NewzIntel.com

Category: Donald Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Scott Introduces Legislation to Expand School Choice

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Tim Scott
    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced the High-Quality Charter Schools Act to expand school choice by implementing a tax credit for qualified charitable contributions to nonprofit charter school organizations.
    In communities across the country, the demand for high-quality charter schools far exceeds the supply, due to the initial start-up cost of opening a new charter school, which can cost anywhere from $2 to $20 million. This legislation would establish a 75% federal tax credit for charitable contributions to nonprofit charter school organizations with a proven track record of excellence to fund the expansion of high-quality charter schools. 
    “No matter their background, race or zip-code, every child deserves access to a good school. Millions of families—including thousands across South Carolina—choose charter schools for the high-quality education they provide. Building a stronger America starts in our classrooms, and the High-Quality Charter Schools Act invests in a future where every student has the keys to unlock the American Dream,” said Senator Scott. “President Trump is delivering on his commitment to putting families first—this is promises made, promises kept. Together with the Educational Choice for Children Act, this legislation brings parents, educators, and communities together in the fight to ensure every child has a fair shot at success.”
    “Millions of parents whose children have been trapped in failing schools have reason for hope today, thanks to Senator Tim Scott,” said Eva Moskowitz, CEO and President, National Strategy and Advancement and the Founder of Success Academy, the country’s highest performing charter school network. “With the High-Quality Charter Schools Act and the Educational Choice for Children Act, Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put families first and deliver on the President’s promise of universal school choice. It’s hard to imagine a more meaningful policy than one that places parents, not bureaucrats, in charge; empowers American taxpayers, and unlocks private philanthropy to provide high quality schools for every kid that needs it.”
    “We are grateful to Senator Scott and Congresswoman Tenney for championing school choice and recognizing the value of high-quality public charter schools,” said Starlee Coleman, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. “By creating a tax credit to support the growth and expansion of charter schools with a proven track record of success, this legislation helps meet the overwhelming demand from families and ensures more students have access to great schools that meet their unique needs.”
    BACKGROUND
    As the co-chair of the Congressional School Choice Caucus and member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Scott is a leading advocate in transforming the nation’s education system and ensuring every student has access to a quality education.
    Throughout his time in public service, Senator Scott has worked to broaden quality educational opportunities for all. Senator Scott led colleagues in introducing the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) to expand education freedom and opportunity for students.
    Senator Scott recognizes the positive strides charter schools have made to shape education in South Carolina and around the nation, and help the next generation achieve their American Dream. To that end, Senator Scott introduced a resolution recognizing charter schools’ contributions to the academic landscape during National Charter Schools Week.
    The full text of the High-Quality Charter Schools Act can be found here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Interview with Michelle Grattan, Politics podcast, The Conversation

    Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

    Michelle Grattan:

    The Reserve Bank has given homebuyers a small bit of good news this week – a modest quarter of a percentage point cut in interest rates. Welcoming the rate cut, Treasurer Jim Chalmers sees the fight against inflation as at last being won, or at least largely so. In this term he wants to turn to finding ways to promote productivity in Australia, where we’ve been losing that battle.

    Meanwhile, most immediately, the Treasurer is fighting critics who are campaigning against his tax hit on those with more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. The government plans to increase the tax on these accounts but, most controversially, to tax their unrealised capital gains.

    Jim Chalmers joins us today to talk about these issues.

    Jim Chalmers, we saw the Reserve Bank this week lower rates again. But the bank’s Monetary Policy Statement used the word ‘uncertain’ about the aspects of the future multiple times – many, many times. How are you planning for an uncertain economic environment to come?

    Jim Chalmers:

    First of all, Michelle, very good news that interest rates were cut for the second time in 3 months. That does reflect the progress that we’re making together on inflation.

    But it does also recognise this very uncertain global economic environment. The language that the Reserve Bank Governor used yesterday and that the Board used in their statement is not dissimilar to some of the things that I’ve been saying for some time now. The escalating trade tensions, the weakness in the Chinese economy, conflict in the Middle East and Eastern Europe – all of these things are casting a dark shadow over the global economy, and that has implications for us as well.

    But I think overwhelmingly this rate cut was about both kinds of inflation being within the target band. The Reserve Bank said that they were increasingly confident they were getting on top of things, that the upside risks to inflation were subsiding. And so that’s a very good thing. But also it recognises the international environment, as does the government.

    Grattan:

    Much of the uncertainty is coming from the Trump administration’s unpredictable tariff policy. The RBA has modelled 2 scenarios for tariffs, what it calls ‘trade peace’ and ‘trade war’, and Governor Bullock hasn’t ruled out a recession. What’s your reading of this?

    Chalmers:

    I think, first of all, the Reserve Bank is doing diligent work, looking at a range of scenarios from best case to worst case and central case, just like the Treasury does. We think through the various ways that this can play out.

    And I think it’s helpful to remember if you look at the Reserve Bank’s forecasts and the Treasury’s forecasts, neither the bank nor the Treasury is expecting our economy to shrink. In fact, in both instances the forecasts say that the economy will grow more strongly next year compared to the financial year that we’re about to finish.

    And so the bank and the Treasury expect our economy to continue to grow. Of course people think through the various scenarios. The international environment is casting a dark shadow over the global economy and our own economy. And that’s why it’s so important that the Australian economy has got the characteristics that you would want going into this volatility and unpredictability – the lower inflation, the higher wages, the low unemployment, the budget is in better nick than most countries around the world, we’re starting to see interest rates come down, the market’s expecting further interest rate cuts.

    And so we’re well placed and well prepared, but it is good, diligent work by the Reserve Bank, by the Treasury and others to think through what the best and worst‑case scenarios might be. But our central case, our expectation and our forecasts all reflect some degree of confidence that our economy will continue to grow, not shrink as other countries have.

    Grattan:

    Parliament doesn’t meet until July, but obviously you’ll be thinking ahead. What are your priorities when it sits again?

    Chalmers:

    I think the Prime Minister has made it really clear that one of the things we’re really excited about legislating is the cut to student debt. That will take some of the burden off graduates but it will also provide some cost‑of‑living help to students or graduates repaying a student debt. So that’s going to be a big priority.

    In my own portfolio, obviously we’ve got the changes to the super arrangements, we’ve got the standard deduction we announced during the campaign, we’ve got some payments reforms that we need to legislate. So it will be a really busy agenda, but I share the Prime Minister’s view that one of the big priorities when the parliament returns will be cutting student debt for millions of people.

    Grattan:

    On superannuation, you’ve had legislation which you haven’t got through to increase the tax on superannuation balances over $3 million. At the moment that’s 15 per cent, you want to take it to 30 per cent but also, and most controversially, you want to tax unrealised capital gains – that is gains that people haven’t actually cashed out. How is that fair?

    Chalmers:

    This is a modest change that we announced almost 2 and a half years ago now. We announced it at the beginning of 2023. We’re now in the middle of 2025. And what this change is about, it’s about making concessional treatment for people with very large superannuation balances still concessional but a little bit less so. And that will help us fund our priorities, whether it’s Medicare, the tax cuts and other priorities in budget repair. So it’s a modest change.

    In terms of the calculation of unrealised gains, that’s actually not unique in the system. There are other ways in the super system and more broadly that unrealised gains are calculated. Now, we did, I think, 3 rounds of substantial consultation on these changes in the last 2 and a bit years.

    And what we learnt throughout that consultation process is that nobody could propose to us a better way of making this calculation. Some of the alternatives would impose costs on everyone in the fund rather than just people over $3 million. And there are other options as part of that consultation as well.

    And so Treasury advises us that this is the best, simplest way to go about it. I know that people have views about it. I know that there’s a campaign in a couple of our newspapers about it. But this is all about making sure that it’s still concessional treatment, it only impacts about 0.5 per cent of people in the super system with very large superannuation balances. It makes the system a bit fairer, and it’s important in terms of the sustainability of the budget.

    Grattan:

    Just on the practicalities, if you or I have more than $3 million in our superannuation fund, how do you actually calculate this unrealised capital gains, given that the fund could include a farm, it could include a small business?

    Chalmers:

    It’s the value at the start versus the value at the end –

    Grattan:

    Of the financial year?

    Chalmers:

    Yeah, allowing for withdrawals and contributions. And, again, this calculation is made elsewhere in the superannuation system, the way that a number of the funds have to report makes this calculation. So the calculation is not new. And if you make a loss you can carry the loss forward. There’s a whole bunch of appropriate arrangements made in the calculation.

    Grattan:

    It sounds very complicated. You’d need a good accountant.

    Chalmers:

    Typically people with more than $3 million in superannuation have got access to pretty useful advice, that’s the first point. But, secondly, we did consult on this for some years, and this is the way that we propose to go forward.

    Grattan:

    One of the critics, one of the strongest critics, has been Paul Keating. Now, he would consider himself father of the superannuation scheme, right? He says that the non‑indexation of the $3 million just introduces bracket creep.

    Chalmers:

    First of all, I mean I think you know – you and I have spoken on a number of occasions over the years – you know the regard that I have for Paul, and I do talk to him from time to time, including about this issue. And I respect him too much to kind of relay or convey those private conversations –

    Grattan:

    – it would have been a lively discussion, I’d imagine.

    Chalmers:

    I think there’s a range of views, and Paul’s views, I think, are relatively well known on this. When it comes to indexation, I understand the argument. There are so many instances in the tax system where thresholds aren’t indexed, and from time to time governments take decisions to raise those thresholds. I’m anticipating that that’s what would happen here. Some of these calculations about what people’s liability would be in 40 years assume that the $3 million threshold never changes.

    Grattan:

    So why not do it at the start?

    Chalmers:

    I think we’re making it consistent with other areas of the tax system where the threshold is not indexed. I fully anticipate that governments of either, if not both political persuasions at some point in the future will change the threshold. And that’s why a lot of the calculations that you see reported in the media are based on a pretty unrealistic assumption about what the next 30 or 40 years will look like.

    Grattan:

    Now, you’ve got a problem of getting this through the parliament, which, with the new Senate, means getting it through the Greens. What are the chances of that happening, do you think?

    Chalmers:

    I’m not sure yet. We haven’t had that discussion with the crossbench. I think the final makeup of the Senate is not yet clear, and the parliament is not coming back in the next couple of weeks and so we’ve got time to have those discussions. No doubt the new Leader of the Greens, Larissa Waters, no doubt will appoint a Treasury spokesperson and we’ll engage with them in the usual respectful way to –

    Grattan:

    – what’s the main sticking point there, do you anticipate?

    Chalmers:

    Last time they wanted a lower threshold, last time it was in the parliament.

    Grattan:

    And you’re not up for that?

    Chalmers:

    Not something that we’ve been considering. And they’ve talked about indexation as well, the question you asked me about a moment ago. But, again, we’ll see who we engage with. We’ve got a bit of time. They’ll have a view. They know our policy. But those conversations haven’t begun.

    Grattan:

    Let’s turn to productivity. You’ve said that this will be a key focus during this term. But you’ve also noted that you need more than 2 terms to really get major progress here. Why does it take so long?

    Chalmers:

    The point that I’ve made about productivity is that this is a challenge that hasn’t just been hanging around the last couple of years, it’s been hanging around the last couple of decades.

    And if there was a quick fix for productivity, if there was some kind of switch that we could flick, somebody would have flicked it already. So it’s one of those economic objectives where there’s not the same kind of instant policy gratification that you might see in other indicators in our economy.

    I’ve tried to be upfront with people and say productivity was a big focus in the first term. Some of the changes that we made around strengthening and streamlining foreign investment and competition and the payments system, the changes we make in human capital, the announcements we’ve made about abolishing non‑compete clauses and a national regime for occupational licensing – those are all substantial reforms and they’re all about productivity.

    But what we’ve said is in the first term we focused primarily on inflation without forgetting productivity. In the second term we will focus much more heavily on productivity but being upfront with people that you don’t expect quarter‑to‑quarter, instant changes in the level of productivity in our economy from some of these medium‑term policies that we’re putting in place.

    So I’m working closely with the Productivity Commission on the next steps in our productivity agenda. We think productivity and the future of our economy will come from the energy transformation, from human capital and giving people the skills to adapt and adopt technology, the artificial intelligence revolution. It will come from making sure we get value for money in the care economy. And it will come from making our economy more competitive and dynamic.

    So on each of those fronts we’ve already done a heap of work. We’re looking for more reforms in those areas, working with the Productivity Commission to do that, but being upfront with people about how quickly we can turn around this problem that has been really one of the defining features of our economy now for decades.

    Grattan:

    There was, of course, in 2023 a Productivity Commission report which ran to some 9 volumes, I think, and had 70‑odd recommendations. And yet a lot of that hasn’t been done.

    Chalmers:

    There were 29 different reform directions in that report and we think that we are progressing in some form more than two‑thirds of them. And I know that’s not general accepted wisdom about that report, but more than two‑thirds of the 29 directives we are progressing in one form or another.

    The other thing is, of the 71 specific recommendations, we think about half of those – around 36 of those – involve state and territory governments either partly or fully. And so a bit of perspective on all of that.

    Specifically, we picked up and ran with some of their ideas on vocational education and training, cybersecurity, government data, skilled migration. So more of that report is being acted on than I think is broadly accepted. But if the point, the kernel of the question is, should we try to do more on productivity, I’ve already flagged that that will be a big priority.

    Grattan:

    The Productivity Commission has called for ideas from the public to improve productivity. And it’s now identified what it calls 15 priority reforms for further exploration. And one is to support business investment through corporate tax reform. Are you willing to even contemplate this? You’ve been quite shy about tax reform that’s robust.

    Chalmers:

    First of all, again, we actually progressed a whole bunch of tax reform in the first term – income tax reform, production tax credits, tax breaks for small business, tax breaks for build‑to‑rent –

    Grattan:

    Maybe it was the easy stuff.

    Chalmers:

    We changed the PRRT arrangements. That didn’t feel easy at the time.

    Grattan:

    Modestly.

    Chalmers:

    Multi‑national tax reform is no small thing. And so, again, a bit of perspective. We did half a dozen meaningful tax changes in the first term.

    When it comes to the consultation that the PC is doing, and I think it’s terrific that they’re doing that consultation, and that consultation reflects some of the asks that are put to us from time to time from the business community in particular, and I welcome that, too. Let’s have a proper, national conversation about that.

    When it comes to company taxes, I’m the only person in this, or Katy Gallagher and I are the only people in this that have to make it all add up. And so sometimes our constraints are fiscal.

    We’ve got to work out what we can afford to do in a world where we’ve got to fund these priorities – strengthening Medicare, investing in the care economy, some of the big pressures on our budget, defence. We’ve got to fund all of that. And so some of these proposals on tax reform which are costly to the budget need to be seen in that light as well.

    Grattan:

    Yes, but that doesn’t really go to the fundamental question, and that is whether you think it would be a good idea to have this on the agenda.

    Chalmers:

    I don’t have an ideological view about company taxes. I have an economic view. One of the things that’s good that Danielle Wood and the PC are consulting on is we’ve got this challenge in productivity and the thing that the economists call capital deepening – whether or not we have a deep and robust enough capital base.

    And so they’re consulting on whether tax has a role to play in that. I don’t have an ideological view about that. I’ve got a fiscal view about that, and I’ve got a view about where the productivity is going to come from in a modern economy like ours. I think it’s important that we don’t over focus on some of the areas that have been perennial parts to this conversation – scorched earth industrial relations, the headline company tax rate.

    These are parts of the productivity discussion, but they’re not the whole thing. Energy, human capital, competition and dynamism, care economy, AI and technology. I’m trying to have a broader conversation about how we get more productivity in our economy because in some of those areas, that have not been central enough to the national conversation about productivity, I think that’s where we might find that we can make the most progress.

    Grattan:

    But isn’t company tax important when we’re trying to compete internationally for investment?

    Chalmers:

    Again, it does get raised with me from time to time by investors, but it’s not the whole story, and often it’s not the main story. When international investors are weighing up whether to invest in Australia, they care about the stability of our laws, they care about our skills base, our human capital. They care about access to cleaner and cheaper energy. They care about how long it takes to get approvals.

    There are real areas here where there’s a productivity dividend if we get it right, where we become more attractive as an investment destination if we get it right. And that conversation, which I have relatively frequently with global investors and domestic investors, is not a conversation wholly and solely about company tax.

    Grattan:

    Just finally, Jim Chalmers, you like to indulge in some blue sky thinking from time to time, a bit of essay writing. You might have a little time over the winter break. What’s on your horizon in that regard?

    Chalmers:

    I’ve already had a discussion today with Katy Gallagher setting out what the rest of the year looks like and how that relates to some of these priorities that you’ve been kind enough to talk with me today about. I’m trying to do a bit more reading this term than what I did last term.

    Grattan:

    What are you reading?

    Chalmers:

    I just finished that Ezra Klein book called Abundance, which goes right to the core of some of these things you’re talking about. How do we think in a progressive way about making our economy more efficient and more productive. That Ezra Klein book called Abundance is a ripper. I am grateful to Andrew Leigh for suggesting it to me, and I’ve gotten through it now. So that kind of reading. I confess I’ve started the book about Joe Biden, the Jake Tapper book, as well.

    Grattan:

    About his health?

    Chalmers:

    About his health, yeah. And, like everyone, I send my best wishes to the Bidens after that news that we got earlier in the week about his health. So try to do a bit more reading.

    But I’m really excited about a new term, a new opportunity working closely with Katy to make sure we finish the fight on inflation, we make our economy more productive, we think more expansively about the big opportunities from AI and energy and some of these things that we’ve been talking about today. And I have been finding inspiration in trying to do a bit more reading this term so far than what I managed last term.

    Grattan:

    Jim Chalmers, thank you very much for joining The Conversation’s Politics podcast.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine may take place next week in the Vatican – Finnish President

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    HELSINKI, May 22 (Xinhua) — Technical-level talks involving Russia and Ukraine could take place in the Vatican as early as next week, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said in an interview with Yle TV on Wednesday.

    According to him, the talks will most likely involve representatives from the United States and European countries. The potential meeting is a positive step toward broader international participation in efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine, A. Stubb noted.

    “It is very likely that next week, for example, in the Vatican, a technical meeting will take place with the participation of Ukrainians, Russians, Americans and Europeans,” the president said.

    The Finnish leader emphasized the growing role of European countries in the peace process. “We are entering a phase where Europe will also be involved – and this is what we hoped for from the beginning,” he said.

    On Monday, US President Donald Trump held telephone talks with several European leaders, including A. Stubb. The head of the White House shared details of an earlier conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin and discussed with his interlocutors the ongoing negotiations, a potential ceasefire and steps to establish lasting peace in Ukraine. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump Accuses South Africa of “White Genocide” at Meeting with S. Ramaphosa

    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

    SACRAMENTO, USA, May 22 (Xinhua) — US President Donald Trump on Wednesday got into a dispute with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa over conspiracy theories about “white genocide” in South Africa, which the South African leader strongly denied.

    During a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House, D. Trump accused South Africa of “white genocide” and an unfair land grab, and then showed materials allegedly proving his accusations.

    Ramaphosa, who was in Washington to improve trade terms and ease bilateral tensions, rejected Trump’s statement during the meeting. He rejected the claim that white South Africans are fleeing the country because of racist policies. According to the president, South Africa has a crime problem and most of the victims are black citizens.

    News outlets were shocked by Trump’s rudeness, saying that much of the information he presented during the meeting as evidence of “white genocide” in South Africa had been “repeatedly debunked.”

    “Almost all of the conspiracy theories presented at Trump’s meeting with South African President S. Ramaphosa today have been debunked, with some South Africans saying they believe the information is “propaganda from AfriForum,” an Afrikaner lobby group criticized for its white nationalist leanings,” CNN reported.

    The row between the US and South African presidents comes at a time of tense relations between the two countries, which worsened after Ramaphosa signed an expropriation law in January that Trump criticised for “discriminating” against the country’s white population. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • Trump confronts South Africa’s Ramaphosa with false claims of white genocide

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday with explosive false claims of white genocide and land seizures during a tense White House meeting that was reminiscent of his February ambush of Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

    South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world, but the overwhelming majority of victims are Black.

    Ramaphosa had hoped to use Wednesday’s meeting to reset his country’s relationship with the U.S., after Trump canceled much-needed aid to South Africa, offered refuge to white minority Afrikaners, expelled the country’s ambassador and criticized its genocide court case against Israel.

    The South African president arrived prepared for an aggressive reception, bringing popular white South African golfers as part of his delegation and saying he wanted to discuss trade. The U.S. is South Africa’s second-biggest trading partner, and the country is facing a 30% tariff under Trump’s currently suspended raft of import taxes.

    But in a carefully choreographed Oval Office onslaught, Trump pounced, moving quickly to a list of concerns about the treatment of white South Africans, which he punctuated by playing a video and leafing through a stack of printed news articles that he said proved his allegations.

    With the lights turned down at Trump’s request, the video – played on a television that is not normally set up in the Oval Office – showed white crosses, which Trump asserted were the graves of white people, and opposition leaders making incendiary speeches. Trump suggested one of them, Julius Malema, should be arrested.

    The video was made in September 2020 during a protest after two people were killed on their farm a week earlier. The crosses did not mark actual graves. An organizer of the protest told South Africa’s public broadcaster at the time that they represented farmers who had been killed over the years.

    “We have many people that feel they’re being persecuted, and they’re coming to the United States,” Trump said. “So we take from many … locations, if we feel there’s persecution or genocide going on,” he added, referring specifically to white farmers.

    “People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety. Their land is being confiscated, and in many cases, they’re being killed,” the president added, echoing a once-fringe conspiracy theory that has circulated in global far-right chat rooms for at least a decade with the vocal support of Trump’s ally, South African-born Elon Musk, who was in the Oval Office during the meeting.

    South Africa, which endured centuries of draconian discrimination against Black people during colonialism and apartheid before becoming a multi-party democracy in 1994 under Nelson Mandela, rejects Trump’s allegations.

    A new land reform law, aimed at redressing the injustices of apartheid, allows for expropriations without compensation when in the public interest, for example if land is lying fallow. No such expropriation has taken place, and any order can be challenged in court.

    South African police recorded 26,232 murders nationwide in 2024, with 44 linked to farming communities. Eight of those victims were farmers.

    Ramaphosa, sitting in a chair next to Trump and remaining poised, pushed back against his claims.

    “If there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here,” Ramaphosa said, referring to golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen and billionaire Johann Rupert, all white, who were present in the room.

    That did not satisfy Trump.

    “We have thousands of stories talking about it, and we have documentaries, we have news stories,” Trump said. “It has to be responded to.”

    ‘THERE IS JUST NO GENOCIDE’

    Ramaphosa mostly sat expressionless during the video presentation, occasionally craning his neck to look at the screen. He said he had not seen the material before and that he would like to find out the location.

    Trump then displayed printed copies of articles that he said showed white South Africans who had been killed, saying “death, death” as he flipped through them, eventually handing them to his counterpart.

    Ramaphosa said there was crime in South Africa, and the majority of victims were Black. Trump cut him off and said: “The farmers are not Black.”

    Ramaphosa responded: “These are concerns we are willing to talk to you about.”

    The South African president cited Mandela’s example as a peacemaker, but that did not move the U.S. president, whose political base includes white nationalists. The myth of white genocide in South Africa has become a rallying point for the far right in the United States and elsewhere.

    “I will say: apartheid, terrible,” Trump noted. “This is sort of the opposite of apartheid.”

    The extraordinary exchange, three months after Trump and Vice President JD Vance upbraided Ukraine’s Zelenskiy inside the same Oval Office, could prompt foreign leaders to think twice about accepting Trump’s invitations and risk public embarrassment.

    Unlike Zelenskiy, who sparred with Trump and ended up leaving early, the South African leader kept his calm, praising Trump’s decor – the president has outfitted the Oval Office with gold accessories – and saying he looked forward to handing over the presidency of the Group of 20 next year.

    Trump declined to say whether he would attend the G20 meeting in South Africa in November.

    Later in the meeting, Rupert, the business tycoon, stepped in to back up Ramaphosa, saying that crime was a problem across the board and many Black people were dying too.

    Following the meeting, Ramaphosa sought to focus on trade, telling reporters the two countries had agreed to discuss critical minerals in South Africa. His trade minister said the government had submitted a trade and investment proposal that included buying liquefied natural gas from the U.S.

    But the president also flatly denied Trump’s allegations about a wave of racial violence against white farmers.

    “There is just no genocide in South Africa,” he said.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI—Hagerty Joins Balance of Power on BloombergTV to Discuss Budget Reconciliation, GENIUS Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty

    WASHINGTON—Today, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, joined Balance of Power on BloombergTV to discuss the budget reconciliation package, along with the GENIUS Act.

    *Click the photo above or here to watch*

    Partial Transcript

    Hagerty on the budget reconciliation package: “I’m from a no-tax state in Tennessee. There are real concerns about [State and Local Tax], but I realize that President [Donald] Trump broadened the tent to bring people together. So, I think we’re going to be negotiating on that and a number of other points. But one thing I’m going to be very clear about doing is not to try to get ahead of the people that are responsible for the negotiations here in the Senate. We met yesterday with Speaker [Mike] Johnson. He was very clear that he wants to work with us. I think we’ll have a good positive working relationship and try to find a way to make certain that we’re doing the absolute best we can for the American people, given the constraints that we have right now, and given the implementation challenges that the Executive Branch faces. But let’s say this: we’re all moving in the same direction. And importantly, I think we’re taking the message that we’ve got to move quickly. We need this done for the sake of the markets. We need this done for the sake of certainty. We need to see more capital investment commitments take place. That will beget more jobs, more economic activity, but it needs to happen soon. So, that sense of urgency is very real up here.”

    Hagerty on the urgency to pass the budget reconciliation package: “There are a number of elements at play. One of them has to do with this tax package and extending that, again, that’ll create a much more certain environment for commitments, capital commitments that will, again, beget more economic activity. That’s going to be positive. There’s also a focus on cutting spending. We’ve got to do that. But there’s another aspect of this that gets far too little play. And it’s not just cutting spending, it’s cutting the massive overhead that we have here that comes from regulation. And if you think about what happened in the prior four years into the Biden administration, the estimates are that the incremental cost of the Biden regulations amounts to $1.4 trillion a year of extra compliance cost on American businesses. We’re working very hard to trim those back to streamline regulations. And that impact is going to be very real as well. It’ll come to the bottom line. It will be reinvested in the economy. It will yield greater after-tax returns. All of this is going to be very positive. We just need to see it happen. And I think speed and timing are of the essence here.”

    Hagerty on opposition to the GENIUS Act: “[Senator Elizabeth Warren is] absolutely wrong. And what she’s doing is using a political argument to stir up controversy because she’s been focused on the Central Bank Digital Currency by its nature. This is decentralized. She’s been opposed to this from the beginning. She fought this in the Banking Committee, and after close to four hours of debate in the Banking Committee, she was able to hold four Democrats on her side. But five came over with me and voted for us to put this out of the committee. I see a lot of Democrats that see the benefit of this. And if you think about where we are today, the United States is relying on a payment system that was designed in the seventies and eighties. This is an opportunity to modernize our payment system, take us into the 21st century. We trade securities on an instantaneous basis. This would allow us to move currencies and payments at the same rate. It would be based on the U.S. dollar that will extend dollar dominance around the world. It will actually stimulate demand for U.S. treasuries, which given where we are right now, would be a very positive thing in the marketplace. It’s going to protect consumers. These ethics concerns that Senator Warren is raising are dealt with in the Constitution. I think this is just a red herring. It’s a distraction; she needs to focus on the core of this. And the fact is, I think she just doesn’t like the decentralized nature of it, which is exactly why it’s so powerful, and that’s why so many in the American public want to see this happen and bring the United States payment system into the 21st century.”

    Hagerty on potential amendments to the GENIUS Act: “This is a major piece of legislation that’s moving onto the floor. We have a large number of amendments to sort through, and my goal is to make certain that the stablecoin legislation passes and that we avoid a situation where it gets cluttered up or bogged down with a number of amendments that could be unrelated to this. So, we’re going through the process right now to evaluate all of this. Again, we probably have well over a hundred amendments to evaluate, but we will narrow this down and get through it. And I’m appreciative of the fact that Leader [John] Thune is navigating an open process here that’s going to bring us, I hope, to a very successful resolution. But we have had months to work on this bill. We’ve incorporated input from both sides of the aisle and a lot of input from the industry and from the Executive Branch. I feel very good about where we are. We’ve got a great work product right now, and I think we’re very close to seeing it come to final closure.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Booker Statement on Trump’s Efforts to Undermine Police Accountability

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Jersey Cory Booker
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement after the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division announced it is dismissing Biden-era police investigations and proposed consent decrees in Louisville, Minneapolis, and the closing of investigations and retraction of findings in Phoenix, Trenton, Memphis, Mount Vernon, Oklahoma City, and Louisiana: 
    “Today, Donald Trump’s Justice Department dismissed the civil rights cases against the Minneapolis, Louisville, and six other police departments without explanation or justification. In these cases, impartial investigators and people who work within these departments systematically reviewed evidence and documents and concluded that these law enforcement agencies had a pattern and practice of violating the constitutional and civil rights of the very people they swore to protect and serve.
    “Today’s decision to dismiss these charges without justification or evidence that changes have been implemented should be deeply concerning to all of us who prioritize public safety. Public safety is incumbent upon trust between police and the people they protect, and rolling back accountability mechanisms not only undermines this trust but also makes our communities less safe.
    “All of us who prioritize public safety must remain committed to measures that increase transparency, accountability, and professional excellence in our law enforcement agencies.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: DHS Reacts to Activist Judge Ruling to Halt the Deportation of Barbaric Criminal Illegal Aliens Including Murderers, Rapists, and Pedophiles

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    All eight of these heinous convicted criminals have final orders of removal 

    WASHINGTON – DHS conducted a deportation flight to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States. All of these individuals had final orders of removal.  Now a federal judge in Massachusetts is halting their deportation and trying to force President Trump to bring these criminals back to American soil.  

    “This ruling is deranged. These depraved individuals have all had their day in court and been given final deportation orders. A reminder of who was on this plane: murderers, child rapists, an individual who raped a mentally & physically disabled person,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “The message this activist judge is sending to victims and their families is we don’t care. President Trump and Secretary Noem are working every day to get vicious criminals out of our country while activist judges are fighting to bring them back onto American soil.” 

    Below are the individuals ICE removed from American communities:  

    Enrique ARIAS-Hierro, a Cuban national, 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.  

    On April 30, 2025, ICE Miami arrested Cuban national, Jose Manuel RODRIGUEZ-QUINONES. He has been convicted of attempted first degree murder with a weapon, battery and larceny, cocaine possession and trafficking. He was issued a final order of removal on December 4, 2012.  

    Thongxay NILAKOUT, a citizen of Laos, was arrested by ICE Los Angeles on January 26, 2025. NILAKOUT is Convicted of first-degree murder and robbery; sentenced to life confinement. He was issued a final order of removal on July 12, 2023.  

    On May 12, 2025, ICE Miami arrested Mexican national, Jesus MUNOZ-Gutierrez. He is Convicted of second-degree murder; sentenced to life confinement. He was issued a final order of removed on June 16, 2005.  

    Dian Peter DOMACH, a citizen of South Sudan, was arrested by ICE St. Paul on May 8, 2024. DOMACH is 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 issued a final order of removal on July 19, 2011.  

    Kyaw MYA, a citizen of 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.   

    Nyo MYINT, a citizen of Burma 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.   

    On May 3, 2025, ICE Seattle arrested Tuan Thanh PHAN, a Vietnamese national. PHAN is Convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree assault; sentenced to 22 years confinement. He was issued a final order of removal on June 17, 2009.  

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: 05.21.2025 ICYMI: Sen. Cruz’s No Tax on Tips Passes Senate Unanimously — Coverage Roundup

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Texas Ted Cruz
    Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the No Tax on Tips Act passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0. The bill had been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and co-led by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). It now heads to the U.S. House of Representatives for a vote.
    The No Tax on Tips Act exempts “cash tips”—cash, credit and debit card charges, and checks—from federal income tax by allowing taxpayers to claim a 100% deduction at filing for tipped wages.
    Here is what they are saying about the No Tax on Tips Act:
    FOX BUSINESS: Trump and Cruz’s ‘No Tax on Tips’ plan passes Senate with unexpected help from Dem
    “Sen. Ted Cruz’s “No Tax on Tips” plan, a concurrent campaign promise of President Donald Trump, got an unexpected boost late Tuesday when a Democratic supporter quickly got it passed through the Senate as a standalone bill.
    “Cruz’s bill, which Rosen signed onto, would exempt cash tips and card-charged gratuities from federal income tax via a 100% deduction come Tax Day.”
    SEMAFOR: Rosen and Cruz deliver a Senate surprise: Unanimous passage of a Trump priority
    “…The entire chamber signed off on Rosen’s attempt, and the Senate unanimously passed the legislation led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that the Nevada Democrat has also long supported.…‘What we just saw is the Senate passing No Tax on Tips 100-0,’ Cruz said on the Senate floor. ‘And now we are sending it to the House of Representatives.’”
    NBC News: Senate unexpectedly passes the No Tax on Tips Act in a unanimous vote
    “‘Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, No Tax on Tips is going to become law and give real relief to hard-working Americans,’ Cruz said on the floor. ‘So I’m proud of what the Senate just did, and I commend Democrats and Republicans, even at a time of partisan division, coming together and agreeing on this commonsense policy.’”
    DALLAS MORNING NEWS: Senate passes Ted Cruz bill to exempt tips from federal income tax
    “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, authored the bill, which was approved by unanimous consent, meaning no senator objected to its passage. Cruz cast the show of bipartisan solidarity as a miracle and said the policy is now almost certain to pass the House and become law.
    “The exemption on tips will have a lasting effect on millions of Americans, Cruz said.”
    DAILY CALLER: Senate Democrats Join Republicans To Approve Major Trump Campaign Promise
    “Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s No Taxes on Tips Act would exempt tips from taxation under the federal income tax. The legislation’s passage delivers on a central pledge of President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign to provide tax relief to tipped workers.
    “Cruz spoke shortly after Rosen to praise the legislation’s passage, which he called ‘commonsense, bipartisan tax reform.’”
    AXIOS: Senate passes “No Tax on Tips” in surprise move
    “It came as a genuine surprise to many in the chamber: The expectation was that at least one senator would object to passage of the measure. But when Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) asked unanimous consent to pass the bill, no lawmakers on either side of the aisle objected.
    “The No Tax on Tips Act was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators.”
    BACKGROUND:
    Sen. Cruz has consistently prioritized tax cuts and job access:
    Sen. Cruz helped enact historic tax reform in 2017, which gave a tax cut to virtually every taxpayer in America. It reduced taxes on small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and job producers, which has helped bring jobs to Texas.
    He has fought to make permanent the 2017 historic tax cuts for individuals.
    Sen. Cruz also helped pass the USMCA trade agreement, which was signed by President Trump, a decisive victory for Texas farmers, ranchers, businesses, and manufacturers.
    For his efforts to support Texas businesses large and small, Sen. Cruz received the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s prestigious “Spirit of Enterprise” award.
    To read the bill text, click HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: At Hearing, Shaheen Presses SBA Administrator on Support for Small Businesses Devastated by Tariffs, District Office Staffing Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    (Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a top member and former Chair of the U.S. Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, pressed Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler on the Trump administration’s failure to support small businesses facing economic upheaval in the wake of President Trump’s global trade war. Click HERE to watch the full exchange. 
    Key quotes from Senator Shaheen: 
    On staffing cuts at SBA district offices, Shaheen said, “I was concerned when I saw that the budget requests a 30 percent cut to staffing of district offices. Administrator Loeffler, in your confirmation hearing I asked you about ensuring that the district offices have the support and the staff they need. And at that time you said, ‘you have my commitment,’ I’m quoting you now. And you also said, ‘I can assure you we will put an emphasis on the field,’ but I can tell you that New Hampshire’s district office started with seven staff this year. Now they’re down to only three.” 
    Administrator Loeffler was unable to provide a timeline for filling the vacant positions. 
    On the Trump administration’s proposed elimination of the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP), Shaheen said, “This is a program that, again, has really made a difference for small businesses in New Hampshire where we do a lot of exporting and we’re trying to do it much better. So that again, is why I was surprised to see that that program got zeroed out in the budget request.” 
    On the impact of Trump’s trade war in New Hampshire, Shaheen said, “I visited a bakery in Derry, New Hampshire, that was started over 25 years ago. It was started to address sugar free baked goods. They do 85 percent of their business with Canada. They used to have 25 employees. Now they have two because the president’s tariffs have put them out of business.” 
    On support for small businesses impacted by Trump’s tariffs, Shaheen asked, “While I appreciate that [tariffs are] the president’s idea for how to help small businesses, we have a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire who are not being helped by those tariffs. And so, what I want to know is what SBA can do to help those small businesses to compensate for the impact that those tariffs are having on them?” 
    Administrator Loeffler did not respond.  
    Senator Shaheen is helping lead efforts in Congress to mitigate the harmful impacts of President Trump’s tariffs. In January, Shaheen introduced the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act which would limit the president’s ability to leverage sweeping tariffs that increase costs for American consumers and families. Her effort to pass this bill by unanimous consent was blocked by Senate Republicans. In recent months, Shaheen has traveled across the Granite State to visit businesses including Chatila’s Bakery, C&J, DCI Furniture, Mount Cabot Maple, American Calan Inc. and NH Ball Bearings to hear directly from Granite Staters impacted by the administration’s tariffs. 
    A top member and former chair of the U.S. Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Shaheen helped create STEP as a pilot program in 2010. The program was fully authorized by Shaheen’s small business trade amendment that was signed into law in 2016. Since its creation, STEP has awarded $235.5 million in grants and directly supported more than 13,000 small businesses’ international expansion and export growth.   

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Energy Secretary Wright Testifies Before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on FY2026 Budget Request

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WASHINGTON— U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright testified today before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request.

    Earlier this month, Secretary Wright testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to outline the Department’s priorities and provide an overview of the FY2026 request.

    The FY2026 Budget aligns with President Trump’s directive to restore American energy dominance and rein in bloated federal spending. It brings non-defense discretionary spending to the most disciplined level since 2017 and redirects more than $15 billion away from Green New Scam programs that drive up costs and weaken the U.S. energy system. For more details, view the budget toplines here.

    Secretary Wright’s opening remarks:

    Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as Secretary of Energy to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget request for the Department of Energy. I want to commend this committee for its longstanding commitment to energy policy and to the mission of the Department.

    Energy is the backbone of civilization. It is the essential catalyst of human progress— enabling everything we do, everything. From the lights in our home, the heat in our homes, the process heat in our factories, and the innovation in our National Laboratories. I’ve dedicated my life to increasing access to energy and bettering human lives, and I’m thrilled to carry my work forward at the Department of Energy.

    My priorities for the Department are clear— to unleash a golden era of American energy dominance, strengthen our national security, and lead the world in innovation. A reliable and abundant energy supply is the foundation of a strong and prosperous nation. When America leads in energy, we lead in prosperity, security and human flourishing.

    America has the historic opportunity to secure our energy systems, lead the world in scientific and technological innovation; maintain and strengthen our weapons stockpile, and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The Department of Energy will advance these critical missions while cutting red tape, increasing efficiency, and unleashing innovation and ensuring we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars.

    The President’s Fiscal Year ’26 budget will ensure taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-effectively. This budget will return DOE to its core mission of advancing energy innovation and global competitiveness through research and development. We will invest DOE’s resources in sources and technologies that support affordable, reliable, and secure energy and provide a return on investment for the American taxpayers.

    Achieving this vision means fully leveraging the resources that have powered our country for generations. The United States is blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural gas,

    Every one of these resources was unleashed through the world-changing power of American innovation. Our National Labs are the engine that drives research and development to expand our energy dominance. When it comes to our National Labs, we are undeniably capable of doing more with less. We can both increase efficiency and drive innovation. We will prioritize research that supports true technological breakthroughs and maintains America’s global competitiveness.

    We are also taking steps to accelerate innovation in commercial nuclear development. America must lead the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy. DOE is working to advance the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technology, including small modular reactors.

    I am proud to report that we have officially ended the previous administration’s reckless pause on LNG export permits and are returning to regular order for reviewing and approving new permits. DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve— a national asset that protects our security in times of crisis.

    We are advancing President Trump’s pledge to lower the cost of living and expand consumer choice for all Americans by rightsizing DOE’s approach to home efficiency standards and regulations. This month, DOE proposed the elimination or reduction of 47 regulations – the largest deregulatory effort in history. Once finalized, these actions are projected to save the American people approximately $11 billion while restoring consumer freedom and lowering costs.

    The responsible stewardship and modernization of the nation’s nuclear weapons systems is paramount for the Department of Energy and this Administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks will become even more crucial in the next few years.

    Our nuclear innovation is a nation that began with the Manhattan Project, and the next Manhattan Project is clearly AI. DOE has a significant role to play in driving AI innovation for scientific discovery and national security. Our agency has world-class, high-performance computing capabilities, including four of the world’s top ten supercomputers. 
    Harnessing our energy potential to power global AI leadership while meeting growing energy demand will be the challenge of our time. But America doesn’t back down from big challenges or big builds.

    As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility to help meet the American people’s growing needs for energy and lead the world in energy development. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: US stocks close lower amid rising Treasury yields

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

    U.S. stocks ended lower on Wednesday as 20-year bond auction saw weak demand, and U.S. Treasury yields surged.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 816.80 points, or 1.91 percent, to 41,860.44. The S&P 500 fell 95.85 points, or 1.61 percent, to close at 5,844.61, while the Nasdaq Composite lost 270.07 points, or 1.41 percent, ending at 18,872.64, its first negative day in three.

    Ten of the eleven major S&P 500 sectors closed in negative territory. Real estate and health care led the declines, falling 2.63 percent and 2.37 percent, respectively. Communication services was the only sector to post a gain, rising 0.67 percent.

    The downturn came as U.S. Treasury yields climbed, with the 10-year yield nearing 4.6 percent and the 30-year yield rising above 5 percent. Yields spiked further after the U.S. government’s 16-billion-U.S.-dollar auction of 20-year bonds received weaker-than-expected demand, resulting in a higher yield than markets had anticipated.

    In a client note published Wednesday, Piper Sandler’s chief investment strategist Michael Kantrowitz outlined important thresholds for the 10-Year Treasury yield and explained how movements around those levels could affect the stock market. “The path of rates will also be crucial for equities, particularly for relative performance,” Kantrowitz wrote. “Since 2022, equity markets have struggled when 10 yr rates moved above 4.5-4.75 percent and we are pushing up against that zone once again.”

    Meanwhile, investors kept a close eye on developments in Washington, D.C., where debate continues over U.S. President Donald Trump’s tax-and-spending bill. The proposed legislation would extend existing tax cuts and introduce new ones, but is projected to add roughly 3 trillion U.S. dollars to the federal deficit over the next decade.

    “The question now is, from a fiscal perspective, what will the tax bill look like, and will it undo all of the recent fiscal frugality by simply raising the debt level at a slower rate of pace? So I think that’s why the 10-year yield is moving higher — because investors are worried that we’re really not doing anything to slow the pace of inflation and to reduce the debt,” Sam Stovall, CFRA Research chief investment strategist, told CNBC in an interview.

    The bond-driven pressure on equities was compounded by disappointing earnings reports from major retailers. Target dropped 5.21 percent after slashing its annual forecast, citing reduced consumer spending and lower confidence. Lowe’s lost 1.68 percent after reaffirming its guidance, and TJX fell 2.89 percent after maintaining its outlook, assuming tariffs with China remain unchanged. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ernst: American Leadership is Back

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)

    WASHINGTON – Today on the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) reaffirmed that President Trump is showing the world that American leadership is back and echoed his strong message for Vladimir Putin to end Russia’s bloody war.
    “Russia’s aggression has already cost too many innocent lives, about 5,000 lives every single week. Too many innocent lives, folks, which is why I support President Trump’s efforts to get a peace deal done now,” said Ernst.

    Watch Ernst’s full remarks here.
    Ernst’s full remarks:
    “Last week, President Trump showed the world that American leadership is back.
    “He brought home the last living American hostage – delivering Edan Alexander from Iran-backed Hamas and reuniting him with his family after nearly 600 days.
    “He stood with our partners in the Middle East to strengthen the historic Abraham Accords.
    “And he delivered a strong message to Vladimir Putin: End the war.
    “Today, I stand in support of a sovereign Ukraine and echo the President’s call to Putin to stop this bloodbath that never should have happened.
    “This is an issue that not only affects a close partner under siege, but also the strength of the United States of America and the security of the free world.
    “Let’s be clear here folks — China is watching. So is Iran and North Korea. And of course, Vladimir Putin is watching, too.
    “They call it the ‘new axis of evil’ for a reason.
    “Mr. President, I personally witnessed and experienced the growth of the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship when I visited Ukraine in its waning days of Soviet control as part of an agricultural student exchange program.
    “This was in 1989, and I had the privilege of living with a Ukrainian family on a very small collective farm.
    “Now, as we got together, there were a number of us Iowa students on that exchange, and again, it was an agricultural exchange.
    “We came together, each of us with our families, in a group setting, one of the very first nights that we were on that collective.
    “And again, with the premise of an agricultural exchange, we were farming tomatoes, working with the cattle and the hogs.
    “Very small, small collective.
    “We came together, and the Ukrainians wanted to ask us questions.
    “So all of us American students, all of us from Iowa, we sat down with our Ukrainian families, and we expected to talk about agriculture.
    “Iowa agriculture versus Ukrainian agriculture.
    “And much to my surprise, the first question that came from our Ukrainian counterparts, was not about how we raise corn or soybeans in Iowa, it was not about the types of machinery that we used on our farm.
    “But the first question the Ukrainians asked us was: What is it like to be free? What is it like to be an American?
    “Because in 1989, those Ukrainians were living under Soviet socialist rule.
    “They could not travel without having the permission of their government.
    “My family did not have a telephone and if they wanted to use the collective manager’s telephone, they would have somebody listening in on the conversation.
    “They would have to know the purpose of the telephone call, who they were calling, why they needed to make a telephone call.
    “This was 1989, and I learned a lot from that exchange.
    “I saw Ukrainian people desperate to break free of socialist economic structures and authoritarian restrictions on freedom of movement, the ability to have your own employment, and on freedom of speech.
    “Two years later, Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union and broke free.
    “Later, many years later, 2003, the United States was involved in the war in Iraq.
    “I was a soldier in 2003, during Iraqi Freedom.
    “So I was a transportation company commander permanently stationed in Kuwait.
    “My transporters ran convoys from the ports in Kuwait up to Iraq, delivering goods for our war fighters.
    “So I was on a little subcamp in Kuwait outside of Camp Arifjan. My soldiers and I lived on that subcamp. The other half of the camp was occupied by other forces.
    “Those other forces were Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine is not part of NATO. They were not required to support the United States of America in Iraq, but Ukraine, of its own volition, sent their soldiers and not just as support elements, they were there as combat forces.
    “So again, I was a transporter. We ran convoys in Iraq.
    “The other half of that camp that I lived on, they were Ukrainian engineer forces. They did road clearing.
    “And I think back, how many American lives did those engineers save from their road clearing efforts, clearing bombs so they wouldn’t be detonated by my drivers?
    “Today, Ukraine is fighting its own war.
    “And I will remind everyone, the United States does not have forces involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. None. Zero. None.
    “Today, Ukraine fights not only for its own survival, but for the very principles the United States was founded on.
    “When America leads, the world is safer. When we disengage and when we retreat – like we saw for the last four years under the Biden administration – chaos fills the void.
    “Russia’s aggression has already cost too many innocent lives, about 5,000 lives every single week. Too many innocent lives, folks, which is why I support President Trump’s efforts to get a peace deal done now.
    “Vladimir Putin cannot keep tapping the United States of America along.
    “I vow to keep working with my colleagues to equip the president with all tools necessary to hold Russia accountable – including sanctioning Russia and its supporters – if they continue to drag out peace talks and carry on with the needless bloodshed, so this war that never should have started can come to an end.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: President Trump Welcomes The University of Florida Gators to The White House

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

    “We’re delighted to welcome the 2025 NCAA Basketball Champions, the University of Florida Gators, who brought home the third national title in program history and made Florida the only Division One program ever to win three national titles in both basketball and football.” –President Trump

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

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray Slams Rubio’s Defiance of Congress & Federal Law, Says Trump Admin Has Undermined American Leadership and Caused Preventable Suffering

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Murray: “Secretary Rubio… you have overseen a systematic campaign to dismantle USAID, impound billions of dollars that this Committee actually provided, and unilaterally remake the Department of State—without the slightest bit of concern that you lack the authority to do that without Congress. It has created chaos, it’s caused preventable deaths across the globe, and it has undermined American leadership… what you have done is outright illegal.”

    Murray calls for bipartisan pushback: “Are we going to roll over as Trump tramples our laws, and undermines our U.S. leadership, burns down what we’ve spent decades building, and lets millions of people across the globe suffer and die? Or are we going to stand up, push back, assert our constitutional power of the purse? And to my colleagues on both sides: this is the moment to decide whether this Committee continues to be a powerful bipartisan force. A force that I think we’ve all been proud of for a very long time.”

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s remarks and questioning***

    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Appropriations State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of State, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called Secretary Marco Rubio out for flagrantly defying federal laws, ignoring Congress, undermining American leadership and our national security, and causing untold preventable suffering and death in his four months as secretary thus far.

    In opening comments, Vice Chair Murray said:

    “Secretary Rubio, I am deeply concerned that you have overseen a systematic campaign to dismantle USAID, impound billions of dollars that this Committee actually provided, and unilaterally remake the Department of State—without the slightest bit of concern that you lack the authority to do that without Congress. It has created chaos, it’s caused preventable deaths across the globe, and it has undermined American leadership.

    “As Ranking Member Schatz noted, what you have done is outright illegal. A complete violation of bipartisan appropriations laws, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Anti-Deficiency Act.

    “Within hours of taking office, President Trump halted all foreign aid—in flagrant defiance of the law. Now, under your watch, Secretary Rubio, that freeze was implemented with chaos and cruelty.

    “And then, you illegally shuttered USAID—placing everyone on leave, halting lifesaving work, literally locking people out of the building and out of their devices—even in dangerous corners of our world.

    “You paid people not to work, abandoned our partners across the globe, and chaotically recalled global staff—putting more than 1,600 Americans who served our country abroad in limbo.

    “And when you shut down the USAID payment system, you even refused to pay for services provided before the illegal freeze. You fought all the way to the Supreme Court against paying for services U.S. businesses already rendered, with funding that Congress already provided. And I know you know, Mr. Secretary, but you lost.

    “And I assume you need the reminder, because to this day, you have not made all the payments that are required by our nation’s highest court, and as a result American companies continue to layoff American workers. And, by the way, you do continue to lose in court—including just yesterday over your move to illegally replace U.S. Institute of Peace leadership, and in recent cases, over international broadcasting.

    “Now, eventually, Mr. Secretary, you sent Congress notice of your intent to collapse USAID into State. Only: you didn’t consult with this Committee—that’s required by law. It came without justification—also required by law. And it came long after USAID was reduced to rubble.

    “So, sadly disregard for our laws and values, to me, has sort of become a pattern of your tenure: revoking visas when someone writes an op-ed you don’t like, or reaching a secret deal to use taxpayer dollars to jail U.S. residents in a notorious foreign prison—no due process. Or pointlessly leaving food assistance to rot in storage. Actually, in Dubai, we now have 500 tons of high energy biscuits that expire in July—they’re bought, they’re shipped, they’re stored all at taxpayer expense. But you’ve condemned them to waste. And that’s one example of many. 

    “Now, another pattern that I am deeply worried about is transparency. We have pressed you for information. Our staffs have sent you countless emails and briefing requests so we can do our job here. There are hundreds of unanswered requests, and no effort to address them. And Mr. Secretary, that’s got to change.

    “Even your plan to reorganize the State Department came with no information on the 270 offices you are moving or eliminating, the proposed layoffs, or how USAID would be merged into State.

    “I won’t ask you whether impounding billions of dollars is legal. It is not.

    “I won’t ask whether it’s efficient to pay people not to work or fire them without even determining staffing needs.

    “And I won’t ask if cutting 91% of our counternarcotic and law enforcement programs makes us safer, abruptly abandoning agreements with allies makes us stronger, or ceding our global leadership to China makes us more prosperous.

    “Of course not—we know that.

    “We have worked together for years in a bipartisan way to advance U.S. interests and fund those programs. So, with respect to my colleagues, how long are we going to sit here and watch this silently?

    “Are we going to roll over as Trump tramples our laws, and undermines our U.S. leadership, burns down what we’ve spent decades building, and lets millions of people across the globe suffer and die? Or are we going to stand up, push back, assert our constitutional power of the purse?

    “And to my colleagues on both sides: this is the moment to decide whether this Committee continues to be a powerful bipartisan force. A force that I think we’ve all been proud of for a very long time. A force that is focused on safety, economic strength, and national security—focused on leading the world in research and development, and countering China and others with our soft power and our military power. 

    “Every single member of this committee knows what we are risking by letting this administration tear down so much.   

    “On USAID and other programs, we can always talk about how we can make things work better and other reforms. I don’t think any of us are opposed to any of those considerations—we have been doing that in a bipartisan way for a long time. But that is not actually what Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposes.”

    Senator Murray began her questioning by pressing Secretary Rubio on the secretive deal the United States inked with El Salvador to jail U.S. residents in the country’s notorious mega-prison, stating: “Will you share the text and details with my staff of your agreement with El Salvador and any other similar arrangements, including the funding details that we need to have?”

    Secretary Rubio ignored the question, defending his Department’s actions and falsely claiming he’s provided transparency to Congress, stating in part: “We’ve done nothing that’s illegal… We’ve answered questions repeatedly. We get hundreds of questions a day. We respond [to] them as quickly as possible.”

    “Mr. Secretary, I will tell you we are here because we need the information so that we can write our budget and in a bipartisan way move forward,” Senator Murray responded.

    “Well, you’ll have the information you need to write a budget,” Secretary Rubio interrupted.

    “Okay, so will we get the details on the El Salvador arrangement?” Senator Murray pressed.

    “Which El Salvador arrangement?” Secretary Rudio dodged.

    “Your agreement that you’ve made with them [to detain people the U.S. sends there],” Senator Murray pressed.

    “What agreement?” replied Secretary Rubio, in part, ducking the question.

    “The funding details, we have not gotten. We need to see what the costs are,” Senator Murray responded.

    Secretary Rubio again dodged the question, refusing to acknowledge an agreement or to confirm he’d share its details while confirming the U.S. has indeed paid El Salvador. He stated in part: “We’ve provided them law enforcement assistance. …. They have the right to spend that money any way they wish, but they did us a big favor…” He then falsely claimed the U.S. has not sent U.S. residents to El Salvador.

    Senator Murray pressed again: “I’m asking you whether we can see the details of the arrangements, including the funding details.”

    “I’m giving you the details. The arrangements are, we provide law enforcement funding to El Salvador, among other countries. How they choose to spend that money entirely is up to them,” Secretary Rubio deflected.

    Senator Murray moved on, “I’ll take that as a no. Can you give me the details on the 200 plus offices you’re proposing to eliminate? We need that. Can I get your commitment to giving us those?”

    “Sure, of course. That’s part of our reorg,” replied Secretary Rubio, who thus far has failed to provide the details to the Committee or Congress.

    “How about the details and justifications of your proposed rescissions from programs you claim are out of alignment with administration priorities. Are we going to get the details of that funding priorities?” asked Senator Murray.

    “On rescissions and empowerment, things of this nature? That’s obviously an OMB function, and I would talk to them about that, what’s going to go on with that money. I can tell you the contracts we canceled. And I can list to you the contracts we canceled and the rationale why, because I went through them myself,” replied Secretary Rubio.

    Senator Murray followed up, “Will you get those to us—like today?”

    Secretary Rubio did not provide a straight answer. Murray then pressed again on the need for transparency and more details, and Secretary Rubio ultimately committed: “Sure, you’re going to have all that information.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: “All Bets Are Off:” Padilla Blasts Senate Republicans for Going Nuclear on Senate Rules to Revoke California’s Clean Air Act Waivers

    US Senate News:

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

    “All Bets Are Off:” Padilla Blasts Senate Republicans for Going Nuclear on Senate Rules to Revoke California’s Clean Air Act Waivers

    WATCH: Padilla warns of the dangerous precedent Republicans would set if they ignore Senate Parliamentarian to bypass filibuster

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, blasted Senate Republicans for their attempt to go nuclear on the Senate rules and overrule the nonpartisan Senate Parliamentarian in order to bypass a filibuster and rescind California’s clean air waivers.

    This afternoon’s floor speech was the first of multiple speeches Senator Padilla will deliver if Senate Republicans proceed with their attacks on the public health, air quality, and environment for millions of Americans.

    “While it’s not too late to turn back at this moment, I think it’s important for all of my colleagues to know that I will be back here again and again and again throughout this process to make sure that everyone knows what these votes mean not just for the precedent and procedures of the United States Senate, but for the health of my constituents in California. And about the real threat to human life that comes when California is denied the ability to control toxic air and greenhouse gas emissions,” said Senator Padilla.

    Padilla spoke on the floor as Senate Republicans prepared to move forward with their cynical attempt to rescind California’s Clean Air Act waivers with a 50-vote threshold under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), bypassing the filibuster and its 60-vote requirement by overruling the Senate Parliamentarian. He called out Republicans’ hypocrisy after they staunchly defended the filibuster in 2022, and cited Majority Leader John Thune’s (R-S.D.) recent comments that overriding the Senate Parliamentarian is “totally akin to killing the filibuster.”

    Padilla made clear that “all bets are off” in the next Democratic Administration, where Democrats can go after agency actions they disagree with — from mining permits, to fossil fuel project approvals, to liquified natural gas export licenses, and more — if Republicans set this dangerous precedent. He also highlighted non-rule actions the Trump Administration could try to reverse, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, and merger approvals when they don’t match their political agenda.

    Excerpts from Senator Padilla’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, are available below. Video of his remarks is available here.

    Key Excerpts:

    • As I said here yesterday, it’s not just why Republicans are willing to endanger the health of Californians. It’s how they’re doing it.
    • Republicans are trying to pass these bills to gut California’s Clean Air Act authority on a 50-vote threshold. They are plotting to overturn the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision. Plain and simple.
    • It’s a total 180-degree reversal from the majority. But in one way, they’re right. No, this isn’t the same as killing the filibuster. This actually goes way, way beyond that. First, they are doing more than going nuclear on the Parliamentarian. They are going nuclear on the Congressional Review Act itself.
    • Under this logic, the Trump Administration could send an endless stream of non-rule actions to Congress, going back to 1996. … Do we want to spend our days voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress?
    • And what about the next Democratic Administration? All bets are off. … Every agency action that Democrats don’t like — whether it’s a rule or not, and no matter how much time has passed — will be fair game if Republicans go through with this.
    • By voting to go nuclear on the CRA, they are ignoring the law – not just Senate rules but the text of the law. By voting to overrule the Parliamentarian, they are saying the rules are whatever Republicans say they are. The majority can tell themselves whatever they want. They can twist themselves into pretzels to try and justify their reckless actions. But despite their smoke and mirrors approach to confuse people, we are all going to see it today with our own eyes.
    • If this happens under a Republican majority, it will be pretty ironic. The party that claims to be the staunch defender of the filibuster threw the rules aside as soon as it was convenient. I have been honest in my views on the filibuster. I think it needs to change overall going forwards. But it was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who fought so hard to keep it.
    • We’re in the minority today. But Democrats will be in the majority again one day. We will not forget what happened here. History won’t forget. And Mr. President, California won’t forget what’s at stake today, either. I yield, but I will be back.

    Senator Padilla has been outspoken in pushing back against Republican attacks on California’s Clean Air Act waivers. He has spoken on the Senate floor multiple times to sound the alarm on Senate Republicans’ consideration of moving forward with their plan to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waivers. Yesterday, Padilla placed a hold on the four pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nominees until Republicans stop their reckless attempts to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian. Padilla, along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also led Democratic Ranking Members in strongly warning Majority Leader Thune and Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) of the dangerous and irreparable consequences if Senate Republicans overrule the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision on California’s waivers.

    Last month, Padilla, Whitehouse, and Schiff welcomed the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision that the waivers are not subject to the CRA. Padilla also joined Whitehouse and Schiff in blasting Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s weaponization of the EPA after the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) similar finding. Padilla and Schiff previously slammed the Trump Administration’s intent to roll back dozens of the EPA’s regulations that protect California’s air and water.

    Padilla’s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are available below.

    Mr. President,

    Today on the Senate floor, we are expecting to see some outrageous attacks on California and the historic Clean Air Act.

    And while it’s not too late to turn back now, I want my colleagues to know: I will be back here again and again to make sure that everyone knows what those votes mean for the health of my constituents, and about the real threat to human life that happens when California is denied the ability to control our toxic air and greenhouse gas emissions.

    But before I do, I want Senators and the American people to fully understand what we are about to witness on the Senate floor. Put aside all the procedural back and forth. I’ll get to that in a few minutes. But overall, it’s very simple: Senate Republicans are preparing to vote to overrule the Parliamentarian.

    They want to do that in order bypass the filibuster, and gut the Clean Air Act. Now, as I stand here right now, those joint resolutions are subject to Rule 22 and the 60-vote filibuster threshold. They are subject to debate and amendments.

    In this moment, they are regular legislation, and are subject to the legislative filibuster. But after the majority is done with their power play, the status of these same bills, maybe later this evening, will be very, very different. All of a sudden they may be subject to expedited procedures! No amendments allowed! Limited debate!

    Again, as I said here yesterday, it’s not just why Republicans are willing to endanger the health of Californians. It’s how they’re doing it.

    In 1967, the Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88 to 12. In 1990, the landmark Clean Air Act Amendments passed the Senate 89-11.

    But today, Republicans are trying to pass these bills to gut California’s Clean Air Act authority on a 50-vote threshold. They are plotting to overturn the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision. Plain and simple.

    Why is that significant? Well, the Majority Leader said it himself at the very start of this Congress, that when it comes to overriding the Parliamentarian: “That’s totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can’t go there. People need to understand that.”

    Fast forward to this week, and we’ve heard all sorts of excuses about why, all of a sudden, overturning the Parliamentarian isn’t akin to killing the filibuster. It’s a total 180-degree reversal from the majority. But in one way, they’re right! No, this isn’t the same as killing the filibuster. This actually goes way, way beyond that.

    First, they are doing more than going nuclear on the Parliamentarian. They are going nuclear on the Congressional Review Act itself.

    It’s true that the Parliamentarian does not make law. Under the Constitution, the House and the Senate set their own procedures, limited by the requirements set in the Constitution. 

    For the good of order, and a functioning democracy, we have all come to rely on the Parliamentarian to call balls and strikes and set the rules of the road.

    But the Congressional Review Act is a law. And it says that all points of order are waived during a CRA resolution. And that’s what we are debating right now. An actual CRA resolution relating to hydrogen fuel.

    Now, I oppose this resolution, but at least it is following the law and Senate procedure. But what is about to happen is going to be against the law. And against Senate procedure.

    As I understand it, we are going to go nuclear twice. First we are going to go nuclear and overturn the rule on points of order during a CRA. Which is in the law!

    Then Republicans plan to go nuclear a second time, to throw out the rulebook and use the CRA against any agency action that an agency submits. No questions asked.

    So like I said, this goes way beyond the filibuster. And let’s play this out a bit.

    Under this logic, the Trump Administration could send an endless stream of non-rule actions to Congress, going back to 1996, including: vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and any number of government decisions that apply to President Trump’s long list of enemies.

    All it would take is a minority of 30 Senators to introduce related bills, and the Senate would be bogged down voting on agency grocery lists all day.

    Do we want to spend our days voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress?

    And what about the next Democratic Administration? All bets are off. Mining permits. Fossil fuel project approvals. LNG export licenses or offshore leases. IRS tax policies. Foreign policy. Every Project 2025 or DOGE disruption.

    Every agency action that Democrats don’t like — whether it’s a rule or not, and no matter how much time has passed — will be fair game if Republicans go through with this.

    So, let’s step back. Republicans are admitting that they don’t have the votes to pass these California resolutions under the Senate Rules that the Parliamentarian says apply — so why not throw out the rule book altogether!

    By voting to go nuclear on the CRA, they are ignoring the law – not just Senate rules but the text of the law. By voting to overrule the parliamentarian, they are saying the rules are whatever Republicans say they are.

    The majority can tell themselves whatever they want. They can twist themselves into pretzels to try and justify their reckless actions. But despite their smoke and mirrors approach to confuse people, we are all going to see it today with our own eyes.

    The majority is going to go nuclear to bypass the filibuster rule and pass a bill – for the first time in Senate history. It has happened for nominations before. It has happened on few procedural questions before. But it has never happened to pass a bill – or three bills. Never.

    If this happens under a Republican majority, it will be pretty ironic. The party that claims to be the staunch defender of the filibuster threw the rules aside as soon as it was convenient.

    I have been honest in my views on the filibuster. I think it needs to change overall going forwards. But it was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who fought so hard to keep it.

    Well, there is about to be a new precedent in the record, unless we step back at the last minute.  And it will stand as a guidepost going forward.

    We’re in the minority today. But Democrats will be in the majority again one day. We will not forget what happened here. History won’t forget.

    And Mr. President, California won’t forget what’s at stake today, either. I yield, but I will be back.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Schiff Urge Justice Department Watchdog to Open Investigation into DOJ’s Role in Unconstitutional Qatar Airplane Scheme

    US Senate News:

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

    Padilla, Schiff Urge Justice Department Watchdog to Open Investigation into DOJ’s Role in Unconstitutional Qatar Airplane Scheme

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in demanding an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Inspector General into the Attorney General and the Department of Justice’s involvement in President Trump’s unconstitutional acquisition of a $400 million luxury plane from the Qatari government.

    The request for an inquiry cites new reporting that the U.S. government has accepted the plane from Qatar and that President Trump actively solicited the luxury aircraft from Qatar’s government. At Attorney General Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing, Senator Padilla and his Democratic Judiciary Committee colleagues raised concerns about Bondi’s previous work as a foreign agent for the government of Qatar and how that might influence her work as Attorney General.

    “These reports raise the troubling possibility that the Department, and Attorney General Bondi personally, were integral to this scheme by crafting a legal justification to enable the President to circumvent the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, federal bribery and ethics laws, and Congress in order to acquire one of the largest foreign gifts in our history,” wrote the Senators.

    “Given today’s announcement and the fact that the Department’s leadership has effectively politicized the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which, under normal circumstances, would investigate professional misconduct by Department attorneys, it is imperative that your office undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation,” continued the Senators.

    The request to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was sent by Padilla, Schiff, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

    Last week, Senator Padilla joined 26 other Senators in cosponsored a resolution condemning President Trump’s acceptance of a luxury airplane gift, valued at $400 million, from the government of Qatar. According to reports, Trump intends to designate the plane as Air Force One while in office and transfer it to a foundation for personal use following the end of his term.

    Full text of the letter is available here and below:  

    Dear Inspector General Horowitz:

    We write to request that you open an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the Department of Justice’s involvement in facilitating President Trump’s effort to acquire a luxury airplane from Qatar, including the actions of Attorney General Pam Bondi. The Department of Defense confirmed today that it is accepting the plane as a gift from the government of Qatar. Given today’s announcement and the fact that the Department’s leadership has effectively politicized the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which, under normal circumstances, would investigate professional misconduct by Department attorneys, it is imperative that your office undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation.

    New revelations suggest that President Trump or senior administration officials actively solicited this foreign gift by initiating outreach to Qatar regarding the Boeing 747-8 plane in its possession, and, contrary to claims by President Trump and his associates, by proposing to Qatar that the transfer be in the form of a gift or donation, as opposed to a government-to-government sale. The reporting also raises questions as to whether the administration disclosed to the Qatari government that the Department of Defense would ultimately relinquish the plane and transfer it to President Trump after leaving office, potentially through his presidential library.

    Public reports suggest that Attorney General Bondi played a crucial role in providing cover for such a gift by issuing a legal memorandum to White House Counsel David Warrington that “concluded it would be ‘legally permissible’ for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump’s presidential library before the end of his term.” Under this scheme, the Department of Defense would serve as a clearinghouse to launder the plane on President Trump’s behalf, while bearing the enormous financial cost to retrofit the aircraft to meet necessary security and counterintelligence standards and requirements for Air Force One.

    These reports raise the troubling possibility that the Department, and Attorney General Bondi personally, were integral to this scheme by crafting a legal justification to enable the President to circumvent the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, federal bribery and ethics laws, and Congress in order to acquire one of the largest foreign gifts in our history. We are particularly concerned that elements of the Department, such as the Office of Legal Counsel, were enlisted to develop such a justification and produce one or more memoranda to allow the White House to claim that such a transfer is lawful. Among other concerns, these new revelations raise key questions regarding whether Department lawyers had a full understanding of the facts to render a complete and accurate legal opinion, or were directed to assess the legality of such a transfer based on incomplete, selective, or shaded details.

    Attorney General Bondi’s personal involvement in this scheme requires particular attention. During her confirmation hearing, Attorney General Bondi committed under oath to “consult with the career ethics officials with the Department [of Justice]” to “make the appropriate decision” with respect to matters pertaining to Qatar, given her previous registration as a lobbyist for Qatar under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The aforementioned solicitation of a $400 million gift from the Qatari government presents a plain conflict of interest that undermines the public’s trust in Attorney General Bondi’s ability to provide impartial legal advice.

    Moreover, your office is uniquely positioned to conduct such an inquiry. During Attorney General Bondi’s tenure, the Department has removed senior career ethics officials and kneecapped offices responsible for overseeing ethics and professional misconduct, including the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which was established 50 years ago in response to ethics abuses and serious professional misconduct by senior Department of Justice officials during the Watergate scandal. We have well-founded concerns that OPR is no longer able to fulfill its mandate since the Department’s political leadership removed OPR’s career lead, Jeffrey Ragsdale, who had served in the role since 2020. OPR’s absence as an oversight check on the Department’s senior leadership further reinforces the need for your office to undertake an independent investigation, including into Attorney General Bondi’s actions and whether she consulted career ethics officials as she pledged to do.

    Such an investigation would complement parallel oversight requests by Members of Congress, including a request that the acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense investigate the Department of Defense’s involvement in this scheme, questions to the Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force regarding the cost and operational security of retrofitting such a plane, and letters to Attorney General Bondi regarding her role.

    The Department of Justice has a long and storied history of rooting out and combatting corruption without fear or favor that is now at risk. In this moment, the responsibility of the Office of Inspector General to “detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct” in the Department has never been more important. Your office has a solemn obligation to hold the Department to account, especially given the credible concerns that it has been used to justify and enable unconstitutional acts and corruption at the highest levels of government.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to this important request.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump confronts South African president with conspiracy claims

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump confronted visiting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday with conspiracy theories on “white genocide” in South Africa, which Ramaphosa firmly denied.

    During their meeting in the Oval Office, Trump accused South Africa of “white genocide” and unfair land seizures, and then unexpectedly presented a video and a stack of printed news articles which he said proved his allegations.

    Ramaphosa, who arrived in Washington in hopes of improving trade terms and easing bilateral tensions, rejected Trump’s assertions during the meeting. He refuted the notion that white South Africans are fleeing the country due to racist policies. He said there was crime in South Africa and the majority of victims were Black.

    News outlets were shocked by Trump’s rudeness, saying most of the information that he used during the meeting to try to prove that “white genocide” was happening in South Africa had “repeatedly been disproven.”

    “Of the laundry list of conspiracy theories brought out at Trump’s meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa today, almost everything has been debunked. Some South Africans have said that they believe that the information is ‘AfriForum propaganda’ — a White Afrikaner lobby group criticized as being a White nationalist group,” the CNN reported.

    The clash came at a time of strained relations between the two countries. Since Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act into law in January, Trump has criticized the land reform law for “discriminating” against the country’s white people.

    In recent months, Trump has repeatedly criticized South Africa, most notably by canceling the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding and claiming that a “genocide” against white South Africans is underway, an allegation denied by the South African government.

    In March, the United States expelled then South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, further straining their relations. The expulsion came after Rasool addressed a webinar organized by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, commenting on the Trump administration.

    “What Donald Trump is launching is an assault on incumbency, those who are in power, by mobilizing a supremacism against the incumbency at home and I think I’ve illustrated abroad as well,” Rasool said during the webinar.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that Trump would not participate in the upcoming meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) leaders in South Africa later this year.

    “We decided not to participate in this year’s G20 hosted by South Africa, either at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or at the level of the president, and this was largely due to some of these issues that they put on their agenda and which, as we think, they do not reflect the priorities of this administration,” Rubio told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

    South Africa has pushed back against the Trump administration’s accusations, saying the executive order of freezing aid “lacks factual accuracy and fails to recognize South Africa’s profound and painful history of colonialism and apartheid.”

    “We are concerned by what seems to be a campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our great nation. It is disappointing to observe that such narratives seem to have found favor among decision-makers in the United States of America,” said the country’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation in a statement in February. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Congressman Krishnamoorthi Speaks with Illinois Food Distributors and Farmers on Reckless Trump Tariffs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (8th District of Illinois)

    SCHAUMBURG – This weekend, the Chicago Sun-Times highlighted Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi’s (D-IL) recent tour of Illinois food distributors and farms, where he spoke to business leaders, farmers, and distributors who are feeling the negative impacts of President Donald Trump’s reckless trade war. During his April 24 tour, Congressman Krishnamoorthi visited Testa Produce in Chicago and Kindred Farms in Atlanta, Illinois, to speak about how President Trump’s tariff policies are causing higher prices for families and stretching the bottom lines of small and local agricultural and business producers.

    “We’re not going to grow bananas in the U.S. or coffee. But it feels like food is being used as a weapon,” Congressman Krishnamoorthi said. “It shouldn’t be used as a weapon, especially when everybody needs it.”

    Congressman Krishnamoorthi’s comments were echoed by local agricultural and business leaders, who spoke in detail about how the tariffs are shrinking margins, inflating input costs, and throwing a wrench into supply chains.

    “Many customers are wondering how this will all end. I don’t have answers for them,” Peter Testa, CEO of Testa Produce, said. “There’s mass confusion.”

    “We’re just out here, caught in the crossfire,” Ron Kindred, owner of Kindred Farms and chairman of the Illinois Soybean Association, said. “[Tariffs] drive the price of everything up.”

    Illinois is the number one soybean-producing state in the country, with over 60 percent of the soybeans exported to countries such as China and Taiwan. However, price volatility and retaliatory tariffs put in place during President Trump’s first term cost U.S. agricultural producers $27 billion worth of lost exports in 2018 and 2019 alone, according to reporting by the Sun-Times.

    Congressman Krishnamoorthi has continued to call attention to the issues agricultural producers are facing in the wake of President Trump’s trade war since his state tour in April, using his position in Congress to help lead efforts to have these dangerous and irresponsible policies reversed for the betterment of small businesses and working families in Illinois.

    WHAT THEY’RE READING:

    Chicago Sun-Times: Illinois food businesses in the crosshairs of trade war Trump says will boost U.S. manufacturing

    • President Donald Trump says his tariffs will reshore U.S. manufacturing, yet food businesses, including those in Illinois, are especially hard hit by his trade war since supply chains are tied to local agricultural conditions and can’t easily be shifted, say business leaders and officials.

    • Food buyers such as Testa Produce are unsure whether to buy now or to wait, in case Trump rolls back his tariffs. That makes planning and budgeting very difficult, Testa said during Krishnamoorthi’s visit to the food distributor.

    • “Fresh produce trade is uniquely complex, shaped by seasonal and regional factors that require a well-functioning market for year-round availability,” the International Fresh Produce Association said last month in a statement. Broad application of tariffs as a “blunt tool disrupts markets, raises consumer costs and places unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain,” the association added.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray Slams Secretary Burgum’s Plans to Fire National Park Staff, Sell Off Public Lands, & Slash Funding for Tribes

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    Murray: “Our public lands are not for sale. Protecting our wilderness, living up to our tribal obligations, keeping our communities safe—it’s just not negotiable. It’s actually a core reason your Department does exist—and these have been places with strong, bipartisan support.”
    NEW REPORT: President Trump’s Attacks on National Park Service are Hurting Communities Across Washington State
    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s remarks and questioning***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, slammed Secretary Doug Burgum’s efforts to fire staff across the Department, sell off our public lands and abandon the National Park Service’s conservation mission, and betray the United States’ obligation to Tribes with devastating proposed funding cuts. Also today, Senator Murray released a new report on how President Trump’s attacks on the National Park Service are hurting communities in Washington state.
    In opening comments, Vice Chair Murray said:
    “Washington state is home to a number of pristine public lands—people travel from all over the world to experience my state, and Oregon.
    “Secretary Burgum, our public lands are not for sale. Protecting our wilderness, living up to our tribal obligations, keeping our communities safe—it’s just not negotiable. It’s actually a core reason your Department does exist—and these have been places with strong, bipartisan support.
    “So, I’m really concerned that one of the first things you did was make deep, painful cuts at our national parks, and start talking about our public lands kind of like they are a piggy bank.
    “I do not want to tell future generations: ‘See that that river of sludge—it used to be clear, it used to have salmon. See that charred mountainside—it used to be a forest with campgrounds and trails. See that smokestack? That used to be a National Park.’
    “I worry because it feels to me like your vision could lead to that with your budget cuts, and mass firings, and reorganization.
    “And I’m deeply concerned about the proposed cuts to programs and funding that our Tribes rely on, the mass firing of park rangers—they’re the people who help visitors, they clear trails, they clean the bathrooms, and they respond to emergencies.
    “As I watch this and hear from folks, and see what’s happening, on top of gutting bedrock environmental protections, I just don’t see how your Department can execute the law without staff in place.”
    [HURRICANE RIDGE REBUILD]
    Senator Murray began by her questioning by discussing the rebuild of Hurricane Ridge Day Lodge in Washington State: “I wanted to start by touching briefly on Hurricane Ridge, a place that as you know is very special to people in my home state of Washington and visitors who come from all over the world. I know that you visited Olympic National Park last week—and you saw how scenic it is, and a hint of how brutal the weather can be. It’s called Hurricane Ridge for a reason. The Hurricane Ridge Day Lodge burned down in a tragic fire two years ago. Congress delivered the emergency funding necessary to rebuild it last year. In the execution report that you delivered to the Committee in February—the disaster funding spend plan—you included the money for Olympic National Park, which I understand is for Hurricane Ridge. Do you have any updates on the next steps for that project?”
    Secretary Burgum said, “No, but I did have an opportunity with a park superintendent and some of the lead people who actually work at hurricane ridge and thankfully there was not 70 mile-per-hour wind, it was beautiful, sunny, calm, gorgeous. But I got to see the site where the fire had happened and was able to meet with them regarding the plans they have. It looks like a great project.”
    “Good, and can you just keep my staff and me updated on that project as it moves forward, it’s really important to all of us,” Senator Murray replied.
    [SWEEPING STAFF CUTS AT NATIONAL PARKS]
    Senator Murray turned her questioning to the sweeping staffing reductions taking place under Secretary Burgum’s leadership at DOI, “In your short tenure, you have overseen significant staffing reductions—over 10 percent—and reorganization efforts across the Department of the Interior, with I understand more firings to come. The National Park Service has lost 18 percent of its staff. You managed to fire the only plumber at Mount Rainier National Park. There is just nothing efficient about that kind of management. You’ve also decided that what few staff remain at our National Parks will focus solely on visitor services—that really abandons the conservation mission, which no doubt will lead to the degradation of our natural resources and our parks. On May 8th, five former NPS directors—from Republican and Democratic administrations alike—raised really grave concerns about these decisions. They wrote that the National Park Service’s founding statute requires conservation at our parks so they will be ‘unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’ We need trail guides and biologists. We need EMTs and geologists. We need snow plow drivers and historians. Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that you have a statutory obligation to conserve our national parks? A simple yes or no here please.”
    Secretary Burgum responded, “Yes.”
    “Well, it just feels to me watching this that you are abandoning that obligation with your staffing cuts. Your job is to carry out the laws that Congress has passed, not as you wish they were written. Let me ask you, how many people do you plan to fire from the National Park Service?” Senator Murray pressed.
    “Let me respond by saying I’m going to repeat myself, that there is an opportunity to have more people working in our parks in all the positions that you described, Senator, and to have less people working for the National Park Service. We just have to accept that this math, that if you have a situation where slightly less than 50% of the people actually work in the park, that everything you said, I can increase the number of people in the park but still decrease the number of people on payroll at the National Park Service because we are eliminating overhead back office, IT, and HR roles,” answered Secretary Burgum in part.
    Senator Murray pushed back, “It’s huge cuts. The people you’re talking about are actually the support staff, and when you cut support staff, that’s not efficient. How does someone drive a snowplow if you don’t have a staffer that makes sure that the government gets the best deal to buy that snowplow? There is many, many detailed people that you are talking about that actually make sure that the spending is efficient, that the people are efficient. We all know how important staff is, you can’t survive without them. Those are the people that you are letting go. We can’t be efficient if they are not there.”
    Secretary Burgum tried to change the subject, “Are you suggesting that the National Park Service today is operating at peak efficiency?”
    “I would suggest that I welcome any suggestions to us about how to be efficient, but just mass across-the-board cuts and firing is really going to not increase efficiency at our parks. And that, I think, we all should be very concerned about,” Senator Murray responded, emphasizing that mass firings are not the answer.
    “But if the goal is for us to have more people working in the parks, you’re comfortable if I could get to a spot where I have more people working—” Secretary Burgum again avoided the question.
    Senator Murray said, “You show me what employees you are leaving behind that don’t support someone that makes sure that they have the equipment that they need that is up to date, it is running. Those kinds of things, you can’t just cut those people and expect people to be out in the national park without somebody who is making sure that their equipment is safe, that their hours are maintained, all the things that it takes to run a place. Our national parks are huge. They take a lot of people to run.”
    Secretary Burgum again dodged, failing to state the number of employees he expects to lose at NPS.
    Senator Murray then followed up to state: “One thing that I’m really concerned about, and everyone should be, is our national wildland firefighting efforts and countless staff who provide the necessary support there. For example, firefighters put their lives at risk. Without the support they need in many different roles, it just gets more dangerous. Those are the kinds of people I’m extremely concerned about, that without thought or really smart moves, that we are going to be putting our parks at risk.”
    [DEVASTATING PROPOSED FUNDING CUTS FOR TRIBES]
    Senator Murray then asked about proposed budget cuts at DOI, such as cuts of $617 million from core programs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $107 million from the BIA’s law enforcement office, and $187 million—nearly eliminating—funds to build Tribal schools, “You have a role in fulfilling the Federal Government’s trust and treaty responsibilities to our Tribes. I see numerous cuts across the budget that defunds Tribal police, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. How many Tribes have you personally consulted with on your budget request?”
    “I’ve been meeting with tribes every week since I’ve been here. I’ve got a deep understanding of our challenges and shortage in law enforcement,” replied Secretary Burgum.
    “There’s 574 Tribe—which ones have you consulted or met with?” Senator Murray asked again.  
    Secretary Burgum said, in part: “I’m happy to provide you a list, but I just recently had the Interior Secretary Tribal Advisory Committee, we had 24 representatives from tribes from across the country actually meeting in my office just a couple weeks ago.”
    Senator Murray and Secretary Burgum discussed the funding, and Murray concluded: “I just want to say that my tribes in Washington state are deeply concerned, they’re telling us that these layoffs will eliminate natural resource management, basic social services and they are horrified. So, I hope that in your list you will provide me, that I see some of their names.”
    [NEW MURRAY REPORT ON NATIONAL PARK SERVICE]
    Also today, Senator Murray released a new report on how the Trump administration’s cuts and planned cuts of National Park staff will reduce access to our public lands, harm Washington state’s gateway communities, jeopardize natural resources, and make National Parks less safe for visitors.
    The full report is available HERE and below:
    Report: President Trump’s Attacks on National Park Service are Hurting Communities Across Washington State
    This report is part of a series detailing the harm President Trump and Elon Musk’s reckless and devastating attacks on the federal workforce are causing on the ground in Washington state. The Trump administration’s mass firings and harmful actions have real consequences for Washington state residents and their communities.
    This report focuses on how the Trump administration’s cuts and planned cuts of National Park staff will reduce access to our public lands, harm Washington’s gateway communities, jeopardize natural resources, and make National Parks less safe for visitors.
    National Park Service is Critical to Ensuring All Americans Can Safely Visit Our Most Iconic Public Lands This Summer and Beyond
    Across the country, National Park Service rangers work hard to keep visitors safe, protect natural resources, and create an inspiring and educational experience for visitors. For over a decade, the National Park Service has had to operate at low staffing levels, despite significant increases in visitation.[1] Yet, under the Trump Administration, the National Park Service has frozen hiring, rescinded seasonal employment offers, pushed employees to resign, and laid off 1,000 permanent employees.[2] The National Park Service has also been ordered to submit a restructuring plan, and the Department of the Interior plans “additional massive layoffs” in the coming months. Without sufficient staff, visitor centers and campgrounds may close, bathrooms will not be properly maintained, emergency response times will drop, and important ranger services from interpretation to providing safety advice will be unavailable.
    Layoffs at the National Park Service Will Reduce Access to Washington’s National Parks.
    The National Park Service has a significant footprint in Washington, home of the iconic Mount Rainier, Olympic, and North Cascades National Parks, along with historically significant sites across the state—like Fort Vancouver, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, and more. At the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, Sam Peterson was one of the National Park Service staff fired on February 14, after accepting a promotion to become a park ranger just three months prior.
    “Americans aren’t getting what they’ve paid for—they’re not operating under a new budget. The Park Service is supposed to have a park ranger in my position at Lake Roosevelt, so there’s going to be fewer visitors who get important safety messaging, fewer visitors who can have their questions answered, and fewer kids that can go on a field trip led by a ranger. There may be safety impacts during the busy season, if we aren’t able to get out safety messaging as effectively. There’s supposed to be a team of nine interpreters at Lake Roosevelt—now there are only three,” said Peterson.
    In response to court orders, the National Park Service offered many fired employees, including Peterson, their positions back.[3]
    “I want to return to the Park Service someday, but right now, it doesn’t feel stable for either myself or my family, because we just don’t know what the next couple of months—and certainly the next couple of years—will bring. I turned down my job when it was offered back to me, because I was living in government housing at the time of my termination—I was given 60 days to leave. I signed a new lease and started a new job six hours away just before I was offered my job back. Even though it was tempting to accept my job back, I couldn’t do it,” said Peterson.
    Washington state’s outdoor recreation community has a front row seat to the local impacts of cutting staff at the National Park Service. Last year, the Mountaineers—an outdoor recreation group—led 727 trips, activities, and courses in Washington’s National Parks, serving 3,456 students.
    “We got word that the only plumber at Mount Rainier National Park was fired. That’s the kind of thing that you don’t see when you’re visiting the parks. But if a wastewater system goes down then they’re going to have to close bathrooms, that’s a public safety issue. You can’t have people visiting our parks if there are no sanitary facilities,” said Betsy Robblee, Conservation and Advocacy Director for the Mountaineers.
    “We’re also concerned about campgrounds opening up. There’s a lot of staff that are needed to open campgrounds, whether that’s removing hazardous trees from areas near campsites or opening up and testing the water system. If you don’t have staff to do that, that’s going to either delay or maybe prevent many campsites from opening. Hurricane Ridge, in Olympic National Park, lost one of their road crew members as part of the firing of probationary employees. If you don’t have enough road crew members to clear the road up to Hurricane Ridge, that area just can’t open,” said Robblee.
    In addition to the critical work conducted by National Park Service staff, Washington state has a uniquely strong volunteer community. The Washington Trails Association contributes thousands of volunteer hours to critical trail maintenance projects in places like Mount Rainier National Park.
    “We have had a decades-long relationship with Mount Rainier, but it’s built on working with National Park Service staff to plan projects so that we can leverage volunteers and bring them to the Park to help steward those places. The fear is that the public side of that public-private partnership is being eroded. We won’t be able to complete our mission to take care of these places without the Park Service being there as our partner,” said Michael DeCramer, Policy and Planning Manager for the Washington Trails Association.
    DeCramer is keenly aware of how reduced staffing will impact visitor experience.
    “There are just enough people at Mount Rainier National Park in the winter to keep the roads open and if somebody calls out sick, the gate doesn’t open,” said DeCramer, highlighting how vital staff are for providing access to our public lands.
    Following public outcry, the National Park Service proposed expanding their hiring of seasonal workers to meet the needs of increased visitation during the high season.
    “While that’s great in theory, a lot of parks haven’t been allowed to repost seasonal job postings, so they’re having to use the candidate pool from when the job was posted in October or November of last year. That’s now almost six months ago—a lot of the people who applied have already moved on,” said Peterson.
    “Seasonal employees do great work, and they’re absolutely necessary, but you also need stability year-over-year through permanent employees to train those seasonal employees and maintain institutional integrity, especially in the off season. Even though we think of parks as places we go to in the summer, staff are still needed for visitors during the off season and shoulder season. The off season is also when a lot of maintenance and repair work takes place, so that parks are ready for their high season. It’s not efficient to just say, ‘oh, we will fire all of these people and then hire a bunch of part time workers instead,’” said Peterson.
    Reduced Park Access Will Hurt Local Economies in Washington’s Gateway Communities
    In 2023, outdoor recreation contributed $22.5 billion to Washington’s economy and made up 3.2% of the state’s total jobs.[4] This economic impact is particularly important for gateway communities—those located closest to Washington’s National Parks. 
    The American Alpine Institute is a mountain climbing school and guide service with 60 employees and a significant presence in Washington state. Executive Director Jason Martin is also a mountain rescue volunteer, a former president of the Bellingham Mountain Rescue Council, and has worked extensively with the American Mountain Guides Association. After the initial round of layoffs, he reached out to people working in the National Park Service to try to understand how the layoffs may impact outdoor recreation.
    “Throughout the outdoor industry—which I represent in a couple of different ways: as a commercial operator, as a volunteer rescuer, and as an outdoor recreationalist—in many cases, we just don’t know what’s going on right now. We don’t know who to talk to. We don’t know who to ask about things,” said Martin.
    The Mount Rainier Business Alliance is a coalition of local business owners in Ashford, Elbe, Alder, and Mineral, Washington, whose members deeply understand the economic impacts of staffing cuts to the National Park Service.
    “In Ashford, which is the main town right outside of Mount Rainier National Park, everything is closely tied to the National Park—from our economy to our safety. So these cuts, while perhaps just seen as being cuts to the National Park, in some ways are really cuts to our community,” said Nickolas Neville, President of the Mount Rainier Business Alliance.
    For small business owners near Mount Rainier National Park, reductions in staffing at the National Park Service could make it impossible for them to keep their doors open.
    “This whole part of our county relies entirely on the people that decide to make the trip out to Mount Rainier. Making that more difficult, especially with how challenging access to the mountain has been because of lack of staffing—I could see causing businesses to shut down, businesses that are already struggling. I could see it impacting how often we get tourists here renting out properties and short-term rentals. This part of Pierce County is already on life support,” said Cat Larrow, head of the Community Advocacy Committee of the Mount Rainier Business Alliance.
    Layoffs at the National Park Service Will Reduce Emergency Services at Washington’s National Parks
    In addition to maintaining the parks and educating visitors, park rangers ensure that visitors are safe and serve as first responders when emergencies arise. 
    “The Golden West Visitor Center at North Cascades National Park on Lake Chelan has struggled to stay open because they just haven’t had the staff they need to operate. That’s a key entry point for the Steven Mather Wilderness and the southern end of North Cascades National Park. My fear is that there’s just no slack at the Park Service. These folks are already doing everything they can. And you’re still going to have people wanting to visit the parks, but services are going to suffer,” said Michael DeCramer, Policy and Planning Manager for the Washington Trails Association. 
    “If there is a search and rescue operation needed, they might not be able to provide the staff for the level of service that we expect. Things might have to close if there’s a wildfire in the Park. We may not have the staff with the skills needed to respond in the way that we’re used to. And I see a lot of potential risk to the public. Not to be dire, but these cuts will be felt both in terms of loss of services but also decreased safety for the public, because park rangers are first responders,” said DeCramer.
    In addition to search and rescue and wildfire response, park rangers provide valuable safety information to visitors to prevent emergencies from happening in the first place.
    “Even just the rangers who sit at Artist Point handing out information to people about mountain rescues are important. I’ve done dozens and dozens of rescues in that area, mostly people who have broken bones. But if there’s nobody sitting there to warn someone that they’re actually walking into the wilderness. There’s a lot of concern,” said Jason Martin, the Executive Director of the American Alpine Institute, and a mountain rescue volunteer.
    Across Washington’s Parks, decreased staff creates safety concerns for visitors.
    “We are a very outdoor engaged state and people just go up to visit the woods constantly. I love that people are engaged, but the Park Service is putting people at risk on any given day by not having enough staff to maintain these parks,” said David Beard, Director of Policy & Government Affairs for the Children & Nature Network.
    Layoffs at the National Park Service Will Harm Washington’s Natural Resources for Future Generations
    Washington’s National Parks contain some of America’s most precious natural resources and iconic landscapes. When people visit these special places, it often has a lasting impact.
    “We all have memories of a visit to our National Parks. My three kids have more than 50 Junior Ranger badges they have earned over the years. Are there going to be people there to raise their hand and swear in the six-year-old to be a Junior Ranger? All those things are likely going to be in question,” said Tom Uniack, Executive Director for Washington Wild.
    “If people aren’t able to visit our Parks, or they have negative experiences, then we’re losing out on those amazing connections that people have to the natural world that can change their lives. They develop a stewardship ethic. They want to care for these places, and they want to advocate to protect these places. And looking towards future generations, if this continues, future generations may not get to have the same experiences in these places as we are fortunate to have today,” said Betsy Robblee, Conservation and Advocacy Director for the Mountaineers.
    “Washington is a beautiful state. I was born and raised here. My dad was a climber. I really worry that whether it’s the National Park Service or the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, not having the funding and staff to clean bathrooms, keep the gates open, and haul out trash. Garbage piling up can have lasting impacts on wildlife like bears and ravens and mountain lions,” said Jonathan Spitzer, Director of Operations for Alpine Ascents.
    As the summer season approaches, cuts to the National Park Service will be acutely felt across Washington state—from small businesses in gateway communities to the safety and quality of visitor experiences in Olympic, North Cascades, and Mount Rainier National Parks. Washingtonians understand that these iconic public lands belong to the public, and that it takes a strong National Park Service to steward them for visitors today and tomorrow.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Opening Remarks at Hearing on the Department of Energy’s Budget

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, kicked off a hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), emphasizing in her opening remarks how important the Department’s work is—and how this administration’s illegal funding freeze, mass reductions in staffing, and steep proposed budget cuts jeopardize essential efforts to drive innovation, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, and lower Americans’ monthly energy bills.
    Senator Murray’s opening remarks, as delivered, are below:
    “Thank you, Chair Kennedy. I am pleased to serve as Ranking Member of this important Subcommittee, and I hope we can continue our track record of writing bipartisan spending bills that make crucial investments in our communities that we need.
    “DOE’s work is far reaching with major implications for how much families spend on their energy bills, the reliability of our energy grid, whether we lead the world in clean energy, AI, and quantum computing, and our national security and nuclear waste cleanup program. In my home state of Washington, we see this firsthand at the Bonneville Power Administration, which provides power to families across the region. At the Pacific Northwest National Lab, which is pioneering cutting edge research, and at Hanford, where we have the biggest nuclear clean-up site in the country—a moral and legal obligation we must never shortchange.
    “So, we must give the programs DOE manages their due in terms of funding, and in terms of the oversight necessary to ensure that funding actually gets to our communities. But these goals are in jeopardy because of your actions over the last few months like a truly sweeping funding freeze, unprecedented contract cancellations, mass staffing reductions, and uncertainty that is hurting communities across our country.
    “Now, Secretary Wright, my colleagues and I have been pressing you for information on staffing, funds signed into law you are holding up or straight up cancelling, and more. I’ve only received two responses so far, both of them yesterday—clearly to get ahead of today’s hearing. And ‘response’ is being charitable, since you failed to provide any real answers. Last week, you told the House you have ignored basic inquiries from lawmakers because you are apparently too busy, and you mentioned you don’t want to spend time on false premises. So, I thought we could save some time today by debunking a few false premises.
    “It is false for you to say less than a thousand people have left since you took over when we know over 3,500 DOE employees have taken the so-called buyout you offered and we know you fired 500 more. It is false for you to say no contracts have been cancelled when you have plainly cancelled electric vehicle and low-income energy assistance grants in Colorado, to give one example. And it is false for you to say there are no unpaid invoices when we have heard from organizations still waiting on payments—including Hydrogen Hubs, which have unpaid invoices.
    “Now, in addition to ignoring requests from Congress, your FY25 spend plan which is required by law is completely inadequate. That is a critical document for us to understand how you are spending—or illegally blocking and cancelling—billions of dollars Congress has provided for critical projects across the country. I’ve heard you say you are merely conducting a review as if that magically makes it okay. Call it whatever you want, the bottom line is the money isn’t moving. And as a former businessman, you know perfectly well that uncertainty alone has a massive cost.
    “Jobs are already being lost because of your actions. Private investment in critical energy projects is being cancelled, delayed, or threatened to the tune of $71 billion so far this year. And as electric prices hit record highs, you are halting progress on investments that would lower people’s bills. Meanwhile, you are letting thousands of critical staff go—encouraging folks to leave—with no regard for if they do their work well, or if the work is important.
    “I still don’t know how you could do something as crazy as try to fire Bonneville Power Administration workers, in the name of efficiency! I mean these are literally the people who keep the lights on and they aren’t even paid by taxpayer dollars! Eventually, you reversed those firings, but the fact they happened at all was the first in a parade of red flags.
    “Now, we are here to talk about another red flag—a budget that completely guts the non-defense half of your mission. Overall, you want to slash $20 billion from DOE’s science and energy programs. Your budget proposes ripping 75% out of the energy efficiency and renewable energy program and shuttering important clean energy and manufacturing programs. I don’t know who is telling you people want to pay higher electric bills?
    “Your budget slashes $1.1 billion from the Office of Science. Who is telling you we should cede ground to China in the race for innovation, and layoff scientists at our national labs? Your budget cuts $15 billion from programs we created in the bipartisan infrastructure law—hydrogen hubs, battery storage, advanced manufacturing and supply chains, and other programs to lower energy costs. Who told you we don’t want those manufacturing jobs? Who told you we don’t want to strengthen our energy production and reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
    “Here is what I will tell you, if you were to follow through with this disaster of a budget the only energy you are going to save is from the lights that go out at factories across the country. Those lights are going to go off, as China swoops in to take the lead in the technologies that will define the 21st century. I don’t see any efficiency in this budget—but there is a heavy cost.
    “There is the cost you are going to pass on to our constituents in the form of higher electric bills, higher gas bills, more power outages. Not to mention the cost when manufacturing moves elsewhere, and we have to pay Trump’s absurd tariffs for technology we could, and should, be making right here. Or the cost to our country. Discoveries we could be making here, jobs we could be creating here, goods we could be making here and selling across the world. Instead, it feels like you want to gift wrap the future and hand it to China.
    “Your budget also flat-funds the Hanford clean-up. That has serious repercussions. They recently finalized milestones they have to meet on the High Level Waste mission. Flat funding means the only way to hit those targets is to pull funding from other priorities which would have ripple effects for workers carrying out critical projects across the site and ultimately would delay remediation along the Columbia River. That is unacceptable. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
    “Secretary, I know you talk about energy abundance, but talk is cheap. Doing this work takes investments—investments you are ripping to shreds. So, I want to see less talk and more money getting out the door the way Congress wrote and intended. There is common ground in this space. I know because we have found it before. The very last bill Chair Kennedy and I wrote together passed out of this committee unanimously, and I want to see us do it again. Because this is genuinely important work.
    “Now, before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not address the outrageously corrupt news we got last week on the Army Corps work plan. This administration is ripping away hundreds of millions of dollars from projects that were in the House bill and Senate Energy and Water FY25 bills and funding other projects which were not funded in any bill that we approved!
    “This includes scrapping funds for the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington state. This is a vital project that has to get done and I will keep working with you Mr. Chairman to get this done because this Committee and this Subcommittee have long come together to fund projects vital to communities across this country and I know no member appreciates any administration playing games with our communities for political reasons—as is the case with the work plan released last week. It’s brazen abuse—pure and simple. I am going to keep digging into how that decision was made, demanding answers, speaking out about this, and fighting for my state of Washington.
    “Thank you, and now I will turn it back to Chair Kennedy.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Presses Trump’s Small Business Administrator on Canceled Grants, Immense Costs of Trump’s Trade War for Small Businesses

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s Q&A with SBA Administrator Loeffler***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, questioned Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler at a Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSSG) Subcommittee hearing on the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for SBA. Murray pressed Administrator Loeffler on the Trump administration’s cancellation of SBA grants and how Trump’s trade war is imposing serious costs on small businesses in Washington state.
    [GRANT TERMINATIONS]
    Senator Murray began by pressing Loeffler on funding she terminated: “I’ve been hearing from small businesses in my state about the SBA grants that have been cancelled and frozen. One example is you canceled a $2.5 million Regional Innovation Cluster contract in Washington state that would have supported small businesses that were working on carbon capture and utilization and storage. It’s not an isolated case but that is a program that Congress historically funded with strong bipartisan support. I wanted to ask you today: why have you canceled funding for a program that has both bipartisan support and really drives small business growth in emerging sectors?”
    Administrator Loeffler refused to answer the question directly but stated in part: “I have broad authority in this administration to reshape the Regional Innovation Clusters, and we are undertaking a review of those programs to right-size them and form them to where the needs are most urgent right now.”
    Senator Murray countered: “I would just say this is a regional need, and I would just ask you to go back and look at that one. Happy to provide you information, but it really is a critical one for our region.”
    [TRUMP’S TRADE WAR]
    Senator Murray then asked about the steep cost of Trump’s trade war on small businesses: “I met with small business owners in Seattle, one of them runs a coffee shop and imports green tea. Like a lot of small business owners that I am talking to, and you know, they operate on thin margins so even the current tariffs are hitting them really hard. We don’t grow much green tea in the United States. I doubt we ever will. Given that the increased costs imposed by these tariffs could really—he told me—shutter his business. What should they do in this situation?”
    Administrator Loeffler replied: “This period of negotiation, you know, is not one where we don’t acknowledge their near-term effects, but for the long term, we want—”
    Senator Murray interjected: “This is a small business. They can’t last much longer.”
    Avoiding the question of how a small business is supposed to cope, Loeffler replied: “We’re focused on is ensuring that we never get in the position again of having unfair trade. And that’s what President Trump’s fighting for. That’s what we’re fighting for. We, just yesterday, put out our Make Onshoring Great Again directory to ensure that small businesses have access to millions—a million suppliers across this country that can offer alternatives—”
    Senator Murray again interjected: “But this country doesn’t produce green tea, and this small business is not going to last more than a few months. I hear your bigger scheme is that someday this will all pay off. This small business won’t be there. I’m just asking you: what are they supposed to do? Are you going to – do you have anything drafted? Are you looking at anything that can help these small businesses who are on the verge of closing right now? They can’t wait 2, 3, 5, 6 months from now.”
    Offering SBA loan financing to cover turbulent times thanks to Trump’s tariffs, Secretary Loeffler replied in part: “Well, what the SBA is offering is certainly the capital, the counseling that they need, as well as import and export loan financing to deal with these times of uncertainty.”
    Senator Murray replied: “I appreciate that you have an optimistic view. I’m just telling you, having sat down and met with these small businesses, whether it’s shutting the regional SBA office or canceling these grants to support our entrepreneurs, or these tariffs that are having impact, there are small businesses that will not make it based on your optimism.”
    ______________________
    Senator Murray has been a vocal opponent of Trump’s chaotic trade war from the very start and has been lifting up the voices of people in Washington state harmed by this administration’s approach to trade and calling on Republicans to end Trump’s trade war—which Congress has the power to do—and take back Congress’ Constitutionally-granted power to impose tariffs. Earlier last month, Senator Murray brought together leaders across Washington state who highlighted how Trump’s ongoing trade war is already a devastating hit to Washington state’s economy, businesses, and our agriculture sector. Senator Murray also took to the Senate floor to lay out how Trump’s chaotic trade war is seriously threatening our economy, American businesses, families’ retirement savings, and so much else.
    Murray has also been sounding the alarm on Trump’s tariffs across Washington state. Recently, Senator Murray held a roundtable discussion in Tacoma with local businesses and ports, met with farmers in Yakima to discuss the consequences of Trump’s tariffs, and held a roundtable discussion in Vancouver at a local metal fabrication company to highlight how Trump’s trade war is hurting businesses and our economy Washington state. Just last week, Senator Murray met with small business owners in Seattle’s University District to hear how Trump’s tariffs and the broader economic uncertainty are affecting them, and later she met with farmers in Skagit County to discuss tariffs, and visited Blaine near the Canadian border to highlight the impacts of Trump’s trade war. Earlier this month, Senator Murray rallied her West Coast colleagues and ports from Washington state and California to sound the alarm on how Trump’s tariffs will mean bare shelves, higher prices, and painful layoffs.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: At Hearing on Murray’s Bill to Expand Menopause Research at VA and DOD, Senator Murray Presses VA Witness on Resources for Women Veterans, Harmful Pause on Clinical Trials at VA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ICYMI: Murray Calls Out VA for Stonewalling Congress, Grills VA Secretary Collins on How Trump Administration Mass Firings are Increasing Wait Times for Veterans, Further Jeopardizing EHR Rollout & VA Research
    ***VIDEO of Senator Murray’s Q&A HERE***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing to consider pending legislation, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, spoke with Dr. Thomas O’Toole, Acting Assistant Under Secretary for Health for Clinical Services for the Veterans Health Administration at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), about her bipartisan Servicewomen and Veterans Menopause Research Act that would require VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) to coordinate on research studying the effects of menopause and perimenopause on women servicemembers and women veterans to close treatment gaps and help ensure women veterans receive appropriate, high-quality gender-specific health care throughout their lives.
    Senator Murray also questioned Dr. O’Toole about VA’s 90-day pause on clinical trials—which is delaying important research right now—and on progress toward establishing permanent in-house mammography services for veterans in VISN-20, which covers veterans in Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, most of Idaho, and parts of Montana and California.
    “Women veterans, particularly those who have suffered from PTSD or sexual assault, tend to experience menopause much earlier than women who did not serve in the military. One VA study found that 15 percent of women veterans experience menopause before the age of 40—that is 10 years earlier than most women,” Senator Murray said. “It is really important that we strengthen menopause research at the VA and DoD so we can provide better care for women servicemembers and our veterans. That is why I was very proud to join Representative Houlahan and Senator Ernst in introducing the Servicewomen and Veterans Menopause Research Act last month to do that.”
    “Can you tell me today what resources are available right now, at the VA, for women veterans who are experiencing menopause? Are there any plans to expand that—what do you have right now?” SenatorMurray asked.
    “I acknowledge and fully appreciate and agree with what you’re saying there,” said Dr. O’Toole. “I do not have that information readily available in terms of what resources are currently being dedicated. I would have to get it for the record.”
    “How long will that take you to get to me?” SenatorMurray asked.
    “We will get it as quickly as we can,” Dr. O’Toole replied. “We strongly support the bill.”
    SenatorMurray continued her questioning: “During a hearing earlier this month, I actually asked Secretary Collins about the Trump administration’s 90-day ‘pause’ on VA clinical trials, which is right now delaying planned trials and putting a halt to ongoing clinical trials at VA, everything from predicting stroke risks to addressing substance abuse. Now, Secretary Collins said at the time, there was no decision regarding what would happen to VA researchers and trials when that pause ended.”
    “Do you have an answer to the question I asked a few weeks ago—what will happen after this this 90-day ‘pause’ ends?,” Murray asked. “Where will you direct the patients whose clinical trials were canceled or delayed?” asked Senator Murray.
    “I do not have that information available to me, I would have to take it for the record,” Dr. O’Toole replied.
    SenatorMurray followed up: “Can you provide my office with a list of clinical trials that were canceled?”
    “I don’t have that available, but we can get that information to you,” Dr. O’Toole responded.
    Senator Murray pushed back, “Well, the VA has to have this information. Certainly, if you care about transparency, which we keep hearing, I see no reason why this information would be secret. When can you get that information to us? These are people who were in trials, these are researchers, they—just for the next 10 years, they’re not supposed to know? When are you going to get that to us?”
    “We will get it to you as soon as we can,” said Dr. O’Toole.
    “What does that mean? I’ve heard that from so many people in the last couple weeks,” SenatorMurray said.
    Dr. O’Toole said, “I would, obviously, defer to our legislative team and our research office on those specifics, but—”
    “It’s a disappointing response, I have to tell you,” SenatorMurray interjected.
    “I would imagine we would be able to get it to you within the next few weeks, 1-2 weeks, hopefully,” Dr. O’Toole finally answered.
    Murray continued by asking about services for women veterans, in particular the lack of in-house mammography services for veterans at Puget Sound VA—an issue Senator Murray has taken up with VA before. “In my home state of Washington, Puget Sound VA saw a seven percent increase in women veterans utilizing their services over the past two years. I am appreciative of the mobile mammography centers that were made available for our Puget Sound veterans, but it’s  a temporary fix. Can you provide me any update today on the progress in establishing permanent in-house mammography services for veterans in VISN-20? Or a timeline?” SenatorMurray asked.
    Dr. O’Toole replied that he did not have the specifics but would get back to Senator Murray with a response to her questions.
    “I would appreciate answers to those questions as soon as you can, this is critical information we need,” Senator Murray said.
    Senator Murray was the first woman to join the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the first woman to chair the Committee—as the daughter of a WWII veteran, supporting veterans and their families has always been an important priority for Murray. Advocating for women veterans in particular has been a longtime focus for Senator Murray. As Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee in 2010, Senator Murray passed her landmark Women Veterans Health Improvement Act into law. Murray has worked to permanently authorize the VA child care pilot program to increase access to free, quality child care for veterans during their appointments, make much-needed improvements to the women veterans call center, and fix a loophole that left veterans footing the bill for medically-necessary emergency newborn transportation that VA should be covering. Murray introduced and helped pass the Deborah Sampson Act, legislation to address gender disparities at VA that established a dedicated Office of Women’s Health at VA and required every VA health facility to have a dedicated women’s health primary care provider, among other things. Murray also helped to pass the MAMMO Actto expand access to high-quality breast cancer screening and treatment services for veterans. Last year, as Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray delivered a record $900 million investment in women veterans’ health care.
    Also last Congress, Senator Murray introduced the Advancing Menopause Care and Mid-Life Women’s Health Act, comprehensive bipartisan legislation that would be the most expansive effort so far to boost federal research on menopause and would—for the first time—coordinate the federal government’s existing programs related to menopause and mid-life women’s health.
    Senator Murray has been a leading voice in the Senate speaking out forcefully against President Trump and Elon Musk’s mass firing of VA employees and VA researchers across the country and Elon Musk and DOGE’s infiltration of the VA, including accessing veterans’ sensitive personal information. Earlier this month in an oversight hearing with VA Secretary Doug Collins, Senator Murray pressed Secretary Collins on how the Trump administration’s mass firing of VA employees is hurting veterans’ ability to get the health care they need—from jeopardizing VA research, to creating new risks around the deployment of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) system to additional VA Medical Centers—and on new policies the Trump administration recently rolled out that severely limit Congressional engagement with veterans and VA for no legitimate reason. Last month, Senator Murray released a report on how Trump’s mass firings at VA are already hurting veterans’ services and health care in Washington state and across the country.
    The full text of the Servicewomen and Veterans Menopause Research Act is available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray Grills Secretary Wright on Illegal Funding Freeze, Mass Firings, Devastating Proposed Funding Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    Murray highlights how DOE’s actions and proposals undermined American innovation and will raise energy costs for American families
    ***WATCH AND READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
    ***WATCH: Senator Murray questioning Secretary Wright***
    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s closing remarks***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, called out Secretary Chris Wright for creating chaos by forcing out thousands of critical employees, undermining American innovation and raising consumers’ costs by illegally blocking funds, blatantly ignoring Congress, and more.
    [MASS LAYOFFS]
    Senator Murray turned her questioning to how Secretary Wright is pushing out employees at DOE, “Secretary Wright, despite your claims to the contrary, more than 3500 employees have taken the deferred resignation offer—that’s over 20 percent of your staff. And we know that you fired several hundred probationary employees as well. This has meant some offices are now gutted, there’s nobody there, and others are in turmoil. For example, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which manages $20 billion in grants from the bipartisan infrastructure law, has lost more than 77 percent of its staff. It will be nearly impossible for that Office to accomplish its basic functions, let alone oversee any massive and complex energy construction projects. Your firings have been really arbitrary even firing some of our grid operators and linemen at the Bonneville Power Administration—which are not paid for by taxpayer dollars. I know you scrambled to get those people back. Several weeks ago, you said no more firings will occur at Bonneville—these positions are absolutely critical to the reliability of the grid in Washington state and the Pacific Northwest. Will you commit to exempting BPA from your hiring freeze, so they can bring on mission critical staff and keep the Northwest grid running?”
    Secretary Wright refused to make that commitment but replied: “We are very concerned about the power marketing agencies. They are critical to our country, Bonneville being one of them. We have been careful that their operations have not been disrupted. They were short-staffed when I arrived in this chair, and we will continue to treat them as the critical assets they are. Headcount is one input, it’s an important input, but it’s not the only input in running a successful business or a successful agency and again you brought up people that have provisionally elected to do a deferred resignation program and many of them still have the option to decide whether they really are staying or they really are leaving, they are in transition, we are engaged with them, they are not fired, they are not gone from the Department of Energy yet—”
    “There are a lot of folks still on the payroll at the expense of the taxpayer. We were told that over $70 million worth that are on administrative leave now. They are at home, they are not working, they are not processing anything, they are not doing any work, and as a result, offices across the department are not able to function because those people are not there. Even though taxpayers are still telling them to. On BPA, in terms of that, I do look forward to DOE hiring back sufficient staff. We have got to cover these critical responsibilities,” said Senator Murray.
    [PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS]
    Senator Murray then asked about Secretary Wright’s sweeping proposed budget cuts at DOE: “President Trump’s skinny budget really doubles down on cuts DOGE has already made to the Department. You propose cutting $2.5 billion from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy—74% of its overall budget—eliminating programs that reduce energy prices for businesses and families. On the one hand: you and the President say you support U.S. dominance in emerging technologies, but then, on the other, you propose cutting over $1 billion in funding to the Office of Science—undermining critical research programs for AI, fusion, quantum computing, nuclear energy, and critical minerals. Typically, new administrations craft budget requests that actually reflect their alleged priorities. You talk a lot about lowering costs for consumers and creating the ‘next Manhattan Project’ for AI, but this budget request includes across the board cuts to the very programs that would help you achieve your stated goals. I want to get this straight, you are asking Congress to cut the budget for the Office of Science by more than a billion dollars—that will help advance AI research and quantum computing?”
    Secretary Wright responded, “It [the over $1 billion plus proposed cut] won’t inhibit them at all. In fact, I think that on the margin it will help. Cause of course all the things you listed like fusion, quantum computing, fundamental basic science, none of those things will be cut. The problem is the labs drifted into things that are not fundamental basic science—that are political science. That is just not the missions of the labs.”
    Senator Murray pressed, “Do you have examples of those that you’d like to share with us?”
    “We have a crazy range of things on climate change. There is science around climate change that I write about and have studied for two decades, there’s real science there, but it has become a political game more than a real science game. That’s not the business of the national labs, and we’re going to shrink that activity,” said Secretary Wright, in part, admitting to planning to cut projects related to critical renewable energy research and climate science.
    Senator Murray continued: “You talk about the importance of nuclear power and small modular reactors. Just yesterday, you said you were in favor of ‘every incentive we can get from the federal government to restart this industry.’ Yet, in your budget you’re proposing you cut the Office of Nuclear Energy by $408 million. How are investors and companies supposed to have confidence in partnering with you, when what you say and what your budget says are two different things?”
    Secretary Wright replied, “Each individual line item does not indicate a policy. I think the nuclear industry is quite enthusiastic and quite confident they are going to have the best environment ever for commercial nuclear power under this administration, under my leadership at the DOE. What we are doing is mobilizing tens of billions of dollars of private capital using the government—”
    “The private capital is counting on us to make that investment; otherwise, we see them pull out. We have actually seen companies in the country now pulling out of projects because of the chaos in your department. As a businessman, you said that you should know more than anyone the importance of certainty. When they see the chaos and they see them pulling back, then they’re not going to invest their private money either,” Senator Murray pushed back.
    Secretary Wright again stood by the proposed budget cut for the Office of Nuclear Science.
    [LACK OF FULL BUDGET REQUEST]
    “We are having a budget hearing today. We have not seen your full budget request. We need that in front of us. It is required. It is critical information. When are we going to see your full budget request?” inquired Senator Murray.
    Secretary Wright was unable to provide details and responded, “I’m working with OMB right now to get that out as soon as we can. I understand your urgency.”
    [CLOSING COMMENTS]
    Senator Murray concluded by saying, “You have heard from my side, one after the other, of contracts that were canceled or frozen. These are real. You said no grants are frozen, no invoices unpaid. I don’t know if you’re not paying attention or you haven’t seen it, but I just want to remind you, it is illegal to ignore the clear directions of Congress. These are programs, spending bills that we passed through this committee. They were signed into law, and if you’re canceling them or freezing them or whatever, that is impoundment, and it is illegal. And I don’t raise that concern lightly. I am deeply concerned, and we are hearing the same stories over and over again. I do have a list, you said you hadn’t seen any. I will submit it for the record of canceled and frozen grants. These are just a handful that we know about. So, we expect your office to follow through and to do it quickly.
    “Secondly, on the CR spend plan, that was required within 45 days, that’s by law. Your department still has not given that to us. And again, I don’t raise this lightly, this committee, all of our committees, need to know where that money is going, where it’s being spent. Hanford Site is on the brink of having to lay off subcontractors and restart an entire procurement process on an important project because they are being directed now to hold off on implementing projects at FY 25 spend levels. So, this is not efficient, and Congress requires that, and we need those fixed. So that is really critical, and we expect a real response, not, you know, a nice little phrase.
    “And finally, on communication, you’ve heard it from several people. I appreciate that you’re telling everybody, ‘Call my office, we’ll call you back.’ But two-way communication is two-way communication. You told me you’d pick up the phone whenever, but we’re not getting calls back. People are not getting calls back. And I think it’s really important that you know that. I know you told some people that you were too busy, but you told me to call whenever. I have tried to get in touch with you. It took us a month and a half to get a call scheduled. Communication is not someday I’ll call you back. It’s unacceptable. And I do want to enter seven letters into the record that I have sent with colleagues over the past several months requesting information about what is going on at DOE—radio silence until yesterday—that was convenient. So, we need to get responses back to those letters, and I want to be on record saying that communication is not ignoring us.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Trump Admin. Accidentally Admits It Will Hurt the Poor to Give Bigger Tax Windfall to the Ultra-Wealthy

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier this week the White House accidentally published proof that President Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful bill” increases taxes on low-income earners in order to give cut taxes for the rich.

    The White House briefly linked to – and then took down – a document from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the official nonpartisan committee that analyzes how different income levels will be impacted by new tax laws, after realizing the document showed Trump’s policies would financially harm working families.

    That JCT report showed that in 2029, when the permanent effects of the GOP tax plan are felt, Americans making less than $30,000 will actually pay more in taxes under the Trump plan than under current law.  Americans making less than $15,000 would be forced to pay 53 percent more in taxes than they do now as their average tax rate jumps from 3.3 percent to 5.1 percent. Meanwhile, households making over $1 million will pay 6.4 percent less in taxes (totaling an estimated $74 billion collectively), as their average rate falls from 30.8 percent to 28.7 percent.

    Today, U.S. Senator Jack Reed issued the following statement condemning Trump’s partisan tax bill that would raise taxes on the lowest-income Americans while handing six-figure windfalls to the wealthiest 0.1 percent of taxpayers:

    “Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans are trying to jam through a Robin Hood in Reverse tax plan that takes from the poor to give to the rich.  The numbers are clear: Trump’s plan will make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Families struggling to put food on the table will pay more and have less federal support while millionaires and billionaires get a bigger tax windfall.  For people just getting by, and just starting out, it will make it harder for them to afford the American Dream.  It’s going to increase the number of people living paycheck to paycheck, deepen the divide, and exacerbate the wealth gap and financial inequality,” said Reed.

    According to USA Today, the top 1 percent of households in the United States own significantly more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

    “The American people want a tax system that is simple, fair, and encourages a strong, resilient, and prosperous economic future.  Instead of directing bigger tax windfalls to the ultra-wealthy as Trump and congressional Republicans want, I believe we must direct targeted relief to working families and help bring down costs for things like health care, housing, and child care in ways that widely benefit the vast majority instead of just the wealthy few,” said Reed.

    New analysis from the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan research center, further underscores the JCT’s findings and highlights how skewed the Trump tax bill is in favor of the wealthy at the expense of working families.  The Yale Budget Lab found that nearly 80 percent of the bill’s total benefits would go to just the top 20 percent of earners.

    Reed pointed out that the numbers look even worse when factoring in the fact that President Trump and Congressional Republicans are cutting programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to save money and help pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy. When adding the impact of those cuts to low-income families, the benefits of the Trump tax bill become even more skewed towards the richest Americans.

    The New York Times reports that economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model “found that many Americans who make less than $51,000 a year would see their after-tax income fall as a result of the Republican proposal beginning in 2026.”

    Trump and Congressional Republicans are continuing to modify their bill which also currently cuts hundreds of millions from Medicaid, SNAP and other popular programs.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed: Trump Admin’s Decision to Accept Luxury Jet from Qatar is a National Embarrassment

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, after the U.S. Department of Defense announced it has accepted a luxury commercial aircraft donated by Qatar for use as the new Air Force One for President Donald Trump while he is in office and then plans to transfer it to Trump’s presidential library when he leaves office, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed the decision, stating:

    “This is a national embarrassment that raises serious security and ethics questions.

    “President Trump is outsourcing a core symbol of American sovereignty, power, and ingenuity.  He is forcing U.S. taxpayers to shell out potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to refurbish this so-called gift which will likely only be in official service for a short time.

    “Refurbishing a Qatari-gifted plane with the responsibilities of Air Force One isn’t just costly – it’s a serious national security risk. Potentially exposing the President’s communications and safety to a foreign government is reckless and would create unacceptable vulnerabilities for our nation.

    “Today’s announcement is not the end of the story, and I expect my colleagues to join me in exercising oversight over this outrageous move. There must be transparency and accountability about the costs of retrofitting this plane, the counterintelligence risks involved, and how it will be used once President Trump leaves office.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Warns Republicans Against Their Plan To Overrule The Senate Parliamentarian

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    May 21, 2025

    Durbin: “Should my Senate Republican colleagues overrule the Parliamentarian, it will have major long-term impacts for the Senate and the legislative filibuster.”

    WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today cautioned his Senate Republican colleagues from overruling a decision by the Senate Parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which would eliminate longstanding guardrails and pave the way for a future Senate majority to overrule the Parliamentarian to achieve its partisan goals.

    Last month, the Senate Parliamentarian, after analyzing the GAO’s opinion, ruled that Senate Republicans cannot use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn a waiver granted to California by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate its own vehicle emissions. Republicans are attempting to block a California law requiring all new cars sold in the State by 2035 to be zero-emission vehicles.

    “That’s right—despite claims of being the party of states’ rights, Republicans want to end this state-level regulation in the state of California. And get this: Elon Musk, the un-elected advisor to the President, previously wrote to the EPA in favor of California’s waiver. Now, he has joined the Republican majority to try to gut the rule,” Durbin said. “The Parliamentarian’s decision was not one of party loyalty. It followed decades of precedent showing that California’s Clean Air Act waivers are not subject to the Congressional Review Act. Despite the Parliamentarian’s decision, my Senate Republican colleagues want to override the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian to advance the fossil-fuel agenda. It’s ‘burn, baby, burn,’ ‘drill, baby, drill.’”

    Durbin continued, “Now, I understand that using the CRA might be faster than agency rulemaking or even considering legislation… In fact, President Trump, in his first term, took administrative action to rescind California’s Clean Air Act waivers and could take that path again. But what Republicans are pursuing today is a procedural nuclear option—a dramatic break from Senate precedent with a profound consequence. Let me repeat: Should my Senate Republican colleagues overrule the Senate Parliamentarian, it will have a major long-term impact for the Senate and the legislative filibuster.”

    Durbin noted that this move by Senate Republicans is unprecedented—the Senate has never overruled the Parliamentarian regarding the CRA.

    “And before, when the tables were turned and the Senate Democrats were in the majority, my Republican colleagues were singing a very different tune about never breaking from the Parliamentarian,” Durbin said. “Leader Thune himself acknowledged in January of this year that overruling the Parliamentarian is ‘totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can’t go there. People need to understand that.’”

    Durbin concluded, “If Senate Republicans disregard the Parliamentarian’s decision, they would set a new precedent in the Senate: eliminating longstanding guardrails and paving the way for a future Senate majority to overrule the Parliamentarian to achieve its partisan goals. I caution my Senate Republican colleagues from toeing this line and setting the wrong precedent. And as I’ve said time and time again—there cannot be one set of rules for Republicans of the Senate and another set of rules for the Democrats. I hope my Republican colleagues will heed my warning and make the right choice—the only choice—accept the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian’s decision.”

    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: South Africa Persecution: “When it gets exposed, it’ll get fixed.”

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

    “This is a very serious situation. If we had a real press, it would be exposed. When it gets exposed, it’ll get fixed. But people don’t talk about it. And I’ll tell you who is talking about it, thousands of people that are fleeing South Africa right now.” –President Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTyCnt2JNLw

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ Budget 2025: tax cuts and reduced revenues mean the government is banking on business growth

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Sawyer, Professor of Taxation, University of Canterbury

    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    Not a lot is known about the government’s plans for taxes in the 2025 budget. Few tax policies have been announced so far, and what has been revealed involves targeted tax cuts for business interests.

    This is a big change from last year’s tax announcements, which were largely focused on individuals.

    So far this year, the government has announced tax policies to encourage overseas investment and to make employee share schemes for start-ups and unlisted companies more attractive.

    This week, the government also announced the demise of the Digital Services Tax – which Treasury estimated would be worth more than NZ$100 million a year – after threats of retaliation from US President Donald Trump.

    But each of these policies would result in a drop in tax revenue. That raises a key question: where will the money to run the government come from when two successive budgets have included tax revenue cuts?

    Overseas money for investment

    This month, the government announced a commitment of $75 million over the next four years to encourage foreign investment in infrastructure and make it easier for startups to attract and retain high quality staff.

    Broken down, this would be $65 million for a change to the rules around “thin capitalisation”, pending the outcome of consultation on the details. At a basic level, this policy is targeting how much debt companies with overseas subsidiaries can have when investing in New Zealand infrastructure.

    The other $10 million is earmarked as a deferral of tax liability for some employee share schemes to help startups and unlisted companies.

    The goal of both policies seems to be to encourage international investment in New Zealand to boost growth in our otherwise sluggish economy.

    The government’s ‘Growth Budget’ is set to include policy changes that will see drops in tax revenue.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    No digital services tax

    The demise of the digital services tax is the other big tax policy to be announced ahead of today’s budget.

    Left over from the previous Labour government, the policy would have applied a 3% tax on digital services revenue earned from New Zealand customers by global tech giants such as Meta, X and Google (many of which are based in the US).

    But Donald Trump has been highly critical of these sorts of levies, describing them as overseas extortion. Revenue Minister Simon Watts has admitted Trump’s objections were part of the decision to scrap the tax.

    While the government will save the money set aside in last year’s budget for administrative costs, the potential tax revenue will be a big loss. Treasury had previously forecast New Zealand would gain $479m in tax revenue from the levy between 2027 and 2029.

    But Watts said, “the forecast revenues from the introduction of a Digital Services Tax no longer meet the criteria for inclusion in the Crown accounts”.

    A hole in revenue

    When it comes to tax, the pre-budget announcements will all involve costs to the government or drops in revenue.

    There are rumours the budget will include changes to the companies tax. But, if anything, this will be a drop in the amount of tax companies pay. So again, a drop in tax revenue.

    The challenge facing the government is where the money to operate comes from. And the choices it has are limited.

    Firstly, it could increase tax elsewhere. But that would require either a reversal of last year’s income tax cuts, or the long-standing policy not to target wealth – such as with a capital gains tax.

    Or, the government could make drastic cuts to spending. And, considering the announcement that this year’s budget would be tight, with over a $1 billion cut from the government’s discretionary operating spending (known as an operating allowance), this seems to be the path they have taken, at least partially.

    The final option would be to borrow now to boost infrastructure and business investment in the hope that resulting economic growth will generate greater revenue later.

    We won’t know the answers to these questions until Budget 2025 is released, and there have been a lot of mixed messages. Considering Finance Minister Nicola Willis has dubbed this a “Growth Budget”, however, it seems likely the focus will be on encouraging investment and growth through business activity, rather than any tax increases.

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

    – ref. NZ Budget 2025: tax cuts and reduced revenues mean the government is banking on business growth – https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2025-tax-cuts-and-reduced-revenues-mean-the-government-is-banking-on-business-growth-257229

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pelosi on House Floor: “This is Robin Hood in Reverse”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi Representing the 12th District of California

    Washington, D.C. – Tonight, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks on the Floor of the House of Representatives in opposition to the Republicans’ bill that cuts Medicaid by $700 billion, which she condemned as a cruel attack on working families, vulnerable children and Americans with disabilities.

    Speaker Emerita Pelosi highlighted how the Republican Reverse Robin Hood plot would rip health care away from millions of Americans—including seniors, veterans and low-income families—just to finance tax breaks for billionaires and add trillions to the national debt while devastating communities across the country.

    Watch Speaker Emerita Pelosi’s remarks here. 

    Read Speaker Emerita Pelosi’s full remarks below:

    Speaker Emerita Pelosi. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to receive time from the distinguished Congresswoman from Washington state. She is a pediatrician. We have all learned a lot about how public policy has a direct impact on the good—the health and well-being—of the American people.

    And when I hear them talk about cutting over $700 billion in Medicaid and it’s just ‘waste, fraud and abuse’… this beautiful child is not waste, fraud and abuse. I will talk about a little child in my remarks who is not waste, fraud and abuse.

    This Special Order comes together to shine a bright light on the Republican plan to fund tax breaks for billionaires by making huge cuts to Medicaid. Now, that’s what it looks like. But the fact is, they will still—with their tax bill—be adding over nearly $4 trillion to the national debt to cover their tax break for the wealthiest people in our country.

    This is fiscal engineering to reduce the role of government in the lives of the American people—where it is most needed. Where it is most needed.

    This is Robin Hood in reverse. Taking resources from where it is most needed—the people who need it most—and giving it to those who need it least: the billionaires in America.

    This is shameful. And it is a fraud. And it’s a shame.

    Now, President Johnson reminded the American people when he signed Medicare and Medicaid. He traveled to Independence, Missouri, to be in the presence of President Truman—former President Truman—who had worked on this when he was President. But it came to fruition under President Johnson. And he went there, and he signed the bill in the presence of Harry Truman.

    And he said – the President reminded the American people of a shared tradition: ‘Never to be indifferent toward despair. Never to turn away from helplessness. Never to ignore or spurn those who suffer unattended in a land that is bursting with abundance.’

    Indeed, Medicare and Medicaid save lives as a pillar of health security and justice for tens of millions of Americans.

    People often think of Medicaid as health care for poor children. That would be justification enough—health care for poor children.

    But it also is a middle-income benefit for nursing home residents, and people needing it for long-term care services. They get that largely through Medicaid. And it’s also a benefit for people with disabilities.

    The Republicans’ devastating budget plan would push about 14 million Medicaid recipients off life-saving health care, and leave countless vulnerable families exposed to catastrophic medical bills.

    This is terrible. Because this is about health, and financial health, that is being devastated.

    Working families and children in low-income households would face ruinous consequences—as would rural hospitals, as the distinguished Congresswoman has mentioned, families seeking opioid addiction treatment for their loved ones and middle-class Americans with long-term care needs.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement from the California Medical Association into the record. This is what they have said—the California Medical Association President issued the following statement regarding House Republicans’ proposed care cuts in Medicaid:

    ‘The latest federal proposal to gut Medicaid is reckless. Physicians and hospitals will be pushed to the brink, forced to close their doors and unable to continue care for their patients.’

    Because you know, when this funding leaves those rural hospitals—not only do the Medicaid patients lose—but all of the patients in that area lose. That’s my objection here.

    Back to the statement:

    ‘These would be the largest Medicaid cuts in history and will leave veterans, seniors, the disabled, children and working families without health care coverage.’

    As the distinguished physician colleague has said, making emergency rooms the only point of care for millions of people. Communities will be devastated. Lives will be lost.

    This is the CMA: ‘Congress must reject these cuts and instead focus on strengthening the safety net that protects us all. Otherwise, at least 13.7 million people will lose health care coverage.’

    Republican attacks on health care impact real people—including little children.

    My guest at the President’s State of the Union address was Elena Hung, mother of Xiomara, a courageous little lobbyist—11 years old.

    She has complex medical needs—including chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, and global developmental delays. She has a tracheostomy, uses a ventilator, is oxygen-dependent, and uses a feeding tube.

    Access to quality, affordable care ensured that Xiomara received the care she needed during extended hospitalization, and can now live at home with her family.

    Medicaid has helped Xiomara receive the therapies she needs to catch up with her developmental milestones—including physical therapy, occupational therapy, feeding therapy and speech therapy.

    But these very lifelines from Medicaid and more are what Republicans are working to destroy—to give a tax cut for billionaires.

    Democrats are standing strong against the Administration’s many attacks against family health care. This is just one of them.

    And with this Special Order—thank you, doctor, colleague—we are calling out Republicans to either vote to protect their constituents’ health care or vote to take it away.

    That’s the choice.

    In stark contrast to the President and Republicans in Congress, Democrats will always fight to lower health care costs. We are unified and ready to use every tool to stop this GOP scheme.

    And we will always work to strengthen pillars of health and financial security in America. That includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We will always fight for Medicaid.

    I just want to go back to that one thing: they’re still adding nearly $4 trillion to the national debt to give tax breaks to their wealthy billionaire friends.

    In the bill that they passed when Trump was president—oh, there, I said his name—and the Republicans were in power. When the Republicans passed that bill and the President signed it into law, 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%, adding $2 trillion to the national debt.

    They’re doubling down on that—getting to almost $4 trillion to the national debt—and saying, ‘We’ve got to give all this money to billionaires,’ and calling children ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ in our Medicaid system.

    It’s really sinful. It’s really sad.

    And it is something that I hope the Republicans will reject. And I hope their constituents will call them. Because these Medicaid people are in Republican districts.

    One of our colleagues in California has, out of all of our constituents, he has nearly 500,000 people on Medicaid—and yet he voted with the Republicans on this.

    Well, you can be sure he’ll be hearing from his constituents. Because people know.

    And I’ll close by saying—Lincoln said: ‘Public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, practically nothing.’

    But for public sentiment to prevail, people have to know.

    And we are making sure that your constituents know—and that they are informing you of their knowledge of what you are doing.

    Reverse Robin Hood. Republican Reverse Robin Hood.

    Thank you very much for the opportunity to share some thoughts about this—and for sharing the story of this beautiful little girl.

    Thank you. I yield back.

    MIL OSI USA News –