacée. L’initiative «Choose Europe for Science» promeut cette liberté scientifique. Elle vise à renforcer l’attractivité des carrières scientifiques en Europe. Elle veut accélérer l’innovation en facilitant le passage de la recherche fondamentale au marché.

    Madame la Commissaire, le groupe Renew Europe soutient pleinement cette initiative. Il est à vos côtés pour faire de l’Europe ce pôle d’attraction pour la science. Il est à vos côtés pour défendre notre identité, celle d’une démocratie européenne qui nous protège de tout obscurantisme. Alors travaillons ensemble pour octroyer davantage de moyens aux scientifiques européens et étrangers et pour faciliter le retour des chercheurs européens expatriés.

    Je le dis aux scientifiques du monde entier: entendez cet appel et choisissez l’Europe pour continuer à travailler. Des financements, un environnement favorable, des facilités administratives, la mobilisation d’un budget de 500 millions d’EUR, ainsi que le soutien inconditionnel à la liberté et à l’excellence scientifique sont là pour vous. L’Europe est généreuse, car elle a besoin des scientifiques.

    Chers collègues, sans recherche, sans innovation, nous ne parviendrons pas à répondre à l’enjeu de notre compétitivité. C’est l’une des conditions pour faire de l’Union européenne une puissance politique pleine et entière. L’équation est posée. Alors avançons.

     
       

     

      Anna Strolenberg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the plan to attract scientists to Europe is called Choose Europe. But what does it mean to choose Europe? It means to choose academic freedom, to choose a continent that still believes in climate change – and thank God for that – it means to choose diversity being a strength instead of a weakness.

    Choosing Europe also means long and difficult visa procedures. It also means having your diplomas recognised in one country, but not in the other. To choose Europe means to talk about researchers and professors that we want, but sometimes forgetting about the nurses, truckers and caregivers that we need.

    Choose Europe also means that sometimes we don’t use our full workforce potential because refugees and women don’t always find a job. I want the best talent to come to Europe, but I also want the best for talent in Europe, and I believe we can do both if we invest in the people here and if we see labour migration as an opportunity.

    So why don’t we train the people in Ljubljana but also look for them in Lagos? Why don’t we help women in Düsseldorf to find a job, but also look for them in Delhi? Why don’t we pay our professors and teachers in Saint-Étienne a fair wage, but also look for them in San Francisco?

    I would say, let’s not ask why people would choose Europe, but let’s ask ourselves, how can we make Europe the destination of choice for all talent?

     
       

     

      Ilaria Salis, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mentre negli Stati Uniti di Trump la libertà accademica è apertamente sotto attacco, anche in Europa non possiamo dormire sonni tranquilli. L’abbiamo visto nella repressione delle sacrosante proteste contro il genocidio a Gaza e contro l’occupazione coloniale della Palestina: studenti e ricercatori manganellati, conferenze annullate e accuse infondate e pretestuose di antisemitismo. È un segnale grave, gravissimo.

    L’iniziativa Choose Europe for Science è importante e la sostengo: l’Europa dovrebbe sempre essere un rifugio, un luogo di libertà, cooperazione e speranza. Sarebbe bello – aggiungo – se lo fosse anche per migranti e richiedenti asilo, che fanno altri lavori e provengono da altre parti del mondo; ma non lo è.

    Apriamo le porte solo alle eccellenze, come se il sapere non fosse sempre frutto di un lavoro collettivo, spesso invisibile e quasi sempre sottopagato. È una visione miope, che tradisce un’idea elitaria della conoscenza: l’idea capitalistica. L’Università va difesa nella sua interezza, come comunità, come luogo di sviluppo condiviso e non come vetrina di merito individuale.

    In Italia chi fa ricerca è spesso un lavoratore povero, intrappolato in una precarietà cronica, costretto a una mobilità imposta, con conseguenze materiali e psicologiche devastanti. I posti di lavoro sono pochi, le prospettive pesanti, spesso solo all’estero. L’Università non si costruisce selezionando pochi eccellenti ma garantendo a tutte e tutti l’accesso al sapere.

    Pertanto servono politiche pubbliche ambiziose, inclusive, di massa. Servono veri investimenti nella ricerca, perché la produzione di sapere è il miglior valore aggiunto che possiamo generare, non solo sul piano economico ma, soprattutto, sul piano culturale, sociale e democratico.

     
       

     

      Marc Jongen, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Choose Europe for Science. Warum sollten junge Wissenschaftler das tun? Doch nur, wenn sie sich zum Komplizen der politischen Lebenslüge unserer Eliten machen, dass Europa noch immer für Exzellenz, für akademische Freiheit und für Wohlstand steht. Die traurige Wahrheit ist doch: Es gibt heute Hexenjagden gegen kritische Wissenschaftler in ganz Europa, die nicht hundertprozentig dem linksliberalen Mainstream folgen, wie vor Kurzem gegen den jungen Historiker Hasselhorn in Deutschland. Lesen Sie das mal nach, Herr Brandstätter! Und Frau von der Leyen hat es in Paris in ihrer Rede Anfang Mai ja gesagt: Diversity is the lifeblood of science. Trump räumt gerade in den USA mit ideologischen Diversitätsprogrammen auf. Und wer deshalb von dort flüchtet, der ist sicher kein exzellenter Forscher, sondern Ideologe, den wir nicht noch mit teuren Programmen nach Europa locken sollten. Wir müssen aufhören, Agendawissenschaften wie Gender, Critical Race usw. in Europa zu fördern, und endlich auch einen freien Diskurs in der Klimaforschung zulassen. Nur dann werden wir wieder Exzellenz herstellen, und dann werden auch die pathetischen Worte von Macron und von der Leyen an der Sorbonne, die ja sehr schön waren, aber leider heuchlerisch, wieder der Wahrheit entsprechen.

     
       

     

      Letizia Moratti (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la scienza è uno degli strumenti più potenti che abbiamo per migliorare la vita dei nostri cittadini. È grazie agli studi, alle ricerche, alle competenze e alle eccellenze del nostro continente se oggi possiamo contare su terapie innovative contro il cancro o su vaccini che hanno sconfitto la poliomelite e la pandemia da COVID-19.

    L’intelligenza artificiale sta aprendo nuove frontiere: potenzia la ricerca, accelera le scoperte e rende le nostre industrie più competitive a livello globale. La scienza dunque non è astratta: è concreta, genera soluzioni, crea futuro.

    Eppure in Europa il trasferimento tecnologico rimane una delle nostre maggiori debolezze. Abbiamo ottimi ricercatori, ma non sempre riusciamo a trasformare la ricerca in valore sociale ed economico. Gli investimenti pubblici in ricerca nell’Unione europea – fondamentali investimenti che vanno potenziati – sono pari al 2,2 percento del PIL, mentre negli USA sfiorano il 3,5 percento. Anche gli investimenti privati sono ancora troppo bassi: solo l’1,5 percento del PIL contro il 2,2 percento degli Stati Uniti.

    Dobbiamo agire per colmare questi gap. Serve facilitare la ricerca di spin-off e start-up universitarie, promuovere partnership pubblico-privato, creare un ecosistema favorevole che attragga investimenti, acceleri il trasferimento tecnologico e quindi attragga i migliori ricercatori.

    L’Unione europea deve essere protagonista nell’affermare una scienza libera che non solo scopre ma costruisce per il bene dei propri cittadini. E questo significa anche sostenere con forza la sua applicazione industriale ed economica: è una sfida che dobbiamo vincere.

     
       

     

      Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, en un momento en el que, por un lado, Europa necesita mejorar su competitividad, pero, por el otro, la libertad académica y la ciencia están siendo también cuestionadas en otros lugares del mundo, la iniciativa Elige Europa para la ciencia es más importante que nunca.

    Europa debe posicionarse como refugio para las y los investigadores que buscan desarrollar sus ideas en un entorno de libertad y de respeto por la diversidad, por el pensamiento crítico que inspira el propio método científico, y Elige Europa para la ciencia es un paso en la dirección correcta, pero debe ser un proyecto verdaderamente europeo para evitar crear desigualdades. No podemos permitir que esta medida beneficie solo a algunos territorios: esa no es la Europa que queremos.

    Queremos que Europa sea un lugar donde puedan investigar en libertad y abordar los desafíos globales, donde puedan colaborar con personas expertas de todo el mundo y donde se puedan aprovechar bien las oportunidades de financiación. Y para eso debemos garantizar, principalmente, dos cosas: primero, un presupuesto fuerte, y segundo, un programa europeo de ciencia e innovación autónomo. Afortunadamente, la presidenta de la Comisión el otro día anunció que así sería.

    Tenemos que convencernos de que, sin ciencia, no hay ni competitividad, ni democracia, ni proyecto europeo.

     
       

     

      Annamária Vicsek (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! A kutatás és innováció kulcsfontosságú Európa versenyképességének megőrzésében, ezért üdvözlendő a Bizottság célkitűzése, hogy megállítsa, sőt visszafordítsa az agyelszívást. A válassza Európát, válassza a tudományt elnevezésű kezdeményezésben viszont egy súlyos ellentmondást láthatunk. Miközben Brüsszel tengerentúli kutatókat csábít, addig egyes uniós kutatókat kizár a közös programokból. A magyar kutatók már három éve nem férnek hozzá a Horizon Europe forrásaihoz. Nem tudományos vagy adminisztratív hibák miatt, hanem politikai okokból.

    Az Európai Bizottság a magyar kutatói közösség kizárásával akarja büntetni a magyar kormányt, pedig ezzel pont azt fogja eredményezni, amit elvileg meg akarna akadályozni, az agyelszívást. A magyar kutatók ma nemcsak az uniós, hanem már harmadik országbeli kollégáikkal szemben is hátrányban vannak. Ez a kirekesztés nemcsak igazságtalan, hanem Európa versenyképességét is gyengíti. A kiváló magyar kutatók megérdemlik, hogy az egységes kutatási térséghez tartozzanak.

     
       

     

      Marion Maréchal (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Emmanuel Macron et Ursula von der Leyen se sont livrés à la Sorbonne à un drôle de numéro: les voilà donc ardents défenseurs d’une recherche académique libre et indépendante contre l’obscurantisme de l’administration Trump.

    Pour l’occasion, le président français n’a pas eu honte de proposer 100 millions d’euros pour attirer les chercheurs américains, alors que dans le même temps, le budget français dévolu à l’enseignement supérieur et à la recherche s’est vu retirer 1 milliard d’euros en 2025.

    Pendant que les États-Unis consacrent plus de 3,5 % de leur PIB à la recherche et au développement, l’UE, elle, peine à dépasser les 2,2 %. L’Europe, en effet, peine à garder ses chercheurs, puisque, depuis 2010, le taux de départ des docteurs européens vers les États-Unis est d’environ 20 %.

    Alors, avant de vouloir faire venir les chercheurs américains anti-Trump en Europe, commençons déjà par comprendre et faire en sorte de garder nos propres chercheurs en Europe grâce à une rémunération et à des crédits dignes de ce nom.

    Profitons-en aussi pour nous interroger sur les orientations budgétaires de la recherche publique dans nos pays qui, en France par exemple, avec le CNRS, est devenu le paradis des sciences molles pour militants woke au détriment de la recherche scientifique qui, elle, crée de la richesse et de l’emploi.

     
       

     

      Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, fin mars, nous alertions déjà sur la situation aux États-Unis: coupes budgétaires massives, recul des libertés académiques, licenciements. Aujourd’hui, ses scientifiques cherchent un refuge. L’Europe a donc une opportunité unique: devenir le nouvel eldorado de la science libre.

    À cet égard, je salue l’initiative «Choose Europe» et l’annonce d’une enveloppe de 500 millions d’euros jusqu’en 2027, mais soyons clairs: les 22 millions d’euros du programme pilote, via l’action Marie Curie, ne suffiront pas. Ce programme pilote doit ouvrir la voie, oui, mais l’ouvrir vite, avec des procédures d’accueil simplifiées, une sélection rapide des projets et des perspectives de long terme pour celles et ceux qui veulent reconstruire ici leur avenir scientifique.

    Par ailleurs, l’excellence scientifique n’est pas incompatible avec l’agenda stratégique de l’Union, bien au contraire. Les projets portés dans ce cadre peuvent, par leurs résultats, contribuer aux priorités de l’Union, du climat à la santé en passant par les technologies critiques et de rupture.

    Enfin, j’en appelle à toutes les universités, académies et centres de recherche européens: rejoignez le mouvement, ouvrez vos portes.

     
       

     

      Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE). – Gospa predsedujoča! Spoštovane kolegice in kolegi! Kot profesor iz prve roke poznam preobrazbo na moč znanosti, ki mora biti svobodna, odprta za sodelovanje in ima intelektualno dostojanstvo.

    V času, ko so ogrožene akademske svoboščine v Združenih državah Amerike in drugje, kjer so dejstva spolitizirana, akademiki pa utišani, mora Evropa dajati zgled. Biti moramo upanje za tiste, ki iščejo resnico in ne nadzora. Za tiste, ki iščejo sodelovanje in ne cenzure. Zato moramo odpreti vrata svetu z novimi programi, kot so Erasmus+ za Indijo in Afriko, ter vzpostaviti nova partnerstva s tretjimi državami.

    To niso le programi mednarodne izmenjave, ampak so lahko tudi rešilni čoln za tiste, ki so danes ogroženi na Harvardu, Columbiji in drugje. Evropa mora sprejeti bistre ume iz vsega sveta. Naj jasno povem, če verjamete v svobodno misel in dostojanstvo znanja, potem izberite Evropo za znanost.

     
       

     

      Catarina Martins (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, este debate é um desfile de horrores.

    Um grupo da extrema-direita chega e defende cortar o financiamento a universidades que se posicionam contra o genocídio na Palestina. Logo a seguir, outro dos grupos da extrema-direita vem defender cortes na investigação científica sobre mulheres. Como se não chegasse, vem o terceiro grupo de extrema-direita deste Parlamento e propõe adotar o conceito fascista de ciência: só se investiga o que lhes der razão.

    A questão da liberdade académica não é um problema só nos Estados Unidos, onde a administração de Donald Trump está a perseguir as universidades e os cientistas. A interferência e a ameaça contra as universidades, o desrespeito completo pela autonomia, a falta de conhecimento — onde sobram racismo, misoginia e homofobia, elevados a critérios da ciência, que se pode ou não produzir —, também já estão na Hungria. Já está à espreita em tantos países europeus. E não foi, afinal, o que ouvimos aqui hoje?

    A iniciativa Escolhe a Europa para a Ciência tem o objetivo de atrair cientistas de outras partes do mundo para fazer ciência na Europa. E é bom que a Europa o queira fazer, que se queira abrir ao mundo e que perceba que a ciência é fundamental.

    Mas olhemos para o que está a acontecer: orçamento para a ciência insuficiente, xenofobia no centro da política de imigração e, mais, com a cobertura crescente que populares e liberais dão à extrema-direita um pouco por toda a Europa, quem acolherá os investigadores americanos, europeus, seja onde for, quando a perseguição, aqui, também se tornar a regra?

     
       

     

      Zsuzsanna Borvendég (ESN). – Elnök Asszony! A kutatás-fejlesztés erősítése a versenyképesség egyik kulcsa, de a célok kijelölése tagállami hatáskör. Központosítással durva aránytalanságok állhatnak elő, és komoly problémák léphetnek fel. Már a bolognai folyamat is színvonalesést eredményezett az egyetemeken, de figyelmeztető jel az is, hogy a Covid-diktatúra idején boszorkányüldözést folytattak azon tudósok ellen, akik megkérdőjelezték a WHO diktátumait.

    A tudományos szabadság nem tűri a politikai és ideológiai nyomásgyakorlást, ezért káros, hogy a tervezet eleve kiemeli a zöld átállást, a gender-tanokat, és kiemelt figyelmet fordít az ukrán kutatókra, ezzel kvázi meghatározva a támogatás politikai feltételeit. A mobilitás túlhangsúlyozásával az európai kutatók hátrányba kerülhetnek a harmadik országból érkezőkkel szemben. Vagyis rejtetten a migrációt segíti a tervezet, ráadásul nehezíti a kutatók visszatérését saját hazájukba, ezzel az Unión belüli agyelszívást fokozzák, ami a kevésbé gazdag tagállamokat súlyosan érinti.

     
       

     

      Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Doamnă președintă, da, vorbim despre cercetare. Este foarte frumos, aveți intenții foarte bune, vă gândiți la bani, vă gândiți să aduceți cei mai buni cercetători din Statele Unite ale Americii, ăia de care America nu mai are nevoie, dar nu vă uitați la cercetătorii din Europa și, bineînțeles, fiind româncă, vreau să-mi laud cercetătorii din România: cercetători care au pus bazele Institutului de la Măgurele de Fizică Atomică, pe care îl lăsați în paragină; cercetători care au pus bazele celui mai important institut, „Cantacuzino” – datorită căruia n-am mai fi avut nevoie de vaccinuri COVID cu cercetări pe care nu știu pentru cine le-ați făcut, poate pentru Auschwitz, pentru că au omorât și omoară și acum, nu știu ce cercetători au fost – Institut „Cantacuzino” care nu mai există, iar cercetătorii au fost puși să se ducă la adunat de legume prin țările dumneavoastră; Institutul de Geriatrie „Ana Aslan”, cea care a inventat elixirul tinereții.

    Nu faceți absolut nimic pentru Europa. Vă bateți joc! Aduceți doar vaccinuri care au efecte secundare și omoară oameni. Ideologii de gen, asta este cercetarea europeană. Când veți învăța să respectați Europa și cercetătorii europeni, atunci veți avea excelență.

     
       

     

      Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Europa ist ein hervorragender Standort für Wissenschaftler aus der ganzen Welt. Die Freiheit der Lehre, der Forschung, der Wissenschaft ist für uns in Europa ein ganz hohes Gut. Dafür zu werben und Anreize zu setzen, dass Talente nach Europa kommen, ist genau das Richtige. Ich begrüße das neue Förderprogramm für Spitzenforschung, Spitzenforscher und internationale Talente. Ich begrüße diese Superfinanzhilfe für den Europäischen Forschungsrat. Ich begrüße die bessere finanzielle Ausstattung für Marie-Curie-Stipendien. Das alles, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sind doch hervorragende Initiativen, und sie helfen auch, eben unseren Standort noch weiter attraktiv zu machen.

    Woran wir wirklich noch arbeiten müssen, ist, dass wir hier auch die Rahmenbedingungen für die Talente, die nach Europa kommen, erleichtern. Ich höre aus der Wissenschaftscommunity, dass es immer noch Riesenprobleme in den Mitgliedstaaten bei der Erteilung von Visa gibt, dass es beim Start schwierig ist – auch in dieser neuen Umgebung. Das ist jetzt nicht in erster Linie Aufgabe der Kommission, aber vielleicht kann man doch auch darauf hinwirken, dass die Talente, die zu uns nach Europa kommen wollen, sich hier auch wirklich willkommen fühlen. Und das beginnt damit, dass wir bei der Visaerteilung Erleichterungen schaffen.

     
       

     

      Sofie Eriksson (S&D). – Fru talman! Det vi ser i USA just nu är ett systematiskt sönderfall, en demokrati som monteras ner bit för bit, en president som föraktar rättsstaten, som underminerar vetenskapen, som bara verkar bry sig om att berika sig själv och andra superrika, som gärna vill hålla folkflertalet utan utbildning och förnekar dem utbildning eftersom att vi vet att en bildad befolkning kommer att ifrågasätta auktoriteter.

    Men vi hör ju samma rop här i denna sal här i dag från extremhögern som hånar vetenskap, som förnekar klimatförändringarna, som vill bygga makten på rädsla och förakt. Det duger inte.

    Därför måste Europa svara, inte med tystnad utan med mod. Det är nu som vi måste ta ställning. Vi ska vara den självklara platsen i världen där kunskapen får andas, där sanningen inte är till salu. Därför är det här initiativet från kommissionen viktigt. Men det behövs mer än ord. Det krävs handling, det krävs förnuft. För låt det nu inte bli så att vi skrumpnar till torra, bruna, orangea och sura apelsiner, utan låt oss vara stolta i Europa där vetenskapen alltid har en plats.

     
       

     

      Jana Nagyová (PfE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, bylo nebylo, Evropa kdysi bývala centrem pokroku, místem, kam lidé upírali oči v naději na lepší budoucnost. Ta doba je však pryč. Svým přesvědčením, že jsme ti nejlepší, svou nabubřelostí a byrokracií jsme nechali mnoho mozků a vynálezů utéct do třetích zemí. Problémy jsou nad slunce jasné, odliv mozků, o třetinu nižší výdaje na výzkum a vývoj a jen čtvrtina registrovaných patentů ve srovnání s USA a Čínou. Uvádění inovací na trh podle reálné situace je ještě horší. Není divu. Zásadním krokem pro Evropu je totiž splnění úkolu, který zde zůstává nedokončený již téměř sedmdesát let od doby Římských smluv, a to je realizace čtyř svobod. Roztříštěnost trhů stojí Evropu každý rok přes 200 miliard EUR a přitom my hledáme nové finanční zdroje. Máme je na talíři.

    Člověk však musí věřit, že bude lépe. Proto věřím, že poslední kroky Evropské komise, a to je program Choose Europe for Science a příslib samostatného programu Horizont přinesou své ovoce. Jen doufám, že přístup do něj bude nastaven tak, aby i menší státy měly reálnou šanci z toho čerpat. Jinak bude platit „Poslední zhasíná“.

     
       

     

      Diego Solier (NI). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, hay dos cosas raras de ver: una patera yendo hacia un país comunista y un investigador pensando en quedarse en Europa. Europa quiere ser el hogar de la ciencia, pero para eso tiene que ser un lugar donde vivir, trabajar y crear no sea un deporte de riesgo.

    Somos un continente con democracias sólidas: sanidad, educación, movilidad… Sí, pero ¿puede un joven e investigador pagar un piso en Ámsterdam, Múnich o Madrid con un contrato de tres años? Financiamos ciencia con Horizonte Europa, pero llenamos a los investigadores de papeles y formularios. Los científicos pasan más tiempo acreditando que investigando.

    Además, no podemos permitir que nuestros investigadores vivan en la precariedad. Necesitamos más vínculos con las empresas, más empleabilidad y más sinergias. Si queremos que elijan Europa, hagamos de Europa una elección real, no una apuesta inestable. La ciencia necesita libertad, continuidad y estabilidad. Sin ciencia no hay Europa.

     
       

     

      Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señora presidenta, estamos en un momento en el que presidentes de distintos Estados son invitados a la Casa Blanca con intención de ser ridiculizados, se dispara contra diplomáticos y civiles de todos los bandos cuando se quiere presionar ante violaciones de derechos humanos y actuaciones inhumanas y la plutocracia y extremismos ganan terreno, limitando libertades fundamentales y pensamientos críticos. Hagamos de Euskadi y de Europa un espacio de oportunidad para quienes quieran mejorar sus condiciones de vida desde el respeto a los valores europeos y un lugar de desarrollo profesional para quienes quieran sumar sus capacidades investigadoras a las nuestras y nos ayuden a reducir dependencias a partir de la innovación y el desarrollo. De eso va el programa Elige Europa para la ciencia.

    En este nuevo tablero geopolítico, el liderazgo científico e innovador proporciona una ventaja competitiva cada vez mayor. Y eso, en el medio y en el largo plazo, se traduce en nuevos y mejores puestos de trabajo, más autonomía estratégica y menos desigualdades.

    Por lo tanto, en una Euskadi que siempre ha apostado por la investigación y el desarrollo, por la libertad científica y el fomento del talento, esperamos que esos más de 1 250 millones de euros sirvan para hacer crecer nuestro espacio de oportunidad y nuestro país.

     
       

     

      Anthony Smith (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, c’est formidable, formidablement hypocrite! Mme von der Leyen et M. Macron s’érigent en défenseurs des libertés académiques et politiques en octroyant l’accueil aux scientifiques étasuniens, par exemple, persécutés pour leur engagement en faveur de la Palestine.

    Ce sont les mêmes qui, ici, s’enlisent dans des circonvolutions pour ne pas dénoncer le génocide en cours à Gaza. Les mêmes qui, ici, frappent d’anathème les militants et les étudiants dénonçant les massacres de Tsahal; les mêmes qui, ici, accusent d’antisémitisme toute personne critiquant le gouvernement d’extrême droite de M. Netanyahou.

    Depuis que M. Macron est au pouvoir, le budget de l’enseignement supérieur par étudiant a baissé de 15 % en France. Une destruction méthodique de l’université publique a lieu sous nos yeux. Les universités ne parviennent plus à boucler leur budget et la précarisation des personnels et des étudiants atteint des niveaux records.

    Assez de cette hypocrisie et de ces plans de communication obscènes! Nous défendrons toujours les libertés politiques et académiques et les moyens nécessaires à leur expression, tout comme nous défendrons toujours l’accueil des réfugiés, peu importe leur origine.

     
       

     

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, só teremos uma Europa desenvolvida, próspera e soberana se colocarmos a ciência e a inovação no centro do nosso projeto comum. A iniciativa Escolhe a Europa para a Ciência é um passo crucial nessa direção.

    Pela primeira vez, os investigadores terão não só financiamento robusto e direto da União Europeia, mas também a garantia de contratos prolongados por parte das instituições e a necessária continuidade da carreira científica.

    Além disso, com a exigência de cofinanciamento que esta iniciativa impõe, devemos garantir que todas as instituições sediadas em regiões com menos recursos possam realmente participar sem deixar ninguém para trás.

    Mas precisamos de sonhar mais alto. Precisamos de garantir que esta iniciativa posiciona a União Europeia como líder global em ciência e inovação, oferecendo um ambiente de investigação aberto, bem financiado, coeso e com forte ligação ao setor empresarial. É muito importante que tal aconteça.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D).Dear President, colleagues, Commissioner, o futuro da indústria e da competitividade europeia não se constrói com salários baixos nem com desregulação sem limites; constrói-se com uma estratégia para a inovação, estratégia que nos faltou.

    A iniciativa Chose Europe, agora apresentada, acrescenta 500 milhões EUR, que permitem valorizar os nossos jovens qualificados e novos centros de investigação. Mas o aumento de financiamento abre também portas ao recrutamento dos melhores cientistas que já não estão na Europa.

    Falo daqueles que, nos Estados Unidos e noutros países, sofreram cortes no apoio ao seu trabalho e que sentem a ciência ameaçada por parte dos mesmos que em Gaza ameaçam crianças, mas que no mundo ameaçam a verdade.

    Esta é uma oportunidade única para reinventar a Europa como líder de uma nova era do conhecimento na descarbonização, na inteligência artificial ou nas biotecnologias de saúde. Mas, sejamos claros, o futuro não vai esperar por nós. E é por isso que, mais do que é importante apresentar, é urgente fazer. Essa deve ser razão suficiente para que o Velho Continente volte a ser o mais iluminado.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Bruno Gonçalves, quero fazer-lhe duas perguntas.

    Primeiro, como é que Portugal sai da situação de dependência dos países mais fortes, das grandes potências da União Europeia, no acesso aos fundos para a ciência? A União Europeia acaba de anunciar um conjunto de medidas com grandes fundos associados. Portugal continua sempre numa posição de dependência, porque, para aceder a esses fundos, as nossas unidades de ciência e de investigação precisam sempre de encontrar alguma espécie de consórcio com unidades de países mais importantes, mais fortes, para conseguir aceder aos fundos.

    A segunda pergunta é esta: como é que o PS resolve a contradição do seu discurso e do seu posicionamento, defendendo, por um lado, o investimento na ciência e na investigação, mas, por outro lado, estando de acordo com todas as restrições e condicionamentos orçamentais que a União Europeia nos impõe, nomeadamente através do Pacto de Estabilidade?

    Precisamos de fazer o investimento em ciência e tecnologia, e isso não é compatível com a aceitação das restrições orçamentais que a União Europeia nos impõe.

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Se eu pudesse responder com uma venda, eu diria que esta intervenção vem de um partido profundamente europeísta, preocupado com a Europa e com a forma como os fundos europeus são alocados ao nosso país. Não é o caso.

    E, portanto, responderei sendo de um partido profundamente europeísta, de um partido que criou, em Portugal, a Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, de um partido que aprofundou a integração europeia também no conhecimento, e que já na última legislatura — não na última legislatura do governo AD, mas do governo do Partido Socialista — criou clusters em Portugal que não só permitiram aceder a mais fundos, mas permitiram aceder a mais fundos entre empresas e universidades portuguesas.

    E, portanto, essa visão cética sobre a Europa é algo que caracteriza bem a bancada de onde o senhor deputado vem, mas não é algo que seja refletido nos dados públicos, que nos demonstram que, hoje, temos pessoas mais qualificadas, mais inovação — e muito mais do que tínhamos antes da integração europeia.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, mevrouw de commissaris, ik ben blij dat het besef er is dat investeringen in onderzoek en innovatie een absolute noodzaak zijn voor ons concurrentievermogen. Ik ben ook trots dat Vlaanderen hierin een koploper is en zelfs de ambitie uitspreekt om van 3,5 % naar 5 % van het bbp te evolueren.

    Het gemiddelde in de Europese Unie ligt nu rond de 2,2 % en dat is ruim onvoldoende. Onze productiviteit lijdt hieronder. Zo kunnen we de wereldwijde concurrentie niet aangaan en dreigen we aan welvaart in te boeten. Dus goed dat de Commissie actie onderneemt. Maar sta me toe, mevrouw de commissaris, drie belangrijke kanttekeningen te maken:

    1) laat fundamenteel onderzoek niet vallen. Dat brengt het Europese concurrentievermogen op lange termijn immers in gevaar;

    2) behoud de zeer waardevolle bottom-upbenadering in het Marie Curie-programma. Hierin is politieke sturing niet wenselijk;

    3) let op met het reguleren van academische vrijheid, want het enige kader ter bescherming van de academische vrijheid is net dat er geen kader is.

    Conclusie: kiezen voor onderzoek en innovatie is kiezen voor de toekomst.

     
       

     

      Jüri Ratas (PPE). – Austatud president! Head ametikaaslased, komisjon. Toetan tugevalt ideed, et teadus peab olema Euroopa poliitika keskmes, kui me tahame tagada meie tulevikku ja konkurentsivõimet. Teadus on nagu voolav jõgi, mis toidab kogu meie ühiskonda, meie majandust ja meie tulevikku. Kui me ei hoolitse selle jõe eest, siis ta kuivab ja koos sellega takerdub ka meie edasiminek. Me ei saa lubada, et see teema jääb Euroopa Liidus vaid tühjaks hüüdlauseks. Peame kiiresti jõudma tegudeni. Euroopa teadus on tähtis meie konkurentsivõime, julgeoleku ja heaolu jaoks. Euroopast peab saama teaduse liider. Peame olema innovatsiooni esirinnas ja toetama ka teiste riikide teadlasi Euroopas tegutsemas. Tean seda ka Eesti kogemusest. Meie teaduse maastik on maailmatasemel, kuid meie teadlased, ülikoolid ja teadusasutused vajavad kindlamat tuge, suuremaid investeeringuid, et nad saaksid jätkata Euroopas tipptasemel lahenduste väljatöötamist ja viiksid siin oma unistused ellu. Ma tänan!

     
       

     

      Elena Sancho Murillo (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la ciencia y la innovación son nuestro presente y nuestro futuro y, por eso, Elige Europa para la ciencia debe ser la hoja de ruta para afrontar los retos de los próximos años.

    ¿Qué hubiera sido de nuestra historia sin Marie Curie, la española Margarita Salas, Charles Darwin o Grace Hopper? Os aseguro que la historia tal y como la conocemos no hubiera sucedido. Continuemos rompiendo barreras en defensa de la ciencia y de la tecnología y rompiendo, además, techos de cristal para que las mujeres también seamos líderes y estemos presentes en esta transformación de la innovación y de la ciencia.

    El desarrollo en I+D, la tecnología, la inteligencia artificial y la digitalización deben reforzarse como herramientas de avance, de libertad, de seguridad y de competitividad europea frente a las amenazas de los oligarcas estadounidenses como Donald Trump o Elon Musk.

    Elige Europa para la ciencia debe ser el compromiso por el liderazgo de Europa en innovación para que nuestros jóvenes elijan venir y quedarse en Europa. La inversión anunciada son buenas noticias, pero debemos seguir siendo ambiciosos. Debemos seguir atrayendo talento a Europa a través de más inversión y buenas condiciones laborales. Si queremos el avance científico de Europa, debemos estar del lado de los científicos y científicas.

     
       

     

      Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! Európa vezet a tudományos publikációk számában és a nemzetközi együttműködésekben, de a globális versenyképességhez innovatívabb, befogadóbb tudományos ökoszisztémákra van szükségünk. Olyanokra, amelyek bevonzzák a legbrilliánsabb elméket. Először is vonzó hellyé kell válnunk a legjobb kutatók számára. Ez kiszámítható, hosszútávú finanszírozást, külön keretprogramot, világos és vonzó karrierutakat, jó munka-magánélet egyensúlyt jelent, különösen a nőknek és a fiatal kutatóknak, valamint egy olyan kutatási kultúrát, amely a kiválóságra, a nyitottságra és a bizalomra épül.

    Nem feledkezhetünk meg a kutatási innovációs szakadék csökkentéséről sem. Erős európai kutatási térséget kell kiépítenünk, kiváló infrastruktúrákkal, amelyek minden régiót és tagállamot bevonnak, beleértve Magyarországot is, amely a jövőben, amikor majd mi, a Tisza leszünk kormányon, visszaadjuk az Akadémia szabadságát, és majd ismét élénk tudományos ökoszisztémává válhat, ahol a tehetség valóban kibontakozhat. Európának erősítenie kell tudományos szuverenitását, nem csak a csúcstechnológiába kell befektetnie, hanem az azt létrehozó emberekbe is.

     
       

       

    Procedura “catch-the-eye”

     
       

     

      Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Dabartinė JAV administracija ruošiasi nurėžti finansavimą nuo, pavyzdžiui, NASA, nuo Ligų kontrolės, prevencijos centro. Būdamas mokslininkas, žinau, per kokius sunkiai įveikiamus biurokratinius brūzgynus tenka brautis formuojant, pavyzdžiui, sveikatos duomenų registrus. Tokių duomenų nepalaikant, ta unikali sukaupta globali vertybė nueina niekais. Tad Komisijos pirmininkės pasiūlytas pusės milijardo paketas apskritai yra laiku ir vietoj. Tai turi aprėpti mokslininkus iš įvairių trečiųjų valstybių, įskaitant, pavyzdžiui, Ukrainą. Tiesa, septynerių metų „super grantai“ gali kelti nelygybės pavojų tarp jau egzistuojančių ir dar tik besiformuojančių kompetencijos centrų. Tačiau džiugina požiūris į jaunus mokslininkus ir jog nepamirštama parama jiems. Dar pridurčiau apie būtinybę į finansavimą įtraukti dvigubos paskirties tyrimus. Dėkoju.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, you know very well, Manuel Heitor’s report – align, act, accelerate. The report is based on the Letta Report proposing a fifth freedom, but a fifth freedom for research and development requires infrastructure and an ecosystem at pan-European, supranational level.

    And of course, Draghi mentioned the necessity to build a research and innovation union. A union requires a lot of effort and a whole-of-Commission approach and a whole-of-government approach. We are just proposing to establish a pilot project using European reference networks, using artificial intelligence fabrics, using a health data space, using biobanks and one million genomics to build an ecosystem and a reduction in the area of rare diseases, rare cancers and low prevalence diseases.

    It would be a good example to have pan-European infrastructure. I will send you our proposals.

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     
       

     

      Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Mr President, some right-wing colleagues told us that Trump wants to chase away just the ‘woke’ scientists. That’s wrong. I have here the editorial of The Lancet, a well-known publication of science. What they’re writing is that Elon Musk’s department slashed federal budgets and awards, interrupting investigations into paediatric cancer, diabetes, HIV, prematurely ending at least 113 clinical trials and withholding funds from more than 200 universities. PhD projects have been cancelled, graduate admissions rescinded and infrastructure investment foregone. The visas of foreign-born American students and faculty have been revoked.

    So that’s the situation. In the United States, they can’t work freely anymore. So please, Commissioner, go there, get them. We really have to do something. They have great talent and they should come to Europe.

    One more thing: yesterday, we had a conference about the mental health of the children of Ukraine. They are refugees – 20 000 of them were stolen and brought to Russia. They need a lot for mental health. Please think about them as well. Let’s do something for them.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Zaharieva, o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico é um aspeto absolutamente essencial para o desenvolvimento de qualquer país. E as assimetrias e as desigualdades de desenvolvimento entre os países da União Europeia são um problema grave, que tem de ser combatido — e, por isso, é absolutamente essencial que as opções da União Europeia em matéria de ciência e tecnologia deem um contributo decisivo para esbater, para eliminar essas diferenças e essas desigualdades de desenvolvimento entre cada país.

    Mas as opções que têm sido feitas são exatamente no sentido contrário. Não apenas nas políticas económicas, que determinam, para alguns países, melhores condições de desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico e de incorporação da ciência e da tecnologia na sua atividade produtiva, mas também porque, no acesso aos fundos, as condições de acesso entre países não são iguais, e os países menos desenvolvidos têm mais dificuldades em aceder aos fundos da União Europeia para poderem garantir melhores condições para o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico.

    Os países menos desenvolvidos têm mais dificuldades também em fazer o investimento com os seus próprios recursos orçamentais, porque as limitações e os condicionamentos da União Europeia pesam mais.

    É preciso inverter essas opções para garantir que haja verdadeiramente coesão dentro da União Europeia.

     
       

     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Ich bin Ihnen sehr dankbar für diese Debatte, die mir erneut vor Augen geführt hat, was der Unterschied zwischen Politikern und Wissenschaftlern ist. Ich denke, Choose Europe for Science ist eine sehr wichtige Initiative, die aber nicht genug auf das eigentliche Ziel eingeht, das wir damit verfolgen. Jeder weiß, dass es dabei am Ende des Tages um die Einführung einer fünften Grundfreiheit geht: der Wissenschaftsfreiheit. Aber das sollte in diesem Programm ausdrücklich erwähnt werden. Wir sollten in der Lage sein, mit unserer Wissenschaftsfreiheit Visionen für die Zukunft zu schaffen, und nicht nur kleinteilig das Jetzt zu regeln. Und das Gleiche gilt auch im Kleineren. Es ist richtig und wichtig, was im Einzelnen hinsichtlich der Anerkennung von Forschungsabschlüssen und der Erleichterungen für Visa darin steht. Aber wir gucken zu wenig auf diejenigen, die noch keine Forscher sind, nämlich diejenigen, die jetzt gerade in der Schule sind. Wir brauchen europaweit harmonisierte Schulfächer, wie zum Beispiel Digitalkompetenz und Medien, damit jene, die in Zukunft in Europa exzellent forschen können, dafür alle nötigen Kompetenzen mitbringen.

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I’m really grateful for your intervention. I felt really broad support for the Choose Europe for Science initiative, which confirms that uniting us is one of the most powerful attitudes that science has. It goes beyond the national and party borders and I think that’s precisely why Europe’s research is open to all of those who share our values.

    Today, already 42 % of our young doctoral and postdoctoral researchers that we support through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions come from outside the EU and 80 % of our publications that we fund through Horizon Europe are open access. I think that we have to be proud of our European model that we have for research. In Europe, science is free. In Europe, we celebrate both questions and our diverse academic traditions. In Europe, people are at the centre of scientific research and we should be proud of that.

    I heard a lot of you who said we have to improve the conditions of European researchers who are already here and that we have to create a true union of science and research. This was actually one of my number one priorities. In the five minutes at the beginning, I unfortunately wasn’t able to present the full package of Choose Europe for Science, but I can reassure you that we are working on everything that you mentioned, like improving career development, improving conditions for scientists in Europe, visa facilitation – we worked with Commissioner Brunner and with the Member States on that – and all the other questions that were raised and proposals that I heard today.

    I want to share with you one concrete number: now, with only 5 % of the world’s population, Europe is already home to one fourth of scientists in the world. In a decade, the number of European researchers will have grown by 45 %, which is significant. That means that young people choose science and choose to become scientists despite disinformation and science scepticism on the rise. They embrace science and for those young people who choose science, we are obliged to continue to do our best for Europe to remain the best place to do science in the world. I am committed and I rely on your support to work to achieve this.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you, Commissioner Zaharieva, for your statement and your involvement.

    The debate is closed.

     

    3. Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 (debate)

     

      Peter Agius, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, the Committee of Petitions is about giving a voice to citizens. It is the committee of the citizens. Through us, citizens can put pressure on the Commission, on the Member States to make sure that from laws we pass to rights.

    Because after all, this is what citizens really care about. They do not care about laws; they care about rights reaching them and their families. During the year 2023, the Committee of Petitions received 1 452 petitions representing a 16 % increase over previous years, but we believe there is room for much more. We believe there should be much more awareness about this important tool for citizens.

    The main topics of the petitions were the environment, internal market and fundamental rights. We received, for instance, many petitions on the Data Protection Regulation and its breaches in various Member States. We received petitions on the rule of law and democracy and a lot of petitions on environmental concerns. In fact, it’s fair to say that there is no Petitions Committee hearing without matters on environmental protection discussed in the committee, including wildlife conservation, forest policy and breaches to the Habitats Directive.

    We received many petitions also in the area of health, and this clearly shows that citizens want more out of Europe in this area. And in many discussions we had in the committee, it is with pride that I say that a lot of our discussions lead to changes, lead to implementation, lead to enforcement, lead to investigations. Of course, we need more of this. We need the Commission to dedicate even more resources to following up, to responding to petitions and to implementation.

    In 2023 we organised also four public hearings, some jointly with other committees, and these covered a wide range of petition-driven issues, including the Schengen border concerns, the impact of climate change on social security and vulnerable groups. The committee and the Commission maintain a very solid ongoing cooperation and we need, as we said, more involved Commission services and dedication to responding to petition concerns.

    Nixtieq nagħlaq bil-messaġġ bil-Malti billi nenfasizza r-rabta ċara li hemm bejn id-drittijiet tagħna bħala ċittadini Ewropej u ż-żmien li ndumu biex neħduhom id-drittijiet. Bl-Ingliż ngħidu Justice delayed is justice denied. U hawn nieħu eżempju minn Malta, l-elettorat tiegħi. F’Malta suppost għandna standards Ewropej għal baħar nadif imma tiltaqa’ ma’ familji bit-tfal, jgħidulek: “Jien ma nistax ingawdi l-bajja għax hemm id-drenaġġ ħiereġ fil-bajja”. Fil-fatt, meta tara l-istorja tara li l-Kummissjoni Ewropea ilha għaxar snin tibgħat l-ittri. Is-sena l-oħra kellna sentenza tal-qorti li fl-aħħar qalet li għandna bżonn ninfurzaw il-liġi Ewropea. Però, sadanittant, dawk it-tfal saru adulti u ma gawdewiex il-bajja. Ejja nagħmluha aktar, kollha kemm aħna, biex niffukaw fuq l-implimentazzjoni. Għax wara kollox l-implimentazzjoni twassal għad-drittijiet.

    Aħna fil-kumitat tal-petizzjonijiet ser nagħmlu l-biċċa tagħna billi nagħtu l-vuċi liċ-ċittadini li ħafna drabi m’għandhomx triq oħra ħlief li jiġu quddiemna. Għalhekk nagħlaq billi nirringrazzja lill-kollegi tal-gruppi politiċi kollha u anki MEPs bla grupp, tal-ħidma dedikata immens f’dan il kumitat u nħares ‘il quddiem għal djalogu interessanti llum u vot b’saħħtu u koerenti għar-riżoluzzjoni li għandna quddiemna.

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to welcome Mr Falcă’s report, which offers a comprehensive overview of the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2023.

    As Mr Agius has just said, petitions are an effective channel for direct contact and open dialogue on problems affecting the daily lives of Europeans.

    As mentioned by Commissioner Šefčovič last week in the structured dialogue with your committee, the Commission remains committed to providing timely and pertinent contributions to the European Parliament’s response to these concerns.

    A clear signal of this commitment is that, throughout 2023, Commission representatives were present at all meetings of the Committee on Petitions, including at the highest political level. For example, Vice‑President Šefčovič was with you in February 2023 for a structured dialogue in accordance with the Framework Agreement on relations between our two institutions, and Commissioner Dalli took part in the annual workshop on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in November 2023.

    According to your report, in 2023, you sent us 557 new petitions for opinion. In total, we provided on 984 petitions. The Commission continues to deploy the resources necessary to ensure that all petitions you send are properly addressed.

    Looking at the petitions received in 2023, the main topics raised were the environment, the economy and fundamental rights. These concerns remain valid today and broadly align with the priorities of this Commission, as outlined in President von der Leyen’s political guidelines and reflected in the 2025 Commission Work Programme adopted earlier this year, which focuses on bold action to bolster our security, prosperity and democracy.

    I would like to reiterate our commitment on addressing petitions that raise concerns on the implementation of EU law – a core priority under this mandate, and something crucial to maintaining the credibility of the EU institutions.

    In February, we adopted a communication on implementation and simplification, setting out our vision for fast and visible improvements for Europeans and European businesses.

    When it comes to the enforcement of EU law, the Commission takes action where necessary, using the infringement procedure. But the infringement procedure is not designed to offer concrete solutions for individuals or ensure individual redress. Rather, it is aimed at addressing systemic problems affecting a large amount of people, often across Member States.

    Petitioners pointing to the incorrect application of EU law in individual cases would benefit more from the mechanisms available at national level, such as the national courts, regulatory bodies or ombudsman. If the problem has a cross‑border dimension, the Solvit network may offer quick and flexible remedies.

    We have heard your calls for more transparency and better information‑sharing with regard to the Commission’s enforcement actions. We publish decisions on every step of an infringement procedure on the Europol webpage.

    In the current version of the Infringement Register, the public can search for cases, with a link to the petition portal of Parliament. Tools such as this make it easier to track the progress of specific infringements, and to verify if there is any petition linked to any ongoing investigations.

    The petitions portal now also links to the Infringement Register, allowing those who intend to file a petition to check whether an infringement procedure is already in progress.

    In addition, the Commission has recently published a new Europol webpage to give user‑friendly information on infringement cases, the transposition of directives and EU pilot dialogues.

    Finally, I want to commend your committee for your work on the European Citizens’ initiatives, in particular for advocating to increase the impact of European Citizens’ initiatives and for contributing to the organisation of public hearings for successful initiatives.

    Several legislative acts in recent years have been triggered by successful European Citizens’ Initiatives, such as the revised Drinking Water Directive, the Regulation on the Transparency and Sustainability of EU Risk Assessment in the Food Chain and the Nature Restoration Law.

    The next public hearing will be on the successful European Citizens’ Initiative on Cohesion Policy for the equality of the regions and the sustainability of regional cultures.

     
       

     

      Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la labor central de la Comisión de Peticiones es defender los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos, protegerlos y hacer un seguimiento de sus peticiones para que puedan participar activamente en la vida de la Unión Europea.

    El examen de esta Comisión de Peticiones de 2023 se ha hecho con eficacia, atención, imparcialidad, equidad y transparencia. Los ciudadanos han enviado peticiones sobre muchos temas, como ha comentado el ponente, pero me gustaría referirme especialmente a la preocupación sobre la situación del Estado de Derecho en España: se han presentado más de cuarenta peticiones sobre este tema, básicamente por los ataques a los jueces, las colonizaciones de las instituciones y la reducción de las penas por delitos de corrupción.

    Entre las misiones realizadas, me gustaría destacar las de Irlanda, Rumanía y España y, más concretamente, esta última, de la que debo resaltar y lamentar los ataques y tensiones que allí se vivieron. Yo estuve presente y nos insultaron diciendo: «Fuera, fascistas, de estos barrios. No metan las narices donde no les llaman». Creo que esta no debe ser la actitud.

    También me preocupa que no se haga un seguimiento de las recomendaciones que formulamos, pues lo hacemos para poder proteger los derechos de los ciudadanos. Por último, quiero poner en valor el trabajo tan magnífico que se ha hecho desde esta comisión.

     
       

     

      Sandra Gómez López, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, desde el Grupo S&D lamentamos profundamente el resultado de la votación en la Comisión de Peticiones. A pesar del trabajo constructivo que realizamos con el ponente y de los compromisos alcanzados con los grupos proeuropeos, seguramente por influencia y por imposición del Partido Popular español ‑que es quien realmente politiza y manosea esta comisión‑, la Comisión de Peticiones decidió romper el consenso y aliarse con la extrema derecha, dejando un informe que poco viene a reflejar los verdaderos intereses y preocupaciones de la ciudadanía.

    Lo siento por el ponente, pero lo importante de este informe –de este debate– ni siquiera son las enmiendas o el informe, es la estrategia de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre todo en el año 2023, que ha consistido en politizarla, utilizarla y manosearla para la propia agenda del Partido Popular. Y, realmente, peticiones que sí que son importantes y son de la ciudadanía nunca fueron atendidas o, como estamos viendo, son vetadas por intereses políticos, como es el caso de una petición gallega o de una sobre la DANA en Valencia, en donde su ciudadanía –las víctimas– ha podido verse antes con Úrsula von der Leyen o con Roberta Metsola que comparecer en la Comisión de Peticiones.

    Yo le quiero hacer una pregunta al resto de delegaciones del Partido Popular o de Patriots. ¿Van a seguir consintiendo que una delegación concreta utilice una comisión, que debería atender a la ciudadanía, pero que se ha convertido una especie de sucursal del Congreso de los Diputados? ¿Están utilizando recursos del Parlamento Europeo para hacer oposición a un Gobierno de un Estado miembro?

    Nosotros no vamos a aceptar que una comisión, que debería ser un verdadero instrumento de participación ciudadana, sea una mera fábrica de confrontación política, una pantalla de propaganda, y que se haya convertido en eso, además, exactamente en el año 2023, bajo la presidencia del Partido Popular Español y de Dolors Montserrat. Nosotros no vamos a ser cómplices y, por lo tanto, no vamos a permitir que se destruya lo que tanto costó construir: una Europa al servicio de la ciudadanía y no de sus partidos.

     
       

     

      Pál Szekeres, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! Először is szeretném megköszönni azt a munkát, amit a Petíciós Bizottság végzett a 2023-as esztendőben az uniós polgárok hangjának meghallgatásáért. A jelentés számos fontos témát tár fel az alapvető joguktól kezdve a környezetvédelemig. De engedjék meg, hogy egy területre külön felhívjam a figyelmet, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogainak védelmére, és ezen belül különösen a jelnyelv használatának előmozdítására.

    Üdvözlöm, hogy a szakbizottság elismerte, hogy a kommunikáció nem luxus, hanem alapjog. Ezért nagyon fontos, hogy szorgalmazzuk a Parlament eljárási szabályzatának módosítását annak érdekében, hogy a siket polgárok tudjanak a saját anyanyelvükön, a nemzeti jelnyelven kommunikálni. Ez nem csupán technikai kérdés, hanem kötelezettség is, amelyet az ENSZ fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló egyezménye is aláír és deklarálja. Én üdvözlöm a pozitív lépéseket, és felszólítom a kollégákat, hogy ne engedjék, hogy az eredmények kirakatintézkedésekké silányuljanak, és nagyon fontosnak tartom, hogy továbbra is támogassuk az európai polgárokat, hogy petíciókat tudjanak benyújtani, hogy tudjuk, hogy mi a véleményük a munkánkról.

     
       

     

      Jana Toom, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the work of the Committee of Petitions is unfortunately often underestimated, which I consider a big mistake, because we are the first – if not the only – direct channel for Europeans to address their concerns and seek solutions.

    This report very well reflects these expectations, as well as our ability to meet them. This ability, to be honest, is pretty limited. While citizens are very well aware of their rights, they are not so well aware, for instance, of Article 51 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which clearly states that the charter is obligatory to follow only if Member States implement European law, which leaves a huge gap between the rights and values we promote and the real life of our citizens, which in turn leads to disappointment and Euroscepticism.

    There are two ways: we leave this as it is and wait for the next crisis to force us to open the Treaties and remove these and other obstacles, or we find courage to put political pressure on our governments and not only promote, but truly defend the rights of Europeans are entitled to exercise – at least on paper.

     
       

     

      Ana Miranda Paz, em nome do Grupo Verts/ALE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, com este relatório, os grupos à direita e a extrema-direita deste Parlamento conseguiram silenciar e minar o importante trabalho realizado pela Comissão das Petições, em 2023, sobre temas ambientais e climáticos e sobre direitos das pessoas. A Comissão das Petições é, para mim, como deputada europeia, das mais importantes deste Parlamento Europeu.

    Mas não fizeram só isso, também usaram esta comissão para tratar de assuntos da exclusiva responsabilidade dos Estados-Membros — nomeadamente do Estado espanhol —, com acusações infundadas, gerando um ambiente de pouco consenso e levando a que a maioria das alterações do nosso grupo fossem rejeitadas sempre por questões ideológicas — como sempre fazem e continuam a fazer.

    Um dos aspetos mais censuráveis é a atitude do Partido Popular espanhol desde que as maiorias parlamentares mudaram. Antes, era capaz de pactuar com os grupos progressistas deste Parlamento e, agora, prefere alinhar-se com a extrema-direita para bloquear qualquer iniciativa interessante e construtiva proposta pelos outros grupos parlamentares, ignorando, assim, a cidadania europeia. Tal como as petições que, no ano passado, foram apresentadas contra a empresa de macrocelulose Altri — um projeto que trouxe à rua mais de 100 mil pessoas —, não lhes importa.

    Por isso, Senhor Relator, tenham este aspeto em conta, porque temos de mudar as coisas na Comissão das Petições e temos de fazer um trabalho que seja de todos os grupos, conjuntamente, e não trabalho sectário e manipulado, como fez o Partido Popular espanhol, manipulando também esta Comissão das Petições.

     
       

     

      Marcin Sypniewski, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Zalewacie nas codziennie tysiącami stron raportów i analiz, a tak naprawdę macie duży problem z transparentnością. W sprawie tajnych SMS-owych negocjacji szefowej Komisji Europejskiej z Pfizerem sprawa musiała trafić do sądu. Były tu ukrywane ustalenia na miliardy euro. I co? Jest wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, i co z tego? Żadnych konsekwencji.

    Podobnie w sprawie popularnych polskich pasów bezpieczeństwa dla dzieci, Smart Kids Belt, które zostały zaorane przez regulacje unijne. Tu też sąd stwierdził, że Komisja prowadziła kontakty z konkurentami i to wykończyło polską firmę. I żadnych konsekwencji. Posłowie nie mają też dostępu do ważnych dokumentów i ustaleń. Jaka to jest transparentność? Tylko w teorii. I te instytucje tak naprawdę działają tylko dla elit, a nie dla ludzi. I to widać w tych petycjach, które rozpatrujemy.

    Od siedmiu lat nie możecie znieść zmiany czasu, ale gdy trzeba wydać kolejne miliardy euro, gdy trzeba załatwić kolejną zapomogę dla Ukrainy, to działamy ekspresowo i bez namysłu. To małe sprawy, ważne dla ludzi powinny być załatwiane ekspresowo, a ważne sprawy dotyczące wielomiliardowych wydatków powinny być rozpatrywane rozważnie i z namysłem.

     
       

     

      Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, I speak today on behalf of the communities in Donegal and Mayo – places where families are living in homes that are literally falling apart around them. These houses were built with defective concrete blocks containing too much mica and pyrite, causing serious structural damage, emotional and financial strain for many, many people.

    In 2023, I joined colleagues from the Petitions Committee on its fact-finding mission to Donegal, a powerful moment that helped bring much-needed European attention to this crisis. The Parliament visit was built on years of local advocacy and resulted in clear, practical recommendations: first being faster access to a scheme that is fit for purpose, less red tape, stronger support for families, including mental health services, and accountability, with assurances that this would never happen again.

    We must properly enforce rules on construction materials and hold those to account and prevent this from ever happening again. We must ensure colleagues in the Irish Government and this Parliament deliver on those recommendations to strengthen the protections for everyone’s future.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE). – Señor presidente, son los ciudadanos los que se dirigen al Parlamento, por lo tanto, les pido que no les insulten.

    El Partido Socialista español pretende instrumentalizar hasta el Parlamento Europeo. Confunde su forma de hacer con el derecho de los españoles a trasladar sus preocupaciones a este Parlamento y su preocupación por los permanentes atentados al Estado de Derecho que estamos padeciendo. Porque los españoles, en 2023, fueron los ciudadanos que más peticiones presentaron a esta comisión. Esto es la consecuencia del asalto de nuestro Gobierno al CIS, el ataque a los jueces y a los tribunales, la colonización de las empresas y el uso de la Fiscalía, del Tribunal Constitucional y del Banco de España. Es la consecuencia de casos como el caso Koldo, el del hermano del presidente, la amnistía por los condenados por el procés, el derecho a protestar por la imputación de la mujer del presidente y un largo etcétera. Eso es lo que debe preocuparnos. La Comisión de Peticiones está para responder a estos problemas. No les insulten.

     
       

     

      Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Pirmininkaujantis, gerbiamas Komisare. Kai kartą šiandien Lietuvoj renkama peticija Europos Parlamentui, nes buvusi, buvusi, dabar esantys valdžioje, socialdemokratai, dalyvaudami rinkiminėje kampanijoje, pasipriešino tuometinei valdžiai ir sakė, kad mokesčių nekels. Tame tarpe nekilnojamo turto, gyventojų pajamų mokesčių ir kitų. Atėję į valdžią, jie šiandien po pateikimo priėmė mokesčių pakėlimą. Žmonės piktinasi apgauti. Vieną kalbą prieš rinkimus, o po rinkimus atlieka visai kitus veiksmus. Žmonės mato, kaip švaistomas visuomeninis turtas, kaip plečiasi biurokratija. Tai nustatinėja net ir Valstybės kontrolė, tačiau nesiima veiksmų, apiplėšinėja žmones. Aš tikiuosi, kad ir Europos Komisija, ir Europos peticijų komitetas atsižvelgs ir rimtai nagrinės šimtus tūkstančių surinktų Lietuvos piliečių parašų.

     
       

     

      Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή Αναφορών αποτελεί το βασικό θεσμικό βήμα μέσω του οποίου οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες εκφράζουν τις αγωνίες, τις ανησυχίες και τα προβλήματά τους. Ο ρόλος μας είναι ξεκάθαρος: να υπερασπιζόμαστε και να προωθούμε τα δικαιώματά τους χωρίς εκπτώσεις. Είναι απογοητευτικό ότι μια δεξιά-ακροδεξιά συμμαχία εντός της επιτροπής δρα για να κλείνει αναφορές που ενοχλούν τις δεξιές κυβερνήσεις. Επίσης, είναι απογοητευτικό το γεγονός ότι η πλειοψηφία των κρατών μελών επιλέγει συστηματικά να μην απαντά στα ερωτήματα που τους τίθενται από αυτήν την επιτροπή. Η λογοδοσία προς τους πολίτες δεν μπορεί να είναι επιλεκτική. Πρέπει να είναι καθολική και χωρίς υπεκφυγές. Γι’ αυτόν ακριβώς τον λόγο, είχα προτείνει, τουλάχιστον, την εφαρμογή της διαδικασίας «name and shame» για εκείνα τα κράτη μέλη που αρνούνται να συνεργαστούν, να απαντήσουν και να λογοδοτήσουν. Δυστυχώς, τα περισσότερα μέλη των πολιτικών Ομάδων επέλεξαν να προστατεύσουν τις κυβερνήσεις τους. Εμείς, ωστόσο, θα επιμένουμε, θα συνεχίσουμε να διεκδικούμε ονομαστική λογοδοσία για την υπεράσπιση των δικαιωμάτων των απλών ανθρώπων.

     
       

     

      Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλουμε να καταγγείλουμε την απόφαση του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου και της Επιτροπής Αναφορών να κλείσουν χωρίς συζήτηση αναφορά των αντιστασιακών ελληνικών οργανώσεων για τις γερμανικές επανορθώσεις, με τον προκλητικό ισχυρισμό ότι δεν εμπίπτει στις αρμοδιότητες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όμως οι αποζημιώσεις για τα εγκλήματα των Ναζί, το αναγκαστικό κατοχικό δάνειο, την κλοπή αρχαιολογικών θησαυρών καθορίζονται από διεθνείς συμβάσεις που δεσμεύουν δύο κράτη μέλη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θεωρεί αρμοδιότητά της να παρεμβαίνει σε κάθε διεθνές ζήτημα, σε ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους σε κάθε γωνιά του πλανήτη· να στηρίζει τη γενοκτονία του παλαιστινιακού λαού από το Ισραήλ· από τη Ρωσία, πριν καν τελειώσει ο πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία, απαιτεί επανορθώσεις. Στο θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων, όμως, κάνουν τους αναρμόδιους. Η στάση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, της κυβέρνησης της Νέας Δημοκρατίας και των προηγούμενων, που δεν διεκδικούν για να μη διαταραχθούν οι σχέσεις με τη Γερμανία, είναι πρόκληση απέναντι στον ελληνικό λαό, την ηρωική αντίστασή του και τις βαριές θυσίες του στην πάλη κατά του φασισμού. Συνεχίζουμε τον αγώνα ώστε οι κυβερνήσεις της Γερμανίας, της Ελλάδας και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να τοποθετηθούν επίσημα απέναντι στις δίκαιες απαιτήσεις του ελληνικού λαού για τις γερμανικές πολεμικές αποζημιώσεις.

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 10:45)

     
       

       

    PRESIDENZA: PINA PICIERNO
    Vicepresidente

     

    5. Voting time

       

    (Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)

     

    5.1. Amending Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 as regards additional assistance and further flexibility to outermost regions affected by severe natural disasters and in the context of cyclone Chido devastating Mayotte (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Iniziamo con la richiesta di decisione d’urgenza presentata dalla Commissione AGRI per quanto riguarda l’assistenza integrativa e l’ulteriore flessibilità per le regioni ultraperiferiche colpite da gravi calamità naturali e nel contesto delle devastazioni provocate a Mayotte dal ciclone Chido (cfr. punto 5.1 del processo verbale).

     

    5.2. Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism (A10-0085/2025 – Antonio Decaro) (vote)

       

    – Dopo la votazione:

     
       

       

    (Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta di rinvio in commissione)

     

    5.3. Modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (A10-0087/2025 – Inese Vaidere) (vote)

       

    – Prima della votazione:

     
       

     

      Inese Vaidere, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, many agricultural producers have become increasingly dependent on Russian fertiliser imports. The dependency on Russian gas is being replaced with a new dependency on Russian fertiliser.

    In addition, it has had a negative impact on the European fertiliser industry. Instead of a ban on importing Russian fertilisers as we, the European Parliament already called for in September, the Commission proposed to gradually, over a period of three years, increase import duties for fertilisers and agricultural goods from Russia and Belarus.

    This will give the farming sector time to adjust and the fertiliser industry time to boost their production. Additionally, European producers will benefit from increased tariffs on other agricultural goods imported from Russia and Belarus. To prevent that these tariff measures have a negative effect on the agricultural sector, we have asked the Commission to provide a statement about their action plan.

    Dear colleagues, I urge you to adopt this proposal without any amendments. This way, we will be able to ensure that this regulation enters into force, as foreseen, by 1 July this year. Every delayed day will mean lost lives in Ukraine.

    Of course, this proposal is a compromise and it’s never the case that compromises make everyone happy. Can you name a law that everyone is 100 % happy with?

    The Council has already confirmed their readiness to adopt this regulation without any amendments. I sincerely thank the Members who were able to set aside their particular interests for a while to agree on the overarching goal at the forefront. We need to stop financing Russia’s war in Ukraine. War is right next to our external borders. Stopping it is needed for our safety.

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Commission would like to make the following declaration.

    The Union’s food security depends on the continuous existence of the autonomous Union’s nitrogen‑based fertiliser production industry that can supply the European Union market. The present level of imports from the Russian Federation, competing unfairly in the EU market due to gas price differences, is undermining the EU industry.

    At the same time, it is essential to ensure that Union farmers have predictable, sufficient and affordable access to nitrogen‑based fertilisers as this is indispensable to the stabilisation of the EU agricultural markets. Article 2 of the Regulation provides that the Commission shall monitor prices applicable in the Union of the goods listed in Annex II during four years from the application of this Regulation.

    The Commission recalls that it already publishes regularly data reflecting the price evolution of fertilisers. Trends shown by this data set are discussed during the EU Fertilisers Market Observatory meetings.

    On this basis, the Commission will continue the monitoring of the prices of nitrogen‑based fertilisers subject to this Regulation and will make the information about the results of this monitoring available to the Member States on a regular monthly basis through a consolidated document published on the website of the Commission.

    The Commission notes that the Regulation provides for the suspension of tariffs for concerned fertiliser products imported from origins other than the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, as one of the potential appropriate actions in case of a substantial surge in fertiliser prices. The Commission commits to take such action if this case arises.

    Already in 2022, the Commission proposed, and the Council accepted, a temporary suspension of common customs tariffs on some nitrogen‑based fertilisers from countries other than Russia and Belarus due to a significant price increase in the Union market.

    Furthermore, the Commission recalls that since the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it adopted measures to support European farmers in all Member States whenever it was considered necessary. The Commission recognises the need to take fully into account the competitiveness of the EU fertilisers industry in the future actions implementing the Clean Industrial Deal.

     

    5.4. Granting equivalence to Moldova and Ukraine for field inspections and seed production (A10-0043/2025 – Veronika Vrecionová) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Procediamo ora con la relazione dell’onorevole Vrecionová sulla concessione alla Moldova e all’Ucraina dell’equivalenza delle ispezioni in campo e la produzione di sementi (cfr. punto 5.4 del processo verbale).

     

    5.5. Amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation as regards securities financing transactions under the net stable funding ratio (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla proposta sulle modifiche al regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013 relativo ai requisiti prudenziali per quanto riguarda i requisiti per le operazioni di finanziamento tramite titoli nell’ambito del coefficiente netto di finanziamento stabile (cfr. punto 5.5 del processo verbale).

     

    5.6. Euratom Research and Training Programme for the period 2026-2027 complementing Horizon Europe (A10-0083/2025 – Borys Budka) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla relazione dell’onorevole Budka sul programma di ricerca e formazione di Euratom per il periodo 2026-2027 che integra Orizzonte Europa (cfr. punto 5.6 del processo verbale).

     

    5.7. Partial renewal of Members of the Court of Auditors – HR nominee (A10-0088/2025 – Ondřej Knotek) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla relazione dell’onorevole Knotek sul rinnovo parziale dei membri della Corte dei conti – Candidata HR (cfr. punto 5.7 del processo verbale).

     

    5.8. Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 (A10-0063/2025 – Gheorghe Falcă) (vote)

       

    – dopo la votazione sull’emendamento 42:

     
       

     

      Fabienne Keller (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je souhaite vous proposer un amendement oral au rapport annuel sur lequel nous votons actuellement. L’amendement est ajouté à la fin du paragraphe 35 et est formulé comme suit. Je vais le lire en anglais.

    ‘Urges, in that sense, the European Commission, in due respect of the spirit of the ECI – the European Citizens’ Initiative procedure – to provide adequate, concrete and effective follow‑up to ECIs related to fundamental rights of citizens, such as the one calling for a binding legal ban on conversion practices targeting LGBTIQ+ citizens in the EU and the ECI ‘My voice, my choice’.’

    Chers collègues, cet amendement est nécessaire, à l’heure où les droits des communautés LGBT et les droits des femmes sont menacés partout en Europe. Avec mon groupe Renew Europe et avec beaucoup d’entre vous, je l’espère, nous sommes engagés en faveur de la défense de ces droits inscrits dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne et nous apporterons notre soutien aux communautés LGBT lors de la Pride de Budapest le 28 juin prochain.

     
       

       

    (Il Parlamento non accetta di porre in votazione l’emendamento orale)

     
       

       

    (Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni)

     
       

       

    (La seduta è sospesa per pochi istanti)

     

    6. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è ripresa alle 11.42)

     

    7. Explanations of vote

     

      Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca le dichiarazioni di voto.

     

    7.1. Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism (A10-0085/2025 – Antonio Decaro)

     

      Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zagłosowałam za przyjęciem rozporządzenia upraszczającego i wzmacniającego mechanizm CBAM. Uważam, że to krok w dobrym kierunku. Uproszczenia zaproponowane są odpowiedzią na realne problemy związane z implementacją CBAM. CBAM ma chronić unijny przemysł obciążony restrykcyjną polityką klimatyczną poprzez nałożenie opłat na import towarów takich jak: stal, cement, aluminium, wodór czy nawozy z państw trzecich.

    Niestety pierwotne przepisy okazały się zbyt skomplikowane. Objęły nawet mikroprzedsiębiorstwa importujące niewielkie ilości towarów. Dlatego propozycję, by wyłączyć z systemu tak zwanych importerów okazjonalnych, czyli tych, którzy sprowadzają do Unii mniej niż 50 ton rocznie, uważam za rozsądne i proporcjonalne rozwiązanie, zmniejszające obciążenia biurokratyczne dla MŚP i niezakłócające unijnej konkurencji.

    Niemniej mechanizm CBAM wciąż wymaga dopracowania. Kluczowe wyzwania to zapewnienie wiarygodności danych dotyczących emisyjności produktów z państw trzecich oraz zapobieganie obchodzeniu przepisów. Co więcej, CBAM nie może być jedyną odpowiedzią na problemy przemysłu. Potrzebne są komplementarne działania, w tym powrót do bezpłatnych uprawnień emisyjnych i dalsze wsparcie dla firm dotkniętych wysokimi kosztami energii.

     
       

     

      Presidente. – Non c’è la possibilità di intervenire su quella relazione.

     

    8. Approval of the minutes of the part-session and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      Presidente. – Il processo verbale della seduta odierna e di quella di ieri sarà sottoposta all’approvazione del Parlamento all’inizio della prossima seduta. Se non vi sono obiezioni, procederò alla trasmissione immediata delle risoluzioni approvate nella seduta odierna ai loro destinatari.

     

    9. Dates of the next part-session

     

      Presidente. – La prossima tornata si svolgerà dal 16 al 19 giugno 2025 a Strasburgo.

     

    10. Closure of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è tolta alle 11.46)

     

    11. Adjournment of the session

     

      Presidente. – Dichiaro interrotta la sessione del Parlamento europeo.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT’S OFFICE RELEASES STATEMENT ON PRIVATE DELIVERY PACKAGE DELAYS IN TERRITORY

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (USVI)

    CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT’S OFFICE RELEASES STATEMENT ON PRIVATE DELIVERY PACKAGE DELAYS IN TERRITORY

    U.S. Virgin Islands, May 23, 2025

    For Immediate Release                                          Contact: Tionee Scotland 

    May 23, 2025                                                           202-808-6129   

    PRESS RELEASE 

    CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT’S OFFICE RELEASES STATEMENT ON PRIVATE DELIVERY PACKAGE DELAYS IN TERRITORY 

    U.S. Virgin Islands —The Congresswoman’s office received word of numerous complaints regarding private delivery package service delays in the territory, particularly St. John, and met with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers this week. 

    CBP officials shared that the delays are not related to recently imposed tariffs by the Trump administration, customs taxing or new processing procedures, but related to findings produced by an audit initiated by CBP.  This now requires incoming shipments to be cleared by CBP prior to delivery. The audit found companies like DHL UPS and FedEx had not been clearing their entire shipments.      

    Please reach out to our office if you need additional information: 

    St. Croix Office
    60 King Street
    Frederiksted, St. Croix, VI 00840
    Phone: (340) 778-5900
    St. Thomas Office 
    9100 Havensight Port of Sale Mall
    Suite 22, St. Thomas, VI 00802
    Phone: (340) 774-4408

    MIL OSI USA News