Category: Elon Musk

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s white genocide claims about South Africa have deep roots in American history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    President Donald Trump shows printed news articles during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House on May 21, 2025. Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump says there is a genocide of white people taking place in South Africa, meaning that Black South Africans are deliberately attempting to kill white farmers because of their race.

    Trump and his spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, have said violence targeting white farmers in South Africa justifies admitting about 60 white Afrikaner farmers to the U.S. as refugees in May 2025.

    This comes after Trump, in January, suspended admitting people, most of whom are not white, from other countries through the United States’ refugee program. The U.S. had previously given refugee status – a legal right to remain and work in the country – to tens of thousands of people each year who were fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries.

    During a May 21 White House meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump highlighted white genocide in South Africa, saying, “We have thousands of stories talking about it.” Ramaphosa denied that a white genocide is happening in his country. Trump then had a staffer dim the lights and play a video that, among other inflammatory content, showed white crosses along a road.

    “These are burial sites,” Trump said. “Over a thousand white farmers.”

    Trump’s white genocide claims, which echoed assertions he made during his first term, were quickly debunked by independent fact-checkers.

    Fact-checkers pointed out that while crime rates in South Africa are high in general, there is no evidence of white genocide there. The crosses in the video Trump showed did not mark mass graves of white farmers. They were part of a 2020 tribute to two white farmers murdered by armed men who stormed their house that year.

    As someone who has studied genocide and far-right extremists for years, I think it is necessary to understand what white genocide is and how it developed into a central issue in U.S. immigration debates starting in Trump’s first term.

    A group of South Africans who were granted admission to the U.S. as refugees arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia on May 12, 2025.
    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    The origins of white genocide

    As I detail in my 2021 book “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US,” white genocide is a far-right extremist conspiracy theory claiming that allegedly bad people, often Jews, are carrying out a dangerous plot to destroy the white race. While this idea circulates worldwide, it has distinctly American roots.

    This conspiracy dates back to the 1800s and the rise of nativism, a xenophobic belief held by some white Protestant Americans that certain immigrants, especially German and Irish Catholics, were dangerous and threatened to disrupt American traditions, culture and economic security.

    Nativist fears have continued to influence U.S. politics and culture.

    The American lawyer Madison Grant, for example, made nativist arguments in his 1916 book “The Passing of the Great Race,” which warned of immigrants’ threat to Americans and “race suicide.” Adolf Hitler once called Grant’s book his bible.

    Nativism has also influenced white power extremists, who believe in white superiority and dominance. They began using the specific term “white genocide” after the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, which they perceived as eroding white people’s power.

    The growth in this term’s popularity among some right-wing extremists also coincided with Congress approving the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965. This act significantly increased the number of immigrants the U.S. legally accepted into the country each year and also allowed more non-European – and nonwhite – immigrants to settle in America.

    In the 1970s, William Pierce, an American former physics professor turned neo-Nazi, wrote a book called “The Turner Diaries.” The book, which the FBI has called the “bible of the racist right,” is about how a fictional extremist group, “The Order,” overthrows a U.S. government that gives power to nonwhite citizens and is controlled by Jews. The order proceeds to kill nonwhite people and Jews, as well as “race traitors” who don’t support their cause.

    The book inspired a 1980s group of violent neo-Nazis who also called themselves The Order, based off the fictitious group in Pierce’s book. Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which killed 168 people, was modeled on a scene from “The Turner Diaries,” which depicts the extremist group’s bombing of the FBI headquarters.

    In 1988, David Lane, a former member of The Order, crystallized the idea of white genocide in a short essay, “The White Genocide Manifesto.” The manifesto asserts that there is a “Zionist conspiracy to mix, overrun and exterminate the White race.”

    Jews do this, Lane claims, through “control of the media … industry, finance, law and politics” and by promoting antiwhite policies such as desegregation. To prevent white genocide, Lane calls for the establishment of a white homeland in North America – by violence, if necessary.

    White genocide’s entry into the mainstream

    Research shows that 61% of Trump voters believe “a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views.”

    This belief is often known as replacement theory, a variant of the idea of white genocide.

    Many of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionists believed that white Americans were being replaced. So, too, did the far-right protesters who chanted, “You will not replace us!” at the extremist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.

    There are also instances of such white power extremist views leading to violent acts. One example is the mass shooting of 11 Jewish people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. Another is the El Paso Walmart shooting that resulted in 23 murdered Latino victims in 2019.

    Right-wing populists such as Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have helped fuel replacement theories by contending that Democrats are trying to replace white voters with nonwhite immigrants.

    Neo-Nazis and white supremacists march leading up to the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017.
    Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Concern for white farmers isn’t actually about South Africa

    I believe that Trump’s recent focus on alleged white genocide in South Africa has little to do with South Africa. It is all about American politics and advancing some of Trump’s goals, such as reducing immigration into the U.S.

    First, by suggesting white genocide is taking place in South Africa, Trump amplifies his supporters’ fears that they, too, could soon be outnumbered by nonwhite people – in this case, immigrants.

    Trump has been harping on the alleged dangers of nonwhite immigration since he first ran for election in 2015, and it was central to his 2024 election victory.

    Replacement theory claims also help justify Trump’s goal of deporting immigrants living illegally in the U.S., as well as stopping refugee admissions from many countries, by highlighting the supposed dangers nonwhite immigrants pose to Americans, both in terms of potential threats to their physical safety and job prospects and security.

    This recent example is not the first time Trump has made white genocide claims to advance his agenda. Based on his track record, it is likely he will do so again.

    Alex Hinton receives receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    ref. Trump’s white genocide claims about South Africa have deep roots in American history – https://theconversation.com/trumps-white-genocide-claims-about-south-africa-have-deep-roots-in-american-history-257510

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • NASA astronauts Butch and Suni emerge from recovery after long Starliner mission

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, the U.S. astronauts left on the International Space Station last year by Boeing’s troubled Starliner capsule, are on the up after returning to Earth in March, emerging from weeks of physical therapy to ramp up work with Boeing and various NASA programs.

    “Right now, we’re just coming off of the rehab portion of our return,” Wilmore, 62, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. “Gravity stinks for a period, and that period varies for different people, but eventually you get over those neurovestibular balance type of issues.”

    Wilmore and Williams, who last year set off for an eight-day Starliner test flight that swelled into a nine-month stay in space, have had to readapt their muscles, sense of balance and other basics of Earth living in a 45-day period standard for astronauts returning from long-term space missions.

    The astronaut duo have spent at least two hours a day with astronaut strength and reconditioning officials within NASA’s medical unit while juggling an increasing workload with Boeing’s BA.N Starliner program, NASA’s space station unit in Houston and agency researchers.

    “It’s been a little bit of a whirlwind,” Williams, 59, said in the interview. “Because we also have obligations to all of the folks that we worked with.”

    Williams said some of her post-spaceflight side effects were slower to clear up and she felt tired in late stages of recovery, as dozens of various muscles re-engaged. That made it hard for her to wake up as early in the mornings as she likes, until a little more than a week ago.

    “Then I’m up at four in the morning, and I’m like, Aha! I’m back,” she said.

    Wilmore had some issues with his back and neck before heading to space, being unable to turn his head all the way to the side, he said. That all went away in space where “you don’t have any stress on your body.”

    When he returned in March, gravity greeted him with the neck pain he left on Earth.

    “We’re still floating in the capsule in the ocean, and my neck starts hurting, while we still hadn’t even been extracted yet,” he said, laughing.

    The human body, evolved over millions of years in the gravity of Earth’s surface, was not meant for spaceflight.

    The absence of gravity triggers an array of physical effects over time, such as muscle atrophy or cardiovascular shifts that can cause a chain reaction of other health changes. Confinement in a small space and higher solar radiation in space, without the protection of Earth’s atmosphere, have other effects.

    STARLINER PROBLEMS

    Propulsion system issues on Boeing’s Starliner forced NASA to bring the capsule back without its crew last year and to fold the two astronauts into its normal, long-duration rotation schedule on the ISS.

    Boeing, which has taken $2 billion in charges on its Starliner development, faces a looming decision by NASA to refly the spacecraft uncrewed before it carries humans again. Boeing spent $410 million to fly a similar uncrewed mission in 2022 after a 2019 testing failure.

    Reflying Starliner uncrewed “seems like the logical thing to do,” Williams said, drawing comparisons with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Russian capsules that flew uncrewed missions before putting humans aboard. She and NASA are pushing for that outcome, Williams added.

    “I think that’s the correct path,” said Williams, who is “hoping Boeing and NASA will decide on that same course of action” soon.

    Results from Starliner testing planned throughout the summer are expected to determine whether the spacecraft can fly humans on its next flight, NASA officials have said.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: I. Musk leaves US government post

    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

    NEW YORK, May 29 (Xinhua) — Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Wednesday that he is stepping down as an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump.

    “As my term as a special government employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk wrote on social media X.

    “The mission of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) will only grow stronger over time as it becomes a way of life for the entire government,” he said.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson thanked Musk for his work on Wednesday and pledged to push for further spending cuts in the future, writing on the X website that “Elon Musk and the entire DOGE team have done an incredible job of exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.”

    “The House is eager and prepared to act on DOGE’s findings so we can pass even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people are demanding,” Johnson wrote.

    The billionaire will once again devote himself to Tesla and SpaceX. Earlier, I. Musk announced his intention to reduce his political activity, saying that he had “done enough.” –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI China: Elon Musk leaving US govt role

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

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Wednesday that he is leaving his government role as an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump.

    “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted on X.

    “The DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” he said.

    U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday thanked Musk for his work and promised to pursue more spending cuts in the future, posting on X that “Elon Musk and the entire DOGE team have done INCREDIBLE work exposing waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government.”

    “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand,” Johnson wrote.

    The billionaire will rededicate himself to companies like Tesla and rocket manufacturer SpaceX. Musk said earlier that he will step back from political spending, because “I think I’ve done enough.”

    In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, Musk criticized Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act,” describing the legislation, a mix of tax cuts and enhanced immigration enforcement, as a “massive spending bill” that increases the federal deficit and “undermines the work” of DOGE.

    Trump on Wednesday defended his bill, saying, “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it.”

    MIL OSI China News

  • Elon Musk leaving Trump administration, capping turbulent tenure

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk is leaving the Trump administration after leading a tumultuous efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies, but ultimately failed to deliver the generational savings he had sought.

    His “off-boarding will begin tonight,” a White House official told Reuters late Wednesday, confirming Musk’s departure from government. Musk earlier on Wednesday took to his social media platform X to thank President Donald Trump as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency draws to an end.

    His departure was quick and unceremonious. He did not have a formal conversation with Trump before announcing his exit, according to a source with knowledge of the matter, who added that his departure was decided “at a senior staff level.”

    While the precise circumstances of his exit were not immediately clear, he leaves a day after criticizing Trump’s marquee tax bill, calling it too expensive and a measure that would undermine his work with the U.S. DOGE Service.

    Some senior White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, were particularly irked by those comments, and the White House was forced to call Republican senators to reiterate Trump’s support for the package, a source familiar with the matter said.

    While Musk remains close to the president, his exit comes after a gradual, but steady slide in standing.

    After Trump’s inauguration, the billionaire quickly emerged as a powerful force in Trump’s orbit: hyper-visible, unapologetically brash and unfettered by traditional norms. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he brandished a red metallic chainsaw to wild cheers. “This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” he declared.

    On the campaign trail, Musk had said DOGE would be able to cut at least $2 trillion in federal spending. He did not hide his animus for the federal workforce, and he predicted that revoking “the COVID-era privilege” of telework would trigger “a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.”

    But some cabinet members who initially embraced Musk’s outsider energy grew wary of his tactics, sources said. Over time, they grew more confident pushing back against his job cuts, encouraged by Trump’s reminder in early March that staffing decisions rested with department secretaries, not with Musk.

    Musk clashed with three of Trump’s most senior cabinet members – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He called Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.” Navarro dismissed the insults, saying, “I’ve been called worse.”

    At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending.

    In an April 22 Tesla conference call, he signaled he would be significantly scaling back his government work to focus on his businesses.

    DOGE GOES ON

    Musk’s 130-day mandate as a special government employee in the Trump administration was set to expire around May 30. The administration has said DOGE’s efforts to restructure and shrink the federal government will continue.

    “The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” Musk said.

    Trump and DOGE have managed to cut nearly 12%, or 260,000, of the 2.3 million-strong federal civilian workforce largely through threats of firings, buyouts and early retirement offers, a Reuters review of agency departures found.

    Musk on Tuesday criticized the price tag of Republicans’ tax and budget legislation making its way through Congress.

    “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS News.

    His political activities have drawn protests and some investors have called for him to leave his work as Trump’s adviser and more closely manage Tesla, which has seen falls in sales and its stock price.

    Musk, the world’s richest person, has defended his role as an unelected official who was granted unprecedented authority by Trump to dismantle parts of the U.S. government.

    Having spent nearly $300 million to back Trump’s presidential campaign and other Republicans last year, he said earlier this month he would substantially cut his political spending.

    “I think I’ve done enough,” Musk said at an economic forum in Qatar.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Trump Admin Encourages Max $200k Pay for Political Appointees as It Fires Veterans, Cancer Researchers, & More—Murray, Democratic Colleagues Demand Answers, List of Top-Paid Political Staff

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    OPM encourages agencies to offer maximum salary to Trump political appointees, encouraging them to sidestep agency HR offices & standard vetting process
    Lawmakers: “Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars.”
    Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), John Fetterman (D-PA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sent a letter to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) calling out its recent memo encouraging agencies to ignore the recommendations of agency HR offices and offer the maximum available salary of $195,200 to Schedule C political appointees.
    As the Trump administration fires dedicated federal employees en masse across government, the senators demanded information about the Trump administration’s hiring of Schedule C political appointees, their salaries, the number of appointees making the maximum salary, justification for sidestepping HR recommendations and vetting processes, any guardrails implemented to prevent cronyism, and the costs to taxpayers.
    “You issued a memo to the heads and acting heads of departments and agencies encouraging them to offer the maximum available salary to political appointees and sidestep the regular hiring process,” write the senators. “This memo, coupled with the Administration’s widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the Executive Branch for Presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies.”
    “While this Administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law, your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate. As dedicated career public servants are receiving notice that they have been fired, the Administration is offering higher pay for those hired under Schedule C,” they continue.
    “Per your memo, agencies may consider setting initial salaries at up to $195,200, almost five times the median income for individuals in the U.S.,” write the lawmakers.
    The lawmakers note that the OPM memo “demonstrates a desire for the expeditious hiring of underqualified and overpaid political elites. Schedule C hires are not career civil servants. They will not be answering phones at Social Security field offices or conducting food inspections or fighting wildfires.”
    “Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful,” they state.
    The full letter is available HERE and below:
    Mr. Charles Ezell
    Acting Director
    Office of Personnel Management
    1900 E Street N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20415
    Dear Acting Director Ezell:
    On April 10, 2025, you issued a memo to the heads and acting heads of departments and agencies encouraging them to offer the maximum available salary to political appointees and sidestep the regular hiring process. This memo, coupled with the Administration’s widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the Executive Branch for Presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies.
    Since President Trump took office, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has worked with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to facilitate the firings of tens of thousands of government employees under the guise of government efficiency. The American people have experienced only chaos as a result. The phone lines at Social Security are overwhelmed, food inspections are down, and as fire season begins, the Forest Service is planning to layoff wildland firefighters—to name just a few of the consequences of this administration’s arbitrary and thoughtless cuts. Put simply, OPM’s actions have sowed inefficiency and counter-productivity for the essential government services that our constituents depend on.
    While this Administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law, your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate. As dedicated career public servants are receiving notice that they have been fired, the Administration is offering higher pay for those hired under Schedule C, a type of appointment for those serving in confidential or policy roles, including as confidential assistants, policy experts, special counsel, and schedulers. Per your memo, agencies may consider setting initial salaries at up to $195,200, almost five times the median income for individuals in the U.S. Further, your memo encourages agency heads to sidestep the standard hiring process and remove the objective additional reviewer of candidates. This would allow appointees to begin work in sensitive roles without any vetting, including for conflicts of interest or background checks, bypassing the basic guardrails that have been in place for decades. On its face, OPM’s April 10 memo demonstrates a desire for the expeditious hiring of underqualified and overpaid political elites.
    Schedule C hires are not career civil servants. They will not be answering phones at Social Security field offices or conducting food inspections or fighting wildfires. They do not work for the American people; they work to advance the political agenda of the President. OPM’s April 10 memo makes clear the Trump Administration’s ultimate goal is to decimate the nonpolitical career civil service and use taxpayer dollars to enrich and reward political allies, all at the cost of the government services that people rely on.
    Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful.
    In order to ensure OPM works to actually promote efficiency and productivity in the government workforce, we request you provide the following information:
    The salary information of all Schedule C appointees, and the current number of Schedule C appointees, broken down by agency. For those Schedule C appointees the administration has hired at a pay level of GS-15 or $195,200, please provide a brief job description for each.
    The justification for revoking the authority of agency HR departments to set the terms for Schedule C appointment and additional information as to how agencies will set the terms for Schedule C appointment without HR involvement.
    Any guidance or detail OPM has provided to agencies as to how to set the terms for a Schedule C appointment in order to avoid widespread corruption.
    The agency-level cost of hiring the desired number of Schedule C appointees.
    Any written information detailing the role of the Presidential Personnel Office (PPO) in hiring Schedule C appointees.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward receiving your responses no later than June 4, 2025.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: DOGE Social Security Service Changes Force Long, Unnecessary Travel Costs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    May 28, 2025
    Trump, DOGE service cuts will require people to make nearly 2 million additional trips to understaffed Social Security field offices each year
    In 31 states, over 25% of seniors must travel over an hour to access nearest Social Security field office
    Washington, D.C. – A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that recent cuts to Social Security phone services are forcing long, unnecessary travel burdens on seniors and other beneficiaries.
    The Trump Administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE made cuts to Social Security Administration (SSA) phone service, including removing the ability to change direct deposit and other banking information over the phone. These changes will require Americans to make nearly 2 million additional trips to already-understaffed Social Security field offices each year — resulting in hours of wasted time, money spent on gas, and more.
    The new analysis found that half of all seniors must drive at least 33 minutes to visit a field office, and nearly a quarter of seniors (13.5 million) live more than an hour round trip from their nearest office. Further, an estimated over 6 million seniors do not drive, and nearly 8 million seniors report a medical condition or disability that makes it hard to travel.
    Earlier this year, DOGE identified dozens of Social Security Administration offices across the country it proposed to close — which would make accessing offices even more difficult and time-consuming for Americans.

    Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Senate Dems’ Social Security War Room is a coordinated effort to fight back against the Trump administration’s attack on Americans’ Social Security. The War Room coordinates messaging across the Senate Democratic Caucus and external stakeholders; encourages grassroots engagement by providing opportunities for Americans to share what Social Security means to them; and educates Senate staff, the American public, and stakeholders about Republicans’ agenda and their continued cuts to Americans’ Social Security services and benefits.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Stansbury, Luján Hold Town Hall in Albuquerque on GOP Attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Melanie Stansbury (N.M.-01)

    Albuquerque, N.M. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (NM-01) held a town hall in Albuquerque on Tuesday to sound the alarm on Republican-led efforts to gut critical federal programs that New Mexicans rely on, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. 

    The town hall followed a House vote advancing legislation that would slash billions from health care and food assistance programs while delivering trillions in tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. New Mexicans packed the event to hear directly from Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury and to raise concerns about the devastating impact these Republican-led proposals would have on New Mexico families. Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury denounced the Republican proposal and warned that the legislation would impose the biggest cut to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in American history. 

    “We are in the fight of our lives for our communities, our democracy, and to make life better for our people. Every day, I am deeply honored to be in this fight for New Mexico alongside Senator Luján and our entire congressional delegation. Together we are working to defend our rights and Constitution and to tackle our biggest challenges from healthcare, housing and education to caring for our veterans and protecting our lands and waters,” said Representative Melanie Stansbury (NM-01). “I am grateful to everyone who showed up to our Town Hall and who is speaking up and speaking out against the GOPs disastrous reconciliation bill which will gut Medicaid and food assistance for millions of Americans. As this bill heads to the Senate and the GOP continues to gut programs, we need you in this fight.” 

    “This Republican-led bill is a total rip-off for New Mexicans – all to line the pockets of people like President Trump and Elon Musk,” said Senator Ben Ray Luján. “The Republicans’ priorities couldn’t be more clear: tax handouts for billionaires and massive corporations, paid for by cutting health care, food assistance, and benefits for New Mexicans. We are not backing down. In the Senate, I’m going to keep fighting for our seniors, our children, and the future of New Mexico.” 

    Impacts of the House GOP legislation include: 

    • Cuts to SNAP, reducing food assistance for children, families, and seniors; 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner & Kaine Blast Trump Administration’s Call for Agencies to Max Out Pay for Political Appointees Amid Firings of Civil Servants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) joined six of their colleagues in sending a letter to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) criticizing its recent memo encouraging agencies to ignore the recommendations of agency human resources (HR) offices and offer the maximum available salary of $195,200 to Schedule C political appointees.

    This memo comes on the heels of the Trump Administration firing dedicated federal employees en masse across the government. In the letter, the senators demanded information about the Trump Administration’s hiring of Schedule C political appointees, their salaries, the number of appointees making the maximum salary, justification for sidestepping HR recommendations and vetting processes, any guardrails implemented to prevent cronyism, and the costs to taxpayers.

    “…You issued a memo to the heads and acting heads of departments and agencies encouraging them to offer the maximum available salary to political appointees and sidestep the regular hiring process,” wrote the senators. “This memo, coupled with the Administration’s widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the Executive Branch for Presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies.”

    “While this Administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law, your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate. As dedicated career public servants are receiving notice that they have been fired, the Administration is offering higher pay for those hired under Schedule C, a type of appointment for those serving in confidential or policy roles,” they continued.

    “Per your memo, agencies may consider setting initial salaries at up to $195,200, almost five times the median income for individuals in the U.S.,” wrote the lawmakers. “…Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful.”

    In addition to Warner and Kaine, the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Fetterman (D-PA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

    The full letter is available here and below:

    Dear Acting Director Ezell:

    On April 10, 2025, you issued a memo to the heads and acting heads of departments and agencies encouraging them to offer the maximum available salary to political appointees and sidestep the regular hiring process. This memo, coupled with the Administration’s widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the Executive Branch for Presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies.

    Since President Trump took office, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has worked with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to facilitate the firings of tens of thousands of government employees under the guise of government efficiency. The American people have experienced only chaos as a result. The phone lines at Social Security are overwhelmed, food inspections are down, and as fire season begins, the Forest Service is planning to layoff wildland firefighters—to name just a few of the consequences of this administration’s arbitrary and thoughtless cuts. Put simply, OPM’s actions have sowed inefficiency and counter-productivity for the essential government services that our constituents depend on.

    While this Administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law, your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate. As dedicated career public servants are receiving notice that they have been fired, the Administration is offering higher pay for those hired under Schedule C, a type of appointment for those serving in confidential or policy roles, including as confidential assistants, policy experts, special counsel, and schedulers. Per your memo, agencies may consider setting initial salaries at up to $195,200, almost five times the median income for individuals in the U.S. Further, your memo encourages agency heads to sidestep the standard hiring process and remove the objective additional reviewer of candidates. This would allow appointees to begin work in sensitive roles without any vetting, including for conflicts of interest or background checks, bypassing the basic guardrails that have been in place for decades. On its face, OPM’s April 10 memo demonstrates a desire for the expeditious hiring of underqualified and overpaid political elites.

    Schedule C hires are not career civil servants. They will not be answering phones at Social Security field offices or conducting food inspections or fighting wildfires. They do not work for the American people; they work to advance the political agenda of the President. OPM’s April 10 memo makes clear the Trump Administration’s ultimate goal is to decimate the nonpolitical career civil service and use taxpayer dollars to enrich and reward political allies, all at the cost of the government services that people rely on.

    Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful.

    In order to ensure OPM works to actually promote efficiency and productivity in the government workforce, we request you provide the following information:

    1. The salary information of all Schedule C appointees, and the current number of Schedule C appointees, broken down by agency. For those Schedule C appointees the administration has hired at a pay level of GS-15 or $195,200, please provide a brief job description for each.
    2. The justification for revoking the authority of agency HR departments to set the terms for Schedule C appointment and additional information as to how agencies will set the terms for Schedule C appointment without HR involvement.
    3. Any guidance or detail OPM has provided to agencies as to how to set the terms for a Schedule C appointment in order to avoid widespread corruption.
    4. The agency-level cost of hiring the desired number of Schedule C appointees.
    5. Any written information detailing the role of the Presidential Personnel Office (PPO) in hiring Schedule C appointees.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward receiving your responses no later than June 4, 2025.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: In Revere, Massachusetts, Warren Lays Out the Dangers of Republican Bill to Cut Health Care for Millions

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    May 28, 2025
    Boston, MA – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined state and federal leaders at the Cambridge Health Alliance’s Revere Care Center to sound the alarm about Republicans’ planned cuts to health care for Massachusetts children, families, seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. 
    Senator Warren laid out the impact of these planned cuts to health care and food assistance, and explained how the cuts would raise costs for working families. 
    “Right now, you probably know someone who counts on Medicaid to pay for medicine that helps treat their cancer, the hip replacement they need to walk, the inhaler their kid needs to breathe, or the nursing home that takes care of their aging parents. And they are all at risk,” said Senator Warren. 
    Senator Warren also made clear that Massachusetts leaders are united in fighting back against the cuts. 
    “We believe that no senior should be kicked to the curb so that Mark Zuckerberg [can] buy another Hawaiian island. And we believe that no person with a disability who needs a home health aide should have to give that up so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht. We believe that, and that is why we are here to fight back,” concluded Senator Warren. 
    Transcript: Remarks on Medicaid Cuts at the Cambridge Health Alliance’s Revere Care CenterMay 27, 2025
    As Delivered
    Senator Elizabeth Warren: It is a real honor to stand here with the Governor, with [] Senator [Markey], with [] Senator [Edwards], with [] Mayor [Keefe], with the doctors, with the people who fight for health care here in the Commonwealth. I am grateful for that and I look forward to the fact that when we partner up, that’s how we make real change. 
    So, last week the House of Representatives passed Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” This would be the greatest transfer of wealth—from just one piece of legislation—from the poorest Americans to the richest Americans ever before in US history. Think about that: these guys are actually out there making history by taking away—from hardworking families, from people down on their luck, from seniors, from little babies—so that a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs can get more giveaways from the government. 
    That’s the Republican plan: Billionaires win, everyone else loses.
    Now, the details are gruesome on this bill. This bill would: cut Medicaid, gut the Affordable Care Act, and slash food assistance.
    If it passes the Senate, this bill will rip health care away from 14 million people, over a quarter of a million right here in Massachusetts — all to pay for tax handouts for billionaires. 
    This Republican bill will raise costs for working families — from groceries to health care to utility bills — while making the richest Americans even richer.
    Here in Massachusetts, the consequences will be severe.
    In our state, Medicaid is known as MassHealth, and it covers almost two million people. If this bill passes, every one of them will be at risk of losing their health coverage. 
    That is one-third of all newborn babies and their mamas right here in Massachusetts at risk for losing their health care.
    That’s checkups and trips to the doctor for ear infections and money for asthma medications and for antibiotics for more than a third of all kids here in Massachusetts.
    That’s paying the monthly bills for almost TWO-thirds of all nursing home residents here in Massachusetts.
    As the Governor said, the pain will echo throughout our communities, hitting even those who don’t currently receive direct care. Without the guaranteed payments from Medicaid, our hospitals and community health centers are at risk.  
    Community hospitals, even with Medicaid reimbursement, are already struggling. 
    And right now, nearly half the funding for Massachusetts community health centers – which saves money by preventing people from needing to go to the emergency room – half their money currently comes from Medicaid that is on the chopping block by the Republicans. 
    When those hospitals and community health centers are forced to close, we all lose.  
    Now, right now, you probably know someone who counts on Medicaid to pay for the medicine that helps treat their cancer. You probably know someone who got the hip replacement they needed so that they can walk paid for by Medicaid. You probably know someone whose kid gets their inhaler from Medicaid, or the nursing home that takes care of their aging parents. And all of those are at risk.
    This is a full-blown crisis, and we are here to sound the alarm.
    I’m here with Governor Healey and with the senators and everyone behind me because we believe that no one in America should go without health care so that Elon Musk can take a rocket ship ride to Mars.
    We believe that no senior should be kicked to the curb so that Mark Zuckerberg wants to buy another Hawaiian island. 
    And we believe that no person with a disability who needs a home health aide should have to give that up so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht. 
    We believe that and that is why we are here to fight back.
    I am proud to stand beside the Governor, and beside the senators, beside the mayor to make sure that everyone in Massachusetts and around the country gets the health care that they deserve.
    And with that, I will turn it over to a wonderful partner and a tremendous fighter in the United States Senate—my partner, Ed Markey.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján, Stansbury Hold Town Hall in Albuquerque on GOP Attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Senator for New Mexico Ben Ray Luján

    Town Hall Follows House Vote to Gut Critical Programs New Mexicans Rely On

    Albuquerque, N.M. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) held a town hall in Albuquerque on Tuesday to sound the alarm on Republican-led efforts to gut critical federal programs that New Mexicans rely on, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP.

    The town hall followed a House vote advancing legislation that would slash billions from health care and food assistance programs while delivering trillions in tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. New Mexicans packed the event to hear directly from Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury and to raise concerns about the devastating impact these Republican-led proposals would have on New Mexico families. Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury denounced the Republican proposal and warned that the legislation would impose the biggest cut to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in American history.

    “This Republican-led bill is a total rip-off for New Mexicans – all to line the pockets of people like President Trump and Elon Musk,” said Senator Ben Ray Luján. “The Republicans’ priorities couldn’t be more clear: tax handouts for billionaires and massive corporations, paid for by cutting health care, food assistance, and benefits for New Mexicans. We are not backing down. In the Senate, I’m going to keep fighting for our seniors, our children, and the future of New Mexico.”

    “We are in the fight of our lives for our communities, our democracy, and to make life better for our people. Every day, I am deeply honored to be in this fight for New Mexico alongside Senator Luján and our entire congressional delegation. Together we are working to defend our rights and Constitution and to tackle our biggest challenges from healthcare, housing and education to caring for our veterans and protecting our lands and waters,” said Representative Melanie Stansbury. “I am grateful to everyone who showed up to our Town Hall and who is speaking up and speaking out against the GOPs disastrous reconciliation bill which will gut Medicaid and food assistance for millions of Americans. As this bill heads to the Senate and the GOP continues to gut programs, we need you in this fight.”

    Impacts of the House GOP legislation include:

    • Cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing health care access for millions;
    • Cuts to SNAP, reducing food assistance for children, families, and seniors;
    • Many Americans making less than $51,000 a year will lose money;
    • Delivers 65% of benefits to the wealthiest Americans;
    • According to a study by Wharton, the Republicans’ plan will add $4.6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Cantwell, Health Care Providers and Advocates Slam Republican Health Care Cuts Threatening to Kick Nearly 14 Million Americans Off Their Health Insurance—Including 274,000 People in WA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    At least 274,000 people in Washington state could lose their health insurance under the Republican plan through steep cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, according to nonpartisan estimates
    Parent of young Washington state resident on Medicaid: “It is absolutely devastating to think that a singular vote from a group of people who don’t know Nate, and don’t fully understand the terrifying impact losing Medicaid could have, could take this all away from him, all in the name of reducing waste.”
    *** VIDEO OF FULL PRESS CONFERENCE HERE***
    ***PHOTOS AND B-ROLL FROM EVENT HERE***
    Seattle, WA — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, held a press conference laying out how Republicans’ reconciliation bill that passed through the House this week will be devastating for Washington state’s health care system and the 1.95 million people across Washington state who rely on Apple Health, Washington state’s Medicaid program, and the 300,000+ Washingtonians who access coverage through the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace (Washington Healthplanfinder).
    The legislation passed by House Republicans last week would cut nearly $1 trillion from America’s health care system and is the largest cut to Medicaid in history. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation will lead to 13.7 million Americans getting kicked off their health insurance—between the drastic cuts to Medicaid and the sabotage of the Affordable Care Act and refusal to expand tax credits Democrats passed to lower health insurance premiums.
    At least 274,000 people in Washington state could lose their health insurance under the Republican plan, according to estimates based on the nonpartisan CBO’s analysis. That includes approximately 194,000 people in Washington state who will lose Medicaid coverage, and approximately 79,000 people who will lose ACA coverage. This figure doesn’t even account for the more sweeping health care cuts that House Republicans slotted in and passed at the last minute in the early morning of May 22nd. Among other things, Republicans’ bill would institute work reporting requirements, which have been proven not to increase employment and just strip health care coverage from people who are already working or exempt—this would put more than 620,000 Washingtonians at risk of losing their health care coverage or having it delayed because of a wall of new paperwork. The Republican bill would also reduce the federal match rate by 10 percent for states like Washington that provide health care coverage to noncitizens—this would be a devastating $460 million annual loss in federal Medicaid funding for Washington state, or nearly a $2 billion loss over the next four years. Additionally, the Republican bill includes a provision to defund Planned Parenthood, threatening the closure of up to 200 health centers across the country. Planned Parenthood runs 26 health centers in Washington state. Republicans are advancing the legislation through the budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority to pass in both chambers of Congress.
    “The legislation Republicans are pushing through Congress is the largest cut to Medicaid in American history—let that sink in. In Washington state, we are looking at: at least 194,000 people losing their Apple Health coverage under this bill. And that number rises to a quarter of a million people in our state getting kicked off their health care if you include all the ways Republicans are sabotaging the ACA in this bill and letting important health care tax credits for middle class families expire. Under Republicans’ bill, Washington state would lose an estimated 2 billion dollars in federal Medicaid funding over the next four years—that’s catastrophic for our state’s budget,” said Senator Murray. “Altogether, the health care cuts in Republicans’ mega-bill will mean hospitals and nursing homes shutting down—especially in rural areas—millions of people getting kicked off Medicaid or their coverage under the Affordable Care Act, people blocked from accessing the benefits they are rightly eligible for because of a new wall of paperwork and red tape, Planned Parenthood health centers closing their doors, kids with disabilities losing out on the care they need, medical debt skyrocketing, and insurers leaving the Marketplace, leaving families and small business owners with little or no options for coverage. Needless to say—all of that means higher costs and less access to care for everyone, not just people on Medicaid.”
    “For the life of me I do not understand how some of the same Republicans who represent the areas of our state most reliant on Medicaid ever looked at this bill, looked at what it would do to the people they serve and said, ‘count me in!’ The fact of the matter is not complicated. Republicans want to pass a bill that will hurt the middle class and working families, to give a handout to some of the richest companies on the planet. Republicans know that is bad policy. They know that is massively unpopular—they know they are adding trillions to the national debt. That is why they are trying to jam this through with as little scrutiny as possible. Remember, we managed to stop Trump and Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act back in 2017. Public outcry matters—we have seen that even this administration is not totally immune from public pressure. We need to show Republicans that the American people are watching, and they will have to answer to their constituents,” Senator Murray continued.
    “The people here in Washington who have to deal with this issue — who know that their rural hospitals could go under, or their health clinics could be affected, or the cost of care could go up in their communities and make everything more expensive — they know that we also have to stop this legislation. We need to say to the President of the United States: He has to stop trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. He cannot propose ideas that literally will leave these providers without resources,” Senator Cantwell said. “We do not need to have Robin Hood in reverse. We do not need to steal from Medicaid the stability of our health care system and give a tax break to big corporations. We need to stop this effort as soon as possible. Senator Murray and I will be fighting every day on the Senate floor to convince our colleagues that this is not only a wrongheaded approach — it is going to cost the American people.”
    One in five adults, three in five nursing home residents, and three in eight people with disabilities in Washington are covered by Apple Health. Medicaid provides health care for over 800,000 children in Washington state—nearly half of children—and more than 45 percent of births in Washington state are covered by Medicaid—in rural Washington, that number goes up to more than 70 percent on births. Medicaid is also largest payer for opioid use disorder treatment in Washington state. Washington state spends approximately $21 billion on Medicaid annually—approximately $8 billion of that is paid for by the state, and approximately $13 billion is paid for by the federal government.
    “As a physician, I see firsthand how lack of health insurance leads to delayed care, resulting in more death, more advanced diseases that are significantly more expensive to treat, and more economic burden. Denying access to health insurance shifts the financial burden to emergency services and public systems, ultimately increasing overall healthcare costs for taxpayers,” said Dr. Jesus Iniguez, Medical Director at Sea Mar Community Health Centers.
    “Nurses are present at every level of care delivery. We are on the front line, and deal with the consequences when patients avoid care because of a lack of coverage. These cuts are not only cruel – they are harmful to the stability of our entire healthcare system and will not only impact those who are on Medicaid. We will all feel it. The ripple effect of something as monumental as the cuts they are currently proposing would send shock waves throughout the entire health care system, reducing access to care for millions,” said Edna Cortez, a pediatric nurse and member of the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA).
    “If the bill that passed the US House last week becomes law, it will be one of the most devastating attacks on health care access in American history. By banning Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, the bill targets our organization and the patients who rely on us for care every day. The people who passed this bill wish for Planned Parenthood health centers to close their doors, and for people to lose access to affordable health care – and for many, access to health care altogether. And if this bill becomes law, their unbelievably cruel wish will be granted. Health centers will close, maybe even here in Washington. Planned Parenthood Federation of America estimates that 200 health centers will close nationwide, 90 percent of which are located in states like Washington where abortion is still legal. As you’ve heard today, people will lose their insurance coverage through cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” said Brita Lund, Manager of Planned Parenthood Northgate Health Center. “Nearly 40 percent of our affiliate’s patients in Western Washington are Medicaid recipients. This is about much more than abortion, which already cannot be covered by federal Medicaid dollars. This money goes to birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing. All of which are now at risk. Every single day at the health center I manage in Northgate, we help people sign up for Apple Health and Medicaid. Not just help them access services – we ask them a few screening questions and then show them how to enroll in the program, because when they walked through the door, they did not have insurance – and many did not even know it was an option available to them. Our front desk receptionist is the longest tenured employee in our Planned Parenthood affiliate, and might be the longest tenured Planned Parenthood employee in the state. She estimates that she personally enrolls one to three people every single work day. Over her career of 36 years, that means she has likely enrolled more than 1800 people. And that’s just her. There are providers and staff like her at every Planned Parenthood health center in the country, and at places like Sea Mar, who help patients sign up for Medicaid. Because everyone deserves to get the care they need, no matter what. If this bill becomes law, hospitals will close. Clinics will close. Long term care facilities will close. And everyone, not just Medicaid recipients, will be punished.”
    “Nate is 20 years old and autistic. He has an intellectual disability and requires support throughout the day to ensure his needs are met, much of which he receives through Home and Community Based Waiver services. Nate has a job at our local neighborhood pizza shop, where he works four hours a week building pizza boxes and doing other odd jobs with the support of a job coach. He of course gets a paycheck for his work, but he also gets a free slice of pizza and a coke after every shift, which he loves. He adores his job and is so proud of the ways he contributes to his community. Building the life of his dreams, and filling his days with enrichment and social connection when school ends, will not be easy, but with the help of Medicaid services the way they are now, Medicaid services such as health insurance, employment support, personal care, and home and community based waiver services, we’re starting to see a pathway to making it a reality. It’s a steep one, but the pathway is there,” said Rachel Nemhauser, parent of Nate and the Director of Family Support Services at The Arc of King County. Nate is one of the almost 280,000 adults with disabilities on Medicaid in Washington state, and Rachel shared his story with his permission. “But if the proposed Medicaid cuts go through, this dream vanishes. It threatens to reduce or eliminate the job support he counts on, making it impossible for him to stay employed. It threatens to reduce his access to health care, making it harder for people with vulnerable health to stay healthy and continue to work. It threatens to create paperwork and administrative barriers so burdensome and complicated that it’s almost impossible not to make a mistake once in a while. It is absolutely devastating to think that a singular vote from a group of people who don’t know Nate, and don’t fully understand the terrifying impact losing Medicaid could have, could take this all away from him, all in the name of reducing waste.”
    Nationwide, nearly half of children in America are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicaid pays for nearly half of births in the U.S. Medicaid also pays for services for 2 in 3 nursing home residents and pays for home-based services for close to 2 million seniors—allowing them to age safely at home—as well as close to 3 million people with disabilities and other health conditions. Medicaid also covers 1 in 4 people with a mental health or substance use disorder, and serves as the largest payer for mental health and substance use services for communities nationwide amid an ongoing overdose and opioid epidemic made worse by an influx of fentanyl.
    Recent polling from KFF Health found 82 percent of adults think Medicaid funding should either increase or stay the same and large majorities of people across parties, those who voted for Trump in 2024, and adults living in rural areas say the program is “very important” for their local community. Polling from Hart Research found that 71 percent of voters who backed Trump said cutting Medicaid would be unacceptable, and voters overall were even more opposed to it.
    Senator Murray’s full remarks at today’s press conference are below:
    “Republicans are looking to make history of the absolute worst kind.
    “Last week, overnight, House Republicans passed the single largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of our country.
    “Reading this bill, you realize pretty quickly why did this in the dead of night. At least 7.6 million people losing Medicaid coverage, millions more losing health coverage and seeing costs go up, students having their Pell Grants cut, not to mention the biggest cut to SNAP in history—all to help fuel up corporate jets and executive bonuses with tax cuts for billionaires.
    “But—bad news for Republicans—we are not going to let them keep the American people in the dark. We are going to put a bright and burning spotlight on this big, ugly, disaster of a bill. The legislation Republicans are pushing through Congress is the largest cut to Medicaid in American history—let that sink in.
    “In Washington state, we are looking at least 194,000 people losing their Apple Health coverage under this bill. And that number rises to a quarter of a million people in our state getting kicked off their health care if you include all the ways Republicans are sabotaging the ACA in this bill and letting important health care tax credits for middle class families expire.
    “Under Republicans’ bill, Washington state would lose an estimated 2 billion dollars in federal Medicaid funding over the next four years—that’s catastrophic for our state’s budget. And on top of all that Republicans’ bill would defund Planned Parenthood—a longtime goal of anti-abortion extremists that would be absolutely devastating for women’s health care in our state and across the country. Defunding Planned Parenthood would put 200 health centers at risk of closure across the country and put critical cancer screenings and birth control even further out of reach. And by the way, it would actually cost taxpayers money $300 million dollars over the next decade, according to nonpartisan estimates.
    “Altogether, the health care cuts in Republicans’ mega-bill will mean: hospitals and nursing homes shutting down—especially in rural areas; millions of people getting kicked off Medicaid or their coverage under the Affordable Care Act; people blocked from accessing the benefits they are rightly eligible for because of a new wall of paperwork and red tape; Planned Parenthood health centers closing their doors; kids with disabilities losing out on the care they need; medical debt skyrocketing; and insurers leaving the Marketplace, leaving families and small business owners with little or no options for coverage.
    “Needless to say, all of that means higher costs and less access to care for everyone, not just people on Medicaid. But I have to say, for the life of me, I do not understand how some of the same Republicans who represent the areas of our state most reliant on Medicaid—ever—looked at this bill, looked at what it would do to the people they serve, and said, “count me in!”
    “Now, it’s worth noting, House Republicans did make some last-minute changes, but not what you might expect. They made sure more people will lose their health care sooner. And they made sure it will be more expensive to get health coverage on the exchanges. Oh, and don’t forget they got rid of a tax on gun silencers. Seriously—of all things!?
    “The people at the top? The billionaires and biggest corporations? They are doing fine. You don’t need to shower them with money taken out of the pockets of struggling families.
    “And you know what? If you want to help American businesses, all you have to do is pass legislation to stop Trump’s trade war which is hurting businesses and driving up costs. Doesn’t that sound better than taking food from hungry kids to give Elon Musk another tax break? Doesn’t that make more sense than kicking seniors out of nursing homes? Doesn’t that seem a little more reasonable that cutting patients off from their health care?
    “The fact of the matter is not complicated. Republicans want to pass a bill that will hurt the middle class and working families, to give and handout to some of the richest companies on the planet. Republicans know that is bad policy. They know that is massively unpopular. They know they are adding trillions to the national debt. That is why they are trying to jam this through with as little scrutiny as possible.
    “But we are putting this heist on full blast and fighting back against it with everything we’ve got. Remember, we managed to stop Trump and Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act back in 2017.
    “So, my message to everyone is—now is the time to get loud, speak out, talk to your friends and family in Republican districts, call your Member of Congress. And remember, you are not powerless.
    “Public outcry matters—we have seen that even this administration is not totally immune from public pressure. We need to show Republicans that the American people are watching, and they will have to answer to their constituents.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • SpaceX’s Starship spins out of control after flying past points of previous failures

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    SpaceX’s Starship rocket roared into space from Texas on Tuesday but spun out of control about halfway through its flight without achieving some of its most important testing goals, bringing fresh engineering hurdles to CEO Elon Musk’s increasingly turbulent Mars rocket program.

    The 400-foot tall (122 meter) Starship rocket system, the core of Musk’s goal of sending humans to Mars, lifted off from SpaceX’s Starbase, Texas, launch site, flying beyond the point of two previous explosive attempts earlier this year that sent debris streaking over Caribbean islands and forced dozens of airliners to divert course.

    For the latest launch, the ninth full test mission of Starship since the first attempt in April 2023, the upper-stage cruise vessel was lofted to space atop a previously flown booster – a first such demonstration of the booster’s reusability.

    But SpaceX lost contact with the 232-foot lower-stage booster during its descent before it plunged into the sea, rather than making the controlled splashdown the company had planned.

    Starship, meanwhile, continued into suborbital space but began to spin uncontrollably roughly 30 minutes into the mission. The errant spiraling came after SpaceX canceled a plan to deploy eight mock Starlink satellites into space – the rocket’s “Pez” candy dispenser-like mechanism failed to work as designed.

    “Not looking great with a lot of our on-orbit objectives for today,” SpaceX broadcaster Dan Huot said on a company livestream.

    Musk was scheduled to deliver an update on his space exploration ambitions in a speech from Starbase following the test flight, billed as a livestream presentation about “The Road to Making Life Multiplanetary.” Hours later, he had yet to give the speech and there was no sign that he intended to do so.

    In a post on X, Musk touted Starship’s scheduled shutdown of an engine in space, a step previous test flights achieved last year. He said a leak on Starship’s primary fuel tank led to its loss of control.

    “Lot of good data to review,” he said. “Launch cadence for next 3 flights will be faster, at approximately 1 every 3 to 4 weeks.”

    SpaceX has said the Starship models that have flown this year bear significant design upgrades from previous prototypes, as thousands of company employees work to build a multi-purpose rocket capable of putting massive batches of satellites in space, carrying humans back to the moon and ultimately ferrying astronauts to Mars.

    RISK-TOLERANT

    The recent setbacks indicate SpaceX is struggling to overcome a complicated chapter of Starship’s multibillion-dollar development. But the company’s engineering culture, widely considered more risk-tolerant than many of the aerospace industry’s more established players, is built on a flight-testing strategy that pushes spacecraft to the point of failure, then fine-tunes improvements through frequent repetition.

    Starship’s planned trajectory for Tuesday included a nearly full orbit around Earth for a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean to test new designs of its heat shield tiles and revised flaps for steering its blazing re-entry and descent through Earth’s atmosphere.

    But its early demise, appearing as a fireball streaking eastward through the night sky over southern Africa, puts another pause in Musk’s speedy development goals for a rocket bound to play a central role in the U.S. space program.

    NASA plans to use the rocket to land humans on the moon in 2027, though that moon program faces turmoil amid Musk’s Mars-focused influence over U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration.

    MISHAP PROBE

    Federal regulators had granted SpaceX a license for Starship’s latest flight attempt four days ago, capping a mishap investigation that had grounded Starship for nearly two months.

    The last two test flights – in January and March – were cut short moments after liftoff as the vehicles blew to pieces on ascent, raining debris over parts of the Caribbean and disrupting scores of commercial airline flights in the region.

    The Federal Aviation Administration expanded debris hazard zones around the ascent path for Tuesday’s launch.

    The previous back-to-back failures occurred in early test-flight phases that SpaceX had easily achieved before, in a striking setback to a program that Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who founded the rocket company in 2002, had sought to accelerate this year.

    Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual and a key supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump, was especially eager for a success after vowing in recent days to refocus his attention on his various business ventures, including SpaceX, following a tumultuous foray into national politics and his attempts at cutting government bureaucracy.

    Closer to home, Musk also sees Starship as eventually replacing the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as the workhorse in the company’s commercial launch business, which already lofts most of the world’s satellites and other payloads to low-Earth orbit.

    (Reuters) 

  • MIL-OSI China: US stocks advance as Trump eases EU tariff threat

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

    U.S. stocks ended higher on Tuesday, after U.S. President Donald Trump softened his stance on tariff threats toward the European Union, signaling that trade negotiations were regaining momentum.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 740.58 points, or 1.78 percent, to 42,343.65. The S&P 500 added 118.72 points, or 2.05 percent, to 5,921.54. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased by 461.96 points, or 2.47 percent, to 19,199.16.

    All of the 11 primary S&P 500 sectors ended in green, with consumer discretionary and technology leading the gainers by rising 3.04 percent and 2.55 percent, respectively. Utilities posted the weakest growth, up by 0.77 percent.

    Over the weekend, Trump announced he would delay a planned 50 percent tariff on EU imports until July 9, following a request from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The delay came after Trump had previously proposed implementing the levy on June 1.

    U.S. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC’s Squawk Box that he anticipates more trade deals could be finalized this week.

    Investor optimism was also buoyed by stronger-than-expected U.S. consumer confidence data for May, with hopes for trade resolutions helping lift sentiment. According to The Conference Board, U.S. consumer sentiment improved across all age and income groups, signaling a broad recovery in outlook.

    On the corporate front, Tesla jumped 6.94 percent after its CEO Elon Musk said he was shifting focus away from political distractions and back to his business ventures. U.S. Steel climbed nearly 2 percent after CNBC reported that Japan’s Nippon Steel is close to finalizing its 55-U.S.-dollars-per-share acquisition of the company.

    The rally marked a strong start to the shortened trading week, as markets reopened following the Memorial Day holiday. The advance was broad-based, with over 90 percent of S&P 500 stocks closing higher, and small-cap stocks also rallied, pushing the Russell 2000 index up 2.48 percent.

    Tuesday’s gains came after a tough week for Wall Street, where all three major indexes — the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq — fell more than 2 percent on fears sparked by Trump’s initial tariff threats toward the EU.

    “It seems like the long holiday weekend only built up momentum for today’s sharp rebound,” said Dann Ryan, managing partner at Sincerus Advisory. “The trade tensions that briefly flared up have already cooled down — and now it looks like negotiations are moving into the fast lane.”

    U.S. Treasury bonds spearheaded a broader decline in global bond yields on Tuesday, as markets welcomed signs that Japan may take steps to stabilize its bond market, which recently saw long-term government debt yields spike to multi-decade highs. The 30-year U.S. Treasury yield eased back to around 4.94 percent.

    Attention is now shifting to a busy week of economic data releases, as well as upcoming comments from Federal Reserve officials, who are widely expected to maintain current interest rates, consistent with previous guidance. Meanwhile, Trump’s controversial tax bill remains in focus after narrowly clearing the House of Representatives last week.

    Nvidia rose 3.21 percent following reports that the company is preparing to release a lower-cost AI chip for China, just ahead of its highly anticipated earnings report on Wednesday, one of the most closely watched of the quarter. Other companies set to report this week include Okta, Macy’s, and Costco. According to FactSet, over 95 percent of S&P 500 companies have reported earnings this season, with nearly 78 percent exceeding analysts’ expectations. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia could tax Google, Facebook and other tech giants with a digital services tax – but don’t hold your breath

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

    Tada Images/Shutterstock

    Tech giants like Google, Facebook and Netflix make billions of dollars from Australian users every year. But most of those profits are not taxed here.

    To address this tax gap, some countries have introduced a new kind of tax called the digital services tax, or DST. It applies to revenue earned from users in a country, even if the company has no physical operations there. Some European Union member countries, the UK and Canada have all introduced such a tax.

    In Australia, it is estimated the five largest tech giants recorded A$15 billion in revenue in Australia last year, but combined they paid only $254 million in tax.

    Australia has never contemplated imposing a similar tax. New Zealand tried but backed down last week after the United States threatened to impose higher tariffs on New Zealand goods.

    So what’s holding Australia back?

    How 20th-century tax treaties create 21st-century problems

    To understand why Australia thinks its hands are tied on the taxation of the multinational tech giants, we need to step back in time.

    About 100 years ago, Australia and other developed nations decided to tax residents on all their income earned worldwide, while non-residents were taxed only on income earned locally.

    After the second world war, Australia entered into tax treaties so foreign companies selling to Australian customers would no longer be taxed here. Instead, those companies’ home countries would tax all their profits.

    As the world moved to digital products this century, it became easy for giant multinational enterprises offering advertising on social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), advertising on search platforms (Google), and streaming services (Netflix) to provide those services from abroad. Little or no activity is conducted through local branches.

    But countries where the sales are made have increasingly questioned the wisdom of having forfeited their taxing rights over income by foreign providers.

    The rise of the digital services tax

    The obvious solution would have been to renegotiate the treaties. This would restore the right of countries like Australia to tax foreign companies’ profits made from local customers or users.

    However, treaty renegotiation is slow and complex. So several European countries, beginning with France in 2019, came up with a short-cut solution.

    They introduced a discrete new tax on sales of digital services, called digital services taxes (DSTs). While the specific design varies by country, most DSTs apply a low tax rate, typically between 3% and 5%, on revenue rather than profits. They target large digital platforms that earn money from users within the taxing country, regardless of the company’s location.

    Because DSTs are levied on revenue and are structured as separate from income tax, governments argued they could be introduced without breaching income tax treaties.

    The new taxes quickly became popular and spread widely.
    In Australia, the Greens have called for a DST, but both major parties have remained steadfast in their objection to a new tax. This is due to the concern that the US may impose retaliatory tariffs on Australian goods.

    US tech bosses at the inauguration of President Trump: (from left to right) CEO of Meta Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, CEO of Google Sundar Pichai and X CEO Elon Musk.
    Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP

    How big is the tax loss?

    Australians are enthusiastic consumers of digital products. Depending on which companies are included in the calculation, the annual revenues vary between $15 billion and $26 billion a year, but only a fraction of that is taxed here.

    At a time when the federal budget is forecasting deficits for the foreseeable future, Australia is foregoing potentially millions in lost revenue from these digital giants.

    While Australia has avoided a DST as a solution to the income tax loss, it has been willing to regulate and tax foreign digital companies in other ways.
    Australia collects 10% goods and services tax, or GST, on digital services provided to Australian companies, including streaming platforms and app subscriptions.

    This helps ensure foreign providers are taxed similarly to domestic ones when it comes to the GST.

    Australia has also imposed non-tax obligations on digital giants such as the requirement that digital platforms pay Australian media outlets for using their news content.




    Read more:
    Australia’s ‘coercive’ news media rules are the latest targets of US trade ire


    Serious hurdles for reform

    In February, the Trump administration described DSTs as tools used by foreign governments to “plunder American companies” and warned retaliatory tariffs would be imposed in response.

    The accompanying White House fact sheet singled out Australia and Canada, arguing the US digital economy dwarfs those countries’ entire economies. It suggested any attempt to tax US tech companies would not go unanswered.

    Six weeks later, the US imposed a 10% tariff on most Australian exports to the US and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium exports.

    The US sees its penal tariff plans as a useful negotiating tool to pressure trading partners into retreat on a broad range of peripheral complaints, including the digital services tax.

    To date, only two countries have retreated: New Zealand and India. Other countries are standing firm.

    In Australia, the Greens have called for the adoption of a DST, but the current and previous governments remain firm in their opposition. There is concern about antagonising the US at a delicate time when our broader trade relations are under scrutiny.

    For the foreseeable future, the digital giants will continue to earn billions from Australian users. Most of those profits will remain beyond the reach of Australian tax law.

    Richard Krever receives funding from the ARC

    Fei Gao 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. Australia could tax Google, Facebook and other tech giants with a digital services tax – but don’t hold your breath – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-tax-google-facebook-and-other-tech-giants-with-a-digital-services-tax-but-dont-hold-your-breath-257251

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Aguilar: Only Democrats want to make health care more accessible and more affordable

    Source: US House of Representatives – Democratic Caucus

    The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI – May 20, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar and Vice Chair Ted Lieu were joined by Representatives Kim Schrier, M.D. and Shontel Brown for a press conference about the Republican Budget, which kicks millions of Americans off their health insurance and prevents families from meeting their basic needs. 

    CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: I’m grateful to be joined by Vice Chair Lieu and Dr. Schrier and Representative Brown for joining us here today to talk about the importance of protecting health care and nutrition across this country.

    I want to begin by offering our condolences to the victims of deadly storms in Missouri and Kentucky. We also want to send President Biden and his family our support as they grapple with the former President’s cancer diagnosis. We know that Joe Biden will approach this fight with the same grace that he’s shown throughout his life. We also know that Joe Biden would be the first to say that every American deserves the same level of health care that he is being provided.

    That’s why House Democrats are fighting to protect health care that Donald Trump and House Republicans are attacking. In the dead of night, House Republicans are working to ram through their agenda to kick millions of Americans off of health insurance and to take food assistance from families who need it most. As grocery prices rise, they’re going to take food out of the mouths of mothers, children and veterans, while making health care even more expensive—just for the single purpose of providing more tax cuts for billionaires and corporations who continue to make record profits. Remember: the Republican Budget doesn’t make Medicaid or SNAP more efficient or more fair. All this bill does is ensure that billionaires—who have never had to worry about a hospital bill or putting food on the table—can continue to pay less in taxes than teachers, firefighters and nurses. 

    Only Democrats want to make health care more accessible and more affordable for everyone. Republicans are hellbent on driving up costs for health insurance and ending basic needs programs. They are willing to inflict pain on millions of Americans just to make their campaign donors happy. That. Is. Wrong. And we will continue to fight back at every step for the American people so they can have the peace of mind of a good-paying job with good benefits. 

    Next, I’ll turn it over to Vice Chair Ted Lieu.

    VICE CHAIR LIEU: Thank you, Chairman Aguilar, and honored to be joined today by Congressmembers Kim Schrier and Shontel Brown. First, I’d like to talk about the charges against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver. Those charges are baseless and politically motivated. Three reasons why: First, Congresswoman McIver had a statutory authority to be at that detention center; she was conducting her oversight duties. Second, if what she did was purportedly so awful that it results in criminal charges, how is it possible they literally gave her a tour of the facility? Afterwards, they escorted her around and gave her a tour of that facility while she was conducting oversight. And third, she was trying to prevent the unlawful arrest of the Mayor of Newark. And guess what? She was right. Because the Trump Justice Department dropped all charges against the Mayor of Newark. So, we asked them to also drop charges against LaMonica. This is a baseless, politically motivated distraction.

    And what are they distracting us from? This big, ugly bill that they’re going to have a meeting on at 1 a.m. in the morning. I mean, who does that, right? You do that because you don’t want the American public to know what’s in your big, ugly bill. But we know what’s in it. It has the largest cut to health care in U.S. history, about a trillion dollars. And then also, it’s going to kick off approximately 14 million people off health care. And why are they doing this? To impose the largest tax cut for billionaires in U.S. history. So that’s basically what this big, ugly bill does. And they’re trying to move it through in the dead of night at 1 a.m. We asked the Republicans to listen to the American people and work on what Democrats are trying to work on, which is lowering the cost of rent and groceries and consumer products. That’s what we should be focused on. And it’s now my honor to introduce the great Representative from the State of Washington, Dr. Kim Schrier. 

    REP. SCHRIER: Well, thank you, Vice Chair Lieu. It’s really an honor to be here, but the reason is outrageous, and I want to express that outrage on behalf of my constituents. That the Republicans at this moment are attempting to make the largest cut ever in Medicaid, and the largest cut ever in SNAP, that would be $715 billion out of Medicaid, which would kick 13.7 million Americans off of their health insurance. And let me just reiterate, why are they doing this? They are doing this to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, like Elon Musk. It is morally bankrupt and it is fiscally, incredibly irresponsible. We just spent 26 and a half hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week, spending the vast majority of that time—and by the way, starting at about two o’clock in the morning—talking about these cuts to Medicaid and how they would devastate our constituents and also the broader health care system.

    I want to be clear, one out of three Washingtonians depend on Medicaid. Most of them don’t even know they’re on Medicaid, because we call it Apple Health, and I’m trying to make that point so that people understand how this impacts them personally. So I think about, as a pediatrician, I think about my patients on Medicaid or on Apple Health who will no longer be able to come to their pediatrician’s office for screenings, for a simple cold, for a cough and get treated in a half hour. Now they’re going to go to the emergency room, the most expensive place to get care. They’re going to drive up costs: that cost will be provided for free, and then everybody pays. And I think then about my patients who are not on Medicaid, because they’re going to be waiting longer in the emergency room, they’re going to be paying more. Premiums are going to go up if we want to keep these hospitals and emergency rooms open. And that brings us to other parts of my district, the rural areas, where hospitals may close because they depend so heavily on Medicaid and Medicare. 

    I want to tell you a quick story of a little four-year-old girl named Ila in my district. She is the outcome of a normal, uneventful pregnancy. She was lucky enough to go to our rural hospital called Kittitas Valley Healthcare, and they have a labor and delivery department. She was delivered. There were major complications. She almost died, but they had the staff and the expertise to rescue her, to stabilize her and to Life Flight her to Seattle Children’s. And then I have been reflecting, as have her parents, who are insured, about what would have happened had Medicaid been cut, had labor and delivery there been cut, had she not had that opportunity for rescue and for transport to save her life, and we all know what the answer would have been. I’ve been in hundreds of deliveries. Some go well, some don’t, and you don’t always know until that moment. So I want to emphasize, Medicaid is part of the three-legged stool that is our health care system. If Medicaid is cut in this dramatic way, that stool will fall. It’ll mean hospital closures, higher rates for all of us, emergency room long waits, a sicker community and a poorer community and it is reckless and morally reprehensible. So at this point, I’m going to turn this over to Representative Shontel Brown from Ohio to talk about the terrible cuts that they are doing to food benefits, also for our most vulnerable populations. Thank you. 

    REP. BROWN: Thank you, doctor. Good morning, everyone. I’m Congresswoman Shontel Brown, Vice Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee and representing Ohio’s 11th Congressional District. I’m honored to be here along with Chair Aguilar, Vice Chair Lieu and Congresswoman Schrier. Last week, we saw this legislation up close in the Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Member Craig and my Democratic colleagues on Agriculture fought this legislation for two days. I didn’t just read the bill, I felt it. I felt the cruelty. I felt the callousness. And let me tell you, I was angry. I am still angry. $300 billion in cuts. Let me repeat that: $300 billion in cruel, calculated cuts to nutrition programs. And on top of that, onerous new restrictions and requirements that are designed to deny people the help they need. If this bill passes, millions—yes, millions—of Americans are going to lose nutrition benefits they desperately need. And for what? The biggest cut to food assistance in history, just to hand millionaires a $68,000 tax break, and the top .1 percent a staggering $300,000?

    Let me tell you what this means for my community. One in five. One in five households in my district in Northeast Ohio rely on SNAP. That’s not some statistic from somewhere. That’s my neighbors, that’s my family. Those are my church members. It is me. Because growing up, I was one of those households. And the issue of work requirements really hits home for me, literally. I had epilepsy growing up. I had petit mal seizures and my mother—my strong, brave, exhausted mother—couldn’t work, not because she didn’t want to, but because she couldn’t leave her child who might collapse at any moment. My mom didn’t want to be on food stamps. No parent wants that, but we needed it. And this bill, this bill, would have denied us that lifeline. We’re taking assistance away from people that need it to give those resources to people that don’t.

    Make no mistake, this is not fiscal responsibility. This is not belt-tightening. This is a giveaway. People who rely on SNAP, they’re not leading easy lives. They’re caregivers. They have people at home with disabilities and serious illnesses, children. And these folks are not hard to find. I had one woman contact me, Cheryl from Cleveland Heights. She’s retired. Her husband is disabled. Her father is 92 years old and he’s disabled. She worked in advertising for 25 years. Now, she’s got a house full of people to take care of, and they rely on SNAP. This bill punishes Cheryl and people like her. It takes away the basic benefits they need to survive, all to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. And make no mistake, this bill will make us sicker. This bill will make us poorer. This bill will make us weaker. So it is my privilege to stand here with my colleagues and fight this bill. We cannot let this pass. 
     

    Video of the full press conference and Q&A can be viewed here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Government outlines process undertaken on EEIPs’ policy direction in ICT sector

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    Government has sought to allay fears that the recently published policy direction on the role of equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs) in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector was intended to open a special dispensation for a particular company or an individual.

    On 23 May 2025, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi gave notice of the proposed policy direction to be issued to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) in terms of section 3 of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 (the ECA) regarding Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) in the ICT Sector.

    The policy direction seeks to provide much-needed policy certainty to attract investment into the ICT sector, and specifically with regards to licensing for broadcasters, internet service providers, mobile networks, or fixed and mobile networks.

    The publishing of the policy direction in the Government Gazette by the Minister on Friday comes after President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Working Visit to the United States (U.S.), where the President met with President Donald Trump at the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to reset and revitalise bilateral relations between South Africa and the U.S.

    Among the U.S.’s delegation was Elon Musk, Special Government Employee, U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), who is also Starlink’s founder and believed to have interests in bringing his company to South Africa to provide internet services.

    Appearing before the Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies on Tuesday, the Minister explained that the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) has been working on the proposed policy since September last year.

    “Last year, we indicated the efforts from the department around the full recognition of equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs) in the ICT sector. This is also reflected in the Medium Term Development Plan for the seventh administration.

    “We are not attempting to open a special dispensation for Starlink or any other company or an individual. There is no conspiracy on our part in relation to the policy direction. There is no underhanded effort in darkness to railroad the South African public,” Malatsi said.

    In a statement issued on Friday, the Minister indicated that currently the rules around who can acquire a licence to provide electronic communications services or to operate an electronic communications network require a minimum of 30% shares to be in the hands of historically disadvantaged individuals. 

    “These regulations do not currently allow companies that can contribute to South Africa’s transformation goals in ways other than traditional ownership, to qualify for individual licences under the Electronic Communications Act (ECA), whether or not they are big international companies that do not usually sell shares to local partners,” the Minister said.

    EEIPs, provided for under the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (Act 53 of 2003) and the ICT Sector Code, allow qualifying multinationals to meet empowerment obligations through alternatives to 30% ownership. Examples of the latter can be in the form of investing in local suppliers, enterprise and skills development, job creation, infrastructure support, research and innovation, digital inclusion initiatives, and funding for Small, Medium, and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs). 

    Despite the legal standing of the ICT Sector Code under the BBBEE Act, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa’s  (ICASA) Ownership Regulations do not fully reflect its provisions – particularly regarding deemed ownership and EEIPs.

    In the process of developing the policy direction, ICASA was informed on 4 October 2024 by the DCDT of the intention to issue a policy directive to provide policy clarity on the full introduction of the EEIPs in the ICT sector.

    “That was followed by a public comment communication released on that specific day. As required by the process, we submitted the draft policy direction to ICASA to give them an opportunity to be able to engage with it,” the Minister said.

    Malatsi emphasised that EEIPs are not a new invention as it was approved by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (the dtic) in 2016.

    EEIPs are alternative contributions that multinational companies can make to achieve their BBBEE ownership obligations when they are unable to sell shares directly to black South Africans due to global policies.

    These contributions, approved by the dtic, are essentially investment initiatives that promote enterprise development, job creation and socio-economic advancement.

    “While ECA, which guides the policy making in our sector and the ICASA Act do allow for ICASA to make the regulations, it also allows for ICASA in making those regulations that it must give effect to the whole parts of the ICT sector code.

    “My duty is to ensure that there is alignment between the codes and regulations, in fulfilment of all our national laws, in this case the BBBEE Act. In terms of the process that we have followed from the formulation of the policy directive, leading ultimately to the gazetting, we have followed the prescripts a Ministerial policy directive should follow,” the Minister said.

    The Minister asserted that his department has fulfilled the key steps in the formulation of the policy direction, which includes engagement with ICASA.

    “The consultation with the authority means that its submission must be given due consideration. It does not mean that the regulator can stop a Minister from exploring a policy direction because there are two steps.

    “The first step is the opportunity for the regulator to engage with the draft policy and the second step is post the public comment stage, which is where we are.

    “We must take into consideration that each and every interested stakeholder or anyone with views on this policy direction must  have their views being considered in the formulation of the policy,” he said.

    Stakeholders have a 30-day period from the day on which the Gazette was published to make their submissions on the policy directive.

    “What is incumbent of the department and the Ministry is that in the consideration of inputs from the public, they must inform the final formulation of the policy direction, which will be shared with the regulator as it is required.

    “I am pretty clear that transformation is sacrosanct in our country; that it is a non-negotiable in order for the country to achieve its aspirations, but most importantly to live up to the provisions of the BBBEE Act as it was articulated and envisaged,” the Minister said. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-Evening Report: Who really benefits from smart tech at home? ‘Optimising’ family life can reinforce gender roles

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Indra Mckie, Postdoctoral Researcher in Collaborative Human-AI Interaction Culture, University of Technology Sydney

    Ashlifier/Shutterstock

    Have you heard of the “male technologist” mindset? It may sound familiar, and you may even know such people personally.

    Design researchers Turkka Keinonen and Nils Ehrenberg
    have defined the male technologist as someone who is obsessed with concerns about energy, efficiency and reducing labour.

    This archetype became apparent in my PhD research when I interviewed 12 families about their use of early domestic robots and smart home devices Amazon Alexa and Google Home. One father over-engineered his smart home so much, his kids struggled to turn the lights on and off.

    The male technologist in the home, as seen in my research, reflects wider trends of the Silicon Valley “tech bro” archetype, the techno-patriarchy, and the growing influence of a tech oligarchy in the Western world.

    The male technologist often complicates and overcompensates with technology, raising the question: are these real problems tech can solve, or just quick fixes masking deeper issues?

    Long-standing patriarchal systems shape the gendered division of domestic labour.
    Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

    It’s not about making men feel guilty

    The term “male technologist” isn’t about making men feel guilty for using technology to innovate. Anyone can adopt this mindset. It can even apply to institutions that prioritise innovation and efficiency over emotional insight, lived experience or community-based ways of creating change.

    It’s a reflection of how a masculine drive to solve surface-level problems can come before addressing patriarchal systems that have shaped the long-standing gendered division of domestic labour and “mental load”.

    Mental load is the invisible, ongoing effort of planning, organising and managing daily life that often goes unnoticed but is essential to keeping things running.

    Take one of my research participants, Hugo (name changed for privacy). A father of two, Hugo embodies this male technologist mindset by creating “business scenarios” to solve his family’s problems with smart home automation.


    Indra Mckie/The Conversation

    Treating family life like a system to optimise, Hugo noticed his wife looking stressed while cooking. So, he installed a smart clock with Alexa in the kitchen to help her manage multiple timers.

    Hugo saw it as an empathetic solution, tailored to the way she liked to cook. But instead of sharing the load of this domestic task, he “engineered” around it, offloading responsibility to smart devices.

    Smart home tech promises to save time, but it hasn’t solved who does what at home. Instead, it hands more power to those with digital know-how, letting them automate tasks they may never have done or fully understood in the first place.

    Typically, these tend to be men. A recent survey by Kaspersky showed 72% of men are the ones who set up their families’ smart devices, compared to 47% of women.

    Unfortunately, a recent Australian survey found women still do more unpaid domestic work than men. Even in households where women have full-time jobs, they spend almost four hours more on household chores per week than men do.

    Who really benefits in a smart home

    Amazon first released Alexa back in 2014, with Apple and Google quickly following with their own smart home speakers. In the past decade, some people have adopted the hype of the “smart home” to make life easier by controlling technology without needing to get off the couch.

    But smart technology can also affect access to shared spaces, create new forms of control over things and people in the home, and constrain human interactions. And it can be set up to reinforce the existing hierarchy within the household.


    Indra Mckie/The Conversation

    By his own admission, Hugo has over-engineered the home to the point where his children struggle to turn the lights on and off, having disabled the physical switches in favour of voice commands.

    My research looked at how automation is changing care giving and acts of service in the home. With “compassionate automation”, someone could use smart technology to support loved ones in thoughtful ways, such as setting up smart home routines or reminders to make daily life easier.

    But even when it comes from a place of care, tech-based help is not the same as human care. It may not always feel meaningful to the person receiving or providing it. As another participant in my research put it:

    I think there are still human interactions [..] that you probably don’t want AI to mediate for you.


    Indra Mckie/The Conversation

    So what is the alternative to a male technologist mindset? Feminist and queer technology studies offer a different lens. Researchers in these fields argue our interactions with technology are never neutral; they are shaped by gender, power and cultural norms.

    When we recognise this, we can imagine ways of designing and using tech in ways that emphasise care and relationships. Instead of setting up a smart timer in the kitchen, the technologist could ask his wife what she’s cooking and join her, using the voice assistant together to follow a recipe step by step.

    The ultimate fantasy of the male technologist is more toys to solve domestic labour problems at home.
    Gordenkoff/Shutterstock

    Looking ahead to the future of smart homes

    As Alexa+ rolls out later this year with a “smarter” generative AI brain, Google increases Gemini integration into its Home app, and tech companies race to build humanoid robots that can cook dinner and fold laundry, we’re seeing the ultimate fantasy of the male technologist come to life: more toys to presumably solve the problems of domestic labour at home.

    But if men are now taking on more of the digital load, will the mental load finally shift too? Or will they continue to automate the easy, visible tasks while the emotional and cognitive labour still goes unseen and unshared?

    Elon Musk has declared plans to launch several thousand Optimus robots – Tesla’s bid into the humanoid robot race.
    He expects the explosion of a new market of personal humanoid robots, generating US$10 trillion in revenue long-term and potentially becoming the most valuable part of Tesla’s business.

    But as homes get “smarter,” we have to ask: how is this reshaping family dynamics, relationships and domestic responsibility?

    It’s important to consider if outsourcing chores to technology really is about easing the load, or just engineering our way around it without addressing the deeper mental and relational work of household labour.

    Indra Mckie received the UTS Research Excellence Scholarship to complete her PhD research at the University of Technology Sydney.

    ref. Who really benefits from smart tech at home? ‘Optimising’ family life can reinforce gender roles – https://theconversation.com/who-really-benefits-from-smart-tech-at-home-optimising-family-life-can-reinforce-gender-roles-256477

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • Musk’s DOGE expanding his Grok AI in U.S. government, raising conflict concerns

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Billionaire Elon Musk’s DOGE team is expanding use of his artificial intelligence chatbot Grok in the U.S. federal government to analyze data, said three people familiar with the matter, potentially violating conflict-of-interest laws and putting at risk sensitive information on millions of Americans.

    Such use of Grok could reinforce concerns among privacy advocates and others that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team appears to be casting aside long-established protections over the handling of sensitive data as President Donald Trump shakes up the U.S. bureaucracy.

    One of the three people familiar with the matter, who has knowledge of DOGE’s activities, said Musk’s team was using a customized version of the Grok chatbot. The apparent aim was for DOGE to sift through data more efficiently, this person said. “They ask questions, get it to prepare reports, give data analysis.”

    The second and third person said DOGE staff also told Department of Homeland Security officials to use it even though Grok had not been approved within the department.

    Reuters could not determine the specific data that had been fed into the generative AI tool or how the custom system was set up. Grok was developed by xAI, a tech operation that Musk launched in 2023 on his social media platform, X.

    If the data was sensitive or confidential government information, the arrangement could violate security and privacy laws, said five specialists in technology and government ethics.

    It could also give the Tesla and SpaceX CEO access to valuable nonpublic federal contracting data at agencies he privately does business with or be used to help train Grok, a process in which AI models analyze troves of data, the experts said. Musk could also gain an unfair competitive advantage over other AI service providers from use of Grok in the federal government, they added.

    Musk, the White House and xAI did not respond to requests for comment. A Homeland Security spokesperson denied DOGE had pressed DHS staff to use Grok. “DOGE hasn’t pushed any employees to use any particular tools or products,” said the spokesperson, who did not respond to further questions. “DOGE is here to find and fight waste, fraud and abuse.”

    Musk’s xAI, an industry newcomer compared to rivals OpenAI and Anthropic, says on its website that it may monitor Grok users for “specific business purposes.” “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible,” the website says.

    As part of Musk’s stated push to eliminate government waste and inefficiency, the billionaire and his DOGE team have accessed heavily safeguarded federal databases that store personal information on millions of Americans. Experts said that data is typically off limits to all but a handful of officials because of the risk that it could be sold, lost, leaked, violate the privacy of Americans or expose the country to security threats.

    Typically, data sharing within the federal government requires agency authorization and the involvement of government specialists to ensure compliance with privacy, confidentiality and other laws.

    Analyzing sensitive federal data with Grok would mark an important shift in the work of DOGE, a team of software engineers and others connected to Musk. They have overseen the firing of thousands of federal workers, seized control of sensitive data systems and sought to dismantle agencies in the name of combating alleged waste, fraud and abuse.

    “Given the scale of data that DOGE has amassed and given the numerous concerns of porting that data into software like Grok, this to me is about as serious a privacy threat as you get,” said Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for privacy.

    His concerns include the risk that government data will leak back to xAI, a private company, and a lack of clarity over who has access to this custom version of Grok.

    DOGE’s access to federal information could give Grok and xAI an edge over other potential AI contractors looking to provide government services, said Cary Coglianese, an expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “The company has a financial interest in insisting that their product be used by federal employees,” he said.

    “APPEARANCE OF SELF-DEALING”

    In addition to using Grok for its own analysis of government data, DOGE staff told DHS officials over the last two months to use Grok even though it had not been approved for use at the sprawling agency, said the second and third person. DHS oversees border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity and other sensitive national security functions.

    If federal employees are officially given access to Grok for such use, the federal government has to pay Musk’s organization for access, the people said.

    “They were pushing it to be used across the department,” said one of the people.

    Reuters could not independently establish if and how much the federal government would have been charged to use Grok. Reporters also couldn’t determine if DHS workers followed the directive by DOGE staff to use Grok or ignored the request.

    DHS, under the previous Biden administration, created policies last year allowing its staff to use specific AI platforms, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the Claude chatbot developed by Anthropic and another AI tool developed by Grammarly. DHS also created an internal DHS chatbot.

    The aim was to make DHS among the first federal agencies to embrace the technology and use generative AI, which can write research reports and carry out other complex tasks in response to prompts. Under the policy, staff could use the commercial bots for non-sensitive, non-confidential data, while DHS’s internal bot could be fed more sensitive data, records posted on DHS’s website show.

    In May, DHS officials abruptly shut down employee access to all commercial AI tools – including ChatGPT – after workers were suspected of improperly using them with sensitive data, said the second and third sources. Instead, staff can still use the internal DHS AI tool. Reuters could not determine whether this prevented DOGE from promoting Grok at DHS.

    DHS did not respond to questions about the matter.

    Musk, the world’s richest person, told investors last month that he would reduce his time with DOGE to a day or two a week starting in May. As a special government employee, he can only serve for 130 days. It’s unclear when that term ends. If he reduces his hours to part time, he could extend his term beyond May. He has said, however, that his DOGE team will continue with their work as he winds down his role at the White House.

    If Musk was directly involved in decisions to use Grok, it could violate a criminal conflict-of-interest statute which bars officials — including special government employees — from participating in matters that could benefit them financially, said Richard Painter, ethics counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush and a University of Minnesota professor.

    “This gives the appearance that DOGE is pressuring agencies to use software to enrich Musk and xAI, and not to the benefit of the American people,” said Painter. The statute is rarely prosecuted but can result in fines or jail time.

    If DOGE staffers were pushing Grok’s use without Musk’s involvement, for instance to ingratiate themselves with the billionaire, that would be ethically problematic but not a violation of the conflict-of-interest statute, said Painter. “We can’t prosecute it, but it would be the job of the White House to prevent it. It gives the appearance of self-dealing.”

    The push to use Grok coincides with a larger DOGE effort led by two staffers on Musk’s team, Kyle Schutt and Edward Coristine, to use AI in the federal bureaucracy, said two other people familiar with DOGE’s operations. Coristine, a 19-year-old who has used the online moniker “Big Balls,” is one of DOGE’s highest-profile members.

    Schutt and Coristine did not respond to requests for comment.

    DOGE staffers have attempted to gain access to DHS employee emails in recent months and ordered staff to train AI to identify communications suggesting an employee is not “loyal” to Trump’s political agenda, the two sources said. Reuters could not establish whether Grok was used for such surveillance.

    In the last few weeks, a group of roughly a dozen workers at a Department of Defense agency were told by a supervisor that an algorithmic tool was monitoring some of their computer activity, according to two additional people briefed on the conversations.

    Reuters also reviewed two separate text message exchanges by people who were directly involved in the conversations. The sources asked that the specific agency not be named out of concern over potential retribution. They were not aware of what tool was being used.

    Using AI to identify the personal political beliefs of employees could violate civil service laws aimed at shielding career civil servants from political interference, said Coglianese, the expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

    In a statement, the Department of Defense said the department’s DOGE team had not been involved in any network monitoring nor had DOGE been “directed” to use any AI tools, including Grok. “It’s important to note that all government computers are inherently subject to monitoring as part of the standard user agreement,” said Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren Presses Social Security Head on Broken Staffing Promises

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    May 23, 2025
    Sen. Warren secured commitment under oath from SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano to maintain sufficient staffing levels to avoid service, benefit disruptions
    Recent reporting revealed SSA unable to get recipients on time due to inadequate staffing levels
    “I asked you during your nomination hearing to commit to keeping enough SSA staff to ensure that Americans get their Social Security checks, and that they get them on time. You made this commitment, and I promised I would hold you to it.”
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano, pressing him on his broken promises to keep Social Security staffing levels to adequately serve Americans. During Bisignano’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Warren secured a commitment from him to maintain sufficient staffing levels such that Americans’ Social Security services and benefits are not disrupted. New reporting indicates that — just two weeks into the job — Bisignano is failing to uphold his promise.
    “Commissioner, you ‘commit(ed) to have the right staffing to get the job done,’ but it is already becoming clear that current staffing levels are not, in fact, getting the job done. Staff shortages mean longer waits, more mistakes, and more instances in which hard-working Americans wait for weeks or months to get the benefits to which they are entitled. As a practical matter, this is a benefits cut,” wrote Senator Warren.
    Since the start of his administration, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE have worked to dismantle the Social Security Administration — including closing offices, reducing phone services, and making website changes that have led to recurring service outages. In February, SSA announced plans to cut roughly 7,000 employees — nearly 12% of SSA’s total workforce. Other reports indicate that SSA considered cutting up to 50% of staff.
    “In light of these developments, I asked you during your nomination hearing to commit to keeping enough SSA staff to ensure that Americans get their Social Security checks, and that they get them on time. You made this commitment, and I promised I would hold you to it,” wrote Senator Warren.
    Just two weeks into Bisignano’s tenure as head of Social Security, SSA has a massive backlog of benefit claims. A recent email from SSA leadership to all operations department employees noted that there are nearly 575,000 pending claims, with a growing backlog. Roughly 140,000 of those claims are over 60 days old, and recently obtained internal documents reported that DOGE had slowed benefit claim processing by 25%. SSA leadership directed employees tasked with reviewing these claims — already overworked as a result of DOGE’s mass firings — to “sprint” to increase their pace by 10%.
    “SSA is already struggling to get Americans their benefits, and I am concerned that these staffing cuts are just the beginning,” wrote Senator Warren. “Just a few weeks ago, then-Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek instructed staff to remove civil service protections for thousands of frontline SSA employees, laying the groundwork for further layoffs and staffing cuts. This includes employees who review benefit claims—the same ones who have since been asked to “sprint” to make up for staffing shortages.”
    In a recent unscripted speech to SSA staffers, Bisignano entertained further layoffs: “If I wake up and find out we can do all our work with 20,000 people — which I can’t see that right now — we’ll be 20,000…”.
    Senator Warren led the launch of Senate Democrats’ Social Security War Room, a coordinated effort to fight back against the Trump administration’s attack on Americans’ Social Security. The War Room coordinates messaging across the Senate Democratic Caucus and external stakeholders; encourages grassroots engagement by providing opportunities for Americans to share what Social Security means to them; and educates Senate staff, the American public, and stakeholders about Republicans’ agenda and their continued cuts to Americans’ Social Security services and benefits.

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    Source: European Parliament

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

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 09:00)

     

    2. Choose Europe for Science (debate)

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

       

    Procedura “catch-the-eye”

     
       

     

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

    The debate is closed.

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

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

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

     

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

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 10:45)

     
       

       

    PRESIDENZA: PINA PICIERNO
    Vicepresidente

     

    5. Voting time

       

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

       

    – Dopo la votazione:

     
       

       

    (Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta di rinvio in commissione)

     

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

       

    – Prima della votazione:

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

       

    – dopo la votazione sull’emendamento 42:

     
       

     

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

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

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

     
       

       

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

     
       

       

    (Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni)

     
       

       

    (La seduta è sospesa per pochi istanti)

     

    6. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è ripresa alle 11.42)

     

    7. Explanations of vote

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

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

     
       

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    9. Dates of the next part-session

     

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

     

    10. Closure of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è tolta alle 11.46)

     

    11. Adjournment of the session

     

      Presidente. – Dichiaro interrotta la sessione del Parlamento europeo.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEW: Baldwin Releases Report on How Trump Cuts Are Hurting Veterans and Caregivers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) released a new report on how President Donald Trump’s reckless cuts to staff and services are hurting our veterans.

    “When Americans serve and sacrifice for our freedom, it’s our duty to have their back when these brave men and women return home,” said Senator Baldwin. “As we spend this weekend remembering those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for us and honoring the families of the fallen, we also recommit ourselves to taking care of those in uniform, those who returned home, and the loved ones of our troops. I will work with anyone to do right by our veterans and survivors but this Administration is failing to keep their end of that sacred promise.”

    President Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE are enacting deep cuts across the federal government that continue to cost veterans their jobs and jeopardize essential care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that veterans and their caregivers rely on every day. VA Secretary Doug Collins announced they plan to cut 83,000 jobs, slashing the essential workforce by over 17 percent at the federal agency. These cuts come on top of staffing shortages at the VA, including having 66,000 vacancies across the health system, and further outlined in a 2024 report that found that 137 of 139 VA health centers nationwide report a severe staffing shortage in at least one area, particularly nursing and psychology.

    NPR found that 11,273 VA employees nationwide have applied for deferred resignation, which the Trump administration is offering as part of its DOGE initiative to cut the VA’s workforce. The top positions across all networks that are requesting deferred resignation are nurses (about 1,300), medical support assistants (about 800), and social workers (about 300). In a recent poll by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more than 4 out of 5 veterans said they are concerned that recent federal cuts could impact veteran benefits and health care.

    Veterans are also being hit hard by cuts across the federal agencies, where they make up 30 percent of the nearly 2.3 million civilian federal workforce. DOGE’s stated goal to eliminate 75 percent of the federal workforce could mean that up to 500,000 veterans could lose their jobs.

    Read the full report.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Like many populist leaders, Trump accuses judges of being illegitimate obstacles to safety and democracy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael Gregory, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Clemson University

    The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Court House, the workplace of Judge James Boasberg, along with other federal and appeals court judges, is seen in Washington, D.C. Philip Yabut/Getty Images

    Federal judges and at times Supreme Court justices have repeatedly challenged – and blocked – President Donald Trump’s attempts to reshape fundamental aspects of American government.

    Many of Trump’s more than 150 executive orders, including one aimed at eliminating the Department of Education, have been blocked by injunctions and lawsuits.

    When a majority of Supreme Court justices ruled on May 16, 2025, that the Trump administration could not deport a group of Venezuelan immigrants without first giving them the right to due process in court, Trump attacked the court.

    “The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This is a bad and dangerous day for America!” he continued in the post.

    As the Trump administration faces other orders blocking its plans, the president and his team are framing judges not just as political opponents but as enemies of democracy.

    Trump, for example, has called for the impeachment of James Boasberg, a federal judge who also issued orders blocking the deportation of immigrants in the U.S. to El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that Boasberg was “trying to protect terrorists who invaded our country over American citizens,” and Trump has also called Boasberg and other judges who ruled against him or his administration “left-wing activists.”

    “We cannot allow a handful of communist, radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States,” Trump said at a rally in April 2025. “Judges are trying to take away the power given to the president to keep our country safe.”

    As a scholar of legal and political theory, I believe this kind of talk about judges and the judicial system is not just misleading, it’s dangerous. It mirrors a pattern seen across many populist movements worldwide, where leaders cast independent courts and judges as illegitimate obstacles to what they see as the will of the people.

    By confusing the idea that the people’s will must prevail with what the law actually says, these leaders justify intimidating judges and their sound legal rulings, a move that ultimately undermines democracy.

    President Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Thwarting ‘the will of the American people’?

    In the face of judicial rulings against them, Trump and other administration officials have suggested on multiple occasions that judges are antagonistic to what the American people voted for.

    Yet these rulings are merely a reflection of the rule of law.

    Trump and supporters such as Elon Musk have characterized the rulings as a sign that a group of elite judges are abusing their power and acting against the will of the American people. The rulings that enforce the law, according to this argument, stand in opposition to the popular mandate American voters give to elected officials like the president.

    “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can stop EVERY Presidential action EVERYWHERE, we do NOT live in a democracy,” Elon Musk posted on X in February 2025. “When judges egregiously undermine the democratic will of the people, they must be fired,” Musk added.

    And U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, said in March 2025, “We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court.”

    Framing judges as enemies of democracy or as obstacles to the people’s will departs sharply from the traditional view – held across political lines – that the judiciary is an essential, nonpartisan part of the American constitutional system.

    While previous presidents have expressed frustration with specific court decisions or judges’ political leanings, their critiques mostly focused on specific legal reasoning.

    Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned against the Trump administration’s charge that judges were actively undermining democracy. In late April 2025, she said during a conference for judges that “relentless attacks on judges are an attack on democracy.”

    So, are judges obstructing democracy – or protecting it?

    Are unelected judges a sign of democracy?

    The U.S. Constitution established an independent judiciary as a coequal branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive branches. Federal judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed for political reasons. The country’s founders thought this protection could insulate judges from political pressures and ensure that courts uphold the Constitution, not the popularity of a given policy.

    Yet as the federal judiciary has expanded in size and power, the arguments about the relationship between democracy and judicial independence have become louder among some political scientists and legal philosophers.

    Some critics take issue with the fact that federal judges are appointed by politicians, not elected to their positions – a fact that others argue contributes to their independence.

    Federal judges often serve longer on the bench than many elected officials.

    Why, some critics argue, should a small group of unelected experts be allowed to overturn decisions made by elected officials?

    Other democratic theorists, however, say that federal judges can act as a check on elected leaders who may misuse or abuse their power, or pass laws that violate people’s legal rights. This indirectly strengthens democracy by giving people a meaningful way to have recourse against laws that go against their rights and what they actually voted for.

    A common story across countries

    The argument that judges are an enemy to democracy is not unique to the U.S.

    Authoritarian leaders from across the world have used similar language to justify undermining the courts.

    In the Philippines, then-President Rodrigo Duterte in 2018 told Maria Lourdes Sereno, a top judge who was an outspoken critic of Duterte’s war on drugs, “I am now your enemy.” Shortly after, the Philippines Supreme Court voted to oust Sereno from the court. These judges cited Sereno’s failure to disclose personal financial information when she was first appointed to the court as the reason for her removal.

    Filipino protesters and outside critics alike viewed Sereno’s removal as politically motivated and said it undermined the country’s judicial independence.

    El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s allies in the legislative assembly similarly voted in May 2021 to remove the government’s attorney general as well all five top judges for obstructing Bukele’s plans to imprison, without proper due process, large numbers of people. Bukele replaced the attorney general and judges with political loyalists, violating constitutional procedure.

    Kamala Harris, then vice president of the U.S., was among the international observers who said the removal of judges in El Salvador made her concerned about El Salvador’s democracy. Bukele justified the judges’ removal by saying he was right and that he refused to “listen to the enemies of the people” who wanted him to do otherwise.

    And in April 2024, a minister in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet called Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara an “enemy of the people,” blaming her for protests outside Netanyahu’s home. This disparagement was part of Netanyahu’s broader efforts to weaken judges’ role and independence and to remove judicial constraints on executive power.

    Judge James Boasberg is one example of a judge who was personally attacked by President Donald Trump for issuing various rulings on the administration’s plans to deport Venezuelan immigrants.
    Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

    Pushing against democracy

    In the name of weakening what they call undemocratic institutions, these and other leaders try to discredit independent judges. This attempt helps these leaders gain power and silence dissent.

    Their attempts to disparage and discredit judges misrepresent judges’ work by asserting that it is political in nature – and thus subject to political criticism and even intimidation. But in the U.S., judges’ constitutionally mandated work takes place in the realm of law, not politics.

    By confusing the idea that the people’s will must prevail with what the law actually says, these leaders justify intimidating judges and their rulings, a move that ultimately undermines democracy.

    Independent judges may not always make perfect decisions, and concerns about their interpretations or potential biases are legitimate. Judges sometimes make decisions that are objectionable from a moral and legal standpoint.

    But when political leaders portray judges as the problem, I believe it’s crucial to ask: Who truly benefits from silencing judges?

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

    ref. Like many populist leaders, Trump accuses judges of being illegitimate obstacles to safety and democracy – https://theconversation.com/like-many-populist-leaders-trump-accuses-judges-of-being-illegitimate-obstacles-to-safety-and-democracy-255472

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Security: Durant Resident Sentenced for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to Do Bodily Harm

    Source: US FBI

    MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Hr’Lee Wayde Hisaw, age 23, of Durant, Oklahoma, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for one count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm, in Indian country.

    The charge arose from an investigation by the Ada Police Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    On September 26, 2024, Hisaw pleaded guilty to the charge.  According to investigators, on February 18, 2024, Hisaw fired a semiautomatic handgun at the victim’s vehicle as it drove away from a residence.  The crime occurred in Pontotoc County, within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation Reservation, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

    The Honorable Ronald A. White, U.S. Chief District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, presided over the hearing in Muskogee.  Hisaw will remain in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service pending transportation to a designated United States Bureau of Prisons facility to serve a non-paroleable sentence of incarceration.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan E. Soverly represented the United States.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Muskogee Resident Sentenced for Felony Assault

    Source: US FBI

    MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Colby Eric Dean Ballard, age 29, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for one count of Assault of a Spouse, Intimate Partner, and Dating Partner in Indian Country.

    The charge arose from an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Muskogee Police Department.

    On March 21, 2024, Ballard pleaded guilty to the charge.   According to investigators, on April 4, 2023, Ballard assaulted the victim, strangling the victim and causing injuries to the victim’s face, head, wrist, and stomach.  The crime occurred in Muskogee County, within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

    The Honorable John F. Heil, III, U.S. District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, presided over the hearing.  Ballard will remain in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service pending transportation to a designated United States Bureau of Prisons facility to serve a non-paroleable sentence of incarceration.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patrick M. Flanigan and Edith Singer represented the United States.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Muskogee Residents Sentenced for Child Neglect

    Source: US FBI

    MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Andrew Allen Maher, age 33, and Azalee Louellen Maher, age 28, both of Muskogee, Oklahoma, were sentenced to five years supervised release for child neglect in Indian country.

    The charges arose from an investigation by the Muskogee Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    On April 15, 2024, Andrew Maher and Azalee Maher each pleaded guilty to one count of Child Neglect in Indian Country.  According to investigators, on August 18, 2023, Muskogee officers responding to reports of an accidental firearm discharge at a Muskogee residence discovered a two-year old child with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the lower abdomen.  EMS workers successfully resuscitated and stabilized the child, who was transported for life-saving surgery.  As part of the plea, both defendants admitted failing to provide adequate supervision to the child in their care, resulting in the child accessing a firearm.

    The crime occurred in Muskogee County, within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

    The Honorable Ronald A. White, U.S. Chief District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, presided over the hearings.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessie Pippin represented the United States.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Muskogee Resident Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison for Aggravated Sexual Abuse in Indian Country

    Source: US FBI

    MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Jonathan Gage Wiedel, age 19, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, was sentenced to 540 months in prison each for 12 counts of Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Minor in Indian Country.  The terms are set to be served concurrently, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release.

    The charges arose from an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office.

    On September 9, 2024, Wiedel pleaded guilty to twelve counts of a Superseding Indictment.  As part of the plea, Wiedel admitted that, beginning in August 2022 and continuing through February 2024, while employed as a teacher’s assistant at St. Joseph’s Catholic School in Muskogee, Oklahoma, he sexually abused four children under the age of twelve.  The crimes occurred in Muskogee County, within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

    “The defendant used his position of trust as a teacher’s assistant to prey on the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society,” said FBI Oklahoma City Special Agent in Charge Doug Goodwater.  “Safeguarding children and families in our community is among the FBI’s top priorities, and we will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure predators like Wiedel are brought to justice.”

    “Today’s sentence reflects the unwavering commitment of federal prosecutors and local and federal law enforcement to seek justice for victims and hold the defendant accountable for his reprehensible actions,” said U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Wilson.  “This office stands firm in its resolve to continue to protect our children and ensure the safety of our communities.”

    The Honorable Ronald A. White, Chief U.S. District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, presided over the hearing.  Wiedel will remain in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service pending transportation to a designated United States Bureau of Prisons facility to serve a non-paroleable sentence of incarceration.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Pippin represented the United States.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: May 22nd, 2025 Heinrich, Luján Introduce Legislation to Expand Medicare Drug Price Negotiation and Lower Costs for New Mexicans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    WASHGINTON — U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) introduced the Strengthening Medicare and Reducing Taxpayer (SMART) Prices Act, legislation that will expand Medicare negotiation of drug prices to lower drug costs for consumers, reduce federal spending, and give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stronger tools to negotiate lower drug prices in Medicare Part B and Part D.

    According to preliminary estimates from a model by West Health and Verdant Research, if the SMART Prices Act is enacted by 2026, it would save 33 percent more by 2030 than current law. It would also allow Medicare to begin negotiations earlier and bring down the price of more expensive drugs.

    The legislation builds on provisions passed into law by Heinrich and Luján in 2022 that empowered Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time. The SMART Prices Act extends this progress by more than doubling the number of prescription drugs Medicare must negotiate to a minimum of 50 per year, allowing the most costly prescription drugs and biologics to have negotiated prices five years after approval by the Food and Drug Administration, and by increasing the discount that Medicare is allowed to negotiate.

    “While the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans work to gut Medicare to give massive tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk, I’m fighting to protect and strengthen Medicare for New Mexicans,” said Heinrich. “I’m proud to co-sponsor legislation that will lower health care costs by making more prescription drugs affordable for New Mexico’s seniors enrolled in Medicare.”

    “No one should have to choose between paying for life-saving medication and putting food on the table. At a time when President Trump’s tariffs threaten to raise prices on everyday goods and medicine, the SMART Prices Act is more important than ever for New Mexican families,” said Luján. “That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to lower prescription drug costs by strengthening Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices, helping Americans afford the medications they rely on.”

    The SMART Prices Act is led by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Alongside Heinrich and Luján, the legislation is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Minn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

    The bill is endorsed by Center for American Progress, FamiliesUSA, Patients For Affordable Drugs NOW, Protect Our Care, and Public Citizen.

    As Republicans tank the economy, Heinrich and Luján are putting New Mexico families first and fighting against Trump and Musk’s budget, which includes cuts to Medicaid to fund massive tax handouts to billionaires.

    Earlier this month, Heinrich and Luján (D-N.M.) released a joint statement slamming President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) preliminary budget request. In their joint statement, the senators wrote, “Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s budget will further tank the economy and throw working families under the bus. As New Mexico’s senators, we’ll fight back.”

    Last month, Heinrich and Luján stood up for New Mexico families by voting against Senate Republicans’ budget resolution. This was after Heinrich and Luján pushed to amend Republicans’ resolution by repeatedly voting for amendments to lower costs for families — particularly as Trump’s tariffs push America to the brink of a recession. Heinrich and Luján also worked to block cuts to Medicaid, extend the tax credits for health care premiums, and prevent millions of Americans from losing health insurance, protect Social Security, and reverse cuts to the Social Security Administration, including cuts by Elon Musk’s DOGE.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pocan Slams “Big, Beautiful Bill for Billionaires”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark Pocan (2nd District of Wisconsin)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) released the following statement after voting against House Republicans’ budget bill:

    “While most Americans were asleep, House Republicans voted to rip healthcare away from 13.7 million people on Medicaid, cut $500 billion from Medicare, and take food away from hungry people—all to give a tax break to their billionaire buddies, like Donald Trump & Elon Musk. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this will add trillions to the national debt, shutter hospitals, and leave farmers out to dry.”

    “From forcing debate and procedural votes in the dark of night, the entire process has been an attempt to keep this from the public. Even Republican leadership told their members not to hold town halls, they know just how unpopular this bill is with the American public. It must not be allowed to become law and must be stopped by the Senate.”

    Additional background information:

    • CBO confirmed the Republican bill would take from the poorest Americans to hand even more tax breaks to the wealthiest.
    • CBO also found the bill could trigger over $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare, under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) law—cuts that many Republicans would be happy to see happen behind closed doors.
    • District-level information on the consequences of the Republican budget bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: On MSNBC, Rosen Discusses Her Successful Passage of Her Bipartisan Bill to Eliminate Taxes on Tips

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
    WASHINGTON, DC – Last night, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) joined The Weeknight on MSNBC to discuss how she was able to pass her bipartisan No Tax on Tips Act in the Senate. The bill, which Senator Rosen passed by unanimous consent, would exempt American workers’ tipped wages from federal income tax. It now heads to the U.S. House of Representatives to be considered. Nevada has the highest concentration of tipped workers in the nation, and the bipartisan No Tax on Tips Act would allow workers to keep their tips without having to pay federal income tax on them. This bipartisan legislation also includes guardrails to ensure that it benefits workers who need it most, not CEOs and the ultra-wealthy.
    MSNBC: Rosen Discusses Senate Passage of Her Bipartisan No Tax On Tips Act
    HOST: I did want to give you the shout-out on the tax on tips bill that you called up yesterday. And it passed.
    ROSEN:  Yes. Yes, it did.
    HOST:  Tell us, what magic did you bring to that?
    ROSEN:  Well, I want to tell you, my motto is, agree where you can, fight where you must.
    And so this is a great bill for Nevada, because 25 percent of our workforce is in hospitality. 
    You may not know this, but I put myself through school as a waitress. I worked as a member of the Culinary Union. And even after I got my first job as a computer programmer, I continued to wait tables because I didn’t make enough money. So I know what it means to live on tips.
    [The] Average Nevadan makes about 40 grand a year. Our bill, the bill in the Senate, is a stronger bill with guardrails, so those who need to not pay taxes on their tips are really the tip workers, not some CEO or billionaire like Elon Musk and the entire Cabinet, so they can declare their salary as a tip.
    So, this bill is a stronger, better bill. It should stand on its own. I’m going to challenge the House to pass it, because in that reckless reconciliation bill that they have been working on since 1:00 a.m., the middle of the night, they have a different bill for tax on tips. It doesn’t have the guardrails. And so I urge them to pass this one and get it over the finish line.

    MIL OSI USA News