NewzIntel.com

Category: Donald Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gosar Statement Regarding EPA’s Approval of Arizona’s Primacy Application for All Underground Injection Wells 

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Paul A Gosar DDS (AZ-04)

    Washington, D.C. — Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-09), issued the following statement after participating in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement ceremony to approve the State of Arizona’s request to oversee Safe Drinking Water Act permitting for all underground injection wells in the state:

    “After years of the Biden Administration dragging its feet and delaying approvals of more than 150 applications for underground injection wells, including in my great state of Arizona, President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin are taking swift action.

    Under the Trump Administration, the EPA has moved quickly to review and approve long-delayed projects. The approval of this project recognizes that Arizona is well-positioned to protect its underground sources of drinking water and will provide much-needed certainty to the fast-growing carbon capture industry while maintaining America’s leadership in deploying these technologies. 

    President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin are advancing conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families in Arizona and all across America.

    Today’s approval is yet another example of the Trump Administration’s efforts to achieve U.S. energy dominance and fulfill its promise of “Powering the Great American Comeback,” concluded Congressman Paul Gosar.

    “Advancing economic growth and energy production in the United States, while safeguarding water resources, are common sense priorities to Power the Great American Comeback,” added EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. “With this proposal, we are advancing cooperative federalism and supporting energy dominance as Arizona becomes the primary regulator of underground injection wells within their state.” 

    Background:

    After conducting a comprehensive technical and legal review, EPA has preliminarily determined that Arizona’s UIC program meets all requirements for approval and the state will implement and enforce a UIC program consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is requesting public comments on the Agency’s proposed decision within 45 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. 

    The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on June 25, 2025, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST). Registration for the hearing is available here. 

    Visit EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) website for more information. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman’s Statement on the Trump Administration Effectively Legalizing Machine Guns Nationwide

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    “Nearly 40 years ago, Congress passed a federal ban on the sale of machine guns, recognizing that the risk these weapons of war pose to our communities is unacceptably high. Last Friday, the Trump administration effectively lifted that ban and legalized machine guns across the United States.  

    “By allowing the sale and civilian use of Forced Trigger Resets (FTR), Donald Trump has given any gun-owner the ability to turn their AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon capable of firing 400 rounds a minute.  

    “Machine guns are designed for free-fire military combat zones, not for streets, schools, and communities across America. Unleashing them on our communities will supercharge an already devastating gun violence crisis.  

    “Approximately 125 Americans will be killed by guns today, and 12 of them will be children. It is every elected official’s duty to work to reduce that number and keep their communities safe, not further endanger the American people out of fealty to gun manufacturers seeking to drive up profits at the public’s expense.  

    “I call on so-called moderate Republicans to finally put commonsense gun safety legislation on the floor. Do not sit idly by while your president endangers the American people you swore an oath to protect.”  

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell, Beyer, Buchanan Recognize Endangered Species Day

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Representatives Debbie Dingell (MI-06) and Don Beyer (VA-08), co-chairs of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Caucus, along with Vern Buchanan (FL-16), introduced a resolution recognizing Friday, May 16 as Endangered Species Day. The resolution highlights the strong role that the ESA has played in safeguarding America’s imperiled species and the need to prioritize conservation efforts to address the biodiversity crisis impacting plants and wildlife worldwide. 

    The critical protections in the Endangered Species Act are currently at risk due to a Trump Administration proposal to rescind the definition of “harm” under the law. The proposed rule change would prohibit only actions that directly hurt or kill actual animals, but not the habitats they rely on. We know that habitat loss and destruction are the leading causes of species decline and extinction. If finalized, this change would be devastating to already fragile species and put currently healthy ones at risk.

    “For more than five decades, the Endangered Species Act has been our most effective tool to protect America’s imperiled wildlife, preventing the extinction of some of our most beloved animals like the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and Florida manatee,” said Dingell. “Healthier wildlife populations mean healthier ecosystems, which results in stronger shorelines, less intense wildfires, better water quality, and fewer pests, among many other positive impacts. As the United States continues to face an unprecedented and worsening biodiversity crisis, and the critical protections of the ESA are under attack, we must fight harder than ever to defend them.”
     
    “When the Trump-Musk-Vance Administration wrongly and carelessly fired probationary federal workers, the ESA programs based here in the Northern Virginia office lost species expert biologists with important state and community relationships critical to recovery goals. They lost people who were working to make the endangered species consultation process more efficient so infrastructure projects could move forward in ways that helped protect vulnerable wildlife.” said Beyer. “The ESA is currently working to protect and recover more than 2,000 species of plants and animals, all crucial to maintaining our country’s rich biodiversity and natural heritage. Cutting the core, dependable investment of the federal government’s staff time, expertise, and dollars could have devastating impacts, including breaking up longstanding public-private partnerships. It’s on all of us who support the ESA to support those that work, often silently, to keep the Endangered Species Act alive and properly functioning! I thank my colleagues, Reps. Dingell and Buchanan for helping champion this fight with me.” 

    In the United States and around the world, more than 2,300 species are recognized as at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future, and many more are experiencing declines in populations and future viability. Many scientists categorize our planet’s current biodiversity crisis as the sixth mass extinction event, with plant and wildlife species across the globe facing heightened risk of extinction that is largely driven by human activity.
     
    Dingell has long worked to protect endangered species across America, fighting to prevent the rollback of the critical safeguards in the Endangered Species Act under the previous Trump Administration.
     
    View the full text of the resolution here. Learn more about the ESA Caucus here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The new Carney government must tackle Canada’s outdated system of intergovernmental relations

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Wallner, Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    Throughout the recent federal election campaign, political leaders outlined their vision for Canada’s future. Responding to a dramatically changing geopolitical climate, party platforms contained ambitious policy proposals about how to reposition the country for the challenges that lie ahead.



    Read more:
    Getting ready for what’s next: 4 scenarios for Canada’s future in a Trumpian world

    But the leaders were silent about how a new federal government would navigate the division of powers among various levels of government in order to bring their proposals to life.

    Canada’s Constitution separates powers between Ottawa and the provinces based on the principle of divided sovereignty. No order of government is subordinate to the other and, in principle, all governments can act autonomously in their respective areas of jurisdiction.

    Life would be easy if the problems we faced adhered to the 1867 Constitution Act. Most challenges, however, transcend the individual categories of jurisdiction. Collaboration among jurisdictions is therefore essential to meet the individual and collective needs of Canadians.

    From apprenticeships to energy corridors, childcare to caregiving, most policy areas require sustained and substantive co-ordination to succeed. Often, like in case of housing and climate change, this must also include municipalities.

    In addition, intergovernmental co-ordination must finally reflect a nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples.

    How exactly to work together?

    Nonetheless, the significance of intergovernmental relations in implementing policy continues to be overlooked, including by the victorious Liberals.

    The Liberal Party’s Canada Strong platform refers eight times to nation-building projects. But it fails to acknowledge the need to transform intergovernmental relations for 21st century challenges.

    Instead, the Constitution is seemingly perceived as a minor inconvenience, not as a key governance challenge: “We will work with the provinces and territories,” the policy says, seemingly hoping that somehow things will work out.

    Federal leaders seem oblivious to the fact that Canada is one of the most decentralized federations worldwide. The provinces exercise fiscal and jurisdictional autonomy exceeding those of other countries. In the meantime, the decisions of individual provinces and territories have implications that stretch far beyond their own borders.

    Take natural resources.

    Natural resources fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces and, increasingly, the territories. But their development profoundly affects economic and environmental policy.

    If one province or territory unilaterally decimates the natural resources of their region, it’s not just that specific province or territory that bears the consequences. This is just one of many sectors in need of collective consideration so that all of Canada benefits.



    Read more:
    ‘Elbows up’ in Canada means sustainable resource development

    Ottawa isn’t really the ‘leader’

    There is a simple truth here: orders of government in Canada are not completely autonomous over their areas of jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the legitimate authority to compel provincial-territorial action; in the meantime, provinces and territories have little means to influence federal policy according to the needs and wants of their constituents.

    Rather than tackling this institutional problem, the federal government often asserts itself as the leader
    Alternatively, the federal government evokes an ad hoc “Team Canada” approach in response to imminent crises, like the re-negotiation of the former NAFTA agreement in 2017 and today’s threats and tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump.



    Read more:
    Why Alberta’s Danielle Smith is rejecting the Team Canada approach to Trump’s tariff threats

    Neither option, however, addresses the deeper problem: intergovernmental relations in Canadian federalism are notoriously weak and lack the legitimacy and transparency to bring about effective collective action.

    Canadian and international research shows that a robust institutional framework is critical for nurturing the key ingredient for effective and legitimate intergovernmental relations: Reciprocity.

    Regular policy meetings among governments and senior level public servants, especially when backed by sufficient administrative and political support, promotes shared norms and understandings, enhancing the potential for long-term policy solutions.

    Royal commission?

    If this type of regular collaboration is entrenched, it would be more difficult to obstruct meaningful collective action that respects Canada’s political integrity.

    Reciprocity is at odds with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s threats to create a national unity crisis if a list of demands isn’t met. It is also at odds with Ottawa’s penchant under former prime minister Justin Trudeau to use federal tax dollars to pursue policy objectives that were within provincial jurisdiction.

    As Mark Carney’s new government gets to work, Canadians must question not only the fiscal soundness of its proposals, but also their feasibility considering the deep divisions in Canadian federalism.

    Without taking tangible steps to reimagine Canada’s outdated system of intergovernmental relations or developing a road map for institutional reform, the lasting policy changes that are needed to reposition Canada in an increasingly hostile environment are unlikely to materialize.

    About 100 Canadian academics recently argued in an open letter, Canada needs to establish a royal commission for securing Canada’s future. As past experience has shown, this approach has great potential, but it must be developed in partnership among federal, provincial and territorial governments, including those of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

    Jörg Broschek receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

    Jennifer Wallner 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. The new Carney government must tackle Canada’s outdated system of intergovernmental relations – https://theconversation.com/the-new-carney-government-must-tackle-canadas-outdated-system-of-intergovernmental-relations-256432

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Sara Jacobs Pens Fox News Op-ed Calling on President Trump to Support Expanding IVF Coverage for Service Members

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-CA-53)

    May 19, 2025

    In recognition of today’s deadline for policy recommendations due to the Trump Administration on ways to expand IVF access, Rep. Sara Jacobs (CA-51) penned an op-ed for Fox News, calling on President Trump to support her bicameral legislation to expand TRICARE to cover IVF for service members and military families.

    Read Rep. Sara Jacobs’ Op-Ed Here

    In part, Rep. Sara Jacobs said:

    “Military families need IVF access. They deserve it. And they’ve earned it. That’s why I introduced the “IVF for Military Families Act” alongside Illinois Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth to require TRICARE to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF. Our legislation would cover up to three complete egg retrievals, unlimited embryo transfers, and the necessary medications for IVF and intrauterine insemination (IUI)….

    “I’m (obviously) skeptical of Trump’s commitment to expanding IVF access, but he has called himself the “Fertilization President” and the “father of IVF.” If he wants that to be true, he should throw his support behind a demographic that has already sacrificed so much for the safety and security of our country: our military families.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: No Tax On Overtime: “Huge Advantage to Law Enforcement Across the Country”

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

    Last week, during National Police Week, law enforcement officers visited the White House and voiced their support for No Tax on Overtime—a key part of President Trump’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill.

    One officer called it “a huge advantage to law enforcement across the country.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-z6SCXlZF8

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: In New Video, Sen. Warren, Constituent Reunite to Underscore How Republicans’ Massive Health Care Cuts Will Hurt Families

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    May 19, 2025

    Liam Barry, constituent: “I can’t believe I’m reading this letter 8 years later, still fighting for my mom to have health care. Cutting Medicaid will affect millions of American families just like mine, Republican and Democrat alike.” 

    Warren: “[T]his is a righteous fight. Back in 2017, we stopped them from ending health care for millions of people, we can do it again.”

    Watch on YouTube

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a new video underscoring how  Congressional Republicans’ plans for massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act will hurt families. The video, featuring a teenage constituent from Worthington, MA, tells the story of how his family will be harmed by the proposed cuts, and draws a connection between Republicans’ assault on health care in 2017 and today.

    In 2017, Senator Warren read her then-10-year-old constituent’s letter to President Trump on the Senate floor. In the letter, Liam Barry explained that his family relies on protections in the Affordable Care Act for coverage due to his mother’s illness, and asked Trump not to cut their care. In the newly-released video, entitled “Liam’s Letter to President Trump on Medicaid: 8 Years Later,” a now 18-year-old Liam reads a new version of his letter, and Senator Warren shares her thoughts on today’s fight.

    “I can’t believe I’m reading this letter eight years later, still fighting for my mom to have health care. Cutting Medicaid will affect millions of American families just like mine, Republican and Democrat alike,” said Liam Barry. 

    “I talk a lot about righteous fights — this is a righteous fight. Back in 2017, we stopped [Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress] from ending health care for millions of people. We can do it again,” said Senator Warren.

    Transcript: Liam’s Letter to President Trump on Medicaid: 8 Years Later
    YouTube
    May 19, 2025

    Liam Barry (2017): Dear President Trump

    Liam Barry (2025): and Republicans in Congress. 

    Liam Barry (2017): My name is Liam Barry

    Liam Barry (2025): and I am 18 years old. 8 years ago, my Senator, Elizabeth Warren, read a letter I wrote to you about my mom on the Senate floor.

    Senator Warren (2017): I don’t know if President Trump ever read that letter, but I’m going to read it right now into the congressional record: “Dear President Trump, my name is Liam Barry, and I am 10 years old.”

    Liam Barry (2017): My mother has been very ill. 

    Liam Barry (2025): My mother is still very ill. Thanks to Medicaid, my mom gets the care she needs and the medication she needs. If you cut Medicaid,

    Liam Barry (2017): My mother will not be able to get the care she needs. 

    Liam Barry (2025): I can’t believe I’m reading this letter eight years later, still fighting for my mom to have health care. Cutting Medicaid will affect millions of American families just like mine, Republican and Democrat alike.

    Liam Barry (2017): I know there are millions of kids in the same situation as me, so please think of them when you read this. Sincerely, Liam Barry. 

    Senator Warren (2017): Mr. President, I get letters and emails everyday from families begging me not to let Republicans in Congress tear up health care in this country. 

    Senator Warren (2025): I’m still getting letters from people who are terrified that Donald Trump and the Republicans are going to tear away their health care. I talk a lot about righteous fights — this is a righteous fight. Back in 2017, we stopped them from ending health care for millions of people. We can do it again. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tomato trade dispute between the US and Mexico is boiling over again – with 21% tariffs due in July

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Muhammad, Professor of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee

    The country of origin – Mexico – is noted on the label of a package of Campari tomatoes for sale in the produce section of a Safeway grocery store on March 4, 2025, in Denver. AP Photo/David Zalubowski

    Although technically they’re a fruit, tomatoes are one of the most-consumed vegetables, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Among the fresh produce the nation buys from foreign countries, tomatoes often rank first or second, behind avocados.

    This trade is now jeopardized because the Trump administration has revived a three-decade-old effort to limit imports.

    As economists who study global trade issues affecting agricultural commodities and processed food products, we have assessed the benefits of imported tomatoes and other products on consumers and businesses. Fresh tomato imports ensure year-round availability for consumers, contribute significantly to the U.S. economy by generating billions in sales and supporting thousands of jobs, and promote competitive pricing that benefits both consumers and businesses.

    New import restrictions could put all that at risk because domestic production cannot satisfy national demand. For tomatoes, like steel and other products, efforts to reverse trade imbalances can decrease consumer satisfaction and potentially destroy more jobs and economic activity than they create.

    Initiating a dumping investigation

    This tussle over tomatoes began in the 1990s.

    At that time, unprecedented growth in tomato imports from Mexico prompted U.S. producers to ask the Clinton administration to investigate whether they were being sold at unfairly low prices. If that were the case, it would violate both World Trade Organization rules and U.S. trade policy.

    The U.S. responded with an antidumping investigation, conducted by the Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission. The agencies were tasked with seeing if imports are being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value – the definition of dumping.

    Dumping can harm domestic producers by depressing local prices to compete with imports, causing financial distress. An antidumping duty is essentially a tariff.

    The Commerce Department ruled against Mexican producers, finding that they had engaged in dumping, but reached an agreement with them. Mexican tomato exporters agreed to set minimum prices, leading the U.S. to call off its investigation. The U.S. and Mexico have subsequently entered into a string of suspension agreements over the years.

    The first was implemented in 1996, and the most recent took effect in 2019 during President Donald Trump’s prior term after his administration had threatened to impose a 17.5% tomato tariff.

    Squashing the tomato suspension agreement

    But in April 2025, the Commerce Department announced that it would withdraw from the latest tomato suspension agreement. The Trump administration plans to begin to impose, starting in July, antidumping duties of 21% on fresh tomatoes imported from Mexico.

    It is not obvious at this stage if American importers and consumers will bear the full burden of this tariff, or if Mexican tomato exporters will absorb this cost.

    This move is supposed to benefit fresh tomato producers in the U.S. – most of which are in Florida, with a significantly smaller number located in California. The tariffs could, however, hurt produce distributors, wholesalers and retailers, as well as American consumers.

    People in the U.S. have become accustomed to buying fresh tomatoes to toss into their salads and stuff into their sandwiches year-round, even though in most of the country you can only harvest field-grown tomatoes in the warmest months of the year.

    Focusing only on fresh tomatoes

    This dispute doesn’t involve all the tomatoes and tomato products Americans eat.

    U.S. tomato production is split into two main categories. Fresh tomatoes are usually purchased in a supermarket’s fresh produce section, to be consumed whole, chopped or sliced. This dispute is about those tomatoes.

    The other kind is processing tomatoes, which companies use for making tomato paste, canned or stewed tomatoes and tomato sauce. California leads the nation in processing tomato production. Unlike fresh tomatoes, where the U.S. imports far more than it produces or exports, the U.S. is actually running a trade surplus in processed tomato products.

    When the North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented in January 1994, U.S. fresh tomato production was more than four times the quantity of imported fresh tomatoes: 3.7 billion pounds (1.7 million metric tons) produced versus only 870 million pounds (400,000 metric tons) imported.

    Domestic production has steadily declined since then, while imports have increased. Imported fresh tomatoes are now twice as plentiful: 2.2 billion pounds (1 million metric tons) were grown in the U.S. in 2023, compared with 4.4 billion pounds (2 million metric tons)“ imported .

    This happened as Americans were eating more fresh tomatoes than ever: almost 20 pounds (9 kilograms) per capita in 2023.

    Mexico supplies most of the fresh tomatoes Americans buy in supermarkets.
    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Influx didn’t clearly affect prices

    In 2024, fresh tomato imports totaled US$3.6 billion, with $3.1 billion coming from Mexico. This was a 367% increase since NAFTA took effect, adjusted for inflation.

    Given that costs of production are lower in Mexico for many products, especially in the fresh produce sector where labor costs are less than half U.S. levels, you might figure that this arrangement has kept prices for fresh tomatoes in the U.S. low. But there’s little evidence to support that. Instead, the opposite seems true.

    In 1995, the price that U.S. importers paid of Mexican tomatoes was 31 cents per pound. Since then, import prices have steadily increased to 74 cents per pound in 2024. They have often exceeded prices paid to American farmers and kept pace with the overall rise in food prices the past three decades.

    While restricting imported Mexican tomatoes might benefit U.S. tomato producers by making it easier for them to raise their prices, there are other factors to consider. Imports play a crucial role in boosting economic activity and creating jobs. According to a recent study, these imports generated a total economic impact of more than $8 billion.

    The extra $5 billion comes from all the value-added activities associated with getting that produce from the border to consumers. That total economic impact supports approximately 47,000 U.S. jobs tied to tomato storage, distribution, wholesaling and retailing.

    We would expect antidumping duties on imported fresh tomatoes to increase prices, and reduce the amount of fresh tomatoes Americans can buy. That would also shrink some of the economic impact and eliminate some of the jobs spurred by the imported tomato boom.

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

    – ref. Tomato trade dispute between the US and Mexico is boiling over again – with 21% tariffs due in July – https://theconversation.com/tomato-trade-dispute-between-the-us-and-mexico-is-boiling-over-again-with-21-tariffs-due-in-july-255813

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kathryn Rhine, Associate Professor of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    A large number of children are born with HIV in Nigeria. Kristian Buus/Corbis News via Getty Images

    A little over two decades ago, addressing Nigeria’s HIV crisis topped U.S. President George W. Bush’s priorities. Africa’s most populous nation had 3.5 million HIV cases, and the disease threatened to destabilize the region and ultimately compromise U.S. interests. These interests included securing access to Nigeria’s substantial oil reserves, maintaining regional military stability and protecting trade partnerships worth billions.

    Following years of agitation from AIDS activists, Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, in 2003. This U.S.-led HIV treatment program has since saved tens of millions of lives around the globe.

    While living in Nigeria for my work as a medical anthropologist, I witnessed PEPFAR’s rollout and saw firsthand how the powerful therapies it provided transformed Nigerian lives. The women I worked with told me they could finally put aside the fears of death or abandonment that had consumed their days. Instead, they could focus on a newly expanded horizon of possibilities: building careers, finding love, having healthy children.

    Now, however, a serious threat to preventing and treating HIV worldwide looms. The Trump administration’s decision to substantially restrict access to a vital HIV prevention tool – PEPFAR-funded preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP – would cut off ongoing treatment for millions of people and block future access for countless others who need this protection.

    The Trump administration aims to cut HIV prevention funding.

    The timing is devastating: Scientists recently made a major advance in HIV prevention. Named the 2024 Breakthrough of the Year by the journal Science, the drug lenacapavir offers six months of HIV protection with one injection. Unlike previous PrEP options that required daily pills, which created significant barriers to consistent access and adherence, this twice-yearly injection dramatically simplifies prevention.

    By undermining access to a treatment that has been essential to reducing HIV rates, the Trump administration’s new restrictions threaten to derail two decades of bipartisan investment in eliminating HIV globally. The consequences extend well beyond individual lives.

    Afterlife of aid

    “Some people that have it, they choose to be wicked and just spread it all around,” confided Elizabeth, a woman I interviewed during my time in Nigeria. I am using a pseudonym to protect her privacy. “They say, ‘Somebody gave it to me, so I am going to spread it too.’ But if they know that they can live positively with the virus, it would reduce their evil thoughts.”

    Elizabeth’s words reveal a concerning dynamic: When hope for treatment disappears, a dangerous desperation can take its place. Patients who feel abandoned by health care systems might lose motivation to protect others from HIV. They may also stop seeking medical care, abandon prevention measures and turn away from future aid.

    Cultural anthropologists use the phrase “the afterlife of aid” to describe what happens after global aid programs are withdrawn or drastically reduced. Communities are left not just without resources but with a lasting sense of betrayal that undermines their willingness to seek help, creating cycles of skepticism that can persist for generations.

    Treatment as hope

    In my fieldwork, I’ve witnessed how managing life with the virus involves far more than taking medications. It requires carefully navigating personal relationships, family obligations, cultural expectations and hopes for the future.

    Many of the women I worked with had contracted HIV from their husbands or boyfriends. Some even suspected their partners’ positive status but were unable to protect themselves. Before these medications, women – both HIV positive and HIV negative – had to choose between risking rejection or risking transmission.

    The welfare of entire families depends on access to HIV medication. Here, a woman who is the sole provider of several children takes antiretroviral treatment.
    Saurabh Das/AP Photo

    Elizabeth and David’s story illustrates these challenges. They had been together for more than a year when David proposed. “When I sensed he was serious about marriage, I knew I had to tell him my status,” Elizabeth told me during one of our many conversations. Though initially shocked, he remained committed to their relationship.

    Elizabeth had maintained a decade of careful adherence to her HIV treatment, but the couple still struggled with consistent condom use. David described using condoms as akin to “eating candy with the wrapper still on it.” He also was eager to have a baby. While PrEP had greatly reduced transmission risk, it placed the full burden of protecting her husband on Elizabeth.

    The path Elizabeth navigated highlights how Nigerian cultural expectations complicated their situation. When proving one’s fertility is often considered essential to establishing gender identity, the pressure to have sex without protection created additional tension. Moreover, Elizabeth’s need to balance her own health needs with her husband’s desires reflected the delicate negotiation many Nigerian women face between personal well-being and marriage.

    As Elizabeth prepared for the birth of their child, she expressed both joy and anxiety: “I have to stay healthy for both of them now.”

    Politicizing global health

    Previous interruptions in aid foreshadow what’s at stake when shifts in U.S. political priorities compromise global health funding.

    Consider the global spike in maternal and child mortality when President Ronald Reagan instituted the Mexico City Policy, often referred to as the “global gag rule.” It blocked U.S. funding to all international nongovernmental organizations that provided or even referred abortion services.

    This policy has been repeatedly implemented by Republican administrations – including those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump during his first term – and subsequently rescinded by Democratic presidents, creating a disruptive cycle of funding uncertainty. Among these affected organizations are recipients of PEPFAR funds.

    The human cost of this policy pendulum is measurable and significant. Researchers have found that when this law is enacted, nations across the globe suffer increased death rates for newborns and mothers as well as jumps in HIV cases. In countries heavily dependent on U.S. aid, the Mexico City Policy has resulted in approximately 80 additional child deaths and nine additional maternal deaths per 100,000 live births annually and about one additional HIV infection per 10,000 uninfected people.

    The Trump administration reinstated the global gag rule in 2017.
    Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

    My research in Nigeria also reveals the fragile progress that now hangs in the balance. Before treatments arrived, HIV ravaged Nigerian communities. In 2001, nearly 6% of the population had HIV, totaling around 3.5 million people. The Hausa language reflected this trauma: Terms for AIDS also meant “lifeless body” and “nearby grave.”

    Following the rollout of HIV treatments, Nigeria’s cases dropped dramatically – by 2010, prevalence had fallen to 4.1%. Declines continued steadily as treatment access expanded from 360,000 people in 2010 to over 1 million by 2018. This progress was heavily dependent on international support, with PEPFAR and other global donors providing over 80% of the US$6.2 billion spent fighting HIV in Nigeria between 2005 to 2018.

    In 2019, around 1.3% of the population had HIV, or 1.9 million people.

    From personal choice to global security

    What’s at stake isn’t just increasing HIV rates. The Trump administration’s reductions in foreign aid threaten to unravel over two decades of U.S. investment in global security and economic growth.

    Public health crises rarely stay contained within national boundaries. When health systems fail in West Africa, diseases can quickly spread overseas and require costly emergency responses. The 2014 Ebola outbreak demonstrated this reality, when cases reached America and prompted a $5.4 billion emergency response. Similarly, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, which infected around 60 million Americans, showed how quickly infectious diseases circle the globe when surveillance and containment systems are inadequate.

    Inconsistent aid, in turn, undermines American global leadership and creates openings for competing powers to establish their influence. China has actively exploited these gaps, establishing bilateral trade with Africa reaching $295 billion in 2024. While the U.S. reduced its global health engagement during previous administrations, China expanded its global health diplomacy, partnering on issues ranging from infectious disease prevention and control to health emergency response and health technology innovation.

    Meanwhile, restrictions in PrEP access risk recreating the same impossible choices women faced at the advent of the epidemic: choosing between disclosing their status and risking abandonment; accepting unprotected sex and risking transmission, or refusing unprotected sex and risking violence or loss of economic support.

    I believe the result is a far less safe world where preventable suffering continues, hard-won progress unravels and the promise of an AIDS-free generation remains unfulfilled.

    Kathryn Rhine has received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Wenner Gren Foundation, the American Philosophical Society, the West African Research Association, the American Council of Learned Societies, Fulbright programs, the National Science Foundation, and the National Security Education Program. These views are her own and not those of her institution.

    – ref. Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs – https://theconversation.com/cutting-hiv-aid-means-undercutting-us-foreign-and-economic-interests-nigeria-shows-the-human-costs-253705

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Seven countries in Latin America where human rights are taking the biggest hit

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

    Latin America is undergoing one of its most profound human rights crises in decades. The region’s civic space is shrinking rapidly, from mass surveillance and arbitrary arrests to political repression, enforced disappearances and impunity for state violence.

    The 2025 State of the World’s Human Rights report, released by Amnesty International, lays bare the magnitude of the challenge. Seven countries – Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and El Salvador – are at the epicentre of this authoritarian surge.

    Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January has only deepened the problem. In a separate report published in the same week, Amnesty argues that Trump’s nationalist rhetoric and policy reversals have emboldened strongman leaders. These have undercut international accountability and accelerated rights violations across the hemisphere.

    Here are the countries where the assault on human rights is being felt most acutely.

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

    1. Haiti

    Nowhere has the collapse in human rights been more visible than in Haiti. By the end of 2024, more than 700,000 people – half of them children – had been internally displaced due to spiralling gang violence and state failure.

    Criminal organisations routinely engaged in killings, sexual violence and attacks on hospitals and schools. A December 2024 massacre in Cité Soleil, a densely populated part of the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince, saw at least 207 people executed by the Wharf Jérémie gang.

    The justice system has all but ceased to function. Meanwhile, deportations of Haitians from the US and neighbouring Dominican Republic has surged.

    According to Amnesty, nearly 200,000 people were returned without due process in 2024 alone. Trump’s crackdown on migration, framed as necessary for border security, has accelerated these mass removals.

    2. Nicaragua

    Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, has refined authoritarianism into an efficient machine of repression. More than 5,000 civil society groups, private universities and media outlets have been closed since 2018. This included 1,500 from January to September 2024 alone.

    Over 400 critics have been stripped of nationality since 2023 and dozens of journalists have been forcibly disappeared or jailed. The legal status of hundreds of evangelical groups has also been revoked.

    In 2024, the government criminalised dissent to the point where entire sectors of civil society have vanished. Indigenous communities, meanwhile, faced displacement and armed attacks from pro-government militias, with little international response.

    3. Venezuela

    Venezuela remains mired in repression. A presidential election in July 2024, which was stolen by Nicolás Maduro, was followed by the arbitrary detention and torture of protesters – including children. Independent journalists were arrested and NGOs threatened with closure.

    Many Venezuelans subsequently fled the country. Persecutions and despair at the election results saw 20,000 people migrate northwards through the jungle of the Darién Gap in September 2024 alone, a 70% increase on the previous month.



    Read more:
    Venezuela: Maduro’s declaration of victory isn’t fooling anyone

    In reality, the numbers are probably much higher. A poll following the election indicated that 43% of those remaining in the country were considering emigrating, but official data has not been made available. More than 7.8 million citizens have left Venezuela over the past ten years, with around 28 million people still residing there.

    In June 2023, the International Criminal Court resumed its investigation into the Maduro regime for alleged crimes against humanity. But Venezuela’s government continues to obstruct justice. With Trump’s administration disinterested in multilateral mechanisms, efforts to restore democracy face steeper odds.

    4. Mexico

    Mexico’s public security has become dangerously militarised. A constitutional amendment in September 2024, a few days before the end of the Andrés Manuel López Obrador administration, placed the National Guard under military control. This has enabled widespread abuses including extrajudicial killings. Nine human rights defenders and four journalists were killed in 2024 alone.

    López Obrador’s administration undermined press freedom at home. It also failed to protect those seeking asylum. And with Trump back in office, deportations from the US to Mexico have increased. Returnees are often placed at risk of cartel violence and exploitation.

    5. Colombia

    Colombia suffered Latin America’s longest running insurgency, lasting over 50 years. Despite the country’s robust institutional frameworks, peace remains elusive. In 2024, over 195,000 people were forcibly confined by armed groups, and landmines continue to endanger more than 600,000 civilians.

    Child recruitment, sexual violence and targeted killings of former combatants from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) rebel group have surged. Meanwhile, progress on implementing the 2016 peace accord remains slow.

    Investigations into military-perpetrated extrajudicial killings are ongoing, but face budgetary constraints and political pushback. Trump’s withdrawal of US support for transitional justice mechanisms has further weakened international backing for Colombia’s fragile reconciliation efforts.



    Read more:
    Colombia’s fragile peace process in danger as guerrilla violence rises

    6. Cuba

    The Cuban authorities are continuing to suppress dissent through arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and censorship. Over 100 people were arrested for protesting in 2024, with many forced into self-incriminating video confessions. Independent media and activists were subject to constant surveillance and harassment.

    Amid economic collapse, more than 18% of the population has fled the island in two years. These mass migrations often result in perilous journeys and widespread family separations. The economic crisis has been exacerbated by US sanctions reimposed and intensified under Trump.

    7. El Salvador

    President Nayib Bukele’s model of mass incarceration continues to attract global attention. Nearly 84,000 people have been arrested since 2022 under a state of emergency that suspends basic rights and legal guarantees.

    Surveillance, arbitrary detentions and public humiliation of detainees have become routine. Trump’s vocal admiration of Bukele’s “tough on crime” stance has lent international legitimacy to this dangerous approach.



    Read more:
    Nayib Bukele: El Salvador’s strongman leader doing Donald Trump’s legwork abroad

    Trump’s return to the White House has intensified human rights setbacks across Latin America. His withdrawal from human rights and climate agreements has emboldened authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and accelerate policies to exploit resources without fear of US pressure or accountability.

    Latin American migrants in the US have also faced a resurgence of mass deportations. Rhetoric portraying migrants as criminals has fuelled xenophobia and enabled sweeping immigration raids and policy rollbacks. Sanctuary cities like Chicago have been targeted and legal protections for undocumented residents eroded.

    Latin America’s current trajectory suggests a drift not just toward repression, but a normalisation of state violence. While local resistance remains strong, particularly among grassroots activists and civil society, international solidarity has been weakened by geopolitical shifts.

    The region risks cementing a new era of authoritarian resilience – one in which the defence of human rights is not just dangerous but futile.

    Nicolas Forsans 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. Seven countries in Latin America where human rights are taking the biggest hit – https://theconversation.com/seven-countries-in-latin-america-where-human-rights-are-taking-the-biggest-hit-255782

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • Portugal’s far-right wins record support as centre-right falls short of majority

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (2)

    ortugal’s far-right Chega won a record vote share in Sunday’s snap election and was vying to become the main opposition party as the ruling centre-right Democratic Alliance (AD) again fell short of a majority needed to end a long period of instability.

    Prime Minister Luis Montenegro – whose grouping won the most seats – said the election result was a vote of confidence in his party. However, with votes from abroad still to be counted Chega could supplant the centre-left Socialists as leader of the opposition, ending five decades of dominance by the country’s two major parties.

    “We’ve done what no other party has ever achieved in Portugal. We can safely declare in front of all the country today that bipartisanship in Portugal is over,” Chega leader Andre Ventura told a crowd of jubilant supporters in Lisbon.

    “Nothing will be as it was,” he said, highlighting the fact that the continued rise of Chega, which he founded just six years ago, proved most opinion polls wrong.

    Chega gained 8 seats for a total of 58 in the 230-seat parliament, winning a record 1.34 million votes, or 22.6%.

    Montenegro, whose AD won 89 seats – up nine from the previous election – and 32.1% of the vote, has refused to make any deals with Chega and said he would form a new minority government.

    Chega, which has allied with Europe’s hard-right, anti-immigration parties, such as Marine le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France and Germany’s AfD, has proposed tougher sentences for criminals, including chemical castration for repeat rapists, and called for an end to “open doors” immigration. It has also accused mainstream parties of perpetuating corruption.

    Continued political instability could delay structural reforms and major projects in Portugal, including lithium mining in the north, and potentially compromise the efficient deployment of EU funds and the long-delayed privatization of TAP airline.

    The election, the third in as many years, was called one year into an AD minority government’s term after Montenegro failed to win a vote of confidence in March when the opposition questioned his integrity over dealings of his family’s consultancy firm. He has denied any wrongdoing.

    “The Portuguese don’t want any more snap elections, they want a four-year legislature,” Montenegro said as his supporters chanted “Let Luis work,” his campaign slogan.

    Voters appeared to punish the Socialists for their role in bringing down Montenegro’s government with the party falling to 58 seats from 78, prompting leader Pedro Nuno Santos to say he would step down.

    In Lisbon, some residents were worried about what Chega’s surge could mean for Portugal’s democracy, comparing the party to U.S. President Donald Trump’s government.

    Chega’s Ventura, who was hospitalised during the campaign after collapsing on stage with an esophageal spasm, said his health issues would not hold him back.

    “There are moments in life during which God says, just stop a little bit,” he said. “This time I am not going to listen. I am not going to stop until I become the prime minister of Portugal.”

    (Reuters)

  • Deeply concerned: PM Modi wishes Joe Biden a speedy recovery after prostate cancer diagnosis

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday wished former U.S. President Joe Biden a fast and full recovery after it was revealed that he has been diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer.

    Taking to the social media platform X, PM Modi said: “Deeply concerned to hear about Joe Biden’s health. Extend our best wishes to him for a quick and full recovery. Our thoughts are with Dr. Jill Biden and the family.”

    Biden’s office, in a statement issued Sunday, revealed that the president had recently undergone a medical evaluation due to worsening urinary symptoms.

    “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms,” the statement said.

    “On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterised by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5), with metastasis to the bone,” it added.

    Although the diagnosis indicates a severe form of the disease, Biden’s physicians noted that the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management.

    “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management,” the statement said. “The president and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump also commented on the diagnosis via his Truth Social platform:
    “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

    The news has reignited political and public discussions around President Biden’s health.

    President Biden lost his son, Beau Biden, to cancer in 2015, and has since championed cancer research initiatives—first as vice president under Barack Obama and later as president—through the Cancer Moonshot program.

    IANS

  • US Vice President meets Pope Leo, an American known for past criticism of Trump

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Pope Leo XIV, a U.S. citizen who as a cardinal criticised the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies, met at the Vatican on Monday with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who converted to Roman Catholicism as an adult.

    A Vatican readout confirmed that Vance and Leo had met but offered no details about their discussions. A Vance spokesperson said they met one-on-one before being joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic.

    Vatican handout photos showed Vance and Rubio smiling as they were seated across from Leo at the pope’s official desk in the Vatican’s apostolic palace.

    Leo, the Chicago-born former Cardinal Robert Prevost, is a relative unknown on the global stage, elected as the new pope on May 8.

    While a cardinal, he issued several disapproving posts about the administration’s policies on his X account, reflecting his concern about migrants. The Vatican has not confirmed or denied that the posts were authentic.

    The late Pope Francis, who died on April 21, was a champion of the poor and of immigrants who frequently criticised the Trump administration. He called Trump’s plan to deport millions of migrants a “disgrace” and rebuked Vance for arguing that the bible calls on Christians to prioritise love for their families and countrymen over strangers and foreigners.

    Vance met briefly with Francis on Easter Sunday, the day before the pontiff died.

    Vance and Rubio have been in Rome to lead the U.S. delegation at Leo’s inaugural Mass as pope, held on Sunday among crowds of an estimated 200,000 people in St. Peter’s Square.

    After meeting Leo, Vance met on Monday with officials at the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, the Church’s top diplomatic office. A Vatican readout called those talks “cordial”.

    “There was an exchange of views on some current international issues, calling for respect for humanitarian law and international law in areas of conflict and for a negotiated solution between the parties involved,” it said.

    REUTERS

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Yemen: US air strike that has left dozens of migrants dead must be investigated

    Source: Amnesty International –

    A US air strike on a migrant detention centre in Sa’ada, north-western Yemen on 28 April killed and injured dozens of migrants and must be investigated as a violation of international humanitarian law, said Amnesty International today, amid reports that hundreds of people have been killed and injured as a result of US air strikes on Yemen since March 2025.

    According to satellite imagery analysis, the US attacks carried out on Sa’ada prison compound struck the migrant detention centre and another building on the site.

    Amnesty International spoke with three individuals who work with African migrant and refugee communities in Yemen.  Two of them, who had visited the migrant detention centre as well as two nearby hospitals, and their morgues in the aftermath of the air strike, confirmed witnessing evidence of a high number of casualties.  The organization also analysed satellite imagery and video footage of horrific scenes showing migrants’ bodies strewn across rubble and rescuers trying to pull badly wounded survivors from the debris.  

    “The US attacked a well-known detention facility where the Huthis have been detaining migrants who had no means to take shelter. The major loss of civilian life in this attack raises serious concerns about whether the US complied with its obligations under international humanitarian law, including the rules on distinction and precautions,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

    “The US must conduct a prompt, independent and transparent investigation into this air strike and into any other air strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties as well as those where the rules of international humanitarian law may have been violated.”

    The major loss of civilian life in this attack raises serious concerns about whether the US complied with its obligations under international humanitarian law, including the rules on distinction and precautions,

    Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

    Witnesses who visited the Republican hospital and al Talh General hospital in Sa’ada, told Amnesty International they saw more than two dozen Ethiopian migrants who sustained injuries including severe amputations and fractures. They also said that the morgues at the hospitals ran out of space to receive dead bodies, so casualties received from the air strike had to be stacked outside. The ICRC, whose staff were at the site in the immediate aftermath of the attack, also confirmed in a statement a high number of casualties, many of whom were migrants.

    Under international humanitarian law attacking forces have an obligation to do everything feasible to distinguish between military and civilian targets, to verify whether their intended target is a military objective and to cancel an attack if there is doubt.  When attacking a military objective, parties to a conflict must also take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians in the vicinity. 

    If civilian harm is found to have occurred, victims and their families should receive full reparation for violations of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, if investigations find that there were direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects or indiscriminate attacks striking military targets and civilians without distinction and which killed or injured civilians, they should be investigated and treated as violations of internation law and potential war crimes.

    Amnesty International’s arms experts analysed photos of the remnants of the weapons used in the attack and identified fragments of at least two 250 pound precision-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs. US Central Command did not announce the target of the attack but a US defense official said they were assessing “claims” of civilian casualties in the strike, and conducting “our battle-damage assessment”. This assessment, including any conclusions related to civilian harm and efforts to respond to it, should promptly be made public.

    Satellite imagery showing Sa’ada prison compound before the US air strike © 2025 Planet Labs PBC
    Satellite imagery showing the site after the US air strike © 2025 Planet Labs PBC

    The US should have known Sa’ada prison was a detention facility, that has been used for years by the Huthis to detain migrants and that it was regularly visited by ICRC. They should also have known that any aerial attack could result in significant civilian harm.

     Amnesty also recalls that another detention facility within the same Sa’ada prison compound was hit by a Saudi-led coalition air strike on 21 January 2022, using a US-made precision guided munition, killing more than 90 detainees and injuring dozens. According to satellite imagery, since that strike in 2022 the Huthi de facto authorities have constructed additional buildings at that location, one of which was also struck on 28 April.

    Amnesty International was unable to conclusively identify a legitimate military target within the Sa’ada prison compound. Restrictions by the Huthi de facto authorities on independent investigations, including access to the second location struck on 28 April, limit our ability to fully investigate the attack, or to rule out the possibility that there were military objectives within the prison compound. Any attack that fails to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and legitimate military targets on the other, even within the same compound, constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a violation of international humanitarian law.

     ‘Shock and horror on their faces’

    Amnesty International analysed dozens of videos and photos published by Huthi al Masira TV channel in addition to seven videos privately shared by one witness. This digital evidence showing bodies scattered in the rubble points to dozens of civilian migrant deaths and injuries in the air strike on the detention centre.

    The Huthi-run Ministry of Interior stated that, at the time of the attack, the detention facility was holding 115 African migrant detainees, of whom 68 were killed and 47 were injured.  If this number of casualties proves accurate, it would be the worst case of civilian harm in a single incident by the US military since an air strike in Mosul, Iraq in 2017.

    Amnesty International could not independently verify the death toll, nor speak to survivors or medical workers, due to the Huthis’ ongoing crackdown on civic space. Huthi officials have issued several statements and directives prohibiting people from sharing names, photos, or any information related to the US air strikes’ casualties on social media and other public platforms. Multiple people said they were afraid to speak out of fear of reprisal. In recent years, aid workers, journalists and activists have been detained by the Huthis and accused of espionage.

    Despite this, Amnesty International was able to speak, on condition of anonymity, with three individuals working with African migrant and refugee communities who said that all the migrant detainees held at this detention centre were Ethiopian, with the exception of one Eritrean.  

    One witness said he saw 25 injured migrants in the Republican hospital and nine in Al Talh General hospital in Sa’ada: “They suffered from different fractures and bruises. Some were in critical condition and two had amputated legs… The morgue in the Republican hospital was overwhelmed and there was no place left for tens of corpses that were still left outside the morgue for the second day.”

    Another witness who visited both hospitals and spoke to dozens of the injured Ethiopian migrants said:

    “They told me they were sleeping when they were hit with the first missile at around 4 a.m. in the morning (…) They said they woke up to find dismembered bodies around them. You could see the shock and horror on their faces. Some were still unable to speak because of the trauma.”

    On 27 April, a day before the attack, US Central Command announced it had struck over 800 targets in Yemen since 15 March and that they were intentionally limiting disclosing information about their operations for reasons of operational security.

    US Congress should ensure ongoing efforts to mitigate civilian harm

    Critical systems put in place in recent years building on work started under the first Trump Administration to reduce and better respond to civilian harm caused by US lethal actions abroad are under threat by the current Trump Administration. News outlets have reported that programs at the Defense Department focused on civilian harm mitigation and response are being gutted, and that the US President has rolled back constraints on commanders authorizing certain types of air strikes and special operations.  It has also been reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top military lawyers responsible for ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law in military operations.

    “At a time when the US appears to be shrinking efforts aimed at reducing civilian harm by US lethal actions, the US Congress should play its oversight role and demand information on investigations to date on these strikes. Congress must further ensure that civilian harm mitigation and response mechanisms remain intact and robustly respond to this and other recent incidents,” said Agnès Callamard.

    Background

     Between November 2023 and January 2025, Huthi armed forces have targeted at least 74 commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, which they claimed were linked to Israel, the USA or the UK.

    US President Joe Biden began air strikes against the Huthis in 2024. The new wave of US strikes under the Trump Administration started on 15 March 2025 after the Huthis announced on 11 March that they would resume attacks on Israeli ships passing through the Red and Arabian seas in response to Israel blocking aid into the occupied Gaza Strip.

    Since 15 March, the Huthis have launched missiles and drones at the USS Harry S. Truman, an aircraft carrier stationed in the Red Sea. They have also resumed their attacks on Israel, striking near Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on 4 May. Israel retaliated in May with air strikes including on Hodeidah port and Sana’a airport.

    On 6 May, the US announced it was ending its military campaign against the Huthis in Yemen.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • Iran says nuclear talks will fail if US pushes for zero enrichment

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Nuclear talks between Iran and the United States “will lead nowhere” if Washington insists that Tehran drop its uranium enrichment activity to zero, Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takhtravanchi was quoted by state media on Monday as saying.

    U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff reiterated Washington’s stance on Sunday that any new deal between the U.S. and Iran must include an agreement not to enrich uranium, a possible pathway to developing nuclear bombs. Tehran says its nuclear energy programme has entirely peaceful purposes.

    “Our position on enrichment is clear and we have repeatedly stated that it is a national achievement from which we will not back down,” Takhtravanchi said.

    During his visit to the Gulf region last week, U.S. President Donald Trump said a deal was very close but that Iran needed to move quickly.

    During his first, 2017-21 term as president, Trump withdrew the United States from a 2015 deal between Iran and world powers that placed strict limits on Tehran’s enrichment activities in exchange for relief from international sanctions.

    Trump, who branded the 2015 accord one-sided in Iran’s favour, also reimposed sweeping U.S. sanctions on Iran. The Islamic Republic responded by escalating enrichment.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

    Source: Australian Attorney General’s Agencies

    Kieran Gilbert, Host: Joining me live in the studio is the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell. Thanks for your time. A lot to talk about. I will ask you about that issue that the Deputy Prime Minister finished on there in terms of productivity and the superannuation, but let’s start on trade. Will you get the deal done with the EU? We’re hearing that the talks will resume soon.

    Trade Minister, Don Farrell: Yes. In fact, I’m going to be talking to my counterpart tomorrow. So, you might recall in the middle of the election, I had a conversation with Trade Minister Maroš. He’s from Slovakia. We hit it off pretty well, I think, in our first discussion. He sent me a very kind and warm message on election night when it was clear that we had won the election. I’ve subsequently had a meeting with the EU Ambassador and reaffirmed our commitment and heard from him his commitment.

    Gilbert: Sounding good?

    Trade Minister: Sounding good, yeah, yep. And as I said, I’ve got a conversation with him tomorrow. And of course, in the meantime, the Prime Minister has met President von der Leyen.

    Gilbert: The sticking point was on the geographical indicators and also on agriculture. Is that right?

    Trade Minister: Yeah.

    GILBERT: So, will there be compromise there from the EU?

    Trade Minister: Look, what – the politics have changed in two years. I think both Australia and Europe now realise that there’s a priority and an imperative to get a free trade agreement. If other countries don’t want to trade with you, well that’s fine, that’s their decision. But if there are countries such as Europe who do want to do trade with you, well then you’ve got to go that extra mile to get an agreement over the line.

    Gilbert: And the things that changed, we know, Donald Trump.

    Trade Minister: Yeah, yeah, well look, look. A whole lot of things have changed since we last had a conversation. But I think we share the same values as Europe. So, those geographical indicators are hard issues. On the one hand, the Europeans say, well look, you’re using all of our names. On the other hand, what I say to them is, look, after World War II, a whole lot of Europeans came to Australia. They bought their families, they bought their culture, more importantly, they bought their food and wine.

    Gilbert: They sure did.

    Trade Minister: Yeah. And for them, the link with Europe is not an economic link, it’s a way that they keep in contact with their European roots.

    Gilbert: Would you like to see then, that trade deal, you know, if you are successful in landing that, also expand into a security relationship? Because that’s what von der Leyen has raised with the Prime Minister overnight, that we talk not just in trade terms, but security terms, like Japan and Korea have.

    Trade Minister: Yeah, look, look. My space is trade. I’m going to be focused on the trade agenda. We’ve gone a long way down that path. We need to complete that process. What happens with defence and all of those other issues? The Prime Minister has addressed that today. He said, look, we’re happy to look at these things, but our immediate priority with the Europeans is all about trade.

    Gilbert: When the PM went to the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV, why was it important in your view to be there? Is it something that, you know, a Prime Minister necessarily has to be at, the inauguration of a new Pope?

    Trade Minister: Look, I think it was very important that the Prime Minister was there. As you know, he sent me to the funeral a couple of weeks ago. That was obviously, you know, a very solemn event. This was a very joyous event for Australia’s 5 million Catholics, of which the Prime Minister and myself are both adherents to the Catholic faith. I think it was very important that Australia be represented there and represented at the highest level.

    Gilbert: Do you think it’s also important in a more secular world that the leadership does show respect to people of faith? Is this something, you know, in simple terms, that people of other faiths will respect?

    Trade Minister: Well, look, I think that’s part of it. But this new pope, Pope Leo XIV, has come out very strongly on the issue of peace. That’s very important for Australia. We’ve been calling for peace in Ukraine. We want the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine. And we also want peace in the Middle East. So, I think we’re on board with the agenda for this new Pope to start talking about a more peaceful world. That’s good for Australia and it’s good for the world.

    Gilbert: Ok. On some other issues, my colleague Andrew Clennell reported yesterday that state MPs and officials won’t be hit by the government’s super tax on funds upwards of $3 million. Is that viable? You’ve been around politics a long time. Do you think you can still sell that as a policy when people start to realise that some premiers and officials won’t have to pay it?

    Trade Minister: Well, look, this tax applies to very, very few people. Less than 0.5 per cent of the population are going to be affected. And of course, it only applies to people on very, very high balances. There are some constitutional issues that relate to how superannuation is dealt with by state governments. But rest assured that the people who are going to be making this decision will themselves be covered by this tax, if they get to that high level of superannuation.

    Gilbert: The $3 million fund, I mean, as you touched on, we did go to the election recently, but do you think people, when the details start to emerge about taxing unrealised gains and so on, that that’s going to be a bit complex to try and navigate for the government?

    Trade Minister: Look, I hope not. We nailed our colours to the mast in respect to this tax. We tried to get it through the last Parliament, it wasn’t successful. We took it to the last election. So, nobody was in any doubt about what our policy was in respect of this tax. And we’ve received an overwhelming endorsement from the Australian people. So, I think in terms of honesty, if we didn’t proceed with this, then I think people would say, well, what’s going on? You said you were going to do this. We’ve built the savings from this new super tax into our future budgets. So, I think now, we’ve got the endorsement for the Australian people. It’s a very, very minor tax in the scheme of things, and I think the Australian people would now expect us to proceed with it.

    Gilbert: And do you think the Treasurer can make it work just with all of those other complications?

    Trade Minister: Well, he’s a very, very good Treasurer and I think-

    Gilbert: There are those that say it’s just too complex in terms of tax structures and people’s superannuation. You might have an impact on productivity because people will pull out of the workforce before they hit that threshold.

    Trade Minister: I think people are barking up the wrong tree. I doubt whether the relatively small impact of this tax is going to result in any of those sorts of things. But we’ve got a very good salesman in Jim Chalmers and of course, now he’s being assisted by Daniel Mulino, who’s a very good friend of mine. He’s got a, I think it’s a Master of Economics from Yale, very smart fellow, and I think that combination will be very successful.

    Gilbert: I know you’ve got to go. Just quickly, what else is on your agenda? You’ve got that, the talks tomorrow with the EU.

    Trade Minister: Yes, yes, and India.

    Gilbert: What’s at the top of your agenda here?

    Trade Minister: We were very close to a free trade agreement with India before the election was called. I’m now confident that we’ll get another agreement with them. And of course, in a few weeks’ time, the United Arab Emirates Free Trade Agreement comes into operation. The United Arab Emirates is like the Woollies warehouse of the Middle East. If you can get your product in there. And all of our products are going into the UAE tariff free. It’s a really good, really good agreement.

    Gilbert: 93 seats for Labor, you must have said some pretty strong prayers when you were over in the Vatican. They seem like they’ve worked.

    Trade Minister: I did. Look, we were the last people, I think, to touch the Pope’s coffin before we went out for the Mass. And I did say a little prayer for the Prime Minister and the Labor Party.

    Gilbert: Certainly strengthened your favour. Don Farrell, thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

    Trade Minister: Thanks, Kieran.

    MIL OSI News –

  • Trump to speak to Putin on end to war in Ukraine as Europeans demand ceasefire

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump is set to speak to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday about peace in Ukraine as European leaders demanded that the Kremlin accept an immediate ceasefire to halt the region’s deadliest conflict since World War Two.

    Putin sent thousands of troops into Ukraine in February 2022, triggering the gravest confrontation between Russia and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Trump, who says he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker, has repeatedly called for an end to the “bloodbath” of Ukraine, which his administration casts as a proxy war between the United States and Russia.

    Under pressure from Trump, delegates from the warring countries met last week in Istanbul for the first time since March 2022, after Putin proposed direct talks and Europeans and Ukraine demanded an immediate ceasefire.

    “The subjects of the call will be stopping the ‘bloodbath’ that is killing, on average, more than 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, and trade,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website.

    “Hopefully it will be a productive day, a ceasefire will take place, and this very violent war, a war that should have never happened, will end.”

    Trump, who said that progress on peace was unlikely until he and Putin get together, said he would speak to Putin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time (1400 GMT) on Monday. The Kremlin said preparations for a call were underway.

    Trump, whose administration has made clear that Russia could face additional sanctions if it does not take peace talks seriously, said he would also speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and various members of NATO.

    Putin, whose forces control a fifth of Ukraine and are advancing, has stood firm on his conditions for ending the war, despite public and private pressure from Trump and repeated warnings from European powers.

    On Sunday, Russia launched its largest drone attack on Ukraine since the start of the war.

    Ukraine’s intelligence service said it also believed Moscow intended to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile on Sunday, though there was no confirmation from Russia.

    In June 2024, Putin said Ukraine must officially drop its NATO ambitions and withdraw its troops from the entire territory of the four Ukrainian regions Russia claims.

    On Sunday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer discussed Russia’s war against Ukraine with leaders of the United States, Italy, France and Germany, a Downing Street spokesperson said.

    “Tomorrow, President Putin must show he wants peace by accepting the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposed by President Trump and backed by Ukraine and Europe,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on X after Sunday’s call.

    Putin is wary of a ceasefire and says fighting cannot be paused until a number of crucial conditions are worked out or clarified.

    European leaders say Putin is not serious about peace, though they fear Trump and he may force a punitive peace deal that will leave Ukraine essentially shorn of a fifth of its territory and lacking a strong security guarantee against possible future attack from Russia.

    Former U.S. President Joe Biden, Western European leaders and Ukraine cast the invasion as an imperial-style land grab and repeatedly vowed to defeat Russian forces which they say could one day attack NATO, a claim denied by Moscow.

    Putin casts the war as a watershed moment in Moscow’s relations with the West, which he says humiliated Russia after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union by enlarging NATO and encroaching on what he considers Moscow’s sphere of influence, including Ukraine.

    (Reuters)

  • Rupee strengthens, gold rallies amid global uncertainty

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The Indian rupee opened 12 paise stronger at 85.44 against the US dollar on Monday, supported by favorable global cues and market optimism. The rupee had closed at 85.52 per dollar on Friday.

    At the same time, gold prices surged nearly 1 percent in the morning session on the domestic futures market, driven by a weakening US dollar and renewed concerns over the possible return of Donald Trump-era trade tariffs.

    On the Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX), the Gold June 5 contract was trading 0.95 percent higher at ₹93,317 per 10 grams. The US dollar index dropped by about 0.3 percent, making gold more affordable in other currencies and boosting global demand.

    Rahul Kalantri, Vice President of Commodities at Mehta Equities, noted that gold has support at $3,195–$3,175 and resistance at $3,245–$3,260. For silver, the support levels are $32.10–$31.80, while resistance lies at $32.65–$32.85.

    “Gold prices climbed above $3,220 per ounce on Monday, rebounding from last week’s steepest decline in six months,” Kalantri said. “The recovery was fueled by safe-haven demand following Moody’s downgrade of the US sovereign credit rating, citing fiscal imbalances and rising debt costs.”

    Despite temporary relief from the US-China tariff truce, weak US economic indicators and subdued inflation have led investors to anticipate additional interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. This sentiment has further bolstered bullion prices.

    “In Indian rupee terms, gold has support at ₹91,850–₹91,480 and resistance at ₹92,850–₹93,490,” Kalantri added. “Silver is supported at ₹94,480–₹94,850 per kg and faces resistance at ₹95,950–₹96,650.”

    Gold prices have remained rangebound over the past two sessions, largely due to the lack of fresh triggers. The easing of geopolitical tensions between India and Pakistan and the temporary US-China truce have contributed to this stability.

    However, domestic demand ahead of India’s upcoming wedding season is expected to provide strong support, keeping prices elevated, said Aksha Kamboj, Vice President of the India Bullion and Jewellers Association (IBJA).

    —IANS

  • Russia launches war’s largest drone attack ahead of Putin-Trump call

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Russia launched on Sunday its largest drone attack on Ukraine since the start of the war, destroying homes and killing at least one woman a day before U.S. President Donald Trump is due to discuss a proposed ceasefire with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

    Ukraine’s intelligence service said it also believed Moscow intended to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile later on Sunday as an attempt to intimidate the West. There was no immediate response from Moscow to the accusation.

    President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, straining to restore ties with Washington after a disastrous February White House visit, met Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Rome on Sunday on the sidelines of Pope Leo’s inauguration.

    Zelenskiy said the meeting was “good” and released pictures of Ukrainian and U.S. officials sitting outside at a round table and smiling. Ukrainian media said the meeting lasted 40 minutes.

    “I reaffirmed that Ukraine is ready to be engaged in real diplomacy and underscored the importance of a full and unconditional ceasefire as soon as possible,” said Zelenskiy, who also met the new pope.

    Ukraine and Russia held their first face-to-face talks in more than three years on Friday, under pressure from Trump to agree to a ceasefire in a war he has pledged to bring to a quick end. The foes agreed to swap 1,000 prisoners each but failed to agree a truce, after Moscow presented conditions that a member of Ukraine’s delegation called “non-starters”.

    The leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Poland planned to speak to Trump before the U.S. and Russian presidents speak on Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. The four European leaders jointly visited Kyiv last week and have been calling for Trump to back new sanctions on Russia.

    Asked if it was time to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that was up to Trump.

    “I think we will see what happens when both sides get to the table,” he told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” programme.

    “President Trump has made it very clear, that if President Putin does not negotiate in good faith, that the United States will not hesitate to up the Russia sanctions along with our European partners.”

    After a night of air alerts, Ukraine’s air force said that as of 8 a.m. on Sunday Russia had launched 273 drones at Ukrainian cities, more than the previous record Moscow had set in February on the war’s third anniversary.

    ‘I COULD HEAR THE DRONE’

    In the ruins of her family home in the Obukhiv region west of Kyiv, Natalia Piven, 44, recounted how she squeezed into a cellar with her son after an air raid warning, just in time to survive a first wave of drones.

    They then ran out to a bomb shelter at a kindergarten, before another wave of drones bore down on the village. Their house was completely destroyed. A 28-year-old woman who lived next door was killed. Ukrainian authorities said three other people were injured, including a four-year-old child.

    “I cannot get over it. I simply cannot. I could clearly hear the drone flying right towards my house,” Piven told Reuters.

    Trump has shifted U.S. rhetoric from supporting Ukraine towards accepting some of Moscow’s narrative about the war that Putin launched in 2022. But Kyiv and its European allies are working hard to persuade Trump that it is Moscow that is holding up a truce now.

    Zelenskiy has said he would accept Trump’s proposal for an immediate ceasefire of at least 30 days with no conditions. Moscow says it would consider a ceasefire but only if conditions are met, including a halt in arms supplies to Kyiv.

    It also says any peace talks must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including its demands that Ukraine cede territory, be disarmed and accept neutral status. Kyiv says that would amount to capitulation and leave it defenceless.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Europe: President Meloni’s telephone conversation with President Trump, Prime Minister Starmer, President Macron and Chancellor Merz

    Source: Government of Italy (English)

    The President of the Council of Ministers, Giorgia Meloni, had a telephone conversation late yesterday evening with the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, together with the leaders of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, of France, Emmanuel Macron, and of Germany, Friedrich Merz, for consultations prior to the announced call that President Trump will have today with President Putin.

    President Meloni first of all reiterated Italy’s support, together with European and Western partners, for President Trump’s efforts for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, stressing the importance of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

    Lastly, President Meloni expressed her appreciation for the willingness Ukraine has once again shown with regard to dialogue, and reaffirmed the hope that Moscow will seriously engage, through direct leader-to-leader contact, in negotiations that can lead to peace.

    MIL OSI Europe News –