Category: Elon Musk

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand, Warren Demand Answers About Trump Administration Cuts to Agencies That Protect Seniors From Frauds And Scams

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand
    Americans lost more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024
    This week, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, and Elizabeth Warren, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, demanded answers from the Trump administration on the impact of federal cuts to agencies that protect seniors from financial frauds and scams. The senators’ letter follows the release of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the need to enhance protections against frauds and scams through coordination among federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
    Even after the release of GAO’s report, the Trump administration has continued efforts to gut these agencies. For example, in April, the administration fired about 1,500 CFPB employees—or almost 90% of the agency’s staff. The so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) has also attempted to harass public servants throughout the federal government into leaving their jobs, decreasing personnel at the very agencies that GAO agrees are needed to protect older adults.
    “GAO’s report detailed the need to enhance our nation’s response to scams, including through better coordination among federal agencies. Despite that need, President Trump allowed an out-of-touch billionaire to slash the very agencies that protect Americans from scams, including millions of older adults,” the senators wrote. “We ask GAO to examine the impact of these severe cuts on the ability of the federal government to address frauds and scams, and to carry out the recommendations in GAO’s report.”
    American consumers reported losing more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024. Older Americans alone lost a record $4.8 billion to scammers last year, according to the FBI.
    The full text of the letter can be found here or below.
    Dear Mr. Dodaro,
    We write today to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) follow up on its report, Consumer Protection: Actions Needed to Improve Complaint Reporting, Consumer Education, and Federal Coordination to Counter Scams (GAO-25-107088). GAO’s report detailed the need to enhance our nation’s response to scams, including through better coordination among federal agencies. Despite that need, President Trump allowed an out of touch billionaire to slash the very agencies that protect Americans from scams, including millions of older adults. We ask GAO to examine the impact of these severe cuts on the ability of the federal government to address frauds and scams, and to carry out the recommendations in GAO’s report.
    American consumers reported losing more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024, and scams can have a particularly devastating impact on the mental and financial health of older adults. Older adults are more likely to have accumulated savings and housing wealth, making them targets for scammers who “steal everything,” and leave the older adults “emotionally and financially ruined.” One older adult testified about a scam that cost her late husband his job, his self-confidence, and forced him to ration his medications – setbacks that contributed to his declining health. Another older adult testified that she could not repair her home, afford air conditioning, and had to turn off her refrigerator and stove after losing $39,000 in a scam. Even as elder scams are devastating, they are also difficult to investigate because of their global nature. Frequently, such scams combine the efforts of overseas criminal organizations with operatives in the United States.
    In April 2025, GAO released a report, Consumer Protection: Actions Needed to Improve Complaint Reporting, Consumer Education, and Federal Coordination to Counter Scams, that highlighted the scope of scams and the weaknesses in the federal government’s efforts to combat them. The report included several recommendations for the federal government, such as the need for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to lead an effort to develop a national strategy to counter scams. Many of the recommendations made it clear that agencies such as FBI, the Department of Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will need to work together to find solutions. The interagency cooperation envisioned by GAO’s report will require federal agencies that are well resourced and staffed with the proper expertise.
    Although there is a need to enhance our nation’s response to scams, President Trump has empowered efforts to decimate the very agencies leading the response. On January 20, 2025, President Trump established the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). The initial head of the DOGE, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, does not need to worry about his basic needs and lives a life of unfettered influence and power. Yet, Mr. Musk and his cronies at the DOGE set a goal of cutting $1 trillion from agencies that serve working class Americans, older adults, and people with disabilities. Efforts by the DOGE include attempts to harass public servants throughout the federal government into leaving their jobs. DOGE efforts also include drastic cuts at agencies with a role in addressing scams, such as the CFPB, which has been subjected to mass firings. Consequently, we seek GAO’s assistance in understanding how DOGE’s actions affect key agencies’ efforts to address frauds and scams in general and implement GAO’s report recommendations in particular.
    We understand that the DOGE’s efforts are ongoing and its efforts at the FBI, FTC, CFPB, the Department of Treasury, and the Federal Reserve may not be completed for many months. We also understand that GAO may receive some insight into the impact of DOGE’s actions at the five agencies when the agencies submit an action plan to Congress and GAO as part of the formal “180-day Letter” process that is in place for GAO recommendations to federal agencies. Therefore, we ask that GAO defer any work until it receives and initially analyzes the action plans from agencies that were targeted by the recommendations.
    Once the agency action plans have been received and analyzed by GAO, and the DOGE’s efforts are sufficiently completed, we request that GAO examine and report on the following issues:
    1. In its April 2025 report, GAO identified five key agencies that play a role in addressing frauds and scams. Since January 20, 2025, how has the ability of the five agencies to address frauds and scams been impacted by firings, resignations, buyouts, agency restructurings, and other actions undertaken by the Trump Administration and the DOGE?
    a. What changes have occurred at the five agencies a year or less following the actions taken by the Trump Administration and the DOGE, and what, if any, observable impact have those changes had on efforts to address frauds and scams?
    b. What impacts may the changes have over multiple years on the five agencies and their efforts to address frauds and scams?
    2. GAO’s April 2025 report included 16 recommendations for the federal government to improve its response to frauds and scams. How have the changes implemented by the Trump Administration and DOGE impacted the ability of the five agencies identified in the April 2025 report to implement GAO’s recommendations? Further, if efforts are made to reverse the changes at any of the five agencies, please describe the success of those efforts. Please include any barriers the agencies have faced to restaffing and restoring efforts to combat frauds and scams.
    We appreciate your attention to this request. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ranking Member Gillibrand’s staff with the Senate Special Committee on Aging or Ranking Member Warren’s staff with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Turkey blocks X’s Grok chatbot for alleged insults to Erdogan

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A Turkish court has blocked access to Grok, the artificial intelligence chatbot developed by the Elon Musk-founded company xAI, after it generated responses that authorities said included insults to President Tayyip Erdogan.

    Issues of political bias, hate speech and accuracy of AI chatbots have been a concern since at least the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in 2022, with Grok dropping content accused of antisemitic tropes and praise for Adolf Hitler.

    The office of Ankara’s chief prosecutor has launched a formal investigation into the incident, it said on Wednesday, in Turkey’s first such ban on access to an AI tool.

    Neither X nor its owner Elon Musk has commented on the decision.

    Last month, Musk promised an upgrade to Grok, suggesting there was “far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data”.

    Grok, which is integrated into X, reportedly generated offensive content about Erdogan when asked certain questions in Turkish, media said.

    The Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) adopted the ban after a court order, citing violations of Turkey’s laws that make insults to the president a criminal offence, punishable with up to four years in jail.

    Critics say the law is frequently used to stifle dissent, while the government maintains it is necessary to protect the dignity of the office.

    (Reuters)

  • Supreme Court clears way for Trump to pursue mass federal layoffs

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies, a decision that could lead to tens of thousands of layoffs while dramatically reshaping the federal bureaucracy.

    Tuesday’s ruling stemmed from an executive order Trump issued in February ordering agencies to prepare for mass layoffs. At Trump’s direction, the administration has come up with plans to reduce staff at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

    In a brief unsigned order, the court said the Trump administration was “likely to succeed” in its argument that his directives were legally within his power.

    The decision is the latest win for Trump’s broader efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump in several cases on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January, including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies.

    The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s order in May that temporarily blocked large-scale federal layoffs while the case proceeded.

    Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing without consulting Congress, which created and funded the agencies in question.

    “As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,” Illston wrote.

    While Tuesday’s decision cleared one major legal obstacle for the White House, the court noted that it was not assessing the legality of any specific layoff plans at federal agencies.

    Those layoff proposals, some of which were submitted earlier this year, could still face legal challenges on a variety of grounds, including union opposition, statutory restrictions and civil service protections.

    The White House said in a statement that the decision is a “definitive victory for the president and his administration” that reinforced Trump’s authority to implement “efficiency across the federal government.”

    However, two White House sources familiar with the matter, who asked to remain unidentified, said the ruling did not permit agencies to execute layoffs immediately. One of the sources said additional delays or legal hurdles “could alter the scope and timing of the cuts.”

    A group of unions, nonprofits and local governments that sued to block the administration’s mass layoffs said the ruling “dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy” and vowed to continue fighting as the case proceeds.

    The plaintiffs had warned in court filings that Trump’s plans, if allowed to proceed, would result in hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

    A Reuters/Ipsos poll in April found that Americans narrowly favored Trump’s campaign to downsize the federal government, with about 56% saying they supported the effort and 40% opposed. Their views broke down along party lines, with 89% of Republicans but just 26% of Democrats supportive.

    Some agencies whose downsizing plans had been put on hold said they would resume advancing those efforts.

    “We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan,” the State Department, which has proposed laying off nearly 2,000 employees, said on X.

    DOGE CUTS

    Upon taking office in January, Trump launched a massive campaign to cut the 2.3-million strong federal civilian workforce, led by billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.

    Musk and his mostly young lieutenants immediately moved into key government agencies, fired workers, gained access to government computer systems and virtually shuttered two agencies – the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Trump and Musk said the bloated federal bureaucracy needed to be downsized. Federal workers’ unions and most Democrats say the cuts so far, and the plans for further mass layoffs, have been carried out haphazardly, leading to chaos inside many agencies and threatening important public services such as the processing of Social Security claims.

    By late April, about 100 days into the effort, the government overhaul had resulted in the firing, resignations and early retirements of 260,000 civil servants, according to a Reuters tally.

    Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from Tuesday’s decision, criticizing the “court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”

    Tuesday’s decision extended Trump’s winning record at the Supreme Court since taking office. The court has let Trump’s administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.

    In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge’s order that the administration rehire thousands of fired employees and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.

    Most of these decisions have been issued as emergency orders, known colloquially as the shadow docket, that respond to applications for immediate action from the court.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    The US government “remains upbeat” about the prospects for at least a ceasefire in Gaza, according to the latest reports from Washington, where the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been meeting the US president, Donald Trump.

    Netanyahu handed the US president a letter nominating him for the Nobel peace prize, saying he deserved it for “forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another”. But as yet there are no signs that either Hamas or Israel have moved any closer to accepting each other’s terms.

    In fact, reports emerging from the White House meeting are that the two leaders discussed the displacement of much of the Palestinian population. And a plan revealed by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, proposed the contruction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah in the north of the Gaza Strip to house more than 600,000 Palestinians.

    The Conversation’s senior international affairs editor, Jonathan Este, spoke with Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, of University College Dublin to address this and other questions.

    The two leaders’ discussions in Washington seemed to centre around displacement of the Palestinian population in lieu of a two-state solution. What does this tell you about the chance of a ceasefire deal?

    I am fascinated – and sometimes disillusioned – by how some media outlets, led by the nose, miss the main story. Last week Donald Trump pronounced on social media that Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas “should take this deal”.

    But the Netanyahu government has not accepted the framework, circulated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, let alone consented to a halt of their attacks, which have continued even as the Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington to meet the US president.

    As Trump hosted Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, the line was that the US president was “upbeat on Gaza ceasefire talks”. Meanwhile, few of them seemed to notice the important development. Hamas responded to the US framework with proposals for the staged release of 28 of the remaining 50 Israeli hostages over the 60 days while Israeli troops withdrew from positions inside the Strip and humanitarian aid was restored.

    But the Israeli government has thus far not given a substantive response. Instead, while pursuing a plan for the long-term military occupation of Gaza, it may also be seeking the displacement of a large portion of the more than 2.2 million population.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    Hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and internal security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long called for more than a million Gazans to be moved out of the territory. Reports over the weekend confirmed that this is not rhetoric. Israeli businessmen and venture capitalists have reportedly been working on plans for postwar Gaza, to include a “Trump riviera”, mirroring the displacement declaration by the US President, and an “Elon Musk smart manufacturing zone”.

    On Tuesday, security cabinet member Ze’ev Elkin, a Netanyahu loyalist, proclaimed “a substantial chance” for a ceasefire. But Qatari negotiators have said there are currently no talks, only discussions with each side about the framework for talks.

    Meanwhile, citing the killing of five Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Sunday night by an improvised explosive device, Ben-Gvir said: “We should not negotiate with those who kill our soldiers. They should be crushed to pieces, starved to death, and not resuscitated with humanitarian aid that gives them oxygen.”

    He called for “a complete siege, crushing them militarily” and reiterated the plan for “encouraging [Palestinian] immigration and [Jewish] settlement — these are the keys to complete victory”.

    Smotrich also called for a ban on any aid to Gaza: “In addition, I demand … that any territory that was conquered and cleansed of terror with the blood of our fighters not be abandoned.”

    So I am not optimistic at the moment.

    Looking at the region as a whole, two events have ‘reset’ the Middle East: the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s recent 12-day war. Can you tell me more about the kaleidoscope effect these two events had?

    In October 2023, there was no open-ended war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on curbing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a two-state solution. His tactic was to ease the economic pressure on Gaza and Hamas, maintaining that organisation as a balance against its West Bank rivals.

    Hamas ripped up that approach with its mass murder on October 7 – the first of the two kaleidoscope moments which changed the whole picture in a matter of hours. The attack triggered the deadly Israeli response that continues 21 months later. That response did not “destroy” Hamas, as Netanyahu pledged, but it led the Israelis to take on other foes in the region.

    Pursuing its “octopus doctrine”, Israel severely damaged one of the tentacles, Hezbollah, when it destroyed much of the Lebanese group’s leadership in the autumn of 2024. It assassinated senior Iranian commanders and officials in Damascus, and received a further boost when Turkish-backed factions toppled the Assad regime in December.

    The 12-day war in June aimed to destroy the head of the octopus: Iran. Israel’s strikes and assassinations killed much of the country’s military leadership and many of its top nuclear scientists. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, hid in a bunker, only emerging on July 6. But Israel failed to topple his regime, as it had hoped.

    The war was another kaleidoscope moment. Israel had its regional victory. But paradoxically, because there has been no resolution in Gaza, this has come at the cost of further international isolation. Gulf States, having moved away from “normalisation” with Israel, put out tougher statements about “genocide” of Gazans and the violation of Iranian sovereignty. Saudi Arabia’s state media highlighted a letter from Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan for “ways to support and enhance [relations] across all fields”.

    This implies that for any normalisation to occur, Israel must end its military operation in Gaza?

    That question cuts to the chase. The Gulf states, with the notable exception of Qatar, are no friends of Hamas. They might even have accepted the destruction of the group if Israel had been able to accomplish it quickly.

    But there is no way that they can publicly acquiesce in the killing of almost 60,000 Gazans, the large majority of them civilians, and the humanitarian blockade that threatens every single person living in the Gaza Strip. Nor will they want to see Israel export Gazans across the region in an echo of the 1948 “Nakba” whose legacy is the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps across the Middle East.

    Netanyahu can pursue his “absolute destruction” of Hamas by pursuing the destruction and displacement of Gazans. Or he can try to capitalise on his war with Iran through links with Arab countries. He cannot do both.

    Will Donald Trump get his Nobel peace prize?

    I don’t know, for that is a question which does not have a logical answer.

    Herny Kissinger was the US secretary of state who oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam war in which up to 3 million Vietnamese, 310,000 Cambodians, 62,000 Laotians and 58,220 US service members died. The singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer aptly noted: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    We are in a world where having caused so much disorder and chaos, having enabled violence, including Israel’s open-ended war, Donald Trump may succeed in a pose as “peacemaker”.

    Some may see the least worst option as flattery, which seems to work as a strategy for dealing with the US president. They may accept the White House theatre in which Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, personally hands Trump a peace prize nomination.

    Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza rose to 57,575 people killed and 136,879 wounded. Twenty hostages spent another day in limbo. That’s what matters here.

    ref. As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-meets-trump-in-washington-what-hope-for-peace-in-gaza-expert-qanda-260722

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    The US government “remains upbeat” about the prospects for at least a ceasefire in Gaza, according to the latest reports from Washington, where the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been meeting the US president, Donald Trump.

    Netanyahu handed the US president a letter nominating him for the Nobel peace prize, saying he deserved it for “forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another”. But as yet there are no signs that either Hamas or Israel have moved any closer to accepting each other’s terms.

    In fact, reports emerging from the White House meeting are that the two leaders discussed the displacement of much of the Palestinian population. And a plan revealed by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, proposed the contruction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah in the north of the Gaza Strip to house more than 600,000 Palestinians.

    The Conversation’s senior international affairs editor, Jonathan Este, spoke with Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, of University College Dublin to address this and other questions.

    The two leaders’ discussions in Washington seemed to centre around displacement of the Palestinian population in lieu of a two-state solution. What does this tell you about the chance of a ceasefire deal?

    I am fascinated – and sometimes disillusioned – by how some media outlets, led by the nose, miss the main story. Last week Donald Trump pronounced on social media that Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas “should take this deal”.

    But the Netanyahu government has not accepted the framework, circulated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, let alone consented to a halt of their attacks, which have continued even as the Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington to meet the US president.

    As Trump hosted Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, the line was that the US president was “upbeat on Gaza ceasefire talks”. Meanwhile, few of them seemed to notice the important development. Hamas responded to the US framework with proposals for the staged release of 28 of the remaining 50 Israeli hostages over the 60 days while Israeli troops withdrew from positions inside the Strip and humanitarian aid was restored.

    But the Israeli government has thus far not given a substantive response. Instead, while pursuing a plan for the long-term military occupation of Gaza, it may also be seeking the displacement of a large portion of the more than 2.2 million population.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    Hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and internal security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long called for more than a million Gazans to be moved out of the territory. Reports over the weekend confirmed that this is not rhetoric. Israeli businessmen and venture capitalists have reportedly been working on plans for postwar Gaza, to include a “Trump riviera”, mirroring the displacement declaration by the US President, and an “Elon Musk smart manufacturing zone”.

    On Tuesday, security cabinet member Ze’ev Elkin, a Netanyahu loyalist, proclaimed “a substantial chance” for a ceasefire. But Qatari negotiators have said there are currently no talks, only discussions with each side about the framework for talks.

    Meanwhile, citing the killing of five Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Sunday night by an improvised explosive device, Ben-Gvir said: “We should not negotiate with those who kill our soldiers. They should be crushed to pieces, starved to death, and not resuscitated with humanitarian aid that gives them oxygen.”

    He called for “a complete siege, crushing them militarily” and reiterated the plan for “encouraging [Palestinian] immigration and [Jewish] settlement — these are the keys to complete victory”.

    Smotrich also called for a ban on any aid to Gaza: “In addition, I demand … that any territory that was conquered and cleansed of terror with the blood of our fighters not be abandoned.”

    So I am not optimistic at the moment.

    Looking at the region as a whole, two events have ‘reset’ the Middle East: the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s recent 12-day war. Can you tell me more about the kaleidoscope effect these two events had?

    In October 2023, there was no open-ended war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on curbing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a two-state solution. His tactic was to ease the economic pressure on Gaza and Hamas, maintaining that organisation as a balance against its West Bank rivals.

    Hamas ripped up that approach with its mass murder on October 7 – the first of the two kaleidoscope moments which changed the whole picture in a matter of hours. The attack triggered the deadly Israeli response that continues 21 months later. That response did not “destroy” Hamas, as Netanyahu pledged, but it led the Israelis to take on other foes in the region.

    Pursuing its “octopus doctrine”, Israel severely damaged one of the tentacles, Hezbollah, when it destroyed much of the Lebanese group’s leadership in the autumn of 2024. It assassinated senior Iranian commanders and officials in Damascus, and received a further boost when Turkish-backed factions toppled the Assad regime in December.

    The 12-day war in June aimed to destroy the head of the octopus: Iran. Israel’s strikes and assassinations killed much of the country’s military leadership and many of its top nuclear scientists. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, hid in a bunker, only emerging on July 6. But Israel failed to topple his regime, as it had hoped.

    The war was another kaleidoscope moment. Israel had its regional victory. But paradoxically, because there has been no resolution in Gaza, this has come at the cost of further international isolation. Gulf States, having moved away from “normalisation” with Israel, put out tougher statements about “genocide” of Gazans and the violation of Iranian sovereignty. Saudi Arabia’s state media highlighted a letter from Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan for “ways to support and enhance [relations] across all fields”.

    This implies that for any normalisation to occur, Israel must end its military operation in Gaza?

    That question cuts to the chase. The Gulf states, with the notable exception of Qatar, are no friends of Hamas. They might even have accepted the destruction of the group if Israel had been able to accomplish it quickly.

    But there is no way that they can publicly acquiesce in the killing of almost 60,000 Gazans, the large majority of them civilians, and the humanitarian blockade that threatens every single person living in the Gaza Strip. Nor will they want to see Israel export Gazans across the region in an echo of the 1948 “Nakba” whose legacy is the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps across the Middle East.

    Netanyahu can pursue his “absolute destruction” of Hamas by pursuing the destruction and displacement of Gazans. Or he can try to capitalise on his war with Iran through links with Arab countries. He cannot do both.

    Will Donald Trump get his Nobel peace prize?

    I don’t know, for that is a question which does not have a logical answer.

    Herny Kissinger was the US secretary of state who oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam war in which up to 3 million Vietnamese, 310,000 Cambodians, 62,000 Laotians and 58,220 US service members died. The singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer aptly noted: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    We are in a world where having caused so much disorder and chaos, having enabled violence, including Israel’s open-ended war, Donald Trump may succeed in a pose as “peacemaker”.

    Some may see the least worst option as flattery, which seems to work as a strategy for dealing with the US president. They may accept the White House theatre in which Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, personally hands Trump a peace prize nomination.

    Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza rose to 57,575 people killed and 136,879 wounded. Twenty hostages spent another day in limbo. That’s what matters here.

    ref. As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-meets-trump-in-washington-what-hope-for-peace-in-gaza-expert-qanda-260722

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: There are many things American voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Connolly, Research Fellow, Digital Speech Lab, UCL

    During his recent public spat with Donald Trump, Elon Musk tweeted a poll asking if a new political party would better represent the 80% of voters in the middle. Hundreds of thousands of people responded and more than 80% answered “yes”.

    The middle is still overlooked in US politics. This is because there is a perception that Republicans and Democrats have nothing in common, and therefore no issue will win support from both centrist Republicans and Democrats.

    Polarisation is problematic as it is linked to “democratic backsliding” – the use of underhand tactics in political processes. Worst of all, it poses a threat to democracy.

    Many think that polarisation is fuelled by echo chambers created on social media platforms. These only expose people to beliefs similar to their own.

    However, I study how narratives emerge on social media, and ways to investigate them. My work has two aims: first, to identify political issues that are likely to cross party lines, and a wider goal of exploring the role of social media in mitigating, rather than exacerbating, levels of polarisation.


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


    Earlier this year, for example, I sorted through 12,000 posts from Republican and Democrat voters on subreddits (online forums discussing specific topics). Using a technique I developed in my PhD research, I analysed attitudes to contested political issues around the time of Trump’s inauguration. Like other researchers, I am finding that there are things both sides often agree on, and that not every issue splits neatly across party lines.

    Pew Research shows what Democrats and Republicans agree on.

    Although it’s a complex topic, people from both parties are worried about levels of free speech on social media. According to my work and other sources, some Democrats accuse TikTok of censoring hashtags such as #FreeLuigi (a reference to Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson).

    Meanwhile, some Republicans are saying they are flooded with what they see as left-wing content pushed by the algorithms. Despite their differences, Republicans and Democrats agree that social media platforms need to be more transparent about the way they work.

    Both sides worry about the rise of authoritarianism and the growing negative influence of artificial intelligence in shaping the US’s future. There is a sense among some members of the two parties that the real enemies aren’t each other, but powerful corporations who hold too much power.

    People on both sides of the political divide can be distrustful of tech companies and big businesses, where billionaires have power regardless of who’s in charge. Divisions of “up v down” could be alternatives to seeing divisions as “left v right”.

    Some people are worried about the creation of a massive database of citizens’ details, and how their details could be used, or abused. Recently Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would have opposed Trump’s “big, beautiful, bill”, had she read the AI clause thoroughly. The clause stops states from passing laws to regulate AI systems for the next ten years.

    What do people agree on?

    On the topic of protecting democracy, there are some suggestions that many Republicans and Democrats agree this is important, and under threat. In my study, some Republican and Democrat voters object to the possibility of Trump having a third term, aligning with the findings of several recent polls on the subject, and even among Trump’s most loyal support groups.

    Both Republicans and Democrats want “the best” leaders who could get things done fast and efficiently. But it would appear that people on both sides are concerned about the “slash-and-burn” way that Doge (the Department for Government Efficiency, the new agency tasked with cutting federal spending) is working.

    Also, deciding who is the best leader isn’t always about agreeing with specific policies. Instead, it’s about delivering decisive, efficient action. Even Republicans who don’t back everything Trump is doing say that at least he is doing something, especially in relation to immigration.

    Many Republicans criticise the left, and former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in particular, but for unclear messaging, as much as any one policy. They (and others) put her loss down to a lack of direction and clarity on key issues (among other things). This probably resulted in failing to win votes from independents and moderate Republicans and many Democrats are frustrated that the party still hasn’t addressed this.

    Research suggests that Democrat and Republican voters often agree that polarisation causes gridlock and prevents progress, but believe voices from the middle are not being heard. Some Republicans and Democrats also share a concern that both parties are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems, with 86% of Americans believing this.

    Some Republican voters in the posts I am analysing suggest that working together to get things done would be positive, supporting findings from the US and abroad. Other important factors rather than political party, such as religion or family or everyday life experiences can bring people from both sides together.

    So, Americans might not be as divided as one might think. Levels of polarisation feel high but this could be skewed by the extreme views of a minority on both sides. And it isn’t helped by some sensationalist media reporting.

    Lots of people get their news from social media platforms which reward and monetise engagement. Posts that fuel division are often the most visible, but they rarely tell the whole story. Divisive views are also often shared by those who are themselves the most polarised.

    Like Musk’s online poll, research is starting to suggest that there is still a sizeable moderate middle in the US today who are open to compromise through clear messaging. These voters can make all the difference, especially if parties can frame issues in ways that appeal across the divide. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, both sides might want to listen to them more.

    Emma Connolly 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. There are many things American voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy – https://theconversation.com/there-are-many-things-american-voters-agree-on-from-fears-about-technology-to-threats-to-democracy-258440

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: There are many things Americans voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Connolly, Research Fellow, Digital Speech Lab, UCL

    During his recent public spat with Donald Trump, Elon Musk tweeted a poll asking if a new political party would better represent the 80% of voters in the middle. Hundreds of thousands of people responded and more than 80% answered “yes”.

    The middle is still overlooked in US politics. This is because there is a perception that Republicans and Democrats have nothing in common, and therefore no issue will win support from both centrist Republicans and Democrats.

    Polarisation is problematic as it is linked to “democratic backsliding” – the use of underhand tactics in political processes. Worst of all, it poses a threat to democracy.

    Many think that polarisation is fuelled by echo chambers created on social media platforms. These only expose people to beliefs similar to their own.

    However, I study how narratives emerge on social media, and ways to investigate them. My work has two aims: first, to identify political issues that are likely to cross party lines, and a wider goal of exploring the role of social media in mitigating, rather than exacerbating, levels of polarisation.


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


    Earlier this year, for example, I sorted through 12,000 posts from Republican and Democrat voters on subreddits (online forums discussing specific topics). Using a technique I developed in my PhD research, I analysed attitudes to contested political issues around the time of Trump’s inauguration. Like other researchers, I am finding that there are things both sides often agree on, and that not every issue splits neatly across party lines.

    Pew Research shows what Democrats and Republicans agree on.

    Although it’s a complex topic, people from both parties are worried about levels of free speech on social media. According to my work and other sources, some Democrats accuse TikTok of censoring hashtags such as #FreeLuigi (a reference to Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson).

    Meanwhile, some Republicans are saying they are flooded with what they see as left-wing content pushed by the algorithms. Despite their differences, Republicans and Democrats agree that social media platforms need to be more transparent about the way they work.

    Both sides worry about the rise of authoritarianism and the growing negative influence of artificial intelligence in shaping the US’s future. There is a sense among some members of the two parties that the real enemies aren’t each other, but powerful corporations who hold too much power.

    People on both sides of the political divide can be distrustful of tech companies and big businesses, where billionaires have power regardless of who’s in charge. Divisions of “up v down” could be alternatives to seeing divisions as “left v right”.

    Some people are worried about the creation of a massive database of citizens’ details, and how their details could be used, or abused. Recently Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would have opposed Trump’s “big, beautiful, bill”, had she read the AI clause thoroughly. The clause stops states from passing laws to regulate AI systems for the next ten years.

    What do people agree on?

    On the topic of protecting democracy, there are some suggestions that many Republicans and Democrats agree this is important, and under threat. In my study, some Republican and Democrat voters object to the possibility of Trump having a third term, aligning with the findings of several recent polls on the subject, and even among Trump’s most loyal support groups.

    Both Republicans and Democrats want “the best” leaders who could get things done fast and efficiently. But it would appear that people on both sides are concerned about the “slash-and-burn” way that Doge (the Department for Government Efficiency, the new agency tasked with cutting federal spending) is working.

    Also, deciding who is the best leader isn’t always about agreeing with specific policies. Instead, it’s about delivering decisive, efficient action. Even Republicans who don’t back everything Trump is doing say that at least he is doing something, especially in relation to immigration.

    Many Republicans criticise the left, and former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in particular, but for unclear messaging, as much as any one policy. They (and others) put her loss down to a lack of direction and clarity on key issues (among other things). This probably resulted in failing to win votes from independents and moderate Republicans and many Democrats are frustrated that the party still hasn’t addressed this.

    Research suggests that Democrat and Republican voters often agree that polarisation causes gridlock and prevents progress, but believe voices from the middle are not being heard. Some Republicans and Democrats also share a concern that both parties are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems, with 86% of Americans believing this.

    Some Republican voters in the posts I am analysing suggest that working together to get things done would be positive, supporting findings from the US and abroad. Other important factors rather than political party, such as religion or family or everyday life experiences can bring people from both sides together.

    So, Americans might not be as divided as one might think. Levels of polarisation feel high but this could be skewed by the extreme views of a minority on both sides. And it isn’t helped by some sensationalist media reporting.

    Lots of people get their news from social media platforms which reward and monetise engagement. Posts that fuel division are often the most visible, but they rarely tell the whole story. Divisive views are also often shared by those who are themselves the most polarised.

    Like Musk’s online poll, research is starting to suggest that there is still a sizeable moderate middle in the US today who are open to compromise through clear messaging. These voters can make all the difference, especially if parties can frame issues in ways that appeal across the divide. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, both sides might want to listen to them more.

    Emma Connolly 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. There are many things Americans voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy – https://theconversation.com/there-are-many-things-americans-voters-agree-on-from-fears-about-technology-to-threats-to-democracy-258440

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump calls Musk’s new political party ‘ridiculous’

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump has dismissed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s threats to form a third political party.

    “I’m saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” Trump posted on social media Sunday night.

    He was referring to Musk’s threats to form a third political party to rival Democrats and Republicans.

    The president called that idea “ridiculous,” adding that it would cause confusion.

    The feud between the two billionaires began in early June after Musk blasted Trump’s landmark One Big Beautiful Bill, a gargantuan tax and spending package that Trump signed into law on Friday, the Independence Day.

    Musk lambasted the legislation, saying it could add trillions of U.S. dollars to the national debt.

    “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,” Musk said on social media.

    In response, Trump posted on social media that third parties “have never succeeded in the United States,” adding that “the one thing (they) are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS.”

    Musk’s announcement caused shares of his company Tesla to take a dive. On Monday, the stock saw its largest single-day loss since June 5.

    Christopher Galdieri, a political science professor at Saint Anselm College in the northeastern state of New Hampshire, told Xinhua: “Right now, Republicans have narrow margins in both chambers of Congress. If Musk were to fund primary challengers or independent general election candidates… that could cost Republicans in next year’s midterms.”

    “Building a real party, rather than a vanity project, would involve finding and running credible candidates up and down the ballot, for unglamorous offices like school board and city council,” Galdieri said.

    Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, told Xinhua: “Things like this have been tried not very long ago… The problem is that a political party needs a core idea.”

    “This venture would have to attract people younger than 45 who are already politicians on some level, and who have real political talent,” Ramsay said.

    “If Musk were to just concentrate on knocking out specific Republican senators and members, that would be a slightly better plan than starting a new political party,” Ramsay added.

    Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Darrell West told Xinhua: “There are lots of people who would like choices between the two major parties. Each has moved to the extremes and does not represent the broad swathe of America.”

    “He needs to find someone to lead the party who could appeal to more people,” West said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Politico Pro: Morning Tech: FIRST IN POLITICO: ANSWERS, PLS

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    July 01, 2025
    In an 11th-hour blitz of letters to top tech CEOs last night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is demanding they disclose how much their companies stand to benefit if a key tax break is restored as part of Trump’s megabill.
    Tech emerged as a massive winner from Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, and Warren warned it could walk away with a windfall again. She accused Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Apple’s Tim Cook, Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and even Tesla’s Elon Musk of extensive lobbying to restore a lucrative benefit that lets the industry write off R&D expenses right away.
    “You have spent millions cozying up to President Trump and Congressional Republicans, and they now appear ready to return the favor by handing you billions of dollars in tax breaks – with American families footing the bill,” she wrote.

    Read the full story here.
    By:  Anthony AdragnaSource: Politico Pro

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI: PS Miner Positions for Growth Amidst Expanding Crypto Acceptance and Demand

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    London, UK, July 07, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PS Miner, the world’s leading cloud mining platform, is strategically positioning itself to expand in response to growing demand for digital assets and increased acceptance of cryptocurrencies globally. With Bitcoin gaining widespread mainstream adoption, including its endorsement by Elon Musk’s “American Party,” PS Miner is capitalizing on the surge in digital currency investments, making it easier than ever for users to participate in cryptocurrency mining.

    Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, recently announced that his pro-tech centrist political party would accept Bitcoin. Musk, a long-time advocate for cryptocurrency, has been instrumental in elevating the acceptance of Bitcoin, and his companies, Tesla and SpaceX, continue to hold substantial BTC reserves. As the cryptocurrency industry transitions from speculative hype to real-world applications, platforms like PS Miner are emerging as practical tools for users to easily participate in the mining process.

    “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have evolved at an unprecedented rate, and PS Miner has evolved right alongside them,” said the Spokesperson of PS Miner. “As the crypto industry moves beyond early speculation and enters the realm of real-world usage, cloud mining is proving to be the simplest, most accessible way for users to earn passive income without the need for complex hardware setups or technical expertise. We’re proud to be a part of this wave of innovation, helping individuals mine and manage cryptocurrencies effortlessly.”

    PS Miner offers a streamlined cloud mining experience where users can purchase mining contracts online without the hassle of buying or maintaining hardware. Through the platform’s easy-to-use interface, individuals can mine popular digital currencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP, simply by registering and selecting a mining contract. This accessibility makes it possible for both novice and experienced users to earn stable daily returns from the cryptocurrency market.

    The platform offers an intuitive process where users can register within minutes, receive an immediate reward upon registration, and start mining with just one click. Daily mining outputs are automatically settled and can be withdrawn to personal crypto wallets at any time, providing a hassle-free and secure method to generate passive income. PS Miner also ensures that its operations are environmentally friendly, optimising energy consumption and contributing to sustainable mining practices.

    With the cryptocurrency landscape becoming increasingly integrated into various sectors, PS Miner is positioned to ride the wave of adoption, offering an efficient, low-risk investment tool for crypto enthusiasts worldwide.

    “We’ve worked tirelessly to make cryptocurrency mining more user-friendly and secure,” continued the Spokesperson. “With PS Miner, users can begin mining with just a few clicks. It’s a seamless, automated process that connects directly to a global network of computing power. The flexibility of cloud mining means users can manage their crypto assets from anywhere, at any time, using only their mobile devices.”

    For more information, visit www.psminer.com or download the PS Miner app to get started with cloud mining today.

    Contact Information:
    Name: Amy Wilson
    Email: info@psminer.com
    Website: https://psminer.com
    App Download: Available in Google Play & Apple App Store

    About PS Miner:
    PS Miner is a leading cloud mining platform offering a simple, reliable, and environmentally conscious solution for mining digital currencies. With its user-friendly app and secure services, PS Miner enables anyone, regardless of their technical knowledge, to easily participate in cryptocurrency mining and grow their digital asset portfolio.

    ###

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Social media can support or undermine democracy – it comes down to how it’s designed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lisa Schirch, Professor of the Practice of Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

    A protester calls out Facebook for facilitating the spread of disinformation. AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

    Every design choice that social media platforms make nudges users toward certain actions, values and emotional states.

    It is a design choice to offer a news feed that combines verified news sources with conspiracy blogs – interspersed with photos of a family picnic – with no distinction between these very different types of information. It is a design choice to use algorithms that find the most emotional or outrageous content to show users, hoping it keeps them online. And it is a design choice to send bright red notifications, keeping people in a state of expectation for the next photo or juicy piece of gossip.

    Platform design is a silent pilot steering human behavior.

    Social media platforms are bringing massive changes to how people get their news and how they communicate and behave. For example, the “endless scroll” is a design feature that aims to keep users scrolling and never reaching the bottom of a page where they might decide to pause.

    I’m a political scientist who researches aspects of technology that support democracy and social cohesion, and I’ve observed how the design of social media platforms affects them.

    Democracy is in crisis globally, and technology is playing a role. Most large platforms optimize their designs for profit, not community or democracy. Increasingly, Big Tech is siding with autocrats, and the platforms’ designs help keep society under control.

    There are alternatives, however. Some companies design online platforms to defend democratic values.

    Optimized for profit

    A handful of tech billionaires dominate the global information ecosystem. Without public accountability or oversight, they determine what news shows up on your feed and what data they collect and share.

    Social media companies say they are in the business of connecting people, but they make most of their money as data brokers and advertising firms. Time spent on platforms translates to profit. The more time you spend online, the more ads you see and the more data they can collect from you.

    This ad-based business model demands designs that encourage endless scrolling, social comparison and emotional engagement. Platforms routinely claim they merely reflect user behavior, yet internal documents and whistleblower accounts have shown that toxic content often gets a boost because it captures people’s attention.

    Tech companies design platforms based on extensive psychological research. Examples include flashing notifications that make your phone jump and squeak, colorful rewards when others like your posts, and algorithms that push out the most emotional content to stimulate your most base emotions of anger, shame or glee.

    How social media algorithms work, explained.

    Optimizing designs for user engagement undermines mental health and society. Social media sites favor hype and scandal over factual accuracy, and public manipulation over designing for safety, privacy and user agency. The resulting prevalence of polarizing false and deceptive information is corrosive to democracy.

    Many analysts identified these problems nearly a decade ago. But now there is a new threat: Some tech executives are looking to capture political power to advance a new era of techno-autocracy.

    Optimized for political power

    A techno-autocracy is a political system where an authoritarian government uses technology to control its population. Techno-autocrats spread disinformation and propaganda, using fear tactics to demonize others and distract from corruption. They leverage massive amounts of data, artificial intelligence and surveillance to censor opponents.

    For example, China uses technology to monitor and surveil its population with public cameras. Chinese platforms like WeChat and Weibo automatically scan, block or delete messages and posts for sensitive words like “freedom of speech.” Russia promotes domestic platforms like VK that are closely monitored and partly owned by state-linked entities that use it to promote political propaganda.

    Over a decade ago, tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and now Vice President JD Vance, began aligning with far-right political philosophers like Curtis Yarvin. They argue that democracy impedes innovation, favoring concentrated decision-making in corporate-controlled mini-states governed through surveillance. Embracing this philosophy of techno-autocracy, they moved from funding and designing the internet to reshaping government.

    Techno-autocrats weaponize social media platforms as part of their plan to dismantle democratic institutions.

    The political capture of both X and Meta also have consequences for global security. At Meta, Mark Zuckerberg removed barriers to right-wing propaganda and openly endorsed President Donald Trump’s agenda. Musk changed X’s algorithm to highlight right-wing content, including Russian propaganda.

    Designing tech for democracy

    Recognizing the power that platform design has on society, some companies are designing new civic participation platforms that support rather than undermine society’s access to verified information and places for public deliberation. These platforms offer design features that big tech companies could adopt for improving democratic engagement that can help counter techno-autocracy.

    In 2014, a group of technologists founded Pol.is, an open-source technology for hosting public deliberation that leverages data science. Pol.is enables participants to propose and vote on policy ideas using what they call “computational democracy.” The Pol.is design avoids personal attacks by having no “reply” button. It offers no flashy newsfeed, and it uses algorithms that identify areas of agreement and disagreement to help people make sense of a diversity of opinions. A prompt question asks for people to offer ideas and vote up or down on other ideas. People participate anonymously, helping to keep the focus on the issues and not the people.

    The civic participation platform Pol.is helps large numbers of people share their views without distractions or personal attacks.

    Taiwan used the Pol.is platform to enable mass civic engagement in the 2014 democracy movement. The U.K. government’s Collective Intelligence Lab used the platform to generate public discussion and generate new policy proposals on climate and health care policies. In Finland, a public foundation called Sitra uses Pol.is in its “What do you think, Finland?” public dialogues.

    Barcelona, Spain, designed a new participatory democracy platform called Decidim in 2017. Now used throughout Spain and Europe, Decidim enables citizens to collaboratively propose, debate and decide on public policies and budgets through transparent digital processes.

    Nobel Peace Laureate Maria Ressa founded Rappler Communities in 2023, a social network in the Philippines that combines journalism, community and technology. It aims to restore trust in institutions by providing safe spaces for exchanging ideas and connecting with neighbors, journalists and civil society groups. Rappler Communities offers the public data privacy and portability, meaning you can take your information – like photos, contacts or messages – from one app or platform and transfer it to another. These design features are not available on the major social media platforms.

    Rappler Communities is a social network in the Philippines that combines journalism, community and technology.
    Screenshot of Rappler Communities

    Tech designed for improving public dialogue is possible – and can even work in the middle of a war zone. In 2024, the Alliance for Middle East Peace began using Remesh.ai, an AI-based platform, to find areas of common ground between Israelis and Palestinians in order to advance the idea of a public peace process and identify elements of a ceasefire agreement.

    Platform designs are a form of social engineering to achieve some sort of goal – because they shape how people behave, think and interact – often invisibly. Designing more and better platforms to support democracy can be an antidote to the wave of global autocracy that is increasingly bolstered by tech platforms that tighten public control.

    Lisa Schirch receives funding from the Ford Foundation. I know the founder of Pol.is and Remesh platforms, mentioned in this article, as well as Maria Ressa of Rappler Communities.

    I will not benefit in any way from describing their work.

    ref. Social media can support or undermine democracy – it comes down to how it’s designed – https://theconversation.com/social-media-can-support-or-undermine-democracy-it-comes-down-to-how-its-designed-257103

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • Tesla slides as Musk’s ‘America Party’ sparks investor worries

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Tesla shares fell nearly 7% in premarket trading on Monday after CEO Elon Musk’s plans to launch a new U.S. political party raised investor doubts about his focus on the electric automaker’s future.

    The former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unveiled the ‘America Party’ on Saturday, voicing his displeasure over President Donald Trump’s ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’.

    This further escalates Musk’s feud with Trump even as Tesla posted a second straight drop in quarterly deliveries. Their discord over the tax bill erupted into an all-out social media brawl in early June, with Trump threatening to cut Musk’s government contracts and subsidies.

    “Investors are worried about two things – one is more Trump ire affecting subsidies and the other, more importantly, is a distracted Musk,” said Neil Wilson, UK investor strategist at Saxo Markets.

    Investors had in May cheered Musk’s decision to scale back political spending and remain Tesla CEO for another five years. He had spent nearly $300 million around Trump’s re-election campaign last year.

    “But now (they) are worried he’s going to (get) sucked back in and take his eye off Tesla,” Wilson said.

    The first signs of investor unease surfaced soon after Musk’s announcement, with investment firm Azoria Partners delaying the listing of a Tesla exchange-traded fund.

    Trump on Sunday called Musk’s plans to form the “America Party” “ridiculous”, saying the Musk ally he once named to lead NASA would have presented a conflict of interest given Musk’s business interests in space.

    TESLA BOARD MOVES

    Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, a Tesla bull, said many investors are feeling a “sense of exhaustion” over Musk’s insistence on immersing himself in politics.

    Azoria Partners CEO James Fishback posted several critical comments on X about Musk’s new party, and called for the Tesla board to clarify Musk’s political ambitions and evaluate if his political involvement is compatible with his obligations to Tesla as CEO.

    The new party undermines the confidence shareholders had that Musk would be focusing more on the company, Fishback said.

    Musk’s latest political move raises questions around Tesla board’s course of action. Its Chair Robyn Denholm in May denied a Wall Street Journal report that said board members were looking to replace the CEO.

    Tesla’s board, which has been criticized for failing to provide oversight of its combative, headline-making CEO, faces a dilemma managing him as he oversees five other companies and his personal political ambitions.

    “This is exactly the kind of thing a board of directors would curtail – removing the CEO if he refused to curtail these kinds of activities,” said Ann Lipton, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and an expert in business law.

    “The Tesla board has been fairly supine; they have not, at least not in any demonstrable way, taken any action to force Musk to limit his outside ventures, and it’s difficult to imagine they would begin now.”

    Tensions with Trump, struggling sales and an aging vehicle line-up have hurt Tesla’s stock, even as the company bets on growth from autonomous vehicles.

    The stock, which soared to over $488 in December after Trump’s November re-election, has lost 35% since then and closed last week at $315.35.

    Tesla is the worst performing stock among “the Magnificent Seven” group of high-growth U.S. companies this year.

    (Reuters)

     

  • Trump calls Musk’s formation of new party ‘ridiculous’ and criticizes his own NASA pick

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump on Sunday called Elon Musk’s plans to form a new political party “ridiculous,” launching new barbs at the tech billionaire and saying the Musk ally he once named to lead NASA would have presented a conflict of interest given Musk’s business interests in space.

    A day after Musk escalated his feud with Trump and announced the formation of a new U.S. political party, the Republican president was asked about it before boarding Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, as he returned to Washington upon visiting his nearby golf club.

    “I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it’s always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion,” Trump told reporters.

    “It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous.”

    Shortly after speaking about Musk, Trump posted further comments on his Truth Social platform, saying, “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.”

    Musk announced on Saturday that he is establishing the “America Party” in response to Trump’s tax-cut and spending bill, which Musk said would bankrupt the country.

    “What the heck was the point of @DOGE if he’s just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??” Musk wrote on X on Sunday, referring to the government downsizing agency he briefly led. Critics have said the bill will damage the U.S. economy by significantly adding to the federal budget deficit.

    Musk said his new party would in next year’s midterm elections look to unseat Republican lawmakers in Congress who backed the sweeping measure known as the “big, beautiful bill.”

    Musk spent millions of dollars underwriting Trump’s 2024 re-election effort and, for a time, regularly showed up at the president’s side in the White House Oval Office and elsewhere. Their disagreement over the spending bill led to a falling out that Musk briefly tried unsuccessfully to repair.

    Trump has said Musk is unhappy because the measure, which Trump signed into law on Friday, takes away green-energy credits for Tesla’s electric vehicles. The president has threatened to pull billions of dollars Tesla and SpaceX receive in government contracts and subsidies in response to Musk’s criticism.

    NASA APPOINTMENT ‘INAPPROPRIATE’

    Trump in his social media comments also said it was “inappropriate” to have named Musk ally Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator considering Musk’s business with the space agency. In December Trump named Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut, to lead NASA but withdrew the nomination on May 31, before his Senate confirmation vote and without explanation.

    Trump, who has yet to announce a new NASA nominee, on Sunday confirmed media reports he disapproved of Isaacman’s previous support for Democratic politicians.

    “I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon’s corporate life,” Trump said on Truth Social. “My Number One charge is to protect the American Public!”

    Musk’s announcement of a new party immediately brought a rebuke from Azoria Partners, which said on Saturday it will postpone the listing of its Azoria Tesla Convexity exchange-traded fund because the party’s creation posed “a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO.” Azoria was set to launch the Tesla ETF this week.

    Azoria CEO James Fishback posted on X several critical comments about the new party and reiterated his support for Trump.

    “I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO,” Fishback said.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump calls Musk’s formation of new party ‘ridiculous’ and criticizes his own NASA pick

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump on Sunday called Elon Musk’s plans to form a new political party “ridiculous,” launching new barbs at the tech billionaire and saying the Musk ally he once named to lead NASA would have presented a conflict of interest given Musk’s business interests in space.

    A day after Musk escalated his feud with Trump and announced the formation of a new U.S. political party, the Republican president was asked about it before boarding Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, as he returned to Washington upon visiting his nearby golf club.

    “I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it’s always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion,” Trump told reporters.

    “It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous.”

    Shortly after speaking about Musk, Trump posted further comments on his Truth Social platform, saying, “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.”

    Musk announced on Saturday that he is establishing the “America Party” in response to Trump’s tax-cut and spending bill, which Musk said would bankrupt the country.

    “What the heck was the point of @DOGE if he’s just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??” Musk wrote on X on Sunday, referring to the government downsizing agency he briefly led. Critics have said the bill will damage the U.S. economy by significantly adding to the federal budget deficit.

    Musk said his new party would in next year’s midterm elections look to unseat Republican lawmakers in Congress who backed the sweeping measure known as the “big, beautiful bill.”

    Musk spent millions of dollars underwriting Trump’s 2024 re-election effort and, for a time, regularly showed up at the president’s side in the White House Oval Office and elsewhere. Their disagreement over the spending bill led to a falling out that Musk briefly tried unsuccessfully to repair.

    Trump has said Musk is unhappy because the measure, which Trump signed into law on Friday, takes away green-energy credits for Tesla’s electric vehicles. The president has threatened to pull billions of dollars Tesla and SpaceX receive in government contracts and subsidies in response to Musk’s criticism.

    NASA APPOINTMENT ‘INAPPROPRIATE’

    Trump in his social media comments also said it was “inappropriate” to have named Musk ally Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator considering Musk’s business with the space agency. In December Trump named Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut, to lead NASA but withdrew the nomination on May 31, before his Senate confirmation vote and without explanation.

    Trump, who has yet to announce a new NASA nominee, on Sunday confirmed media reports he disapproved of Isaacman’s previous support for Democratic politicians.

    “I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon’s corporate life,” Trump said on Truth Social. “My Number One charge is to protect the American Public!”

    Musk’s announcement of a new party immediately brought a rebuke from Azoria Partners, which said on Saturday it will postpone the listing of its Azoria Tesla Convexity exchange-traded fund because the party’s creation posed “a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO.” Azoria was set to launch the Tesla ETF this week.

    Azoria CEO James Fishback posted on X several critical comments about the new party and reiterated his support for Trump.

    “I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO,” Fishback said.

    (Reuters)

  • Musk announces forming of ‘America Party’ in further break from Trump

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The tattered bromance between Republican President Donald Trump and his main campaign financier Elon Musk took another fractious turn on Saturday when the space and automotive billionaire announced the formation of a new political party, saying Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill would bankrupt America.

    A day after asking his followers on his X platform whether a new U.S. political party should be created, Musk declared in a post on Saturday that “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

    “By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!” he wrote.

    The announcement from Musk comes after Trump signed his self-styled “big, beautiful” tax-cut and spending bill into law on Friday, which Musk fiercely opposed.

    Musk, who became the word’s richest man thanks to his Tesla car company and his SpaceX satellite firm, spent hundreds of millions on Trump’s re-election and led the Department of Government Efficiency from the start of the president’s second term aimed at slashing government spending.

    The two have since fallen out spectacularly over disagreements about the bill.

    Musk said previously that he would start a new political party and spend money to unseat lawmakers who supported the bill.

    Trump earlier this week threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk’s companies receive from the federal government.

    Republicans have expressed concern that Musk’s on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

    Asked on X what was the one thing that made him go from loving Trump to attacking him, Musk said: “Increasing the deficit from an already insane $2T under Biden to $2.5T. This will bankrupt the country.”

    He referenced the growth of Greece from subjugation to preeminence in the ancient world in another tweet, saying: “The way we’re going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra: Extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.”

    There was no immediate comment from Trump or the White House on Musk’s announcement.

    The feud with Trump, often described as one between the world’s richest man and the world’s most powerful, has led to several precipitous falls in Tesla’s share price.

    The stock soared after Trump’s November reelection and hit a high of more than $488 in December, before losing more than half of its value in April and closing last week out at $315.35.

    Despite Musk’s deep pockets, breaking the Republican-Democratic duopoly will be a tall order, given that it has dominated American political life for more than 160 years, while Trump’s approval ratings in polls in his second term have generally held firm above 40 percent, despite often divisive policies.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: I. Musk announced the creation of a new political party in the USA

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    LOS ANGELES, July 5 (Xinhua) — Billionaire Elon Musk announced Saturday that an America Party is being formed to “bring back freedom to you (American citizens),” after an online poll he launched earlier this week showed strong support for the new political force.

    “Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from a two-party /some would say one-party/ system,” he wrote in a post announcing the poll on Friday. More than 65 percent of the 1.2 million respondents supported the idea.

    Reacting to the poll results on Saturday, Musk wrote: “By a 2-1 margin, you want a new political party, and you will get one! When it comes to bankrupting our country through waste and corruption, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.”

    The billionaire said the America Party would focus on winning two to three seats in the Senate and eight to 10 seats in the House, a strategy he believes could change the situation in Congress.

    But election experts point out the high barriers to entry for new parties. In California, organizers must either register about 75,000 members or collect 1.1 million signatures to get on the ballot.

    Political strategists speculate that Musk’s announcement may be more about pressuring lawmakers than building a solid third party. The move follows President Donald Trump’s passage of a “one big beautiful bill” that cut electric vehicle subsidies and increased federal spending — measures Musk, whose Tesla benefits from those subsidies, has opposed. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI China: Musk announces new political party in US

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

    Tech billionaire Elon Musk announced Saturday that “the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,” following an online poll he launched earlier in the week that showed strong support for a new political force.

    “Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system,” Musk wrote in Friday’s post announcing the poll. More than 65 percent of the 1.2 million respondents backed the idea.

    Responding to the results on Saturday, Musk wrote, “By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.”

    Musk said the America Party will laser-focus on two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts, a strategy he believes could tip control in a narrowly divided Congress.

    But election-law experts note the high barriers to entry for new parties. In California, organizers must either register about 75,000 members or collect 1.1 million signatures to appear on ballots.

    Political strategists suggest Musk’s announcement may be aimed more at pressuring lawmakers than building a durable third party. The move follows the passage of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which cut electric vehicle incentives and increased federal spending — measures that Musk, whose company Tesla benefits from EV subsidies, has opposed.

    Musk has threatened to fund challengers to lawmakers who supported the bill. Trump, in turn, has hinted at reassessing what he called “billions in subsidies” tied to Musk-linked ventures.

    Analysts say Musk’s move appears more like a high-profile bargaining tactic than the beginning of a major shake-up of the U.S. political system.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Remarks as prepared for delivery by Kim Anderson, NEA Executive Director, to the 104th Representative Assembly

    Source: US National Education Union

    Hello, NEA!

    To our 3 million members…

    7 thousand delegates…

    Board of Directors…

    Executive Committee…

    and our amazing NEA and affiliate staff… thank you for all you do each day to fight for the kids and families and communities we are so lucky to serve.

    I also want to give special recognition to my colleagues in our state affiliates: our state affiliate executive directors.

    Day in and day out you lead and manage with dedication and devotion to this organization.

    As executive directors, we partner with leaders elected by NEA members to advance a glorious mission, vision, and set of core values.

    And I must say that at the national level, we have a tireless leader of our extraordinary union… a fearless champion for students, educators, and the just and equitable public education system on which our nation’s future depends… President Becky Pringle.

    Delegates, you heard President Pringle the other day lay out many of the challenges we face in our country — a perilous moment for our democracy.  A crossroads between democracy and authoritarianism.

    You heard from Dr. Cowen about the throughline connecting those who are funding efforts to dismantle public education run with the same crowd trying to dismantle democracy.

    And you had the distinct honor of hearing from our dear friend and colleague, the General Secretary of Education International, about the anti-democratic challenges that our educator siblings face around the world.

    Delegates, I want to talk very tactically and clinically about the methodology being used.

    Because in order to Educate, Communicate, Litigate, Organize, Mobilize, Legislate and Elect, we have to understand the strategy we are up against.

    Our opponents have built their strategy on four C’s:

    Chaos

    Raise your hands if this sounds familiar:

    How many people find it nearly impossible to keep up with the onslaught of 166 Executive Orders (EO’s) signed to date and the resulting lawsuits that pop up in our news feeds almost daily?

    How many people have adopted a strategy to ration your news intake in order to protect your mental health?

    Yep. Project 2025 told us this Administration would flood the zone with countless rollbacks of policies designed to make us safer, healthier, more prosperous, and more free as a People.

    They want to spread the pro-democracy coalition wide and thin, dividing us up into narrow factions assuming we will fight only to protect the interests closest to us…spreading us too wide and too thin to mount a collective defense.

    Chaos theory is designed to weaken opposition to the regime in power.

    Control

    How many of you have been told to stop teaching what you know to be true?

    How many of you have had to take books off your shelves… or faced other forms of censorship?  

    In an effort to comply with the Administration’s Executive Order related to diversity, equity and inclusion, there were 381 books removed from the U.S. Naval Academy library, including Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” and many other books reflecting the beautiful mosaic of authors in America.

    They removed books that studied the KKK and the history of lynching in America, and yet they left ON the shelf “Mein Kampf” by Adolph Hitler.

    Imagine that!

    This Administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that do not comply with its attempt to obliterate the free marketplace of ideas.

    They know that the mere threat alone will lead to people self-censoring — even before there is any edict requiring it.

    We’ve seen the mad rush in higher education institutions and corporations across the country to scrub the aspirational words of diversity, equity, and inclusion from their websites, and policies, and shutter programs that create safe spaces for freedom of thought and expression.

    This form of retaliatory control is designed to stifle dissent — a right so important, it was the first one enshrined in our Bill of Rights. As my daughter said to me last night, dissent is patriotic.

    Cruelty

    How many of you are working with students who fear their parents will be snatched off the street?

    How many of you have students who don’t have enough to eat at home?

    Well delegates, this big, bad, disgusting bill that passed the House two days ago, POURS more money into ICE and strips money out of food assistance programs.

    Ripping children away from their parents, letting kids go hungry…this is BEYOND cruel.

    It is immoral.

    This use of cruelty is designed to make us all afraid.

    Afraid for our lives.

    Afraid for our families.

    Afraid for our jobs if we speak up.

    It’s designed to make us bow down.

    To comply.

    To submit.

    This nation was conceived in liberty, and freedom is supposed to be our birthright.

    We didn’t want kings in 1776, and we damn sure don’t want kings now.

    Chaos. Control. Cruelty.

    The sum of that formula is corruption.

    To line billionaires’ pockets with tax breaks on the backs of everyone else.

    Do you know that 50 of the S&P 500 companies in the U.S. paid $0 in income tax last year?

    Guess which company was at the top of that list?

    Tesla.

    Despite reporting a $15 billion profit in 2023, Tesla took a $5 billion tax credit!

    It’s reported that between Tesla, Starlink and X, Musk’s companies are making $38 billion in government contracts, subsidies, or tax credits.

    Meaning that WE’RE paying Elon, rather than Elon contributing to the common good.

    And he’s not alone.

    This big, bad, horrible, no good bill that just passed the House two days ago gives over $1 trillion of our tax dollars — the tax dollars of hard-working, everyday Americans — to the wealthiest among us.

    Over 12 million people will lose their healthcare over the life of this bill.

    And Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos….and yes, the Trump organization will all get even richer.

    So the people who bankrolled the last Presidential campaign are getting quite a return on their investment, while everyone else is less healthy, less safe, and less able to see the American Dream as their probability.

    We wake up to policies like this and a social media machine that gaslights Americans every day.

    They want us to believe that immigrants or poor Americans are to blame for the economic rules that have allowed companies like Tesla to pay ZERO income tax.

    And by the way, I hold both major political parties responsible for the decades of economic rules that have diminished the number of people who have a voice in their workplace through belonging to a union.

    Every human being elected has the responsibility of governing on behalf of all of us.

    It means doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people possible.

    And it damn sure means solving more problems than you create!

    So delegates, yesterday’s celebration of Independence Day took on different meaning for me.

    As I do every year, on July 4th, I spend some time reading portions of our founding documents. So yesterday, I focused on this:

    “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

    The first words of the U.S. Constitution.

    The roadmap for how we as Americans are to govern ourselves, not be ruled by someone else.

    We know the work of democracy is hard.

    It’s messy and uneven and really never ever complete. The work of democracy is like the work of justice….

    To paraphrase Executive Committee Member Mark Jewell, “we are never arriving, always becoming.”

    From the 13th Amendment ending slavery to 19th amendment granting voting rights to women….

    From Social Security to IDEA.…

    From Pell Grants to the Affordable Care Act…

    From Title I to the Higher Education Act….

    It has always taken ordinary people to bend the arc of history toward justice….

    And part of becoming a more perfect union is opening the doors of opportunity wider, not slamming them closed.

    So what’s it going to take, delegates, to rescue democracy and public education?

    Yes, it will take those seven verbs, delegates, that President Pringle outlined the other day:

    Educate. Communicate. Litigate. Organize. Mobilize. Legislate.

    And Elect pro-public education, pro-democracy champions.

    I would submit to you, delegates, that the most potent contribution NEA could make to the effort is through organizing and mobilizing millions of Americans to resist….to say NO….to say our democracy belongs to us!

    But it’s critical that we learn from other countries around the world, and what we know is that an organized, sustained resistance is the key.

    Delegates, Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth has studied examples around the world of what it takes to topple authoritarian rule.

    Her research shows that when 3.5 percent of a nation’s population stands together in sustained nonviolent resistance, the probability of toppling authoritarianism goes way up.

    In the United States, that’s roughly 12 million people… and NEA — we are 3 million strong.

    If each of us could activate just one person, we’d have nearly 6 million people.

    And if each of those mobilized just one more, we’d be 12 million allies in the fight.

    NEA, this is the biggest movement moment since the Civil War.

    I’m personally so inspired by all of you: the millions of members and thousands of delegates who call this union home.

    I’m also inspired by my friends and family members.

    Earlier this year, during the Hands Off protest in Washington D.C., I met up with a few of them who had come down from New England.

    We were all together on the National Mall, holding up our handmade signs, and one of my family members was there celebrating her 80th birthday.

    She said, “Kim, I was here during the March on Washington. I was here to protest the Vietnam War. I was here fighting for women’s rights. I can’t think of anywhere else that I am supposed to be today.”

    We talked about the masked men who are indiscriminately grabbing people off of American streets to be sent to God knows where – without due process, without warrants, without question.

    We talked about the gravity of the moment that we are in, and she said to me, “I’ve lived my life. If they have to take someone, they should take me.”

    Someone in my family was literally willing to put it all on the line for the values we believe in.

    My family and I talked to many seasoned members of the protest community that day.

    So many of them were of the same mind.

    They were extraordinary.

    They were brave.

    They were willing to stand ten toes down on their values.

    And even as my family member’s words made my eyes fill with tears, they also filled my heart with resolve.

    But one thing’s for sure: We cannot save anyone or anything by keeping quiet and hoping it all goes away.

    In the face of injustice, as the great civil rights leader Audre Lorde said, “Our silence won’t protect us.”

    And Lorde is right.

    This administration only takes notice when we are united and loud… when we are brave enough to step up and step forward, and say, “Not on our watch.”

    So it matters that people in communities nationwide — teachers, parents, librarians, public education advocates — are staging walk-ins…and resisting book bans… and creating safe zones for children at school.

    And it matters that the NEA, our union, is at the vanguard.

    But I do need to acknowledge: Being brave can feel scary — especially when your job is at stake.

    And, even more, if you feel like you are standing all alone.

    So delegates I want you to remember:

    You are never alone.

    This union has your back.

    And when it comes to courage, every small act makes a difference.

    Maybe it’s comforting a terrified student who fears their parents will get ripped away from them.

    Maybe it’s planning a joyful event for your colleagues — celebrating a special occasion or simply because you made it through another day together.

    These acts of resilience –  of love – can be the spark that lights a fire… giving someone else the energy… inspiration… and confidence to act as well.

    Organize. Mobilize.

    Delegates, our assignment is clear:

    Twelve million Americans must choose each day to engage in big and small acts of resistance and noncooperation with an Administration that has no intention of recognizing ANY of our constitutional rights.

    Sometimes acts of resistance can be singular, but they have an incredible ripple effect.

    Like our union sibling Idaho sixth-grade history teacher Sarah Inama.

    When Sarah’s school district told her to take down a classroom sign that said “Everyone is welcome here,” Sarah refused.

    And in her words, “It was so simple to me. Either everyone is welcome here or not.”

    Sarah’s defiance — and the solidarity from our Idaho affiliate — helped shine a spotlight on the threats and intimidation our students, schools, and educators face today.

    Stories like this will mobilize even more people to our cause… and help us drive momentum not only to resist but, yes, to BUILD.

    Because, in a time when the rules are being flouted… when longstanding norms are being shattered… we have a chance to remake systems that are more just, more inclusive, and more sustainable.

    Our union itself can be a model of what that future can hold.

    A place where people from all walks of life can come together and work together in support of the common good.

    And let me say it loud and clear:

    Everyone is welcome here!

    And we NEED everyone engaged!

    Already this year, organizing, mobilizing, and collective action has led to meaningful legislative wins — wins that make life better for students and the educators who serve them.

    • In Alaska, lawmakers significantly and permanently boosted funding for state education.
    • In Mississippi, greater funding includes increases in educators’ health insurance premiums and retirement pay.
    • The Texas legislature passed a record school funding bill with the largest teacher pay increase in state history.

    But we know we must push for more.

    And just as important as what we’ve helped push through is what we’ve blocked.

    • Our efforts in Montana, the Dakotas, and New Hampshire helped ensure bad bills on issues such as vouchers, funding caps, and open enrollment never made it out of committee.
    • Montana also joined Indiana in successfully contesting and, in some cases, defeating anti-union and anti-collective bargaining bills.
    • In Tennessee, when a bill was introduced that would have allowed public schools to deny enrollment to immigrant students, we helped make sure it died before the end of the legislative session.
    • And in Utah, when the legislature passed a bill rolling back collective bargaining rights for Utah education employees, UEA, USEA, and NEA marshalled a huge labor coalition effort to collect 324,000 signatures in 31 days to place a measure on the ballot to repeal the legislature’s attack on our bargaining rights.

    NEA, our collective action is bringing real results.

    And we will not yield in our defense of education, freedom, and democracy.

    We will not yield in our support of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    And guess what?

    The harder we fight, the stronger our union grows.

    Despite relentless assaults on our affiliates across the country, we are going to finish this year with net membership growth for the first time since the pandemic!

    Delegates, I want to assure you that for years NEA has been steadily increasing its support of year-round organizing in our affiliates.

    We now have 2,194 member organizers that we support through our year-round organizing program, lifted up by talented staff.

    We’ve expanded our Growth and Strength Program, which has helped affiliates hire and deploy 167 full-time staff organizers across the country.

    And we created a Campaign Lab for local affiliates to learn how to develop organizing campaigns to win the schools our students and educators deserve.

    We’ve expanded grants for locals engaged in not only bargaining for the common good but achieving labor-management collaboration systems in the places where there are trusting, productive relationships between our members, administrators, and school board members.

    NEA has increased its support for affiliates who are organizing recognition and first contract campaigns, yielding new units in Colorado, New York, New Mexico, and Kansas.

    • In North Carolina (a non-bargaining state), Asheville City Association of Educators became the first local in North Carolina to reach majority status!
    • And the Durham Association of Educators launched a campaign for Meet and Confer authority and in the process won a school budget that was over 2.5 times larger than any budget request in memory….AND they tripled their membership.
    • In Texas, the San Antonio Alliance won the biggest compensation package in 25 years.
    • In Arizona, the Tucson Education Association won 12 weeks of paid parental leave — the first of its kind in the state!
    • In California, members in Sacramento fought to create Community Schools steering committees at the district and site levels and won 10% across the board compensation increases.
    • In San Francisco, UESF won an 84% raise for their lowest paid classified workers, Community Schools CBA language.
    • And the great United Teachers of Los Angeles won the second largest pay increase ever almost 23% over three years. They achieved a reduction in standardized testing and stood in solidarity with their SEIU colleagues on a 3-day ULP strike.

    When We Fight…….

    And we don’t just Fight Back, we Fight Forward!

    Delegates, our mission statement declares that “Our work is fundamental to the nation.”

    America needs our strength.

    America needs our resilience.

    America needs our vision and power to create something new… something beautiful… 

    A public education system that welcomes and prepares every student and a democracy that delivers for everyone!

    Let’s Go NEA!  Let’s Go!

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: International aid: ‘The money isn’t coming back anytime soon’, Fletcher warns

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI

    UN News: You have said that policymakers who signed off on aid cuts should come to Afghanistan to see the effect they’re having on the population. You said the effect of aid cuts is that millions die. Do you use this kind of blunt language when you’re talking to these policymakers in private?

    Tom Fletcher: Yes, I do. Of course, there is a bit of a time lag before you really see the impact of the cuts, but here, 400 clinics closed in the last few weeks. That has a real-world impact and it’s become much more real for me on this trip.

    I’ve just come from a meeting with NGOs, and they’re laying off half their staff. The local NGO’s that we’re keen to protect in the midst of all this, have been the hardest hit.

    We try and find different ways to communicate this in slightly gentler terms, but ultimately, of course, people will die as a result of these cuts.

    That’s the great tragedy at the heart of it now.

    UN News: How do the politicians respond?

    I think there are broadly two camps here. You’ve got politicians who are doing this really reluctantly, forced to make really tough decisions because their economies are struggling and because of pressures from taxpayers to do things differently. They know the importance of humanitarian efforts and they’re very sad about the choices they’re having to make.

    Then there is another group of politicians who, I fear, celebrate, certainly in their public messages. They seem to boast about – and take credit for – aid cuts. That’s the group that I would love to bring to sit with a mother who has lost her child because she was forced to cycle pregnant to a hospital three hours away.

    You show leadership on the world stage by being out there helping countries to deal with these challenges at source. I don’t know which of those arguments work with which constituencies, so we have to adapt and be creative in how we make the case.

    We also have to be firm in defending what we do and take pride in the fact that the humanitarian community has taken millions out of poverty and saved hundreds of millions of lives.

    UN News: You’ve become the UN emergency relief chief at a particularly tough time, in terms of ensuring the UN’s ability to help the most vulnerable. In February you announced 20 per cent cuts to your department. How will you make those cuts in a way that doesn’t make the job even harder?

    Tom Fletcher: It’s rough. Really brutal choices are being made and the sector will probably shrink by one third. The money that’s been cut isn’t going to come back anytime soon, and there may be more funding cuts ahead.

    We will be looking for new partners, and trying to convince the sceptics to bring the private sector in and change the public conversation around solidarity. We have to work with the money that we have, not the money that we need or the money that we wish we had.

    I’m really positive about the way that Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, has talked about the need to protect life-saving aid 

    Dialogue is going on, I’m not giving up and I’m really positive about the way that Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, has talked about the need to protect life-saving aid. I really want to get into that conversation with him and see what his vision is for America’s role in saving lives around the world.

    UN News: Given the current situation, are we going to have to completely rethink what aid entails and how it’s funded?

    Tom Fletcher: We’re going to have to change. We have to preserve the best of what we’ve learnt and have confidence in what we’ve delivered so far, but we’re going through a process now that we call the “humanitarian reset”.

    First of all, we’re becoming smaller and we’re trying to do that in a way that does as little damage as possible and minimises the hit to the essential life-saving work we do.

    Alongside that, we’re becoming more efficient and smarter. I launched on my first day in office, a big efficiency drive across the sector.

    The IASC, the body that coordinates our sector, has backed that up and actually taken it to the next level in terms of taking the layers out of the system and making sure we end the turf wars and focus on what we each do well, the extra value we bring, and ensure that we do much more at a local level, close to the communities we serve.

    The UN relief chief Tom Fletcher, visits a hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

    UN News: Do many Member States still believe in the importance of international aid?

    Tom Fletcher: Absolutely. A number of donors are staying solid despite the funding crises that they’re all facing. We’ve got new donors emerging and growing. I’ve been in The Gulf, and I was in China last week, and engagement there is deepening.

    We’ve got new donors emerging, and engagement is deepening

    We’ve got more innovative ideas about how to bring in the private sector and also I believe really strongly in the role of individuals in finding ways to ensure that we’re reaching wider movement beyond governments and Member States.

    UN News: Returning to Afghanistan, the de facto authorities [The Taliban] have severely reduced access to education and employment prospects for women and girls. Are you able to have a constructive discussion about this with the regime?

    Tom Fletcher: Yes, we are. There are two really core issues here for us. One is the role of women in humanitarian work: we simply cannot deliver without them. They are brilliant, brilliant colleagues, we rely on them completely and we couldn’t be here without them.

    And the second is the wider issue around rights for women and girls, including education and the fact that millions of girls have had that right stolen from them over the last three years.

    These are difficult conversations, but I come at this as a former diplomat, as someone who believes in dialogue, who believes in respect and trust and listening, and in recognizing that we have different cultures, different traditions, different heritages and different beliefs that I don’t hold.

    Tom Fletcher, the UN humanitarian meets women at an economic development programme in Afghanistan.

    UN News: Before you began this job, did you have a goal in mind, that you want to achieve before the end of your mandate as the head of humanitarian affairs?

    Tom Fletcher: The average head of OCHA lasts about three years, they burn through us pretty quickly. The travel schedule is very hectic and you’re dealing with the world’s worst crises so there’s a bit of wear and tear along the way.

    It’s our job to save hundreds of millions of lives and to define everything we do against that yardstick

    So, my number one objective was to survive as long as possible, because I think it’s traumatic for an organization to get new people in, train them and have them up and running. Being around for a period of time, learning from the organization and from those we serve, and then putting that into action is a serious objective in itself.

    I did come into it with an objective around the reform of the humanitarian sector, well before Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others started talking about efficiency and prioritization and cuts. I do believe that we can do this much more effectively and much closer to those we serve and so I was already determined to deliver that.

    And then thirdly, the big one is ultimately about saving lives. I believe it’s our job to save hundreds of millions of lives and to define everything we do against that yardstick. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

    In some parts of Russia, schoolgirls who become pregnant are being paid more than 100,000 roubles (nearly £900) for giving birth and raising their babies.

    This new measure, introduced in the past few months across ten regions, is part of Russia’s new demographic strategy, widening the policy adopted in March 2025 which only applied to adult women. It is designed to address the dramatic decline in the country’s birthrate.

    In 2023 the number of births in Russia per woman was 1.41 – substantially below 2.05, which is the level required to maintain a population at its current size.

    Paying teenage girls to have babies while they are still in school is controversial in Russia. According to a recent survey by the Russian Public Opinion Research Centre, 43% of Russians approve of the policy, while 40% are opposed to it. But it indicates the high priority that the state places on increasing the number of children being born.

    Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, regards a large population as one of the markers of a flourishing great power, along with control over a vast (and growing) territory and a powerful military. Paradoxically, though, his efforts to increase the physical size of Russia by attacking Ukraine and illegally annexing its territory have also been disastrous in terms of shrinking Russia’s population.

    The number of Russian soldiers killed in the war has reached 250,000 by some estimates, while the war sparked an exodus of hundreds of thousands of some of the most highly educated Russians. Many of them are young men fleeing military service who could have been fathers to the next generation of Russian citizens.

    But while Russia’s demographic situation is extreme, declining birth rates are now a global trend. It is estimated that by 2050 more than three quarters of the world’s countries will have such low fertility rates that they will not be able to sustain their populations.

    It’s not only Russia

    Putin is not the only world leader to introduce policies designed to encourage women to have more babies. Viktor Orban’s government in Hungary is offering a range of incentives, such as generous tax breaks and subsidised mortgages, to those who have three or more children.

    Poland makes a monthly payment of 500 złoty (£101) per child to families with two or more children. But there’s some evidence this has not prompted higher-income Polish women to have more children, as they might have to sacrifice higher earnings and career advancement to have another child.

    In the United States, Donald Trump is proposing to pay women US$5,000 (£3,682) to have a baby, tied to a wider Maga movement push, supported by Elon Musk and others, to encourage women to have larger families.

    Reversing demographic trends is complex, because the reasons that individuals and couples have for becoming parents are also complex. Personal preferences and aspirations, beliefs about their ability to provide for children, as well as societal norms and cultural and religious values all play a part in these decisions.

    As a result, the impact of “pronatalist” policies has been mixed. No country has found an easy way to reverse declining birth rates.

    One country seeking to address population decline with policies, other than encouraging women to have more babies is Spain, which now allows an easier pathway to citizenship for migrants, including those who entered the country illegally. Madrid’s embrace of immigrants is being credited for its current economic boom.

    The US is seeing a pronatalist movement become more vocal.

    Looking for particular types of families

    But governments that adopt pronatalist policies tend to be concerned, not simply with increasing the total number of people living and working in their countries, but with encouraging certain kinds of people to reproduce. In other words, there is often an ideological dimension to these practices.

    Incentives for pregnancy, childbirth and large families are typically targeted at those whom the state regards as its most desirable citizens. These people may be desirable citizens due to their race, ethnicity, language, religion, sexual orientation or some other identity or combination of identities.




    Read more:
    Putin forced to send wounded back to fight and offer huge military salaries as Russia suffers a million casualties


    For instance, the Spanish bid to increase the population by increasing immigration offers mostly Spanish speakers from Catholic countries in Latin America jobs while opportunities to remain in, or move to, the country does appear to be extended to migrants from Africa. Meanwhile, Hungary’s incentives to families are only available to heterosexual couples who earn high incomes.

    Elon Musk believes people need to have more children.

    The emphasis on increasing the proportion of the most desirable citizens is why the Trump administration sees no contradiction in calling for more babies to be born in the US, while ordering the arrest and deportation of hundreds of alleged illegal migrants, attempting to reverse the constitutional guarantee of US citizenship for anyone born in the country and even attempting to withdraw citizenship from some Americans.

    Which mothers do they want?

    The success or failure of governments and societies that promote pronatalism hinges on their ability to persuade people – and especially women – to embrace parenthood. Along with financial incentives and other tangible rewards for having babies, some states offer praise and recognition for the mothers of large families.

    Putin’s reintroduction of the Stalin-era motherhood medal for women with ten or more children is one example. Sometimes the recognition comes from society, such as the current American fascination with “trad wives” – women who become social media influencers by turning their backs on careers in favour of raising large numbers of children and living socially conservative lifestyles.

    The mirror image of this celebration of motherhood is the implicit or explicit criticism of women who delay childbirth or reject it altogether. Russia’s parliament passed a law in 2024 to ban the promotion of childlessness, or “child-free propaganda”. This legislation joins other measures such as restrictions on abortions in private clinics, together with public condemnation of women who choose to study at university and pursue careers rather than prioritise marriage and child-rearing.

    The world’s most prosperous states would be embracing immigration if pronatalist policies were driven solely by the need to ensure a sufficient workforce to support the economy and society. Instead, these attempts are often bound up with efforts to restrict or dictate the choices that citizens – and especially women – make about their personal lives, and to create a population dominated by the types of the people they favour.

    Jennifer Mathers 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. Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world? – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-paying-schoolgirls-to-have-babies-why-is-pronatalism-on-the-rise-around-the-world-258979

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Nottingham Trent University

    To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed.

    This makes Elon Musk’s tease that he may launch his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with Donald Trump even more intriguing.

    What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box.


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


    Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level.

    But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person.

    A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away.

    The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9% of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level.

    When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether “I often wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views, 37% of respondents answered: “Very well” and 31% answered: “Somewhat well”.

    In another poll, 25% of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests.

    So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel.

    Odds stacked against third-party insurgency

    The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place.

    Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote.

    In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support.

    The other multi-billion dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn’t even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf).

    Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it’s a vanity project, or lacks true mass appeal.

    There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a “chicken and egg” situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it’s difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage.

    The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Donald Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him.

    Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or Maga party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate.

    Money, money, money

    Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he’s willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen.

    He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can’t run for president.

    If he’s serious about electoral success, he’d have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they’d lead his party. Musk’s public persona suggests that he does not play well with others.

    Founding a third party isn’t impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.

    Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton 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. Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-says-he-may-launch-his-own-party-but-us-history-tells-us-thats-not-a-recipe-for-success-260480

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Nottingham Trent University

    To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed.

    This makes Elon Musk’s tease that he may launch his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with Donald Trump even more intriguing.

    What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box.


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


    Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level.

    But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person.

    A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away.

    The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9% of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level.

    When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether “I often wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views, 37% of respondents answered: “Very well” and 31% answered: “Somewhat well”.

    In another poll, 25% of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests.

    So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel.

    Odds stacked against third-party insurgency

    The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place.

    Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote.

    In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support.

    The other multi-billion dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn’t even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf).

    Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it’s a vanity project, or lacks true mass appeal.

    There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a “chicken and egg” situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it’s difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage.

    The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Donald Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him.

    Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or Maga party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate.

    Money, money, money

    Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he’s willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen.

    He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can’t run for president.

    If he’s serious about electoral success, he’d have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they’d lead his party. Musk’s public persona suggests that he does not play well with others.

    Founding a third party isn’t impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.

    Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton 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. Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-says-he-may-launch-his-own-party-but-us-history-tells-us-thats-not-a-recipe-for-success-260480

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

    In some parts of Russia, schoolgirls who become pregnant are being paid more than 100,000 roubles (nearly £900) for giving birth and raising their babies.

    This new measure, introduced in the past few months across ten regions, is part of Russia’s new demographic strategy, widening the policy adopted in March 2025 which only applied to adult women. It is designed to address the dramatic decline in the country’s birthrate.

    In 2023 the number of births in Russia per woman was 1.41 – substantially below 2.05, which is the level required to maintain a population at its current size.

    Paying teenage girls to have babies while they are still in school is controversial in Russia. According to a recent survey by the Russian Public Opinion Research Centre, 43% of Russians approve of the policy, while 40% are opposed to it. But it indicates the high priority that the state places on increasing the number of children being born.

    Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, regards a large population as one of the markers of a flourishing great power, along with control over a vast (and growing) territory and a powerful military. Paradoxically, though, his efforts to increase the physical size of Russia by attacking Ukraine and illegally annexing its territory have also been disastrous in terms of shrinking Russia’s population.

    The number of Russian soldiers killed in the war has reached 250,000 by some estimates, while the war sparked an exodus of hundreds of thousands of some of the most highly educated Russians. Many of them are young men fleeing military service who could have been fathers to the next generation of Russian citizens.

    But while Russia’s demographic situation is extreme, declining birth rates are now a global trend. It is estimated that by 2050 more than three quarters of the world’s countries will have such low fertility rates that they will not be able to sustain their populations.

    It’s not only Russia

    Putin is not the only world leader to introduce policies designed to encourage women to have more babies. Viktor Orban’s government in Hungary is offering a range of incentives, such as generous tax breaks and subsidised mortgages, to those who have three or more children.

    Poland makes a monthly payment of 500 złoty (£101) per child to families with two or more children. But there’s some evidence this has not prompted higher-income Polish women to have more children, as they might have to sacrifice higher earnings and career advancement to have another child.

    In the United States, Donald Trump is proposing to pay women US$5,000 (£3,682) to have a baby, tied to a wider Maga movement push, supported by Elon Musk and others, to encourage women to have larger families.

    Reversing demographic trends is complex, because the reasons that individuals and couples have for becoming parents are also complex. Personal preferences and aspirations, beliefs about their ability to provide for children, as well as societal norms and cultural and religious values all play a part in these decisions.

    As a result, the impact of “pronatalist” policies has been mixed. No country has found an easy way to reverse declining birth rates.

    One country seeking to address population decline with policies, other than encouraging women to have more babies is Spain, which now allows an easier pathway to citizenship for migrants, including those who entered the country illegally. Madrid’s embrace of immigrants is being credited for its current economic boom.

    The US is seeing a pronatalist movement become more vocal.

    Looking for particular types of families

    But governments that adopt pronatalist policies tend to be concerned, not simply with increasing the total number of people living and working in their countries, but with encouraging certain kinds of people to reproduce. In other words, there is often an ideological dimension to these practices.

    Incentives for pregnancy, childbirth and large families are typically targeted at those whom the state regards as its most desirable citizens. These people may be desirable citizens due to their race, ethnicity, language, religion, sexual orientation or some other identity or combination of identities.




    Read more:
    Putin forced to send wounded back to fight and offer huge military salaries as Russia suffers a million casualties


    For instance, the Spanish bid to increase the population by increasing immigration offers mostly Spanish speakers from Catholic countries in Latin America jobs while opportunities to remain in, or move to, the country does appear to be extended to migrants from Africa. Meanwhile, Hungary’s incentives to families are only available to heterosexual couples who earn high incomes.

    Elon Musk believes people need to have more children.

    The emphasis on increasing the proportion of the most desirable citizens is why the Trump administration sees no contradiction in calling for more babies to be born in the US, while ordering the arrest and deportation of hundreds of alleged illegal migrants, attempting to reverse the constitutional guarantee of US citizenship for anyone born in the country and even attempting to withdraw citizenship from some Americans.

    Which mothers do they want?

    The success or failure of governments and societies that promote pronatalism hinges on their ability to persuade people – and especially women – to embrace parenthood. Along with financial incentives and other tangible rewards for having babies, some states offer praise and recognition for the mothers of large families.

    Putin’s reintroduction of the Stalin-era motherhood medal for women with ten or more children is one example. Sometimes the recognition comes from society, such as the current American fascination with “trad wives” – women who become social media influencers by turning their backs on careers in favour of raising large numbers of children and living socially conservative lifestyles.

    The mirror image of this celebration of motherhood is the implicit or explicit criticism of women who delay childbirth or reject it altogether. Russia’s parliament passed a law in 2024 to ban the promotion of childlessness, or “child-free propaganda”. This legislation joins other measures such as restrictions on abortions in private clinics, together with public condemnation of women who choose to study at university and pursue careers rather than prioritise marriage and child-rearing.

    The world’s most prosperous states would be embracing immigration if pronatalist policies were driven solely by the need to ensure a sufficient workforce to support the economy and society. Instead, these attempts are often bound up with efforts to restrict or dictate the choices that citizens – and especially women – make about their personal lives, and to create a population dominated by the types of the people they favour.

    Jennifer Mathers 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. Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world? – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-paying-schoolgirls-to-have-babies-why-is-pronatalism-on-the-rise-around-the-world-258979

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Nottingham Trent University

    To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed.

    This makes Elon Musk’s tease that he may launch his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with Donald Trump even more intriguing.

    What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box.


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


    Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level.

    But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person.

    A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away.

    The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9% of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level.

    When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether “I often wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views, 37% of respondents answered: “Very well” and 31% answered: “Somewhat well”.

    In another poll, 25% of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests.

    So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel.

    Odds stacked against third-party insurgency

    The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place.

    Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote.

    In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support.

    The other multi-billion dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn’t even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf).

    Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it’s a vanity project, or lacks true mass appeal.

    There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a “chicken and egg” situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it’s difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage.

    The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Donald Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him.

    Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or Maga party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate.

    Money, money, money

    Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he’s willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen.

    He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can’t run for president.

    If he’s serious about electoral success, he’d have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they’d lead his party. Musk’s public persona suggests that he does not play well with others.

    Founding a third party isn’t impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.

    Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton 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. Elon Musk says he may launch his own party: but US history tells us that’s not a recipe for success – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-says-he-may-launch-his-own-party-but-us-history-tells-us-thats-not-a-recipe-for-success-260480

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Morgan McGarvey Slams Passage of Republican Budget: “Slap in the Face to Kentucky and All of Rural America”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan McGarvey (Kentucky-03)

    July 03, 2025

    Today, Congressman Morgan McGarvey, a member of the House Budget Committee, condemned passage of the Republican budget. Congressman McGarvey voted against the budget after debating the bill at 4:00am on the House floor. Click here to download video of his debate remarks.

    “This Republican budget is a slap in the face to Kentucky and all of rural America. It will kick millions of Americans off their health insurance, take food away from Kentucky families, kids, and seniors, and add trillions to the national debt. All so that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos pay even less in taxes. It is cruel and indefensible.

    “I don’t want to hear any Republican who voted for this say they care about rural America or our national debt ever again.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Slams Final Passage of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as a “A Cruel Betrayal of the American People”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    July 3, 2025

    Contact: jin.choi@mail.house.gov

    Rep. Barragán Slams Final Passage of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as a “A Cruel Betrayal of the American People”

    Washington, D.C. — Today, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill, a massive budget package that rips essential safety-net programs away from working families, children, seniors, and veterans to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. The bill passed 218 to 214. Every single House Democrat voted against the bill.

    House Democrats fought until the very last minute to stop the bill’s passage. Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the floor and delivered the longest “magic minute” speech in House history, stretching his leadership-privileged one-minute speech to nearly 9 hours to shine a national spotlight on the devastating impact this bill would have on American families and to make one last plea for Republicans to choose the well-being of their constituents over the demands of a want-to-be king and their billionaire donors .

    The Big Ugly Bill now heads to President Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. Once signed, it will mark the largest Medicaid cut in American history and one of the most aggressive redistributions of wealth from poor and working families to the ultra-rich.

    “This bill is a moral failure. It’s an assault on the American people — on children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities. It strips away health care, food assistance, and basic dignity from those who need it most to hand nearly $1.3 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk. Republicans didn’t just fail our families today, they betrayed the American people,” said Rep. Nanette Barragán.

    “House Democrats fought like hell to stop this bill. We held events in every corner of the country to raise the alarm. I held town halls and community conversations across my district — and heard story after story from families terrified of losing their health care, food banks warning they won’t be able to meet growing demand, and clinic directors worried they’ll have to close their doors. We introduced amendment after amendment and stayed up all night in committee hearings to expose Republican lies and cruelty and demanded better for the American people. But in the end, Republicans in Congress chose to serve Trump and their donors over their country and constituents.”

    The numbers are staggering:

    • $1.3 trillion slashed from Medicaid, the ACA exchanges, Medicare,  and food assistance.
    • 17 million Americans will lose their health care.
    • 40 million people — including 16 million children8 million seniors, and 1.2 million veterans — will have their food assistance put at risk.
    • $4 trillion added to the national debt — including $700 billion in interest — to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
    • $900 billion in Medicaid cuts alone.
    • Cuts that could close 1 in 4 nursing homes nationwide.
    • $500+ billion in cuts to Medicare.
    • 760,000 manufacturing and clean energy jobs will be lost.
    • $400 increase in average household energy bills.
    • $96,400 average tax break for Americans making over $1 million — compared to just $247 for families earning less than $50,000 a year.

    In California, the damage is severe:

    • 2.4 million Californians will lose health insurance.
    • Families in California’s 44th District covered under the Affordable Care Act will see an average premium hike of $2,060.
    • 28 rural hospitals are at risk of shutting down.
    • At least 368,000 Californians may lose some or all of their food assistance.
    • 110,000 jobs in manufacturing and clean energy will disappear.
    • $670 average yearly increase in energy bills for California families.
    • Over 623,000 students in California could lose Pell Grant support for college.

    “This bill is theft in plain sight,” Barragán added. “It steals from the poor and middle class to gift the rich. And for what? A few billionaire tax breaks and a cruel vision of America where working families are left behind. House Democrats will never stop fighting to reverse this damage and protect the people we were sent here to serve.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Slams Final Passage of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as a “A Cruel Betrayal of the American People”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    July 3, 2025

    Contact: jin.choi@mail.house.gov

    Rep. Barragán Slams Final Passage of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as a “A Cruel Betrayal of the American People”

    Washington, D.C. — Today, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill, a massive budget package that rips essential safety-net programs away from working families, children, seniors, and veterans to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. The bill passed 218 to 214. Every single House Democrat voted against the bill.

    House Democrats fought until the very last minute to stop the bill’s passage. Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the floor and delivered the longest “magic minute” speech in House history, stretching his leadership-privileged one-minute speech to nearly 9 hours to shine a national spotlight on the devastating impact this bill would have on American families and to make one last plea for Republicans to choose the well-being of their constituents over the demands of a want-to-be king and their billionaire donors .

    The Big Ugly Bill now heads to President Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. Once signed, it will mark the largest Medicaid cut in American history and one of the most aggressive redistributions of wealth from poor and working families to the ultra-rich.

    “This bill is a moral failure. It’s an assault on the American people — on children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities. It strips away health care, food assistance, and basic dignity from those who need it most to hand nearly $1.3 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk. Republicans didn’t just fail our families today, they betrayed the American people,” said Rep. Nanette Barragán.

    “House Democrats fought like hell to stop this bill. We held events in every corner of the country to raise the alarm. I held town halls and community conversations across my district — and heard story after story from families terrified of losing their health care, food banks warning they won’t be able to meet growing demand, and clinic directors worried they’ll have to close their doors. We introduced amendment after amendment and stayed up all night in committee hearings to expose Republican lies and cruelty and demanded better for the American people. But in the end, Republicans in Congress chose to serve Trump and their donors over their country and constituents.”

    The numbers are staggering:

    • $1.3 trillion slashed from Medicaid, the ACA exchanges, Medicare,  and food assistance.
    • 17 million Americans will lose their health care.
    • 40 million people — including 16 million children8 million seniors, and 1.2 million veterans — will have their food assistance put at risk.
    • $4 trillion added to the national debt — including $700 billion in interest — to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
    • $900 billion in Medicaid cuts alone.
    • Cuts that could close 1 in 4 nursing homes nationwide.
    • $500+ billion in cuts to Medicare.
    • 760,000 manufacturing and clean energy jobs will be lost.
    • $400 increase in average household energy bills.
    • $96,400 average tax break for Americans making over $1 million — compared to just $247 for families earning less than $50,000 a year.

    In California, the damage is severe:

    • 2.4 million Californians will lose health insurance.
    • Families in California’s 44th District covered under the Affordable Care Act will see an average premium hike of $2,060.
    • 28 rural hospitals are at risk of shutting down.
    • At least 368,000 Californians may lose some or all of their food assistance.
    • 110,000 jobs in manufacturing and clean energy will disappear.
    • $670 average yearly increase in energy bills for California families.
    • Over 623,000 students in California could lose Pell Grant support for college.

    “This bill is theft in plain sight,” Barragán added. “It steals from the poor and middle class to gift the rich. And for what? A few billionaire tax breaks and a cruel vision of America where working families are left behind. House Democrats will never stop fighting to reverse this damage and protect the people we were sent here to serve.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Trump tax-cut plan returns to US House, Republicans divided on bill

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The debate within President Donald Trump’s Republican Party over a massive tax-cut and spending bill returns to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, as party leaders try to overcome internal divisions and meet a self-imposed July 4 deadline.

    The Senate passed the legislation, which nonpartisan analysts say will add $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next decade, by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill’s hefty price tag and substantial cuts to the Medicaid health care program.

    Similar divides exist in the House, which Republicans control by a 220-212 margin and where a fractious caucus has regularly bucked its leadership in recent years — though members have so far not rejected major Trump priorities.

    “The House will work quickly to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill that enacts President Trump’s full America First agenda by the Fourth of July,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement on Tuesday, citing the bill’s extension of Trump’s 2017 individual tax cuts and increased funding for the military and immigration enforcement.

    House Republican leaders set an initial procedural vote on the bill for 9 a.m. ET (1300 GMT).

    Some of the loudest Republican objections against it come from party hardliners angry that it does not sufficiently cut spending and a $5 trillion increase in the nation’s debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default on the nation’s $36.2 trillion debt.

    “What the Senate did was unconscionable,” said Representative Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican, one of several fiscal hawks who spoke out against the Senate bill’s higher price tag, accusing the Senate of handing out “goodie bags” of spending to satisfy holdouts.

    Norman said he would vote against advancing the bill on Wednesday.

    Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, saying that its tax breaks disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while cutting services that lower- and middle-income Americans rely on. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that almost 12 million people could lose health insurance as a result of the bill.

    “This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history,” Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Tuesday, pledging that his party will use “all procedural and legislative options” to try to stop – or delay – passage.

    The version of the bill passed by the Senate on Tuesday would add more to the debt than the version first passed by the House in May and also includes more than $900 million in cuts to the Medicaid program for low-income Americans.

    Those cuts also raised concerns among some House Republicans.

    “I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding our hospitals rely on,” Representative David Valadao of California said before Senate passage.

    TIMING DIFFICULTIES

    But some House Republicans worried about social safety-net cuts could find solace in the Senate’s last-minute decision to set aside more money for rural hospitals, funding that Representative Nick Langworthy, a New York Republican, called “a lifeline that will be very helpful to districts like mine.”

    Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, making it all but impossible to meet the July 4 deadline.

    Further complicating the timeline, a wave of storms in the Washington area on Tuesday night canceled flights, and some lawmakers from both parties detailed on social media plans to drive from their home districts to the Capitol for Wednesday’s expected vote.

    A senior White House official said on Tuesday that Trump is expected to be “deeply involved” in the whip operation this week.

    Trump for weeks has pushed for passage ahead of the July 4 Independence Day holiday, though he has also in recent days softened that deadline, describing it as less than critical.

    Any public opposition to the bill risks irking Trump, as was the case when the president slammed Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who announced his retirement after coming out in opposition to the bill.

    Another former Trump ally, the world’s richest person Elon Musk, this week resumed an active campaign against the bill over social media, blasting its deficit-building effects. That has reignited a feud between Trump and Musk.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ has passed the US Senate – these are the winners and losers

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

    Igor Link/Shutterstock

    One of the unique aspects of Washington life is a Senate “vote-a-rama,” in which the upper house of Congress tortures itself by pulling a marathon all-nighter of speeches, amendments and votes on a critical bill.

    The Senate has just endured the usual mélange of horrors before passing US President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending agenda – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The process was a mess and the final result was tight: 51-50 after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie. But it landed another huge political win for Trump.

    It will likely be no different when the bill hits the House of Representatives, before being signed into law, maybe as soon as July 4 – Independence Day.

    Mega bill

    Using the momentum from his bunker-busting strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Trump pressured wavering congressional Republicans to toe the line and support the package.

    The bill includes a continuation of Trump’s tax cuts from his first term, which were set to expire next year. They are being portrayed as new tax relief, even though American tax policy remains the same because of arcane budget process rules in Congress.

    Trump included a provision eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, which will further endear him to many working Americans, particularly those in private sector unions and food services.

    The bill also provides more funding for border security and a US$150 billion (A$227 billion) boost to defence spending, which will soon be tracking at more than US$1 trillion (A$1.51 trillion) per year.

    Other measures include work requirements for government health care recipients and cuts to two major safety net programs, including Medicaid.

    As a budget bill, there are some limits to what provisions can be included, but the Trump team was able to shoehorn nearly all of his domestic agenda into this bill – hence the absurd title.

    All of this means Trump can get what he wants if he keeps Republicans united, as no Democrats are needed to pass the bill into law.

    Democrat opposition

    The “big beautiful bill” provides some political opportunities to Trump’s opponents.

    The Democrats have fought the bill at every step, saying the “tax cuts” only benefit rich people while the health care cuts will have severe consequences for the working poor.

    They can plausibly accuse Republicans of cutting taxes for the wealthy. However, the tax cuts on tips and overtime somewhat mitigate that attack.

    The Democrats have also highlighted the impact of the bill on America’s national debt, which is at historically high levels. But this attack has only highly limited benefits for the party, which is not known for its own spending restraint.

    Nevertheless, Trump’s bill is so far winning passage, often by the thinnest possible margins, at every stage of the wonderfully convoluted American legislative process.

    ‘Utterly insane and destructive’

    The victory in the Senate has not come without some costs, especially given the way it has exacerbated Trump’s explosive feud with Elon Musk.

    The public divorce between Trump and his former “First Friend” has been an ongoing soap opera. Saturation media coverage of the squabble between the world’s richest man and its most powerful, has featured threats, accusations, name-calling, and physical confrontations.

    Once it became clear Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill did not include significant budget cuts, Musk turned on his patron and severely criticised the legislative effort, as “political suicide” for the Republican Party:

    It will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country

    Although the two men patched things up a few weeks ago, the bitter feud has erupted again with the bill’s passage though the Senate.

    Musk says the bill is “utterly insane and destructive” and is vowing political retribution on Republicans who voted for it:

    In turn, Trump has threatened to deport Musk back to his birth country of South Africa and turn the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) loose on Musk’s companies that have contracts with the government, including SpaceX, which is a necessary component of the American space program.

    Musk’s tantrums are unlikely to lead to real political problems for Trump, given many congressional Republicans continue to rely on the president for support.

    They will not be tempted to support Musk no matter how much he threatens them.

    Trump’s triumph

    The president has managed his legislative strategy to near perfection.

    Trump and his team used the DOGE process to give political cover to fiscal conservatives to vote with him on the bill. Even the breach with Musk didn’t change this dynamic much.

    At the end of it all, Trump has been able to enforce discipline in his own party and get what he needed from Congress.

    When Trump signs his big beautiful bill into law, it will be another political victory for the president.

    Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with BGR Group, a Washington DC consulting firm.

    ref. Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ has passed the US Senate – these are the winners and losers – https://theconversation.com/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-has-passed-the-us-senate-these-are-the-winners-and-losers-260287

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • US Senate passes Trump’s sweeping tax-and spending bill, setting up House battle

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. Senate Republicans passed President Donald Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill on Tuesday by the narrowest of margins, advancing a package that would slash taxes, reduce social safety net programs and boost military and immigration enforcement spending while adding $3.3 trillion to the national debt.

    The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions. Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement that he aimed to meet that deadline.

    The measure would extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about $930 billion of spending on the Medicaid health program and food aid for low-income Americans and repeal many of Democratic former President Joe Biden’s green-energy incentives.

    The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation’s fast-growing $36.2 trillion debtwould raise the federal government’s self-imposed debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default.

    The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans – Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky – joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill.

    The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill’s price tag and its impact on the U.S. healthcare system.

    Much of the late horse-trading was aimed at winning over Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who had signaled she would vote against the bill without significant alterations.

    The final Senate bill included two provisions that helped secure her vote: one that sends more food-aid funding to Alaska and several other states, and another providing $50 billion to help rural hospitals cope with the sweeping cuts to Medicaid.

    Following the vote, Murkowski issued a statement calling it one of the hardest of her Senate career said she had voted yes despite some continued reservations.

    “This has been an awful process — a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution,” she said. “This bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the President’s desk.”

    ‘NOT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY’

    The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close.

    A White House official told reporters that Trump would be “deeply involved” in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill.

    “It’s a great bill. There is something for everyone,” Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. “And I think it’s going to go very nicely in the House.”

    An initial version passed with only two votes to spare in May, and several House Republicans have said they do not support the Senate version, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will add $800 billion more to the national debt than the House version.

    Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives’ demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers’ concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas.

    The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives who repeatedly threatened to withhold their support for the tax bill, has criticized the Senate version’s price tag.

    “There’s a significant number who are concerned,” Republican Representative Chip Roy, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said of the Senate bill.

    A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate’s plan.

    Meanwhile, Republicans have faced separate concerns from a handful of House Republicans from high-tax states, including New York, New Jersey and California, who have demanded a larger tax break for state and local tax payments.

    The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Muskthe former Trump ally who has railed against the bill’s enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year’s midterm elections.

    House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill.

    “This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. “It’s the largest assault on nutrition in American history.”

    TAX BREAKS, IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN, TIGHTER BENEFITS

    The Senate bill would deliver some of its biggest benefits to the top 1% of U.S. households, earning $663,000 or more in 2025, according to the Tax Foundation. These high earners would gain the most from the bill’s tax cuts, the CBO has said.

    Independent analysts have said the bill’s tightening of eligibility for food and health safety net programs would effectively reduce poor Americans’ incomes and increase their costs for food and healthcare. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that nearly 12 million more people would become uninsured under the Senate plan.

    The bill’s increase in the national debt effectively serves as a wealth transfer from younger to older Americans, nonpartisan analysts have said.

    Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the vote “covered this chamber in shame,” adding that the bill would be “ripping health care away from millions of Americans, taking the food out of the mouths of hungry kids.”

    Republicans rejected the cost estimate generated by the CBO’s longstanding methodology and have argued the Medicaid cuts would only root out “waste, fraud and abuse” from the system.

    Following the vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the bill “will permanently extend tax relief for hard-working Americans…that will spur economic growth and more jobs and opportunities for American workers.”

    -REUTERS