Category: Elon Musk

  • MIL-OSI: Cardano News, Updated Dogecoin Price Prediction & Hype Grows For Remittix, which offers something rare: A real-world solution for Cross-border Payments

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, June 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The crypto market never sleeps—just ask anyone who’s watched Cardano slide while Dogecoin wobbles under bearish pressure. Fresh Cardano news shows ADA leading the downturn alongside XRP, and if current Dogecoin price prediction models hold, DOGE might be in for rougher seas. But here’s the twist: Amid the chaos, Remittix is quietly stealing the spotlight. With global remittances poised to hit $250 trillion by 2027, this project could rewrite the rules for cross-border payments.

    Remittix – The sleeper hit of 2025?

    Let’s be honest—when Cardano stumbles and Dogecoin feels the squeeze, investors start hunting for real utility. Enter Remittix, a PayFi platform that’s not just another crypto project but a potential game-changer for the $183 trillion banking industry. Its presale is buzzing, and for good reason: Imagine converting 100+ cryptos into fiat, then zapping it directly to any bank account. No wonder the crypto-to-fiat market (worth $1.5 billion and climbing at 16-20% yearly) is taking notice.

    What sets Remittix apart? Try flat fees with no surprises, near-instant transfers, and support for 30+ fiat currencies. Add a flawless audit (no red flags here), and suddenly traditional players like Stripe and Wise look sluggish.

    Remittix unpacked: More than hype

    So, what exactly is Remittix? Think of it as the missing link between crypto and your grandma’s bank account. Built on Ethereum, it taps into local payment networks to bridge the gap—fast crypto speed meets everyday fiat convenience. With 100+ cryptos and 30 fiats supported, it’s arguably the most versatile payment tool out there.

    Tokenomics matter, too: only 1.5 billion RTX tokens exist, half up for grabs in the presale. Scarcity + real-world use = a recipe even skeptics might find tempting.

    How Remittix Works (Without the Jargon)

    Here’s the magic: Connect your wallet via Remittix’s dApp, pick your crypto, punch in the recipient’s bank details—done. No waiting days for wires or deciphering fee structures. Traditional transfers? They’re riddled with middlemen; Remittix cuts them out, slashing costs and delays.

    Businesses win big, too. The Pay API lets merchants accept crypto but get paid in fiat. For global commerce, that’s not just convenient—it’s revolutionary.

    Cardano: The Rocky Road Ahead

    Cardano isn’t having its best month. Recent Cardano news highlights ADA’s slump, mirroring XRP’s struggles. Technical charts hint at more pain unless key supports hold. Regulatory clouds and rivals like Ethereum aren’t helping.

    Source: CoinMarketCap

    But there’s a silver lining: Ukraine’s push to add Bitcoin to reserves could lift the entire market, ADA included. Long-term? It hinges on Cardano delivering its roadmap—no small feat.

    Dogecoin: When Memes Meet Reality

    Born as a joke, Dogecoin outgrew its meme roots thanks to Elon Musk and a diehard community. But now? DOGE is down 7%, flirting with a make-or-break $0.175 support. Geopolitics and risk-off moods are hitting meme coins hard, and Dogecoin price prediction models aren’t optimistic.

    Source: CoinCodex

    Sure, bulls dream of $2 DOGE, but today’s charts scream caution. Volatility isn’t going anywhere.

    The Bottom Line

    While Cardano news spells turbulence and Dogecoin wobbles, Remittix offers something rare: A real-world solution with staggering potential. Its presale is a golden ticket to the PayFi revolution—before exchanges send prices soaring. More than $15.7 million raised so far. 420% gains for initial-price investors. Another price rise imminent. Get a 50% token bonus for a limited time! Use promo code SPRINT50 now.

    The takeaway? In a market obsessed with hype, Remittix delivers substance. And that might just be the smartest bet of 2025. Ready to dive in at $0.0781?

    Discover the future of PayFi with Remittix by checking out their presale here:

    Website: https://remittix.io/

    Socials: https://linktr.ee/remittix

    Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Cardano News, Updated Dogecoin Price Prediction & Hype Grows For Remittix, which offers something rare: A real-world solution for Cross-border Payments

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, June 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The crypto market never sleeps—just ask anyone who’s watched Cardano slide while Dogecoin wobbles under bearish pressure. Fresh Cardano news shows ADA leading the downturn alongside XRP, and if current Dogecoin price prediction models hold, DOGE might be in for rougher seas. But here’s the twist: Amid the chaos, Remittix is quietly stealing the spotlight. With global remittances poised to hit $250 trillion by 2027, this project could rewrite the rules for cross-border payments.

    Remittix – The sleeper hit of 2025?

    Let’s be honest—when Cardano stumbles and Dogecoin feels the squeeze, investors start hunting for real utility. Enter Remittix, a PayFi platform that’s not just another crypto project but a potential game-changer for the $183 trillion banking industry. Its presale is buzzing, and for good reason: Imagine converting 100+ cryptos into fiat, then zapping it directly to any bank account. No wonder the crypto-to-fiat market (worth $1.5 billion and climbing at 16-20% yearly) is taking notice.

    What sets Remittix apart? Try flat fees with no surprises, near-instant transfers, and support for 30+ fiat currencies. Add a flawless audit (no red flags here), and suddenly traditional players like Stripe and Wise look sluggish.

    Remittix unpacked: More than hype

    So, what exactly is Remittix? Think of it as the missing link between crypto and your grandma’s bank account. Built on Ethereum, it taps into local payment networks to bridge the gap—fast crypto speed meets everyday fiat convenience. With 100+ cryptos and 30 fiats supported, it’s arguably the most versatile payment tool out there.

    Tokenomics matter, too: only 1.5 billion RTX tokens exist, half up for grabs in the presale. Scarcity + real-world use = a recipe even skeptics might find tempting.

    How Remittix Works (Without the Jargon)

    Here’s the magic: Connect your wallet via Remittix’s dApp, pick your crypto, punch in the recipient’s bank details—done. No waiting days for wires or deciphering fee structures. Traditional transfers? They’re riddled with middlemen; Remittix cuts them out, slashing costs and delays.

    Businesses win big, too. The Pay API lets merchants accept crypto but get paid in fiat. For global commerce, that’s not just convenient—it’s revolutionary.

    Cardano: The Rocky Road Ahead

    Cardano isn’t having its best month. Recent Cardano news highlights ADA’s slump, mirroring XRP’s struggles. Technical charts hint at more pain unless key supports hold. Regulatory clouds and rivals like Ethereum aren’t helping.

    Source: CoinMarketCap

    But there’s a silver lining: Ukraine’s push to add Bitcoin to reserves could lift the entire market, ADA included. Long-term? It hinges on Cardano delivering its roadmap—no small feat.

    Dogecoin: When Memes Meet Reality

    Born as a joke, Dogecoin outgrew its meme roots thanks to Elon Musk and a diehard community. But now? DOGE is down 7%, flirting with a make-or-break $0.175 support. Geopolitics and risk-off moods are hitting meme coins hard, and Dogecoin price prediction models aren’t optimistic.

    Source: CoinCodex

    Sure, bulls dream of $2 DOGE, but today’s charts scream caution. Volatility isn’t going anywhere.

    The Bottom Line

    While Cardano news spells turbulence and Dogecoin wobbles, Remittix offers something rare: A real-world solution with staggering potential. Its presale is a golden ticket to the PayFi revolution—before exchanges send prices soaring. More than $15.7 million raised so far. 420% gains for initial-price investors. Another price rise imminent. Get a 50% token bonus for a limited time! Use promo code SPRINT50 now.

    The takeaway? In a market obsessed with hype, Remittix delivers substance. And that might just be the smartest bet of 2025. Ready to dive in at $0.0781?

    Discover the future of PayFi with Remittix by checking out their presale here:

    Website: https://remittix.io/

    Socials: https://linktr.ee/remittix

    Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

    The MIL Network

  • UN bids to salvage global development summit after US boycott

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Scores of world leaders will be sweltering in the summer sun of southern Spain next week at a once-a-decade United Nations development financing summit aimed at curbing global poverty, disease and the worst-case threats of climate change.

    Despite the scorching temperatures, though, a major chill looms over the event – the decision early this month by the United States, traditionally the world’s largest aid giver and key finance provider, not to show up.

    UN countries want to close a $4 trillion-a-year funding gap they now estimate prevents the developing world achieving the organisation’s Sustainable Development Goals that range from cutting infant death rates to minimising global warming.

    Critics say the promises at the heart of the conference – called the “Seville Commitment” – are nowhere near bold enough.

    The measures, agreed by consensus after a year of tough negotiations, include tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15%, and shifting special IMF money to countries that need it most.

    The run-up, however, has been marred by the U.S. decision to withdraw over what it said was the crossing of a number of its red lines, including the push to triple development bank lending, change tax rules and the use of the term “gender” in summit wording.

    The European Union only joined the summit with reservations, particularly over how debt is discussed within the UN.

    Speaking to reporters this week, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed described Washington’s boycott as “regrettable”, especially after its “catastrophic” recent aid cuts that she said had cost lives and livelihoods.

    Speaking alongside officials from summit host Spain and Zambia, which has helped organise it, she said the final outcome document agreed reflected both “ambition and realism” and that the U.N. would try to re-engage the U.S. afterwards.

    Remy Rioux, chief executive officer of the French Development Agency, said Washington’s withdrawal had not been a total surprise given Donald Trump’s views. The hope is that agreements next week will allow bolder action at the UN climate talks in Brazil in November.

    “We will push for the new framework… (and) its operationalisation from Seville to Belem,” he added, referring to the Brazilian city that will host COP30.

    AID IN DECLINE

    Other measures to be announced include multilateral lenders automatically giving vulnerable countries the option to insert repayment break clauses into their loans in case of hurricane, drought or flood.

    Another buzz phrase will be a “Global SDR playbook” – a plan where the wealthiest countries rechannel the IMF’s reserve-like Special Draw Rights they hold to the multilateral banks, who then leverage them as capital in order to lend more.

    Campaigners warn that it will fall far short of what is needed, especially as more than 130 countries now face critically high debt levels and many spend more on repayments than on health or education.

    Aid and support from rich countries, who themselves have rising debts, is dropping too.

    In March, the U.S. slashed more than 80% of programmes at its USAID agency following federal budget cuts spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk. Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have all made cuts in recent years too.

    The OECD projects a 9–17% drop in net official development assistance (ODA) in 2025, following a 9% decline in 2024.

    It looks set to hit the poorest countries hardest: bilateral ODA to least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa may fall by 13-25% and 16-28% respectively, the OECD estimates, and health funding could drop by up to 60% from its 2022 peak.

    So what would be a good outcome in Seville, especially given the U.S. pull-out?

    “We should make sure we are not backtracking at this point,” said Orville Grey at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, referring to funding commitments. “We should at least remain stable.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Recently-Retired Veterans Crisis Line Responder Tells Duckworth How Veterans’ Services Were Hurt by Trump Administration’s Mass Layoffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 26, 2025
    Former VCL responder called the firings of VCL employees a “failure of leadership”
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator and combat Veteran Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) this week questioned a recently-retired Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) responder about her experiences working at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) following the Trump Administration’s wrongful termination of VCL workers as part of their purge of the federal workforce. During the hearing, the former VCL responder shared that the Administration’s mass firings caused delayed services to Veterans, directly contradicting VA Secretary Doug Collins’ repeated claims that the VCL’s services to our nation’s heroes were not affected by the mass layoffs. Video of the Q&A exchange can be found on Duckworth’s YouTube.
    “It was extremely troubling to hear testimony that not only verifies Veterans Crisis Line services were, in fact, delayed by the Administration’s indiscriminate mass firings—but also that VCL employees did not receive proper guidance to ensure services weren’t diminished for our Veterans after the reduction in force,” said Senator Duckworth. “Secretary Collins has been evasive and misleading about the quality of the VCL’s services in the wake of the VA’s layoffs. Let’s be clear: all VCL employees are mission critical. We need to be hiring and training more people to work on the VCL—not firing them and then lying about it.”
    During her questioning, Duckworth explained to the VCL responder how she heard directly from VCL employees who were fired that their supervisors were not aware of their terminations until after they were final. Upon hearing this, the VCL responder replied, “That is a failure of leadership.”
    “To strengthen suicide prevention services for Veterans—especially this critical hotline—Congress needs honest and transparent feedback from VA leadership, including a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data analysis of VCL performance and operations in the wake of the indiscriminate mass terminations,” continued Senator Duckworth. “We have yet to see this Administration, which claims that addressing Veteran suicide is a top priority, take accountability. The only way to end Veteran suicide is to work together, and I implore Secretary Collins to provide the long-awaited information that Congress needs to do its job and remedy this failure of leadership.”
    Duckworth has repeatedly called out Secretary Collins for denying the Trump Administration inflicted any damage on the VCL. In March, Duckworth led her fellow Democratic colleagues in demanding answers from President Donald Trump and VA Secretary Collins on their indiscriminate purge of VA workers, including VCL staff. The group of lawmakers called on Trump and Secretary Collins to immediately outline how many Veterans and VA employees have been fired since the start of this Administration and to tell the truth about how the VCL has been impacted by these terminations.
    In April, Duckworth slammed a senior official from the VA after he failed to publicly commit to rehiring VCL workers who were wrongfully fired in Trump-Musk layoffs. After the first VA purge laid off workers with the VCL—including several Veterans—Duckworth successfully pushed the Trump Administration to reinstate these devoted public servants that work to support our Veterans in their darkest moments.
    Last month, Duckworth introduced the Protecting Veterans in Crisis Act to help safeguard the VCL for the brave Veterans who depend on it by increasing transparency and strengthening Congress’s oversight of this lifeline.
    Additionally, Duckworth and U.S. Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) are leading the push for the Protect Veteran Jobs Act, legislation that would reinstate the thousands of Veterans who were fired in the Trump-Musk layoffs. Duckworth and Kim subsequently introduced their legislation as an amendment to Republicans’ slush fund continuing resolution. Republicans shamefully blocked it from passing.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Peters, Slotkin Reintroduce Legislation to Grant Federal Recognition to the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) reintroduced legislation to grant federal recognition to the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians (GRB). In addition to granting federal recognition to the GRB, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians Restoration Act would make its members eligible for benefits and services provided by the federal government, including tuition, health care, and housing assistance. U.S. Representatives Hillary Scholten (D-MI-03) and John James (R-MI-10) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
    “The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians have been rooted in Michigan for generations. I’m proud to stand alongside them to introduce this bill, which would finally give the Tribe the federal recognition they deserve,” said Senator Peters. “This bill would also make critical resources available to Tribal members and help them better protect their lands for future generations.”  
    “The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians have fought for federal recognition for 30 years. They have historic ties to Michigan and treaties dating back to 1795 — but still can’t access the federal programs they’re owed,” said Senator Slotkin. “The State of Michigan recognizes them. The federal government should too. It’s time to honor our promises and deliver the services tribal members were guaranteed.”
    “On behalf of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, I thank Sen. Peters and the delegation members who introduced and co-sponsored this bill, which will provide justice for our tribal members and give them access to resources they deserve and that they have been without for generations,” said Ron Yob, chairman of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians. “After more than three decades of advocacy, we are grateful to Sen. Peters for his leadership and dedication to federal acknowledgement for our tribe.” 
    The GRB is a native sovereign nation with agreements with the federal government dating back to 1795. The GRB originally included 19 bands of Ottawa people who lived along the Grand River and other waterways in Southwest Michigan. Today, most of the GRB’s membership resides in Kent, Muskegon, and Oceana counties. 
    Scholten and James’ House companion legislation is supported by Representatives John Moolenaar (R-MI-02), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI-08), Jack Bergman (R-MI-01), Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Lisa McClain (R-MI-09), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12) Tim Walberg (R-MI-05), Haley Stevens (D-MI-11).   
    Peters and Slotkin have led efforts to support Tribal communities across Michigan. Earlier this year, the lawmakers introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to settle the longstanding land claims of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) and clear the title of current landowners in the community. The bill – which was advanced by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in March – authorizes federal funds through the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) that may be used by the KBIC for governmental services, economic development, natural resource protection, and land acquisition.  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

    As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

    “Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

    The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.


    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.


    But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

    But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.




    Read more:
    Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy


    We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

    Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.




    Read more:
    Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements


    And so to Nato

    What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

    Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

    Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

    So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.




    Read more:
    At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory


    The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

    The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

    The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

    So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.




    Read more:
    How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy


    The trouble with Iran

    Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

    But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.




    Read more:
    Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation


    For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

    But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

    But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

    In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

    Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.




    Read more:
    Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?


    And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

    So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.




    Read more:
    US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation


    Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

    After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

    Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

    But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.




    Read more:
    In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time


    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

    As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

    “Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

    The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.


    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.


    But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

    But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.




    Read more:
    Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy


    We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

    Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.




    Read more:
    Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements


    And so to Nato

    What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

    Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

    Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

    So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.




    Read more:
    At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory


    The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

    The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

    The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

    So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.




    Read more:
    How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy


    The trouble with Iran

    Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

    But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.




    Read more:
    Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation


    For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

    But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

    But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

    In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

    Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.




    Read more:
    Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?


    And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

    So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.




    Read more:
    US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation


    Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

    After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

    Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

    But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.




    Read more:
    In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time


    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joscha Abels, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen

    It was the briefest of messages, but the potential consequences could have been significant. Elon Musk posted a four-word tweet on June 14: “The beams are on”. The message prefigured a consequential intervention – not only in Iranian domestic affairs but potentially in the geopolitics of the Middle East. The US billionaire was responding to a request on his online platform X, asking him to activate the Starlink satellite system over Iran in support of anti-government protests.

    Following Israel’s military strikes on critical sites in Iran, the Islamic Republic imposed a large-scale internet shutdown that saw a drastic drop in connectivity throughout the county. Nationwide restrictions were placed on access to websites, social media platforms and mobile networks.

    This has effectively limited the inflow of media reports to the Iranian public. It has also made it more difficult for Iranians to organise amid violent crackdowns by the regime’s security forces. The activation of Starlink could allow them to bypass government censorship and restore contact with the outside world – and each other.

    It is not the first time Iran’s government has restricted internet access to stifle unrest – nor is it the first time that Musk got involved. In 2022, amid nationwide protests following the death of a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, at the hands of the security forces, ostensibly for wearing her hijab incorrectly, Musk activated Starlink over Iran for the first time.

    This triggered the smuggling of thousands of Starlink terminals into the country from neighbouring states. These terminals are flat rectangular devices, no larger than a baking tray. It is estimated that around 20,000 of them have found their way into Iran, giving Musk’s latest move a more immediate impact.

    Still, reestablishing internet coverage remains difficult. The few available Starlink terminals are traded on the black market at exorbitant prices, and Starlink services in Iran still require payments of a monthly subscription fee. Iran’s government has also issued threats against citizens who use the system.

    A new kind of warfare

    Starlink is the most advanced communication satellite system in the world. Orbiting Earth at an altitude of about 550kms, its satellites deliver high-speed internet to customers around the globe. Out of more than 12,000 active satellites in orbit, around 7,600 belong to Starlink.

    The system is operated by SpaceX, a space tech firm headquartered in Texas. SpaceX has recently become the world’s most valuable privately held company according to Bloomberg, surpassing even ByteDance (TikTok) and OpenAI.

    Musk continues to act as the company’s largest stakeholder and chief executive, even while wielding huge political influence (following his recent rift with the US president, there is evidence he still wields considerable political clout in the US).

    Starlink owes much of its geopolitical relevance to modern warfare. Secure communications have become essential on today’s data-driven battlefields. The mass availability of drones has fundamentally changed how wars are fought. High-bandwidth connections are needed for drones to transmit live video and receive targeting data.

    As land-based connections are vulnerable to sabotage and outright attacks, mega-constellations such as Starlink provide a robust alternative. Comprising thousands of units, several hundreds of kilometres above ground, their services are difficult to disrupt.

    Ukraine: a cautionary tale

    Nowhere has the importance of satellite communications for geopolitics been more evident than in Ukraine. Russia prepared its invasion by conducting cyberattacks on Ukraine’s Viasat system. Musk responded by activating Starlink, announcing the move in the same casual style that he used for Iran.

    The effect was immediate. Starlink quickly became indispensable for Ukraine’s counter-offensive efforts. Amid the Russian onslaught, it provided the nation’s military with secure communications to push back against the invasion. For SpaceX, this yielded not just hugely positive publicity but also substantial financial injections from investors.

    Just months into Starlink’s activation, SpaceX initiated a strategic shift. Ukrainian forces reported outages along the front lines, especially when pushing into Russian-occupied territory. In October 2022, Musk floated the idea that SpaceX might withdraw support altogether, citing high operational costs.

    By February 2023, the company had begun limiting Starlink’s use for the operation of Ukrainian drones. SpaceX’s chief operating office, Gwynne Shotwell stated that the system was “never intended to be weaponized”.

    Power in private hands

    Starlink’s role in Ukraine offers a striking example of how modern communications can change the course of conflicts, as I argued in a recent article in the European Journal of International Relations. At the same time, it serves as a cautionary tale about the reliability of critical systems in the hands of private corporations and powerful individuals.

    In Ukraine, Musk held the power to effectively veto military operations. No democratic body provided oversight – the signal could be switched off with a tweet. Starlink’s role in Iran raises similarly uncomfortable questions: who decides when – or whether – citizens get to communicate?

    While the region is struggling to establish a fragile ceasefire, political unrest in Iran is unlikely to subside soon. The deeper truth remains that communications within Iran’s civil society currently depend on the world’s wealthiest person – and no alternatives are in sight.

    Joscha Abels receives funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant 526359979.

    ref. In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time – https://theconversation.com/in-the-sky-over-iran-elon-musk-and-starlink-step-into-geopolitics-not-for-the-first-time-259833

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump Calls on Congress to ‘Do Away’ Voice of America Radio Station

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    WASHINGTON, June 26 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Congress to “end” the Voice of America radio station, marking his administration’s second attempt since returning to the White House.

    “Why would Republicans want the Voice of America, the Democrats’ mouthpiece, to continue to exist?” the US president wrote on the social network Truth Social. “It is a complete disaster for the left. No Republican should vote for its survival. End it!”

    Calling for the VOA shutdown back in February, Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wrote on social media site X: “These are just left-wing crazy people talking to themselves while burning $1 billion a year in US taxpayer money.”

    The Trump administration issued a statement in March calling the station “the voice of radical America,” accusing it of spreading “radical propaganda” and promoting “anti-American” stories. The statement cited “anti-Trump content on social media” and instructed the station’s staff “not to refer to Hamas or its members as terrorists, except when quoting statements.”

    About 1,400 Voice of America employees have reportedly been laid off since March. On Friday, the latest round of layoffs occurred, with more than 600 employees receiving layoff notices, bringing the workforce down to fewer than 200.

    Echoing Trump’s close ally and senior adviser to the Agency for Global Media, Kari Lake, also called on Congress on Wednesday to shut down the station.

    At a congressional hearing, Lake called the Voice of America “outrageous,” “deeply corrupt,” “politically biased,” and “a grave threat to our national security.”

    The Voice of America, founded in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda, has long been seen as an important vehicle for delivering “voices from America.” –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI: BAY Miner Launches AI-Powered Cloud Mining, Supporting Bitcoin, Ethereum, SOL, XRP, Litecoin, and Dogecoin

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Las Vegas, Nevada, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin surpassed $105,000, Ethereum rose to $2,420, and Solana, XRP, Litecoin, and Dogecoin also rebounded strongly, ushering in a new wave of enthusiasm in the cryptocurrency market. Riding this trend, AI-powered BAY Miner announced the launch of a multi-currency cloud mining solution that requires no equipment or maintenance, supports BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, LTC, and DOGE, and delivers daily mining earnings directly to users’ accounts, opening a new era of intelligent passive investment.

    Crypto Market Overview

    ·Bitcoin (BTC): Market value exceeds $2 trillion, mainstream ETF funds continue to flow in, and on-chain activity reaches a recent high.
    ·Ethereum (ETH): L2 network is active, EIP upgrade reduces transaction fees, and staked ether soars.
    ·Solana (SOL): TVL and NFT activities surge, and institutional layout signs are obvious.
    ·XRP: The legal ruling on ETF is approaching, and the community and funds continue to pay attention.
    ·Litecoin (LTC): Benefiting from payment integration needs, some e-commerce platforms have re-enabled LTC payment channels.
    ·Dogecoin (DOGE): Musk publicly expressed support for Memecoin infrastructure, and DOGE soared 12% in one day.

    BAY Miner Platform Highlights

    1. AI intelligent allocation algorithm: The platform automatically identifies the optimal mining currency and time, and optimizes the income structure.
    2. One-click mining of multiple currencies: Users only need to register once to open multiple currency income paths such as BTC, ETH, SOL, etc. at the same time.
    3. Cloud operation, device management-free: Adapt to mobile phones and web pages, no hardware required, zero maintenance.
    4. Income visualization: The platform income can be checked daily, and wallet binding and automatic settlement are supported.
    5. Newcomer contract gift package: Register and get a $15 contract reward, and experience a daily income of $0.60.

    Flexible Contract Mechanism: Freely Control Your Mining Rhythm
    BAY Miner provides a variety of flexible cloud mining contracts to meet the diverse needs of different users for cycles, risk control, and returns. Whether it is a short-term trial or long-term stable appreciation, users can freely choose the most suitable mining plan based on their own asset allocation.
    BAY Miner Cloud Mining Contract Example
    ·BTC [Power Contract Plan]: Invest $10,000, 47 days → Daily income $165 → Total income $17,755
    ·DOGE [Core Contract Plan]: Invest $5,000, 32 days → Daily income $72.5 → Total income $7,320
    ·BTC [Free Computing Power Experience Plan]: Invest $100, 2 days → Daily income $4 → Total income $108

    Click here for full contract details

    User Reviews
    “BAY Miner eliminates the need for complicated wallets or mining rigs, allowing even beginners to easily benefit from the current crypto bull market.” — Jason L., Senior User / Community Ambassador of BAY Miner

    Call to Action
    Visit www.bayminer.com now, register an account and receive a $15 cloud mining gift package for free, experience daily risk-free returns, and intelligently start your crypto asset growth journey.

    About Us
    BAY Miner is an innovative platform focusing on AI cloud mining, dedicated to helping global users easily participate in the passive mining income of mainstream currencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, etc. through threshold-free computing power contracts. The platform supports mobile and web access, integrates data security, transparent income, and automated management, and is a representative of the new generation of intelligent mining solutions.
    Contact Information

    Website: www.bayminer.com
    Email: info@bayminer.com

    App: Download Now

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release does not constitute an investment solicitation, nor does it constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risks. There is a possibility of financial loss. It is strongly recommended that you perform due diligence before investing or trading in cryptocurrencies and securities, including consulting a professional financial advisor.

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyer Opening Remarks During Briefing on Trump Administration’s Cuts to the Internal Revenue Service with Former IRS Commissioners

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) delivered opening remarks at a briefing on the consequences of the Trump Administration’s cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Below is a video of the full briefing and a transcript of his opening remarks:
     

                                                                                                                 Click here to watch a full video of the briefing.

    “This shadow hearing — or briefing — is called because of my great concern about what is happening at IRS, my great concern of what’s happening in Treasury generally. Beyond that, my general concern as to what is being done to undermine the effectiveness and responsiveness of the federal government to and for the people. I talked to Richie Neal, who’s a relatively short-timer for this place for, I think, for 5 years and who has become of my close friends over the years, and Mike Thompson will be coming as well and Don Beyer who’s on the IRS Subcommittee in Ways and Means is here as well. Mark Pocan and Sanford Bishop, we expect the others who are named, who have said they would be here. Hopefully they will be. There’s a lot going on, as you know, much of which is not very good.

    “But it’s my premise that the IRS is underfunded, understaffed, and underappreciated. The good news is — not underappreciated by the lady who’s coming in the room who is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee [Rep. Rosa DeLauro]. Tom Suozzi is now coming in the room who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the IRS Subcommittee.

    “So, this is an unusual hearing. I got this idea really from Chair DeLauro, who had a similar hearing on education subjects and children’s subjects not too long ago. I asked the Chair of the Committee — Chairman of the Subcommittee of which I serve, the Financial Services and General Government Committee, to have a hearing and have the IRS Commissioner present. It was an acting IRS Commissioner who is also the Deputy Secretary, as I think most of you know. And frankly, I say as an aside, with the new IRS Commissioner, it may have been an entertaining hearing, a little long, very funny. But I thought it was absolutely essential for us to have a better knowledge of what we’re doing. My conviction is, Musk and DOGE knew how to do it, they knew nothing about the consequences. I’m not talking just an IRS or Treasury, I’m talking across the board. So, I talked to Richie Neal, and I talked to my Chair, DeLauro, and to Mike Thompson and they all agreed that this was something that we needed to do to inform the public. Now, I showed all of you, this is, I think, the first hearing — I’ve been here 44 years. This is the first hearing where I’ve read every word of all of your testimonies. And I think it’s extraordinarily instructive. Let me make a few brief remarks, and then, we’re going to get underway, because this is not a hearing in the formal sense. I just wanted to set parameters. Ms. DeLauro, obviously, wants to say something briefly at the beginning, and Mr. Neal does. He’ll be here about 20 minutes later, he said.

    “I want to thank all of you for being here. Members, you will be impressed not only with the verbal testimony, but you ought to take as a primer course on what we’re doing on IRS and Treasury, and read, as I have, this testimony because everybody at this table spent time preparing testimony, knowing full well this is not — I want to tell everybody we are going to have a video recording of this. We’re not going to have a direct record at first, but everything you say will be recorded. The reason is, I want that preserved so that we can give that or show that to other members.

    “Our Republican colleagues have been reluctant to hold public hearings on the Trump Administration’s assault on the IRS, so we decided to host our own briefing. The American people deserve answers, and we hope to provide them with some today. And I wanted this to be the authorizers, who think they’re the most important, and the appropriators, who clearly know we’re the most important. So, there’s not full agreement on that question, but there’s full agreement that we need to make sure we get IRS right. We believe in fiscal responsibility. A number of you mentioned the debt in your comments and what we have to do to address that. We know that fiscal responsibility certainly involves looking at spending, but also, crucially, at revenue.

    “For years, the IRS has been desperately underfunded and understaffed, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars in legally-owed taxes uncollected. And therefore, placing more of a burden on those taxpayers who do fully comply. Ms. Olson, you made that comment a number of times, as did I. (Gestures toward poster on an easel) Now, this graph shows how we have in effect tanked enforcement, particularly on the wealthy. Filers have gone way up, and the budget has gone way down. And this is, if you’re over a million dollars, you’ve gone from an approximately nine percent chance of being audited to six tenths of a percent. While 85 plus percent of our filers paid their taxes every week, every bi-week, or every month. And they are almost 100% compliant. All of you know that, I just say that for whatever record will ultimately be brought. As this graph shows — I told you what it shows — the agency has more work and fewer resources to do it. (Gestures toward poster on an easel) That’s on this graph. Again, the budget, and this is the real budget if you count for inflation. That’s what’s happened to the budget.

    “Though annual IRS appropriations have nominally stayed even, in reality, they have not. And I want to call everybody’s attention here to page four of Ms. Olson’s testimony, in which she points out that taxpayer services in this budget, counting for the [Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)] expectation, and one of you mentioned the necessity for a longer term, at least three years. I don’t remember which one of you, I just, I read it, sustained spending. Taxpayer services have been down 7.4%. Enforcement services down 45.9% — cut in half to what the IRA provided. Technology and operations, which they claim is going to solve the problem, 58.2% down in actual funding. Overall, a 44% reduction in IRS’s resources, both in staff and in money. In 2010, the IRS examination rate appeal, I told you, 1 million more was near 9%, now down [to] 0.6% percent. In Fiscal Year 2022, that figure ticked up to 1%. There was a new administration, and there was a little bit of an increase. But not where it needs to be. Even still, an estimated $606 billion. Now, very frankly, we have anywhere from $200 billion at a very low end to a significantly higher figure than $600 billion in legally owed taxes, which go uncollected every year.

    “Now, as I point out all the time, I know Mike, you do, Rosa I’m sure, and the members of the committee, we keep spending. Somebody’s got to pay that bill, and you pay that bill either in interest — which is now about a trillion dollars more than we spend on our national security — so that if the people who owe don’t pay, the people who we voluntarily take money [from] pay more. I say involuntarily, they have to pay it, in that sense; we pay our taxes because it’s withdrawn from our wages. IRS data suggests that every $1 dollar invested in enforcement yields $7 of revenue in return. Your testimony will reflect that is perhaps an average, but it can go as high as $12 or more, depending upon the level of taxpayers’ income.

    “Crucially, research from Harvard and the Treasury Accounts found that when it’s targeted at the top 10% earners, $1 gets you $12 back. There’s nobody in the Congress of the United States who wouldn’t make that kind of investment, except in IRS. That yield is so high in part because of the deterrent effect, (gestures to witness table) which you speak to, and you speak to as well, and the two of you. Everybody probably speaks to that. The problem with reading all five [testimonies], I don’t have them absolutely catalogued in my brain. Democrats took action to address this issue. The Yale budget estimated that the $80 billion we include in the Inflation Reduction Act for the IRS would have led to a net increase in revenue of $637 billion over the next decade. And that, I think, is at the low side.

    “Republicans, however, sought to undo this progress at this turn. This hearing is not about going after the Trump Administration or going after Republicans. This hearing is to get information so that we can be well informed and explain to them and to the American people what we’re leaving on the table that is owed, no tax increases. Trump’s recent purge of nonpartisan federal employees has also badly hurt the IRS. Now there’s some in, some out, some came back, so we’re not sure exactly where it’s going to land, but we’ll see what the courts do, and we’ll see what the administration does, and see what Secretary Bessent does. Yale Budget Lab, an extraordinary organization, headed up by Dr. Sarin. Yale Budget Lab estimates that doing so will lead to between $395 billion and $2.4 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade. To put that in perspective, the Senate Tax Budget and Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill costs $4.2 trillion over the next decade. Evidently, it wasn’t enough for Trump to lower taxes on the wealthy, they also want to make sure that no more than 0.6% of their returns — otherwise known as 99.4% of those who have over a million dollars, not having their taxes looked at all. What does that mean? I made the analogy that day in committee about, you see a cop on the side of the road, there’s not one of us that doesn’t automatically, just knee jerk, Pavlovian-like, lift our foot off the accelerator. Same thing’s going to happen when you hear six tenths of a percent. I’ll take that chance. All of this to a vital agency that’s already desperately under-resourced. An attack on the IRS is an attack on America’s fiscal health. As the Administration exploded the debt of the American people —and I say, ‘this Administration,’ we have all been responsible for exploding this debt. [We] just want to spend money on different things. And a tax expenditure is an expense.

    “So, I thank all of you, and I thank the Members, and I yield quickly to Ms. DeLauro and then to Mr. Thompson.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Presses Secretary Collins on Politicization of VA’s Work, Jeopardizing Care for Veterans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s questioning with VA Secretary*** 

    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a hearing on President Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, pressed VA Secretary Doug Collins on recent decisions that jeopardize care for veterans and stifle VA’s critical work.

    In opening comments, Vice Chair Murray said:

    “Secretary Collins—you are charged with making sure we keep our promises to our veterans. And I will tell you, as the daughter of a veteran—one who had great need for the VA benefits—I take this work seriously.

    “Mr. Secretary, I know you hate scaring our veterans. But here’s what I know: when you fire thousands of VA staff with no rationale beside Musk said so—that really scares veterans.

    “When you cancel hundreds of contracts—including a cancer registry in my state—that scares veterans. When you muzzle our researchers—that scares veterans.

    “When you eliminate the VASP program which helped save veterans from foreclosure on their homes–that scares veterans.

    “When you remove language saying veterans and doctors can’t be discriminated against based on their political views or marital status—with no explanation until after people call it out—that scares veterans.

    “And more than just scaring veterans, it puts the care and the support they have not only earned but are entitled to in serious jeopardy. 

    “So if you are concerned about scaring veterans, my suggestion is to stop doing what you’re doing. Focus on what matters: stop implementing policies with no explanation or analysis. Lift the hiring freeze and get our facilities fully staffed.

    “To that end, I have a few questions about some of the actions that veterans have told me they are deeply concerned about, and I hope today you can put their minds at ease—to give us clear, straightforward answers.”

    [VA’S DISCRIMINATION GUIDELINES]

    Senator Murray began by asking about VA’s recent decision to explicitly remove language in anti-discrimination guidelines to ensure all veterans get the care they need: “Secretary Collins, there has been a lot of discussion regarding your decision to modify VA provider guidelines that would open the door to discrimination. You struck the words age, national origin, politics, marital status, and disability from the anti-discrimination policy that was applied to our VA hospitals and clinics. When you changed the guidelines and removed the words making clear when discrimination is not tolerated, what you actually signaled to veterans across the country that they may be denied the care they need. Mr. Secretary, if you insist these categories are already covered by federal law and therefore your changes do not provide openings for discrimination, will you commit then to reinstating the previous policy?”

    Instead of responding on the substance, Secretary Collins blamed news outlets for reporting on the changes he made, stating in part: “I appreciate you taking my own words because it’s about time that somebody decided that they were not going to continue to repeat false rings to keep people in veterans from actually trusting the VA…the Guardian who wanted clickbait, decided to run with something and then it was amplified. It’s scaring veterans. And if they’re concerned—”

    “You took words out—” said Senator Murray, pushing Secretary Collins on why he made the change if he insists the policy isn’t changing.

    Secretary Collins interrupted to continue railing against coverage of the decision instead of answering Senator Murray’s question about whether he would restore the language and the policy.

    Senator Murray reiterated, “Mr. Secretary, I have the floor for a second. What I am telling you is what veterans hear and what Americans hear. Please listen. When you take something out, it says that’s been eliminated, period.”

    “No, it does not,” responded Secretary Collins.

    “Well it does—” said Senator Murray.

    “Only when you have a cheap magazine like the Guardian who wants to put it out there and put it in a position,” replied Secretary Collins, again interrupting.

    Senator Murray pressed, “Ok, your position is: it doesn’t change anything.”

    Secretary Collins answered, “It doesn’t.”

    Senator Murray then asked: “Well, do you think it is possible to be eligible for care and still discriminated against when you try to access health care?”

    “No one is discriminated against at the VA,” demurred Secretary Collins.

    Senator Murray noted, “Well Mr. Secretary, in fact many of us have heard from women veterans—”

    “Did you help correct them?” Secretary Collins attempted to avoid the question.

    Senator Murray flipped the question back to Secretary Collins, “Did you? You took the words out, I did not.”

    Secretary Collins replied, “I did. I put out videos and have done everything because of a false article.”

    “Mr. Secretary, I’m simply telling you, when you took those words out, people heard it in a specific way. Therefore, I’m asking you, why don’t you put them back in and eliminate—” said Senator Murray, attempting to clarify that veterans are viewing this language change as loss of protections, even if VA does not intend that.

    “No. They heard it in a specific way because a reporter who looked for clicks, decided to write an article that he knew was false,” said Secretary Collins, again attempting to place the blame of veterans’ reactions on reporting on his decision-making.

    “Again, I’ve heard from women veterans about experiences, which is why—” responded Senator Murray.

    Secretary Collins again avoided the issue at hand, that there were veterans who were upset with the change in language, regardless of VA intent, “Do you have an example that you can give to me? Cause I’ll make sure it’s corrected. Nobody is to be discriminated against.

    Senator Murray pushed back, “Well, if you are going to call each individual woman in the country and tell them they are not going to be discriminated against… Let me move on.”

    [TOXIC EXPOSURE FUND]

    Senator Murray next asked Secretary Collins about guardrails to ensure Toxic Exposure Fund (TEF) resources are spent appropriately and no veterans’ care is affected by the administration’s request to spend out of the TEF: “Congress has already appropriated funding for Medical Care, which has been passed into law. Your budget request proposes to cancel $18 billion of that money and shift it over to the Toxic Exposures Fund. I am supportive of putting funds where they are needed, but I do want to make sure that you are aware that there are specific limitations for the use of those funds that are in statute. These are guardrails to prevent misuse and address concerns, we put that in because of concerns from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were very concerned about turning that into a slush fund. Can you commit to us that you will abide by those limitations for all of the funds being spent from the TEF, to include agreements which made with the Committee about what ‘expenses incident to the delivery of care’ means?”

    Secretary Collins replied, “We are committed to following the law on the stuff we are supposed to.”

    “All I’m asking is, you are asking to remove $18 billion into that fund. Are you committed to following the guardrails that the language, that the statute language that surrounds those funds? Because Mr. Secretary, if that is true, then how can you commit that the veterans who were not eligible for care that is unrelated to toxic exposures will not have their care cut off or limited because of the $18 billion decrease to funds?” pressed Senator Murray.

    “Because, as we look at our budgets and take the money that is coming in, we are going to meet the needs of the veterans who come before us,” said Secretary Collins.

    [VA RESEARCH]

    Senator Murray then pressed Secretary Collins on VA directives to prevent researchers from publishing their findings without clearance from Trump administration political appointees: “I have repeatedly raised concerns over the direction VA is taking with the research program. And now it was reported that VA officials are ordering physicians and scientists to not publish their work without seeking approval from Trump’s political appointees. According to a VA official, this policy is specifically in place to prevent ‘negative national exposure.’”

    “So, Mr. Secretary, if a research finding would advance veterans’ health but does not align with the administration’s priorities, will you allow it to be published?”

    “I’m not familiar with the question you have and I’m not going to answer a hypothetical, but I don’t foresee anything, but we have not done anything to restrict our researchers going forward,” said Secretary Collins, refusing to answer the question.

    Senator Murray pressed, “This is on your website.”

    Secretary Collins ignored the fact that this is on the VA website and said, “We are not restricting our researchers. I don’t know how else to answer the question.”

    “If you are ordering physicians and scientists to not publish their work without seeking approval, you can answer that… by saying yes, of course we are not going to say no. But then I’m asking you—” said Senator Murray, clarifying her question before being interrupted.

    “I’m going to reach here and say this is also discussing a policy that had nothing to do with research and publishing research. It had a meeting about talking to media on other issues. I’m happy to take this and see what you are actually discussing, but nothing has changed as far as we know. Researchers can do their research,” responded Secretary Collins.

    Senator Murray again pressed, “All researchers? You will not deny research that shows whatever helps veterans?”

    Secretary Collins again avoided the question, “Again, hypotheticals, we can go down all that. I can’t answer a question if we don’t have an exact question on the end.”

    “Well, it leaves me with the question, that arbitrarily you are going to say no to any kind—” said Senator Murray in part, before again not being able to further clarify her point because she was again interrupted.

    Secretary Collins said, “At this point, I’m not saying either way. I’m sitting here saying that we’re not restricting it.”

    Senator Murray concluded, “Well, that leaves me very curious about how you’re going to move forward on research.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: The South African apartheid movement’s close relationship with the American right – then and now

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Conway, Reader in Politics and International Studies, University of Westminster

    The allegations of a “white genocide” against Afrikaner farmers that emerged during the tense Oval Office meeting between the US president, Donald Trump, and South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, on May 21 shocked many around the world. But it was merely the latest example of what has been a long-running obsession for Trump, which has been evident since well before he took office in January.

    In early February, Trump issued an executive order: “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”. The order included the allegation of “unjust racial discrimination” against the white Afrikaner community and recommended the establishment of an Afrikaner refugee scheme. In his meeting with Ramaphosa, Trump doubled down on US hostility to the South African government. He repeatedly claimed – and produced purported evidence of – so-called genocide against Afrikaner farmers.

    This level of hostility towards multi-racial, post-apartheid South Africa may seem to have come out of the blue. Some may think it was inspired by Trump’s close relationship, at the time at least, with South Africa-born business leader Elon Musk – who could be seen standing in the corner of the Oval Office watching the uncomfortable scene unfold. But the claim that white Afrikaners are victims of violent and vengeful black South Africans has a much longer history.

    It’s a history that goes back almost five decades. It connects white supremacy in southern Africa and the apartheid government’s international disinformation strategy with the evangelical Christian right in American politics. Some of the individuals and institutions that were vocal advocates of white-minority rule against the threat of black government in South Africa are the same people who have the Trump administration’s ear today.

    As the South African academic Nicky Falkof has observed, the claim of white victimhood is nothing new. She believes that “entire political agendas develop around the idea that white people must be protected because they face exceptional threats”.




    Read more:
    Trump and South Africa: what is white victimhood, and how is it linked to white supremacy?


    The apartheid years

    The idea that white South Africans face an existential threat emerged in the violent final decade of apartheid rule. It was a key narrative that the National Party government of president P.W. Botha liked to present to the outside world.

    In 2021, a former apartheid intelligence officer named Paul Erasmus published his autobiography detailing his work for Stratcom, the apartheid government’s international covert communications and intelligence agency. Erasmas detailed his work in the US and, in particular, Stratcom’s close links with Republican policymakers.

    One of the primary US conservative contacts was said to be Dr Edwin Feulner, a founder and president of the Heritage Foundation. Erasmus wrote that Feulner, who was a foreign policy advisor to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, was “already well positioned to serve Stratcom the kind of high-level advice that we needed to temper growing international affection for the ANC as the first ruling party of a democratic South Africa”.

    The Conversation approached Dr Feulner through the Heritage Foundation to seek his comments on specifically whether he had any past association with the apartheid-era government in South Africa and received no reply on the matter. But in 1986, during Feulner’s presidency of the Heritage Foundation, it published a report presenting alleging “close links between the ANC [African National Congresss] and the communists and the way in which the communists exploit the ANC to manipulate Western opinion”.

    This history is key to understanding Trump Oval Office meeting with the South African president. The Heritage Foundation continues to have close links with Afrikaner nationalists. And it is well known that the foundation is central to Trump’s governing strategy, having published its Project 2025 on which much of this administration’s policy is based.

    The South African media outlet, the Daily Maverick, has investigated links between the self-defined Afrikaner minority rights movement, Afriforum, the Heritage Foundation and the Republican Party. Since Trump was first inaugurated in 2017, Afriforum representatives – including CEO Kallie Kriel and his deputy Dr Ernst Roets – have made several visits to Washington, most recently in February 2025, to speak with senior representatives of the Trump administration and representatives of the Heritage Foundation. For some time, Afriforum has claimed there is a white genocide against Afrikaner farmers.

    When asked directly about its relationship with Afriforum, a Heritage Foundation spokesperson denied any particularly close links between the two organisations, saying: “We meet with hundreds of individuals and groups every year.” He pointed to the Heritage Foundation’s recent round table and stressed the foundations’s “well-documented and long-running effort to work with leaders from across Africa”.

    Trump began to tweet about the killing of farmers in South Africa in 2018 and is very opposed to South Africa’s recently passed Expropriation Act. This act allows for the expropriation of land without compensation, but only if it is “just and equitable and in the public interest” to do so.

    In May 2024, the Heritage Foundation called for the cancellation of US aid to South Africa. It accused the ANC government of supporting Hamas and not aligning “with American values”.

    Religious links

    America’s evangelical Christian community was a strong supporter of the apartheid regime in South Africa. This is a key constituency of Trump’s electoral base. The historian Augusta Dell’Omo has documented the South African government lobbying of US televangelists such as Pat Robertson – an outspoken supporter of apartheid South Africa. As Dell’Omo argues, Christian evangelicals were not just vexed by threats to apartheid in South Africa. They were drawing a “direct link between the causes of Black grievances in the US and South Africa and a global threat to conservative and religious values”.

    There is not just an historical – but also an ideological – link between Trump’s attitudes to farm killings and land expropriation in South Africa and his vehement opposition to diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programmes in the US. This white grievance politics continues to consider South Africa as a symbol of the overthrow of white privilege and the disorder that multiculturalism and black-led government ostensibly creates.

    As academic Nicky Falkof has argued in The Conversation: “The architecture of white supremacy depends on the idea that white people are extraordinary victims. This is the driving notion beneath the great replacement theory, a far-right conspiracy theory claiming that Jews and non-white foreigners are plotting to ‘replace’ whites.”

    Trump’s accusations against the current government in South Africa have their roots in the murky international disinformation campaigns of apartheid’s final years and the willing cooperation of key actors on the right of US politics and society. That white-supremacist politics from the past would continue to have currency in today’s White House is shocking. It should be opposed by all who support a democratic, multiracial and prosperous South Africa.

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

    ref. The South African apartheid movement’s close relationship with the American right – then and now – https://theconversation.com/the-south-african-apartheid-movements-close-relationship-with-the-american-right-then-and-now-257663

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Berkshire Eagle Highlights Warren, Massachusetts Constituent’s Renewed Fight to Prevent Trump, Republicans’ Proposed Cuts to Health Care

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 25, 2025

    Washington, D.C. — In a new article on Senator Warren’s leadership in the fight to protect Medicaid, the Berkshire Eagle highlighted the story of Liam Barry, who wrote a letter in 2017 to President Donald Trump urging him not to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which helped his mother access life-saving care.

    Eight years later, Barry is reiterating his plea, as Congressional Republicans propose major cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act that would kick at least 16 million people off of their health care. The proposed cuts would help pay for nearly $4 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy. 

    “If we did not have the coverage from all of these programs, we would not be able to make it financially,” Barry said, adding that his mother’s infusions would cost nearly $10,000 a month without health insurance. “It would be crippling.”

    “I don’t believe that anyone should lose health care so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht,” said Senator Warren.

    At her town hall in Pittsfield on June 21, 2025, Senator Warren urged people across the political spectrum to speak out against the proposed cuts. 

    “Everyone (should) lift their voice peacefully about this issue and make clear that, however you voted last November, you didn’t vote to take away health care from millions of people in this country just so that billionaires could get a little richer,” said Senator Warren.

    Read the full Berkshire Eagle story here and below. 

    In her fight to preserve Medicaid, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren revisits local boy’s 2017 letter to President Trump

    In 2017, then 10-year-old Liam Barry wrote a letter to President Donald Trump urging him not to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

    “Thanks to the ACA, my mother has been able to get the care and medication she needs. If you repeal the ACA, my mother will not be able to get the care she needs,” Barry wrote. “I know there are millions of kids in the same situation as me, so please think of them when you read this.”

    As Congress debated the American Health Care Act of 2017, a bill the Congressional Budget Office said would strip health coverage from 14 million people in its first year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor and read the Worthington resident’s letter in an effort to save the ACA.

    Eight years later, Barry’s message hasn’t changed. As the Senate prepares for a potential vote this week on Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Barry and others across the state are once again worried about losing access to publicly funded health care.

    Warren invited Barry, now 18, to join her at Saturday’s town hall at the Colonial Theatre in Pittsfield after releasing a video of him rereading his childhood letter — this time with a renewed plea to not cut Medicaid.

    The legislation, which passed the House and is on track for a Senate vote ahead of Trump’s self-imposed July 4 deadline, includes major changes to Medicaid and the ACA, including new work requirements for able-bodied adults. According to the CBO, nearly 11 million people nationwide could lose health coverage if the bill becomes law.

    “If we did not have the coverage from all of these programs, we would not be able to make it financially,” Barry told The Eagle Saturday before the event, adding that his mother’s infusions would otherwise cost $10,000 a month. “It would be crippling.”

    Though details are still being negotiated, the Senate version of the bill is expected to include even steeper Medicaid cuts than those already approved in the House. Proposals include imposing work requirements on parents of teenagers and restricting state-imposed Medicaid provider taxes, which are a key funding mechanism for states to keep rural hospitals like North Adams Regional Hospital afloat.

    Republicans backing the bill’s Medicaid provisions say the changes would help rein in what they view as out-of-control government spending. Defending the proposed work requirements, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that some unemployed Medicaid recipients spend their time watching television and playing video games instead of looking for work.

    Medicaid, also known as MassHealth in Massachusetts, is a joint state and federal program that covers health care costs for low-income individuals and families. Warren described it as a social safety net that protects vulnerable populations across different life stages.

    “Medicaid provides health care for about half of all newborn babies in our country and for their moms,” Warren said before Saturday’s event. “It provides wheelchairs and home health aides for people with disabilities who are living independently, and it pays for the care of about half the people in nursing homes.”

    In Berkshire County, nearly one in four residents rely on Medicaid. That became clear during Saturday’s town hall, where nearly every hand in the audience went up when Warren asked who relies on the program or knows someone who does.

    “Everything is getting tighter and tighter. Prices are going up,” said Ellen Shaby, who was waiting outside before the event. She said proposed cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs are top of mind. “How are we going to live?”

    The proposed Medicaid cuts are intended to help offset approximately $3.75 trillion in tax breaks included in the House version of the bill. Those breaks would extend tax cuts from 2017 and add new ones backed by Trump, like eliminating taxes on tips and expanding write-offs for business equipment.

    “I don’t believe that anyone should lose health care so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht,” Warren said.

    She urged people across the political spectrum to speak out against the proposed changes, much like they did when the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, was trying to cut Social Security.

    “Everyone (should) lift their voice peacefully about this issue and make clear that, however you voted last November, you didn’t vote to take away health care from millions of people in this country just so that billionaires could get a little richer,” Warren said.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Axiom 4: Astronauts from India, Poland, Hungary launched on first space station mission

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    NASA retiree turned private astronaut Peggy Whitson was launched on the fifth spaceflight of her career early on Wednesday, joined by crewmates from India, Poland and Hungary heading for their countries’ first visit to the International Space Station.

    The astronaut team lifted off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, at about 2:30 a.m. EDT (0630 GMT; 12 Noon IST)), beginning the latest mission organized by Texas-based startup Axiom Space in partnership with Elon Musk’s rocket venture SpaceX.

    The four-member crew was carried aloft on a towering SpaceX launch vehicle consisting of a Crew Dragon capsule perched atop a two-stage Falcon 9 rocket.

    Live video showed the towering spacecraft streaking into the night sky over Florida’s Atlantic coast trailed by a brilliant yellowish plume of fiery exhaust.

    It marked the first Crew Dragon flight since Musk briefly threatened to decommission the spacecraft after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Musk’s government contracts in a high-profile political feud between the two men earlier this month.

    Axiom 4’s autonomously operated Crew Dragon was expected to reach the ISS after a flight of about 28 hours, then dock with the outpost as the two vehicles soar together in orbit some 250 miles (400 km) above Earth.

    If all goes according to plan, the Axiom 4 crew will be welcomed aboard the orbiting space laboratory Thursday morning by its seven current resident occupants – three astronauts from the U.S., one from Japan and three cosmonauts from Russia.

    Whitson, 65, and her three Axiom 4 crewmates – Shubhanshu Shukla, 39, of India, Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski, 41, of Poland, and Tibor Kapu, 33, of Hungary – are slated to spend 14 days aboard the space station conducting microgravity research.

    The mission stands as the fourth such flight since 2022 arranged by Axiom as the Houston-headquartered company builds on its business of putting astronauts sponsored by private companies and foreign governments into Earth orbit.

    For India, Poland and Hungary, the launch marked a return to human spaceflight after more than 40 years and the first mission to send astronauts from each of those three countries to the International Space Station.

    The Axiom 4 participation of Shukla, an Indian air force pilot, is seen by India’s own space program as a kind of precursor to the debut crewed mission of its Gaganyaan orbital spacecraft, planned for 2027.

    The Axiom 4 crew is led by Whitson, who retired from NASA in 2018 after a pioneering career that included her tenure as the first woman to serve as the U.S. space agency’s chief astronaut. She also was the first woman to command an ISS expedition and the first to do so twice.

    Now a consultant and director of human spaceflight for Axiom, she has logged a career total of 675 days in space, a U.S. record, during three NASA missions and a fourth flight to space as commander of the Axiom 2 mission in 2023.

    The Axiom 4 mission was previously scheduled for liftoff on Tuesday before a forecast of unsuitable weather forced a 24-hour postponement.

    (Reuters)

  • Tesla’s European sales slump for fifth month as EV rivals gain momentum

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Tesla’s new car sales in Europe fell 27.9% in May from a year earlier even as fully-electric vehicle sales in the region jumped 27.2%, with the U.S. EV maker’s revised Model Y yet to show signs of reviving the brand’s fortunes.

    Overall car sales in Europe rose 1.9%, with the strongest growth coming from plug-in hybrids and cars powered by alternative fuels, data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) showed.

    WHY IT’S IMPORTANT

    Tesla’s European sales have now fallen for five straight months as customers switch to cheaper Chinese EVs and, in some cases, protest against Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s politics.

    Tesla’s European market share dropped to just 1.2% in May from 1.8% a year ago.

    The revised Model Y is meant to revamp the company’s ageing model range as traditional automakers and Chinese rivals launch EVs at a rapid pace amid trade tensions.

    BY THE NUMBERS

    May new car sales in the European Union, Britain and the European Free Trade Association rose to 1.11 million vehicles, following a 0.3% dip in April, ACEA data showed.

    Registrations at Chinese state-owned SAIC Motor and Germany’s BMW rose 22.5% and 5.6% respectively, while they fell 23% at Japan’s Mazda.

    In the EU alone, total car sales have fallen 0.6% so far this year.

    That comes despite growing demand for EVs, with registrations of battery-electric (BEV), plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and hybrid-electric (HEV) cars rising 26.1%, 15% and 19.8% respectively.

    EU sales of BEVs, HEVs and PHEVs combined accounted for 58.9% of passenger car registrations in May, up from 48.9% in May 2024.

    Among the largest EU markets, new car sales in Spain and Germany rose 18.6% and 1.2% respectively, while in France and Italy they dropped by 12.3% and 0.1%.

    In Britain, registrations were up 1.6%.

    (Reuters)

  • Tesla’s European sales slump for fifth month as EV rivals gain momentum

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Tesla’s new car sales in Europe fell 27.9% in May from a year earlier even as fully-electric vehicle sales in the region jumped 27.2%, with the U.S. EV maker’s revised Model Y yet to show signs of reviving the brand’s fortunes.

    Overall car sales in Europe rose 1.9%, with the strongest growth coming from plug-in hybrids and cars powered by alternative fuels, data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) showed.

    WHY IT’S IMPORTANT

    Tesla’s European sales have now fallen for five straight months as customers switch to cheaper Chinese EVs and, in some cases, protest against Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s politics.

    Tesla’s European market share dropped to just 1.2% in May from 1.8% a year ago.

    The revised Model Y is meant to revamp the company’s ageing model range as traditional automakers and Chinese rivals launch EVs at a rapid pace amid trade tensions.

    BY THE NUMBERS

    May new car sales in the European Union, Britain and the European Free Trade Association rose to 1.11 million vehicles, following a 0.3% dip in April, ACEA data showed.

    Registrations at Chinese state-owned SAIC Motor and Germany’s BMW rose 22.5% and 5.6% respectively, while they fell 23% at Japan’s Mazda.

    In the EU alone, total car sales have fallen 0.6% so far this year.

    That comes despite growing demand for EVs, with registrations of battery-electric (BEV), plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and hybrid-electric (HEV) cars rising 26.1%, 15% and 19.8% respectively.

    EU sales of BEVs, HEVs and PHEVs combined accounted for 58.9% of passenger car registrations in May, up from 48.9% in May 2024.

    Among the largest EU markets, new car sales in Spain and Germany rose 18.6% and 1.2% respectively, while in France and Italy they dropped by 12.3% and 0.1%.

    In Britain, registrations were up 1.6%.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University

    Dylan Carr/Unsplash

    In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown.

    Shutting off the internet within an entire country is a serious action. It severely limits people’s ability to freely communicate and to find reliable information during times of conflict.

    In countries that have privatised mobile and internet providers, control is often exercised through legislation or through government directives – such as age restrictions on adult content. By contrast, Iran has spent years developing the capacity to directly control its telecommunications infrastructure.

    So how can a country have broad control over internet access, and could this happen anywhere in the world?

    How does ‘blocking the internet’ work?

    The “internet” is a broad term. It covers many types of applications, services and, of course, the websites we’re familiar with.

    There’s a range of ways to control access to internet services, but broadly speaking, there are two “simple” methods a nation could use to block citizens’ internet access.

    Hardware

    A nation may opt to physically disconnect the incoming internet connectivity at the point of entry to the country (imagine pulling the plug on a telephone exchange).

    This allows for easy recovery of service when the government is ready, but the impact will be far-reaching. Nobody in the country, including the government itself, will be able to connect to the internet – unless the government has its own additional, covert connectivity to the rest of the world.




    Read more:
    Undersea cables are the unseen backbone of the global internet


    Software and configuration

    This is where it gets more technical. Every internet-connected endpoint – laptop, computer, mobile phone – has an IP (internet protocol) address. They’re strings of numbers; for example, 77.237.87.95 is an address assigned to one of the internet service providers in Iran.

    IP addresses identify the device on the public internet. However, since strings of numbers are not easy to remember, humans use domain names to connect to services – theconversation.com is an example of a domain name.

    That connection between the IP address and the domain is controlled by the domain name system or DNS. It’s possible for a government to control access to key internet services by modifying the DNS – this manipulates the connection between domain names and their underlying numeric addresses.

    An additional way to control the internet involves manipulating the traffic flow. IP addresses allow devices to send and receive data across networks controlled by internet service providers. In turn, they rely on the border gateway protocol (BGP) – think of it like a series of traffic signs which direct internet traffic flow, allowing data to move around the world.

    Governments could force local internet service providers to remove their BGP routes from the internet. As a result, the devices they service wouldn’t be able to connect to the internet. In the same manner, the rest of the world would no longer be able to “see” into the country.




    Read more:
    Internet shutdowns: here’s how governments do it


    How common is this?

    In dozens of countries around the world, the internet is either routinely controlled or has been shut down in response to major incidents.

    A recent example is a wide-scale internet blackout in Bangladesh in July 2024 during student-led protests against government job quotas.

    In 2023, Senegal limited internet access to handle violent protests that erupted over the sentencing of a political leader. In 2020, India imposed a lengthy internet blackout on the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. In 2011, the Egyptian government withdrew BGP routes to address civil unrest.

    These events clearly show that if a government anywhere in the world wants to turn off the internet, it really can. The democratic state of the country is the most significant influence on the willingness to undertake such action – not the technical capability.

    However, in today’s world, being disconnected from the internet will heavily impact people’s lives, jobs and the economy. It’s not an action to be taken lightly.

    How can people evade internet controls?

    Virtual private networks or VPNs have long been used to hide communications in countries with strict internet controls, and continue to be an effective internet access method for many people. (However, there are indications Iran has clamped down on VPN use in recent times.)

    However, VPNs won’t help when the internet is physically disconnected. Depending on configuration, if BGP routes are blocked, this may also prevent any VPN traffic from reaching the target.

    This is where independent satellite internet services open up the most reliable alternative. Satellite internet is great for remote and rural areas where traditional internet service providers have yet to establish their cabling infrastructure – or can’t do so.

    Even if traditional wired or wireless internet connections are unavailable, services such as Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet and others can provide internet access through satellites orbiting Earth.

    To use satellite internet, users rely on antenna kits supplied by providers. In Iran, Elon Musk’s Starlink was activated during the blackout, and independent reports suggest there are thousands of Starlink receivers secretly operating in the country.

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

    ref. Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet? – https://theconversation.com/irans-internet-blackout-left-people-in-the-dark-how-does-a-country-shut-down-the-internet-259546

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Beyer Statement On Fifth Straight Increase In Virginia’s Unemployment Rate

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)

    Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA), who serves as the top House Democrat on the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, today expressed rising concern over Virginia’s economy, after monthly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that the Commonwealth’s unemployment rate had risen for the fifth consecutive month. The increase brought Virginia’s unemployment rate to 3.4 percent, its highest level since August 2021. Today’s data marks the first time that Virginia’s unemployment rate has risen for five consecutive months since the sustained job losses of the Great Recession in 2008-09.

    Beyer said:

    “The sustained increase in Virginia’s unemployment rate is a growing concern, especially amid the uncertainty created by President Trump and Elon Musk’s indiscriminate and ill-conceived mass firings of federal workers and contractors.

    “Governor Youngkin inherited a strong economy that was rebounding from the pandemic downturn with strong growth and job gains, and a 2.7 percent unemployment rate that was the envy of much of the nation. To be clear, our Commonwealth is still a great place to do business, with job gains still coming and unemployment below the national average. But today’s data shows we are now clearly moving in the wrong direction: under current leadership, the unemployment rate has risen for five straight months for the first time since the Great Recession, and reached its highest level since Governor Youngkin took office.

    “These gathering economic storm clouds are unfortunate but not surprising for anyone who reads the news. Sustained damage to Virginia’s economy – including this Administration’s mass firings of workers, terminations of key contracts, freezes of medical research funding, and attacks on our educational and research institutions – is bound to have an impact. Unless courts intervene, some of the largest firings and cuts will take effect in months to come, which would worsen the damage for Virginians. Unfortunately, our Governor and his allies have not only failed to defend our Commonwealth from these hits to our economy, they have cheered them on. Putting politics and party loyalty over Virginians and our economic security is a failure of leadership.”

    Historical economic data, including unemployment rates for states including Virginia, is tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED).

    Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) is the Senior House Democrat on Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, and serves on the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over major economic levers include tax policy, trade, and Social Security. He previously served as Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor from 1990-1998.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Cherfilus-McCormick and Wasserman Schultz Lead Florida Democrats in Urging NOAA Restoration Ahead of Hurricane Season

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida 20th district))

    Washington, D.C. ─ Today, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) led the Florida Democratic delegation in urging Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to reverse recent staffing cuts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) as Florida enters hurricane season.

    Due to the Trump-era DOGE initiative, NOAA has laid off approximately 20% of its workforce—including 9% of the NWS staff. These sweeping reductions come at a dangerous time, undermining the ability of meteorologists to monitor and respond to severe weather. The cuts have resulted in delayed weather balloon launches, critical staffing shortages at Gulf Coast NWS offices, and the elimination of overnight shifts—jeopardizing the timely delivery of life-saving storm tracking data.

    “These sudden firings at NOAA and NWS directly endanger the health and safety of my constituents and all Floridians,” said Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20). “Florida is one of the most hurricane-prone states in the nation. Our families, emergency responders, and local governments rely on NOAA and NWS for accurate, real-time information. Slashing these agencies just as storm season begins is both reckless and dangerous. I’m proud to stand with my Florida colleagues in demanding these job cuts be reversed immediately.”

    “The Trump Administration’s cruel, short-sighted decision to push out NOAA’s critical weather forecasters, data scientists, and storm modelers – just weeks before hurricane season – shows a callous disregard for the safety of all Floridians,” said Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25). “These are the very experts whose work guides local officials, emergency managers, and families on when to evacuate, when to seek shelter, and how to protect their homes and businesses. Cutting them loose is not just short-sighted, it’s dangerous.”

    “The beginning of Hurricane season always stirs a rush into the hearts of South Floridians, especially many of the coastal communities I represent,” said Congresswoman Fredrica Wilson (FL-24). “The firings at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are nothing short of outrageous and reckless—especially for South Florida, which sits on the frontlines of hurricane season year after year. When a storm is brewing, families across our region turn to these centers and services for real-time updates, life-saving alerts, and clear guidance on how to stay safe. Who does this administration expect residents to turn to in these moments of crisis if we allow the very institutions that safeguard us to be gutted? These firings only weaken our emergency response, undermine public safety, and leave Florida more vulnerable at the exact moment we should be strengthening our defenses.”

    “We are deeply alarmed by the recent workforce cuts at NOAA and the National Weather Service under the DOGE initiative,” said Congressman Darren Soto (FL-09). “These reductions pose an unacceptable risk to hurricane preparedness and emergency response efforts in Florida. With our state facing increasingly severe and frequent storms, we cannot afford to weaken our frontline defense. All cuts to NOAA and NWS must be immediately reversed, and hiring freezes lifted to ensure Florida communities remain protected and informed.”

    “When I was Director of Emergency Management in Florida, I saw firsthand the critical role that NOAA and the National Weather Service play preparing for hurricanes and other disasters,” said Congressman Jared Moskowitz (FL-23). “Putting these agencies at risk puts public safety at risk. That’s why I introduced bipartisan legislation to fill critical vacancies at NOAA and the NWS, and it’s why I’m proud to join my Florida colleagues pushing to lift hiring freezes and restore all cuts at the agencies. With hurricane season already here, Florida can’t afford for NOAA and the National Weather Service to be anything but fully equipped with what they need.”

    “Hurricane season already is dangerous and anxiety-inducing enough without Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts undermining the resources and specialists we rely on to keep Floridians safe,” said Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14). “Gutting NOAA and NWS, cutting forecasters and grounding hurricane hunters leaves our communities vulnerable and uninformed while storms grow more frequent, more severe and more costly. Sec. Lutnick rightfully acknowledged the Trump Administration’s grave error in haphazardly firing essential NOAA and NWS workers. However, much more must be done to lower the risks and costs of the climate crisis and the extreme events tied to it. Firing essential problem-solvers and public servants ends up costing Floridians more.” 

    Read the full letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Cherfilus-McCormick and Wasserman Schultz Lead Florida Democrats in Urging NOAA Restoration Ahead of Hurricane Season

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida 20th district))

    Washington, D.C. ─ Today, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) led the Florida Democratic delegation in urging Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to reverse recent staffing cuts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) as Florida enters hurricane season.

    Due to the Trump-era DOGE initiative, NOAA has laid off approximately 20% of its workforce—including 9% of the NWS staff. These sweeping reductions come at a dangerous time, undermining the ability of meteorologists to monitor and respond to severe weather. The cuts have resulted in delayed weather balloon launches, critical staffing shortages at Gulf Coast NWS offices, and the elimination of overnight shifts—jeopardizing the timely delivery of life-saving storm tracking data.

    “These sudden firings at NOAA and NWS directly endanger the health and safety of my constituents and all Floridians,” said Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20). “Florida is one of the most hurricane-prone states in the nation. Our families, emergency responders, and local governments rely on NOAA and NWS for accurate, real-time information. Slashing these agencies just as storm season begins is both reckless and dangerous. I’m proud to stand with my Florida colleagues in demanding these job cuts be reversed immediately.”

    “The Trump Administration’s cruel, short-sighted decision to push out NOAA’s critical weather forecasters, data scientists, and storm modelers – just weeks before hurricane season – shows a callous disregard for the safety of all Floridians,” said Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25). “These are the very experts whose work guides local officials, emergency managers, and families on when to evacuate, when to seek shelter, and how to protect their homes and businesses. Cutting them loose is not just short-sighted, it’s dangerous.”

    “The beginning of Hurricane season always stirs a rush into the hearts of South Floridians, especially many of the coastal communities I represent,” said Congresswoman Fredrica Wilson (FL-24). “The firings at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are nothing short of outrageous and reckless—especially for South Florida, which sits on the frontlines of hurricane season year after year. When a storm is brewing, families across our region turn to these centers and services for real-time updates, life-saving alerts, and clear guidance on how to stay safe. Who does this administration expect residents to turn to in these moments of crisis if we allow the very institutions that safeguard us to be gutted? These firings only weaken our emergency response, undermine public safety, and leave Florida more vulnerable at the exact moment we should be strengthening our defenses.”

    “We are deeply alarmed by the recent workforce cuts at NOAA and the National Weather Service under the DOGE initiative,” said Congressman Darren Soto (FL-09). “These reductions pose an unacceptable risk to hurricane preparedness and emergency response efforts in Florida. With our state facing increasingly severe and frequent storms, we cannot afford to weaken our frontline defense. All cuts to NOAA and NWS must be immediately reversed, and hiring freezes lifted to ensure Florida communities remain protected and informed.”

    “When I was Director of Emergency Management in Florida, I saw firsthand the critical role that NOAA and the National Weather Service play preparing for hurricanes and other disasters,” said Congressman Jared Moskowitz (FL-23). “Putting these agencies at risk puts public safety at risk. That’s why I introduced bipartisan legislation to fill critical vacancies at NOAA and the NWS, and it’s why I’m proud to join my Florida colleagues pushing to lift hiring freezes and restore all cuts at the agencies. With hurricane season already here, Florida can’t afford for NOAA and the National Weather Service to be anything but fully equipped with what they need.”

    “Hurricane season already is dangerous and anxiety-inducing enough without Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts undermining the resources and specialists we rely on to keep Floridians safe,” said Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14). “Gutting NOAA and NWS, cutting forecasters and grounding hurricane hunters leaves our communities vulnerable and uninformed while storms grow more frequent, more severe and more costly. Sec. Lutnick rightfully acknowledged the Trump Administration’s grave error in haphazardly firing essential NOAA and NWS workers. However, much more must be done to lower the risks and costs of the climate crisis and the extreme events tied to it. Firing essential problem-solvers and public servants ends up costing Floridians more.” 

    Read the full letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: King, Blumenthal Call for Investigation into Cancelled Contracts Impacting Veterans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SVAC) Ranking Member Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are calling on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General to launch an investigation into the Trump Administration’s controversial, unilateral cancellation of VA contracts at the direction of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite multiple requests from Senators King and Blumenthal, VA Secretary Doug Collins refuses to send Congress the complete and updated list of VA contracts canceled or proposed for cancellation — a list Secretary Collins consistently touts in public hearings, on social media and in interviews.

    The Senators began, “We write to request the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiate a review of the mass cancellation of VA contracts launched by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Secretary Collins, and other officials of the Department and the impact of these actions on veterans and VA operations. These activities began soon after January 20 and are ongoing.”

    “Since February of this year, Committee Minority staff have investigated these activities using public government contracting databases, internal VA documents, conducting interviews with VA employees and contractors, and other methods. The preliminary findings after analyzing more than 650 VA contracts ‘terminated for convenience’ between January 20 and May 30, 2025, extracted from federal contracting databases, are that a majority appear to be for services directly for veterans or critical VA operations to include for safe health care delivery,” wrote the Senators. While Collins and VA officials have refused to turn over the complete and updated list of contracts canceled, contract data is available online in near real time — including information on the cancellation of VA contracts.

    “To add to these alarming facts, recent media investigations, to include two stories released by ProPublica on June 6, have found evidence that DOGE and VA officials used ill-conceived Artificial Intelligence (AI) formulas and algorithms to make or inform contract cancellation decisions — cutting out meaningful input from VA career experts to assess the impact of ending these services. This adds an entire new level of unease connected to the decision-making, security, governance, and quality control of the entire process,” continued the senators. The damning reporting from ProPublica outlined in the letter exposes the careless nature of Secretary Collins and DOGE’s contract cancellation process at VA, including the use of flawed, error-prone AI tools to determine what contracts would be canceled.

    “However, this process which included cancelling hundreds of contracts, many in a several-day period, then restoring dozens just a few days later, is not an indication of good program management but rather waste, carelessness, and chaos. We are deeply concerned about how these cancellations, which are ongoing, are or will impact veterans’ health care, benefits, and other services; harm VA’s ability to perform oversight and program improvement; and eliminate or significantly hinder the availability of critical tools to maintain safe and clean facilities. A non-partisan and independent review of these matters is critical,” concluded the Senators.

    Representing one of the states with the highest rates of military families and veterans per capita, Senator King is a staunch advocate for America’s servicemembers and veterans. A member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SVAC), he works to ensure American veterans receive their earned benefits and that the VA is properly implementing various programs such as the PACT Actthe State Veterans Homes Domiciliary Care Flexibility Act, and the John Scott Hannon Act. Recently, in a letter to VA Secretary Doug Collins, Senator King joined his colleagues in urging for immediate action to secure veterans’ personal information provided by VA or other agencies to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), a measure that would protect millions of veterans’ medical records stored in VA’s computer systems. In addition, he helped pass the Veterans COLA Act, which increased benefits for 30,000 Maine veterans and their families.

    Recently, Senator King introduced bipartisan legislation alongside SVAC Chairman Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) to improve care coordination for veterans who rely on both VA health care and Medicare. In February, Senator King was honored by the Disabled American Veterans as its 2025 Legislator of the Year. Last year, he was recognized by the Wounded Warrior Project as the 2024 Legislator of the Year for his “outstanding legislative effort and achievement to improve the lives of the wounded, ill, and injured veterans.” Senator King recently joined SVAC Ranking Member Senator Blumenthal in writing a letter to Secretary Collins raising concerns over proposed $1 spending limits on VA purchase cards which are used to pay for gas to transport disabled veterans to apportionments, buy medical supplies and more. Senator King also joined his colleagues in raising concerns over proposed plans to terminate 83,000 VA employees, and participated in a special investigative SVAC hearing to question witnesses who were terminated due to DOGE cuts. Last month, Senators King and Blumenthal wrote again to Secretary Collins demanding an explanation for DOGE cuts at VA that would impact health care for Maine veterans.

    The full text of letter can be found here or below.

    +++

    Dear Acting Inspector General Case,

    We write to request the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiate a review of the mass cancellation of VA contracts launched by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Secretary Collins, and other officials of the Department and the impact of these actions on veterans and VA operations. These activities began soon after January 20 and are ongoing.

    Since February of this year, Committee Minority staff have investigated these activities using public government contracting databases, internal VA documents, conducting interviews with VA employees and contractors, and other methods.

    The preliminary findings after analyzing more than 650 VA contracts “terminated for convenience” between January 20 and May 30, 2025, extracted from federal contracting databases, are that a majority appear to be for services directly for veterans or critical VA operations to include for safe health care delivery. They include more than two dozen for medical supplies and equipment; four for cancer and tumor registries; more than 110 for construction and infrastructure services to include maintenance of boilers; prosthetics, including the conversion of a van for a veteran; more than 15 nursing home care contracts; more than 150 dealing with a wide range of quality of care, medical oversight, and hospital accreditation preparedness services; PACT Act implementation; and more. These are all areas that have been the subject of hundreds of OIG reports and investigations and known to be matters in which VA needs more support, not less. In addition, to date, no evidence has been provided by VA that any thoughtful contingency planning was put into place before these services were cancelled. Compounding our concerns are the hiring freeze, deferred resignations, terminations, and planned mass reductions of VA’s workforce that in theory is responsible for absorbing some of this work.

    To add to these alarming facts, recent media investigations, to include two stories released by ProPublica on June 6, have found evidence that DOGE and VA officials used ill-conceived Artificial Intelligence (AI) formulas and algorithms to make or inform contract cancellation decisions—cutting out meaningful input from VA career experts to assess the impact of ending these services. This adds an entire new level of unease connected to the decision-making, security, governance, and quality control of the entire process.

    As way of background, on February 24 and 25, 2025, Secretary Collins announced on social media his plan, carried out with Elon Musk and DOGE, to cancel hundreds of VA contracts he claimed were for “PowerPoint slides and meeting minutes” and indicated were valued at $2 billion. After directing career officials in the Department to start the cancellations, a list of more than 870 contracts was leaked to Congress and the media. The reality was that these contracts were predominantly for direct services for veterans or supporting VA operations including: suicide prevention and mental health treatment; disability claims processing, exams and auditing; radiology services; outreach regarding burial benefits and health care services; and contracts to conduct oversight activities to identify and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

    When the true content of mass contract cancellations was exposed, VA’s leadership team directed career officials to pause some cancellations. Public records show some contracts previously cancelled at the Secretary’s direction were then reversed while others remain cancelled and new contracts are being cancelled each week. On March 3, 2025, VA announced that instead of more than 870 contracts, it would cancel 585 contracts with an alleged value of $1.8 billion but provided no details. This has been a consistent pattern and problem. Despite repeated requests in letters to the Secretary, questions at hearings, and dozens of emails to VA officials, as of the date of this letter, the Department has not provided a single briefing or a complete and accurate list of the contracts it has cancelled, descoped, modified, or otherwise changed as part of this process or the underlying methodology, reasoning, and contingency planning. On May 16, VA provided Congress with a list of more than 445 contracts which it indicated were “terminated and closed.” This list was so riddled with errors and inaccuracies to call into question the veracity of the entire document.

    Since the beginning of this process, Secretary Collins and VA officials have repeatedly denied—without supporting evidence—that the cancellations will negatively affect veterans or VA operations, including saying:

    • “[t]he termination of these contracts will not negatively affect Veteran care, benefits or services, and will help VA better focus on its core mission: providing the best possible care and services to Veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors”, VA Press Release, March 3, 2025;
    • “as part of its review, VA career subject-matter expert employees responsible for the contract cancelations were given the option to stop a cancellation if they felt it would negatively impact health care, benefits or services for Veterans or VA beneficiaries”, VA Press Release, March 3, 2025;
    • “VA will not cancel contracts for work that provides services to veterans or that the agency cannot do itself without a contingency plan in place”, VA Spokesperson, “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to “Munch” Veterans Affairs Contracts,” ProPublica, June 6, 2025;
    • “[c]ontracts that directly support Veterans, beneficiaries or provide services VA cannot do itself, such as a nurse who sees patients or an organization that provides third-party certification services, respectively, were not canceled. Contracts that involved services VA has the ability to perform itself were typically canceled”, Secretary Collins, letter to Congress, May 2, 2025.

    Based on these findings and information, we ask VA OIG to conduct a review of these matters which may include a focus on:

    • the impact of these cancellations on veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors health care, benefits, memorial affairs and related services;
    • the impact of these cancellations on VA operations such as quality of care oversight, patient safety, accreditation, medical supplies and equipment, IT security, research, construction and maintenance;
    • the use of AI and/or algorithms to guide decision-making to include the recipient and purpose each VA contract identified by DOGE VA employee Mr. Sahil Lavingia that has been terminated; the formal assignment and instructions given to Mr. Lavingia with respect to assessment of VA contracts to include whether they included the use of AI and the approval of relevant code; the data integrity and protection measures taken, if any, to ensure the safeguarding of any personally identifiable information; and the extent to which this and any other related use of AI by DOGE or the VA violated any policy, procedure, regulation, or statute;
    • the extent, timing, and substantive involvement, if any, of VA career subject matter experts in the decision-making regarding cancellations;
    • the existence of contingency plans to replace the services prior to contract cancellations;
    • an identification of the contracts cancelled, descoped, stopped or allowed to expire at part of this mass cancellation effort;
    • the financial transfer of funding from cancelled contracts to other VA activities; and
    • other relevant matters as determined by VA OIG

    We firmly support VA efforts to regularly review services procured by the Department and that process should be built into any functioning acquisition and program management operation at VA. However, this process, which included cancelling hundreds of contracts, many in a several-day period, then restoring dozens just a few days later, is not an indication of good program management but rather waste, carelessness, and chaos. We are deeply concerned about how these cancellations, which are ongoing, are or will impact veterans’ health care, benefits, and other services; harm VA’s ability to perform oversight and program improvement; and eliminate or significantly hinder the availability of critical tools to maintain safe and clean facilities.

    A non-partisan and independent review of these matters is critical. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University

    Dylan Carr/Unsplash

    In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown.

    Shutting off the internet within an entire country is a serious action. It severely limits people’s ability to freely communicate and to find reliable information during times of conflict.

    In countries that have privatised mobile and internet providers, control is often exercised through legislation or through government directives – such as age restrictions on adult content. By contrast, Iran has spent years developing the capacity to directly control its telecommunications infrastructure.

    So how can a country have broad control over internet access, and could this happen anywhere in the world?

    How does ‘blocking the internet’ work?

    The “internet” is a broad term. It covers many types of applications, services and, of course, the websites we’re familiar with.

    There’s a range of ways to control access to internet services, but broadly speaking, there are two “simple” methods a nation could use to block citizens’ internet access.

    Hardware

    A nation may opt to physically disconnect the incoming internet connectivity at the point of entry to the country (imagine pulling the plug on a telephone exchange).

    This allows for easy recovery of service when the government is ready, but the impact will be far-reaching. Nobody in the country, including the government itself, will be able to connect to the internet – unless the government has its own additional, covert connectivity to the rest of the world.




    Read more:
    Undersea cables are the unseen backbone of the global internet


    Software and configuration

    This is where it gets more technical. Every internet-connected endpoint – laptop, computer, mobile phone – has an IP (internet protocol) address. They’re strings of numbers; for example, 77.237.87.95 is an address assigned to one of the internet service providers in Iran.

    IP addresses identify the device on the public internet. However, since strings of numbers are not easy to remember, humans use domain names to connect to services – theconversation.com is an example of a domain name.

    That connection between the IP address and the domain is controlled by the domain name system or DNS. It’s possible for a government to control access to key internet services by modifying the DNS – this manipulates the connection between domain names and their underlying numeric addresses.

    An additional way to control the internet involves manipulating the traffic flow. IP addresses allow devices to send and receive data across networks controlled by internet service providers. In turn, they rely on the border gateway protocol (BGP) – think of it like a series of traffic signs which direct internet traffic flow, allowing data to move around the world.

    Governments could force local internet service providers to remove their BGP routes from the internet. As a result, the devices they service wouldn’t be able to connect to the internet. In the same manner, the rest of the world would no longer be able to “see” into the country.




    Read more:
    Internet shutdowns: here’s how governments do it


    How common is this?

    In dozens of countries around the world, the internet is either routinely controlled or has been shut down in response to major incidents.

    A recent example is a wide-scale internet blackout in Bangladesh in July 2024 during student-led protests against government job quotas.

    In 2023, Senegal limited internet access to handle violent protests that erupted over the sentencing of a political leader. In 2020, India imposed a lengthy internet blackout on the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. In 2011, the Egyptian government withdrew BGP routes to address civil unrest.

    These events clearly show that if a government anywhere in the world wants to turn off the internet, it really can. The democratic state of the country is the most significant influence on the willingness to undertake such action – not the technical capability.

    However, in today’s world, being disconnected from the internet will heavily impact people’s lives, jobs and the economy. It’s not an action to be taken lightly.

    How can people evade internet controls?

    Virtual private networks or VPNs have long been used to hide communications in countries with strict internet controls, and continue to be an effective internet access method for many people. (However, there are indications Iran has clamped down on VPN use in recent times.)

    However, VPNs won’t help when the internet is physically disconnected. Depending on configuration, if BGP routes are blocked, this may also prevent any VPN traffic from reaching the target.

    This is where independent satellite internet services open up the most reliable alternative. Satellite internet is great for remote and rural areas where traditional internet service providers have yet to establish their cabling infrastructure – or can’t do so.

    Even if traditional wired or wireless internet connections are unavailable, services such as Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet and others can provide internet access through satellites orbiting Earth.

    To use satellite internet, users rely on antenna kits supplied by providers. In Iran, Elon Musk’s Starlink was activated during the blackout, and independent reports suggest there are thousands of Starlink receivers secretly operating in the country.

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

    ref. Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet? – https://theconversation.com/irans-internet-blackout-left-people-in-the-dark-how-does-a-country-shut-down-the-internet-259546

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: China completes world’s first interventional brain-computer interface experiment on human

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

    China completes world’s first interventional brain-computer interface experiment on human

    Xinhua | June 24, 2025

    A Chinese team, led by Nankai University, announced a significant breakthrough in brain-computer interface (BCI) technology: the world’s first interventional human BCI experiment on a human patient.

    This less-invasive procedure helped a 67-year-old male patient, suffering from paralysis, regain significant limb function, according to Nankai’s announcement on Sunday.

    The patient, who had experienced left-side paralysis for six months due to a cerebral infarction, saw his left upper limb achieve actions like grasping and taking medicine.

    Unlike the invasive skull-opening surgery used by Elon Musk’s Neuralink last year, this pioneering technique involves implanting a device into the skull via neck blood vessels. The device, a stent electrode, was guided into the patient’s cranial blood vessel wall using high-precision imaging.

    A wireless transmission and power supply unit was also implanted subcutaneously to collect and transmit brain electrical signals, said the Nankai team.

    After the surgery, the system has operated stably without complications such as infection, enabling precise brain signal acquisition and interactive control.

    This approach significantly reduces surgical risks while maintaining high signal acquisition accuracy and a shorter recovery period, said Duan Feng, a professor from Nankai who led the research.

    The advancement has laid the groundwork for future large-scale adoption and offers new hope for patients with motor dysfunctions like stroke, said Duan.

    It came after Duan’s team conducted the world’s first interventional BCI experiment on non-human primates in 2023.

    The team’s future plans involve recruiting more participants and exploring additional rehabilitation methods. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canadian community foundations rally to support local news, calling it essential to democracy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Magda Konieczna, Associate Professor of Journalism, Concordia University

    A couple of weeks ago, a neighbour mentioned our son’s school might be moving. I couldn’t find anything about this online.

    But I did find plenty of news from down south. While the erosion of democracy in the United States is something to pay attention to, some news outlets appear to be capitalizing on its sensational aspects.

    When Donald Trump and Elon Musk get into an online fistfight, local news can seem like the less glamorous cousin.

    But there’s really not much we can do about American democracy.

    A poster on a lamp post that says ‘Good News is Coming.’
    Jon Tyson/Unsplash, CC BY

    Still, U.S. media reports have contributed to news burnout. Many Canadians are tuning out from their regular news sources. Forty per cent of Canadians responding to a survey from the 2025 Reuters Digital News Report said they were sometimes or often avoiding the news, as compared to 28 per cent eight years earlier.

    Hearing about problems we can’t do much about is disempowering, according to a study on solutions journalism. Researchers found that readers who were treated as active civic participants rather than passive consumers felt more empowered.

    The news about my kid’s school is something that profoundly impacts my family. And I can do something about it, at least in theory. I can attend public meetings and organize my neighbours to take a stand, in hopes of affecting the outcome of the discussions.

    Local news can help me do that. It’s the very stuff that can help rebuild frayed community ties and mis- and disinformation. Without access to quality local news, malicious entities can more easily step into communities with misinformation designed to sway or mislead.

    Voter turnout is higher in places with more newspapers. Local journalists act as news brokers, ensuring the flow of information, which is essential to fulfilling the information needs of communities. We know that when less local news is present, communities become more polarized, and that polarization leads to increased sharing of misinformation.

    But local news is increasingly in trouble. Local news outlets are closing — 566 across Canada, to be precise, between 2008 and April 2025. That’s compared to the 283 that opened and remain in operation in that same period, according to the Local News Research Project.

    Rallying to support local news

    My recent report for The Canadian Philanthropy Partnership Research Network, “In Defense of the Local: How Community Foundations Across Canada are Supporting Local News” describes an increasingly popular way to support these local news outlets.

    Through case studies, I documented — along with my research assistant, Jessica Botelho-Urbanski, and supported by our research team at OCADU — the early signs of a growing movement of Canadian community foundations supporting local journalism.

    Community foundations across Canada are becoming ever more aware that many of the issues they care about, like building just and sustainable communities, are connected to the availability of local journalism.

    And some communities are starting to fund their local news outlets.

    For example, the Toronto Foundation made a rare, 10-year commitment to support The Local, a non-profit news outlet founded in 2019 that describes itself as “unabashedly Toronto, reporting from corners of the city that are too often ignored or misunderstood.”

    Screenshot of a story on ‘Moss Park’ from the digital news outlet The Local.
    The Local

    Sharon Avery, Toronto Foundation’s president and CEO, says the organization hadn’t spent much time prioritizing journalism because “the dots have not been connected …that a healthy local journalism equals a healthy community.” But she grew convinced of the essential links between local news and democracy, and realized local news is a powerful tool.

    The Winnipeg Foundation has been interested in local news for a while. Most recently, it funded the salary for one reporter, shared between Winnipeg’s The Free Press, a major local newspaper, and The Narwhal, an environmentally focused digital news startup that had been looking to expand its coverage in the Prairies.

    This kind of collaboration can improve the quality of work produced while also increasing the attention garnered by the resulting journalism in a way that is truly a win-win for all partners.

    How to support local journalism

    All of this is happening alongside government support, delivered through solutions like the Local Journalism Initiative, which funds journalists to report on under-covered topics, and the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit, which covers a portion of salaries of eligible journalists.

    Our report also includes recommendations on how place-based foundations can turn these initiatives into a movement to support local journalism. Community foundations could start by getting to know their local news ecosystems. What news organizations exist? What audiences do they serve?

    They should also consider policies to direct some of their ad spending to local media, following the lead of the provincial government in Ontario, which has its four largest agencies allocate at least one-quarter of their annual advertising budgets to Ontario publishers.

    Perhaps the most powerful — and most challenging — of our recommendations includes working with other local players to set up a community news fund.

    This would enable funders to pay into a pool allocated to local news. This approach has generated millions for local news ecosystems in the U.S., Europe and South America.

    Community foundations have the power to promote journalistic collaboration, which can help to combat mis- and disinformation.

    To improve the quality of life and information for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, supporting local journalism is a must.

    The contribution of the research assistant on the report described here was funded by a SSHRC grant obtained by the Canadian philanthropy partnership research network (PhiLab). The work was also supported by the Cultural Policy Hub at OCADU.

    ref. Canadian community foundations rally to support local news, calling it essential to democracy – https://theconversation.com/canadian-community-foundations-rally-to-support-local-news-calling-it-essential-to-democracy-257873

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Neal Statement on the 2025 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Richard Neal (D-MA)

    Today, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard E. Neal (D-MA) released the following statement on the 2025 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports:

    “Social Security and Medicare are essential commitments to the American people, earned with every paycheck and promised to all who work hard and play by the rules. Right now, they are under attack as Republicans plot the greatest loss of health care in American history with their signature legislation and weaken the Social Security Administration every chance they get. By working overtime to tear Social Security and Medicare from the fabric of our nation, Republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it—all while giving more tax cuts to those who don’t need them. 

    “At President Trump’s direction, Elon Musk and his DOGE operation have taken a wrecking ball to the Social Security Administration—gutting staff, closing offices, slashing phone service, and compromising Americans’ most sensitive personal data. All while refusing to adequately fund basic customer service. Seniors are being forced into long lines, and some are so fearful of benefit cuts or mishaps that they’re claiming early just to get in the door while it still opens. This is not a glitch or a misstep. It’s a feature of the Republican playbook, and it’s a backdoor benefit cut.

    “Republicans have made their goals clear: undermine trust in Social Security, sabotage its administration, and hand it over to their Wall Street allies for profit. But Democrats won’t let that happen. We will never stop fighting to defend and strengthen Social Security and Medicare for every worker, every retiree, and every generation to come.”  

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Here’s why the public needs to challenge the ‘good AI’ myth pushed by tech companies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor in Global Thought and Comparative Philosophies, Director of Centre for AI Futures, SOAS, University of London

    While there’s been much negative discussion about AI, including on the possibility that it will take over the world, the public is also being bombarded with positive messages about the technology, and what it can do.

    This “good AI” myth is a key tool used by tech companies to promote their products. Yet there’s evidence that consumers are wary of the presence of AI in some products. This means that positive promotion of AI may be putting unwanted pressure on people to accept the use of AI in their lives.

    AI is becoming so ubiquitous that people may be losing their ability to say no to using it. It’s in smartphones, smart TVs, smart speakers like Alexa and virtual assistants like Siri. We’re constantly told that our privacy will be protected. But with the personal nature of the data that AI has access to in these devices, can we afford to trust such assurances?

    Some politicians also propagate the “good AI” promise with immense conviction, mirroring the messages coming from tech companies.


    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.


    My current research is partly explained in a new book called the The Myth of Good AI. This research shows that the data feeding our AI systems is biased, as it often over-represents privileged sections of the population and mainstream attitudes.

    This means that any AI products that don’t include data from marginalised people, or minorities, might discriminate against them. This explains why AI systems continue to be riddled with racism, ageism and various forms of gender discrimination, for instance.

    The speed with which this technology is impinging on our everyday life, makes it very hard to properly assess the consequences. And an approach to AI that is more critical of how it works does not make for good marketing for the tech companies.

    Power structures

    Positive ideas about AI and its abilities are currently dominating all aspects of AI innovation. This is partly determined by state interests and by the profit margins of the tech companies.

    These are tied into the power structures held up by tech multi-billionaires, and, in some places, their influence on governments. The relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, despite its recent souring, is a vivid manifestation of this.

    And so, the public is at the receiving end of a distinctly hierarchical top-down system, from the big tech companies and their governmental enablers to users. In this way, we are made to consume, with little to no influence over how the technology is used. This positive AI ideology is therefore primarily about money and power.

    As it stands, there is no global movement with a unifying manifesto that would bring together societies to leverage AI for the benefit of communities of people, or to safeguard our right to privacy. This “right to be left alone”, codified in the US constitution and international human rights law, is a central pillar of my argument. It is also something that is almost entirely absent from the assurances about AI made by the big tech companies.

    Yet, some of the risks of the technology are already evident. A database compiling cases in which lawyers around the world used AI, identified 157 cases in which false AI-generated information – so called hallucinations – skewed legal rulings.

    Some forms of AI can also be manipulated to blackmail and extort, or create blueprints for murder and terrorism.

    Tech companies need to programme the algorithms with data that represents everyone, not just the privileged, in order to reduce discrimination. In this way, the public are not forced to give into the consensus that AI will solve many of our problems, without proper supervision by society. This distinction between the ability to think creatively, ethically and intuitively may be the most fundamental faultline between human and machine.

    It’s up to ordinary people to question the good AI myth. A critical approach to AI should contribute to the creation of more socially relevant and responsible technology, a technology that is already trialled in torture scenarios, as the book discusses, too.

    The point at which AI systems would outdo us in every task is expected to be a decade or so away. In the meantime there needs to be resistance to this attack on our right to privacy, and more awareness of just how AI works.

    Arshin Adib-Moghaddam 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. Here’s why the public needs to challenge the ‘good AI’ myth pushed by tech companies – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-the-public-needs-to-challenge-the-good-ai-myth-pushed-by-tech-companies-259200

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Statement on Trump’s Strikes Against Iran Nuclear Sites

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 21, 2025

    [CHICAGO, IL] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton today joined Chicago-area health care advocates, Medicaid recipients and their families to call out the Trump Administration and Republican’s dangerous, relentless attempts to slash Medicaid with their Big, Beautiful Betrayal. Duckworth spoke in support and defense of the millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid including pregnant women, children with disabilities as well as people in nursing homes—and demanded that Republicans put their constituents’ lives ahead of Trump’s ego by working with Democrats to protect the critical basic needs program. Photos from the press conference are available on Senator Duckworth’s website.

    “Republicans told us in Project 2025 that they’d come for Medicaid—and this is one of the rare times the GOP is actually keeping its word,” Duckworth said. “Make no mistake: there’s no way to pay for Trump’s $4 trillion tax break for billionaires without putting it on the backs of Americans who are already struggling to pay the bills. As Republicans threatened health care for 16 million Americans—including 3.4 million Illinoisans—to appease Trump and his billionaire buddies, I’ll keep working with Illinois health care advocates to protect and defend Medicaid.”

    “Since we saw the earliest versions of the Big Ugly Bill, it has been clear that Congressional Republicans have no intention of passing a budget that works for all, nor do they care about the harm that will fall on working families if they succeed. Nothing makes their priorities more obvious than the axe hovering over Medicaid.” said Lt. Governor Juliana Stratton. “Grandparents thrown out of nursing homes, farmers and rural families with no hospital to call in an emergency – that’s who the Trump administration is throwing under the bus to cover a tax cut for billionaires. That’s not who we are in Illinois. Everyone – no matter their zip code or who they voted for – deserves access to healthcare.”

    “Mental health is not optional. It is essential. And Medicaid is how we fund it. We must invest in the care that gives people a real chance at recovery,” said Sara Gray, Executive Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Illinois.

    “The proposed Medicaid cuts would have devastating consequences for older adults and the caregivers who support them. Medicaid is not just a safety net—it is a lifeline that provides access to home and community-based services, long-term care, and essential health coverage. These cuts would threaten the independence, dignity, and well-being of millions of older Americans. We urge lawmakers to prioritize the needs of aging adults and protect the integrity of Medicaid,” said Diane Slezak, President of AgeOptions.

    “We are facing some of the most dangerous threats the disability community has seen,” said Karen Tamley, President and CEO of Access Living, a disability service and advocacy center in Chicago. “Congress is considering budget proposals that would slash billions from Medicaid—the lifeline that makes it possible for disabled people to live, work, and thrive. These aren’t just numbers on a page—these cuts would take away life sustaining healthcare, personal care assistants, medical equipment, and essential therapies our community relies on.”

    Last month, Duckworth joined Caring Across Generations’ 24-hour Capitol Hill vigil to call out Donald Trump and Elon Musk for their heartless, relentless attempts to slash Medicaid funding.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Tesla rolls out robotaxis in Texas test

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Tesla deployed a small group of self-driving taxis picking up paying passengers on Sunday in Austin, Texas, with CEO Elon Musk announcing the “robotaxi launch” and social-media influencers posting videos of their first rides.

    The event marked the first time Tesla cars without human drivers have carried paying riders, a business that Musk sees as crucial to the electric car maker’s financial future.

    He called the moment the “culmination of a decade of hard work” in a post on his social-media platform X and noted that “the AI chip and software teams were built from scratch within Tesla.”

    Teslas were spotted early Sunday in a neighborhood called South Congress with no one in the driver’s seat but one person in the passenger seat. The automaker planned a small trial with about 10 vehicles and front-seat riders acting as “safety monitors,” though it remained unclear how much control they had over the vehicles.

    In recent days, the automaker sent invites to a select group of influencers for a carefully monitored robotaxi trial in a limited zone. The rides are being offered for a flat fee of $4.20, Musk said on X.

    Tesla investor and social-media personality Sawyer Merritt posted videos on X Sunday afternoon showing him ordering getting picked up, and taking a ride to a nearby bar and restaurant, Frazier’s Long and Low, using a Tesla robotaxi app.

    If Tesla succeeds with the small deployment, it still faces major challenges in delivering on Musk’s promises to scale up quickly in Austin and other cities, industry experts say.

    It could take years or decades for Tesla and self-driving rivals, such as Alphabet’s Waymo, to fully develop a robotaxi industry, said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University computer-engineering professor with expertise in autonomous-vehicle technology.

    A successful Austin trial for Tesla, he said, would be “the end of the beginning – not the beginning of the end.”
    Most of Tesla’s sky-high stock value now rests on its ability to deliver robotaxis and humanoid robots, according to many industry analysts. Tesla is by far the world’s most valuable automaker.

    As Tesla’s robotaxi-rollout date approached, Texas lawmakers moved to enact autonomous-vehicle rules. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, on Friday signed legislation requiring a state permit to operate self-driving vehicles.

    The law, which takes effect September 1, signals that state officials from both parties want the driverless-vehicle industry to proceed cautiously.

    Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. The governor’s office declined to comment.

    “EASY TO GET, EASY TO LOSE”

    The law softens the state’s previous anti-regulation stance on autonomous vehicles. A 2017 Texas law specifically prohibited cities from regulating self-driving cars.

    The new law requires autonomous-vehicle operators to get approval from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles before operating on public streets without a human driver. It gives state authorities the power to revoke permits for operators they deem a public danger.

    The law also requires firms to provide information on how first responders can deal with their driverless vehicles in emergency situations.

    The law’s permit requirements for an “automated motor vehicle” are not onerous but require firms to attest their vehicles can operate legally and safely.

    It defines an automated vehicle as having at least “Level 4” autonomous-driving capability under a recognized standard, meaning it can operate with no human driver under specified conditions. Level 5 autonomy is the top level and means a car can drive itself anywhere, under any conditions.

    Compliance remains far easier than in some states, notably California, which requires submission of vehicle-testing data under state oversight.

    Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who focuses on autonomous driving, said it appears any company that meets minimum application requirements will get a Texas permit – but could also lose it if problems arise.

    “California permits are hard to get, easy to lose,” he said. “In Texas, the permit is easy to get and easy to lose.”

    MUSK’S SAFETY PLEDGES

    The Tesla robotaxi rollout comes after more than a decade of Musk’s unfulfilled promises to deliver self-driving Teslas.

    Musk has said Tesla would be “super paranoid” about robotaxi safety in Austin, including operating in limited areas.

    The service in Austin will have other restrictions as well. Tesla plans to avoid bad weather, difficult intersections, and will not carry anyone below age 18.

    Commercializing autonomous vehicles has been risky and expensive. GM’s Cruise was shut down after a serious accident. Regulators are closely watching Tesla and its rivals, Waymo and Amazon’s Zoox.

    Tesla is also bucking the young industry’s standard practice of relying on multiple technologies to read the road, using only cameras. That, Musk says, will be safe and much less expensive than lidar and radar systems added by rivals.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Global: 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University

    In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.

    Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.

    At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.

    Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.

    Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:

    1. Threats to Canada’s sovereignty

    In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.

    Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.

    The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.

    Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?




    Read more:
    How political party data collection may turn off voters


    Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection?
    (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL

    2. Threats to Canada’s future

    Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.

    Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.

    For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.




    Read more:
    A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits


    In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.

    University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.

    Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.

    But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.

    3. Secret personal data collection

    Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.

    If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.

    4. Data can be dangerous in the wrong hands

    Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.

    Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”

    Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?

    What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?

    What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?

    OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.

    If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.

    Strengthening democracy

    Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.

    The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.

    Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.

    Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.

    ref. 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-bill-c-4s-threats-to-canadian-privacy-and-sovereignty-259331

    MIL OSI – Global Reports