NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Warns Against Rescinding Foreign Assistance Funding, Ceding Appropriations Authority To Trump Administration

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – Today, during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on President Trump’s proposed rescission request to Congress, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) warned colleagues against rescinding foreign assistance funding for programs that have long had bipartisan support. Schatz, who is a senior member of the committee and ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee which oversees much of the funding being cut in the package, questioned White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought about the lack of clarity from the administration about which specific programs will get cut should the package pass.

    “We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled,” said Senator Schatz.

    Senator Schatz added, “What’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority?”

    The text of Senator Schatz’s testimony, as delivered, is below. Video of the testimony and his exchange with Director Vought is available here.

    Thank you, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Committee. This is the first time I’ve been on this side of the dais. I have to say that the altitude difference is affecting me a little bit. It really is an honor to be here to argue against this rescissions package on behalf of all of you. On behalf of all of you as appropriators.

    Now, I want to be abundantly clear—I like Eric Schmitt a lot, but this is a very important point, and it’s actually fatal to the rescissions package—every single program that Senator Schmitt just mentioned has already been canceled. Every single program. And there’s a longer list that was on a Fox News chyron and Senator Graham and I have kind of gone over all of this. There are a bunch of different examples of terrible sounding things. They are all done, and they all belong in the previous federal fiscal year.

    So, now that it’s Marco Rubio’s State Department, and Marco Rubio’s USAID agency, and now that it is Donald Trump’s White House, none of these things are happening. This is a rescission of Trump’s CR in the current federal fiscal year. And so, if you have a problem with any of those programs, let Lindsey and I write a bill that prohibits the use of funds for any of those seemingly improper uses of funds. That’s the way to do this.

    Colleagues are being asked on this Committee to cut programs that I know each one of you have personally prioritized, because we get the letters. Whether you’re the Chair or the Rank[ing Member] of a subcommittee, you get a letter from your colleagues saying, could you please prioritize XYZ program. And many of the programs—I mean I’m talking about right now. In the same time period, we are receiving letters. Please save this. Please save that. Please, plus up that. That’s what we’re cutting right now in this rescissions package.

    We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. You’re pushing on an open door. And in fact, the administration has until the end of next year. This is two-year money. There is no rush on this. This is two-year money to align this funding with its new priorities. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled.

    Just so you understand how this legislation works; it’s big baskets of money. So, you have no idea whether the program that you are prioritizing is going to be cut or not. And they are not providing any clarity about that. You would think that if you’re asking the Congress to use this extraordinary authority under statutory law, that you would have a line by line—here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping, here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping. The answer that we are going to receive is, let me take that under advisement and get back to you. Or—I don’t know—that it’s none of your business. Or, I’m not sure what it is. There is no reason not to have specificity other than, the math doesn’t add up. The things that you care about are being cut in here, and they don’t want to specify it.

    And that brings me to what it is definitely in this package:

    • $900 million in cuts from global health programs including PEPFAR and efforts to combat diseases like malaria, TB and polio.
    • $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian assistance, which save lives, provide food, and shelter, and water, and support victims of sexual assault.
    • And $4.6 billion in cuts to economic development assistance to key partners. Whether it’s Jordan with increasing regional tension, the Philippines as it counters Chinese aggression, the Burmese opposition, or Ukraine.
    • And gone is a billion dollars in support for organizations like UNICEF.

    Everybody that was opposed to those things that were on that Fox chyron—everybody that found some of the things that Senator Schmitt talked about as objectionable—also hastened to say I don’t want to cut UNICEF, I don’t want to cut PEPFAR, I don’t want to cut the World Food Programme.

    Guess what is in this rescissions package? All of those things are being cut, and none of the things that you object to. They’ve already been eliminated. This is not just a question of policy. This is also a question of what this committee is even for. Being a Senate appropriator is an honor. It means something. It means that the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes. It means that we, as the article one branch, hold the purse strings. That, that is subject to cloture.

    So, what’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority? Because it is SFOPS today, but it’s going to be THUD, it’s going to be Ag, it’s going to be Labor-H, it’s going to be MilCon-VA, it’s going to be CJS tomorrow.

    So, I encourage all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to think hard about the precedent that we would be setting if we voted yes on this package.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Delivers Floor Speech On President Trump’s Decision To Bomb Iranian Nuclear Sites Without Congressional Authority

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    June 26, 2025

    Durbin also highlighted his support for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding President Trump’s decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran without Congressional authority. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that the power to declare war is an explicit power of Congress and Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed this constitutional provision when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.

    “We are here today to ensure the Senate fulfills its constitutional duties regarding the sole power to involve our nation in war,” said Durbin. “Under the [War Powers Act], the President has the authority to approve military attacks as a response to an imminent threat or with the expressed authorization of Congress. Neither of these was the case with President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran over the weekend.”

    “The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, wants to destroy Israel and undermine U.S. interests, and represses its own people. And it is interested in building a nuclear weapon. But those are not justifications to ignore the Constitution. If the U.S. is to start a war with Iran over these or any other issues—the Constitution itself requires it must be with the consent of Congress,” said Durbin.

    During his first term, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal which required mandatory inspections that were working at the time. The rash decision ultimately contributed to the dangerous situation with Iran today in which its leadership was moving closer to nuclear weapon capability. 

    During his speech, Durbin expressed his support for Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution, which would require a prompt debate and vote prior to using additional U.S. military force against Iran.

    “When I reflect on the time that I’ve served in the Senate, one of the most memorable votes was on the question of the invasion of Iraq… There were 23 who voted against the war in Iraq. I believe it was the best vote I ever cast as a Senator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were invading a country under a false premise, we were going to wage a war there and unfortunately did at the expense of American lives for a long period of time,” said Durbin.

    “The Senate should not be led into another war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people through Congress. Our founders knew this point. One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the American people—an argument I’ve made regardless of who the president is of either party… We’ve already ceded too much [congressional] power on appropriations and other key items—let’s not do that when it comes to war.” 

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

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

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

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Carter’s Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act Passes House

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative John R Carter (R-TX-31)

    Representative John Carter’s (TX-31) Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act passed the House this afternoon, 218-206.

    “I’m proud that the House has passed the first FY26 appropriations bill—my Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill—which reflects House Republicans’ commitment to taking care of our servicemembers, veterans, and their families,” said Subcommittee Chairman John Carter. “This legislation invests in critical infrastructure, such as barracks and child development centers, and fully funds veterans’ healthcare, with a significant focus on mental health services and housing programs that our veterans have earned. As Chairman of the subcommittee, I will continue fighting to ensure those who serve our nation have the support they deserve, and I know my colleagues who voted in favor today share that same commitment. I want to sincerely thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and focus on getting solid bills across the finish line.”

    Key Takeaways

    Champions our veterans by:

    • Fully funding veterans’ health care programs.
    • Fully funding veterans’ benefits and VA programs.
    • Supporting President Trump’s efforts to combat veteran homelessness by investing in the new Bridging Rental Assistance for Veteran Empowerment program.
    • Maintaining funding levels for research, mental health programs, and other programs relied upon by veterans.

    Supports the Trump Administration and the mandate of the American people by: 

    • Protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans, preventing the VA from sending information to the FBI about veterans without a judge’s consent.
    • Syncing up with President Trump’s Executive Orders on no funds for DEI, gender affirming care, and protecting Hyde-like language at the VA.
    • Prohibiting the VA from processing medical care claims for illegal aliens.

    Bolsters U.S. national security and border protections by: 

    • Providing robust funding for military construction, enabling continued investment in the Indo-Pacific region, and infrastructure necessary to support the United States’ advanced weapons systems.
    • Maintaining the prohibitions on the closure of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use of military construction funds to build facilities for detainees on U.S. soil.
    • Prohibiting the VA from purchasing resources directly or indirectly from the People’s Republic of China.

    A summary of the bill, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    Bill text, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    Bill report, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Reps. Barragán and Lofgren Lead Democrats’ Response to Rep. Kim’s Distorted, Partisan Resolution Regarding Trump’s Authoritarian Response to the LA Protests

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

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    June 25, 2025

    Contact: Jin.Choi@mail.house.gov

    Reps. Barragán and Lofgren Lead Democrats’ Response to Rep. Kim’s Distorted, Partisan Resolution Regarding Trump’s Authoritarian Response to the LA Protests 

    Washington, D.C. —  Today, Representatives Nanette Barragán (CA-44) and Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, led Democrats in introducing a resolution to condemn Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines during the LA protests, while reaffirming support for state and local law enforcement and the people’s First Amendment right to peacefully protest. This resolution provides a fact-based response to Representative Young Kim’s distorted, partisan, and misleading resolution that House Republican leadership will have the House vote on later this week. 

    Rather than working on a bipartisan basis to condemn violence, defend the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights, and thank members of law enforcement, Rep. Kim’s resolution instead falsely claims that violence was widespread across LA and that California’s leadership has “prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens” among other highly partisan claims. 

    In contrast, the Barragán-Lofgren resolution accurately notes that violence in LA was limited and under control by local and state law enforcement. When communities exercised their First Amendment right to assemble and protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, President Trump wrongfully deployed the National Guard and active-duty members of the U.S. Marine Corps in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom or local officials. Democrats’ resolution commends the state and local law enforcement officers who have worked to protect public safety and maintain peace, supports Americans’ right to protest peacefully, condemns acts of violence, and supports the military servicemembers in the Marines and National Guard while objecting to their current deployment to Los Angeles County. 

    “Our communities have been terrorized by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller’s indiscriminate mass deportation ICE operations — in response, people spoke up and protested to express their fear, anger, and anxiety,” said Rep. Nanette Barragán. “State and local law enforcement had the situation under control and the Trump Administration intentionally escalated the situation when they deployed troops into Los Angeles. Our resolution makes clear that we will not stand by while the federal government tries to intimidate Californians into silence through a show of military force. We must protect the right to protest, condemn violence, and reject authoritarian tactics that have no place in America.”

    “Rep. Kim’s resolution regarding the L.A. protests is not just misguided, inaccurate, and disingenuous: it’s dangerous,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation. “President Trump’s deployment of Marines and the National Guard in response to largely peaceful protests was unprecedented and wrong. Trump’s refusal to coordinate with state and local officials in deploying active-duty troops also put both protestors and state and local law enforcement officers at risk. House Republicans should be conducting vigorous oversight of the shocking deployment of servicemembers – a blatant attempt to take over states’ law enforcement responsibility – not reflexively jumping to providing justification for Trump to send troops into other communities or defending his dangerous attempt to squash constitutionally-protected dissent.”

    “Communities throughout California have been upended by ICE raids where masked ICE agents are using excessive force to go after people without probable cause. People want safer communities, not to see elementary school students and sick people at hospitals deported without due process. Instead of deescalating violence, Trump has fomented it. By deploying Marines and the National Guard against protestors in LA, Trump exacerbated a situation that local officials had under control. The resolution introduced by Rep. Kim does not accurately state the facts of the situation and instead falsely lays blame on Californians for Trump’s escalatory actions. By introducing a resolution with the correct facts, Democrats are standing up for Californians, including our law enforcement officials, who have been repeatedly demonized by partisan hacks looking to score cheap political points,” said Rep. Lieu. 

     “There was only one reason Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles: to launch his pathetic, made-for-TV reality show to justify his authoritarian crackdowns and cruel ICE raids,” said Rep. Kamalger-Dove. “But Angelenos know our city is not on fire.  We see right through the reality TV president’s theatrics that are meant to distract from this Administration’s tanking of our economy, devastating cuts to Medicaid, and the brutality and inhumanity of its mass deportations. If you pan away from the set, you won’t see Trump’s toy soldiers or violence, but real people hurting from his policies. Let’s focus the camera back on that.”

    “The Trump Administration is using our military service members as political pawns to create a false narrative of uncontrolled violence, trample on legal precedent, and perpetuate fear and hate in our communities,” said Rep. Cisneros. “Last week, I led a letter with over 34 of my colleagues demanding that the President withdraw troops from L.A. and allow our local officials and law enforcement to do their jobs.  I’m proud to join California Democrats in demanding answers from the Administration.”

    “As a proud born-and-raised Angeleno, Los Angeles will always be home. The Republican resolution we are voting on this week is a distorted and inaccurate attack on Los Angeles and our great state,” said Congresswoman Luz Rivas. “I thank Representatives Barragan and Lofgren for leading our California colleagues in introducing this resolution that reaffirms our support for peaceful protest and condemns President Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard and Marines on American soil. The President’s unprovoked and politically-motivated escalation of our military sowed more chaos and harm across our communities. My California House Democratic Caucus colleagues will continue to support the Constitutional right to peacefully protest the Trump Administration’s heartless immigration agenda while also swiftly condemning any acts of violence. Our Republican colleagues – especially our California Republican colleagues – need to do the same.”

    “Trump’s deployment of Marines to Los Angeles was a dangerous overreach that bypassed both state and local authority. We all condemn violence. Californians have a right to protest peacefully — and the Governor’s office assured me that local law enforcement had the capacity to get the situation under control,” said Congresswoman Laura Friedman (CA-30). “The Republican resolution isn’t about safety — it’s political theater aimed at stripping Americans of their rights. Instead of targeting violent criminals, Trump is going after hardworking community members and using military force to intimidate dissent. Our resolution makes clear: we won’t let fear or federal overreach silence Californians exercising their constitutional rights.”

    “This week, Republicans are forcing a vote on a partisan resolution to legitimize Trump’s unacceptable attacks on our community in Los Angeles and to excuse his warrantless mass ICE raids, his takeover of our National Guard, and his deployment of U.S. Marines on the streets of Southern California. This is just wrong. I’m proud to instead join my California Democratic colleagues in introducing this resolution to stand up to Trump’s attacks on California, defend our constitutional rights to due process and free expression, and thank the state and local law enforcement officers who have worked to protect public safety and prosecute those committing acts of violence and vandalism,” said Rep. Chu.

    The resolution is cosponsored by: Reps. Aguilar, Bera, Brownley, Bynum, Carbajal, T. Carter, Chu, Cisneros, Correa, Costa, Dean, DelBene, DeSaulnier, Doggett, Espaillat, Friedman, Garamendi, R. Garcia, S. Garcia, J. Gomez, Gray, J. Hayes, Huffman, Ivey, Jacobs, Hank Johnson, Kamlager-Dove, T. Kennedy, Khanna, Landsman, Larsen, Latimer, Leger Fernandez, Levin, Liccardo, Lieu, Lofgren, Matsui, McCollum, Min, Morelle, Mullin, Panetta, Pelosi, Peters, Pettersen, Rivas, Ross, Ruiz, Salinas, L. Sanchez, Sherman, Simon, Swalwell, Takano, Thanedar, Thompson, N. Torres, Tran, Vargas, Waters, Whitesides. 

    The text of the resolution can be found HERE. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Joins Hirono, Wyden, Colleagues in Demanding Answers on Trump’s Rescission of EMTALA Abortion Care Guidance, Urging HHS to Reverse Decision

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 25, 2025
    The Trump Administration’s rescission of EMTALA guidance that reaffirmed nationwide access to emergency abortion care puts patients’ lives in jeopardy and sows chaos for hospitals and providers across the country
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – On the three-year anniversary this week of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and their colleagues in condemning the Trump Administration’s recent rescission of guidance that reaffirmed hospitals and providers’ obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide medically necessary emergency abortion care, regardless of where the patient lives. The letter, sent to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, urges HHS to immediately reverse its decision to rescind this lifesaving guidance.
    “While EMTALA remains binding federal law, the rescission will create further confusion for hospitals and providers, especially in states with abortion bans, and will result in medically-necessary care being withheld from pregnant patients in crisis,” wrote the Senators. “When doctors are forced to navigate the complex legal interplay of state abortion bans and federal EMTALA protections, pregnant people experience care delays and may receive substandard care.”
    In 1986, Congress enacted EMTALA to require Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing treatment for any individuals—including pregnant women—experiencing emergency medical conditions. The federal law clearly requires hospitals to offer abortion care in cases where it was deemed medically necessary to prevent serious harm to patients’ health and life. However, since the conservative majority on the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, more than twenty states have passed laws to ban or severely restrict access to abortion, disrupting decades of certainty for hospitals regarding their legal obligation to provide necessary emergency abortion care under federal law.
    In their letter, the Senators assert that by rescinding this guidance—accompanied by the ensuing fear and confusion for hospitals and providers—HHS has needlessly put pregnant patients at severe risk of harm, medical complications, lasting health consequences and preventable death.  
    “This abrupt decision will further the chaos and confusion that hospitals, physicians, and patients have experienced since the Dobbs decision and will result in negative and deadly consequences for women and families across the United States,” the Senators concluded.
    In addition to Duckworth, Hirono and Wyden, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV).
    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below.
    Dear Secretary Kennedy and Administrator Oz:
    We write to express our strong disapproval of your recent rescission of guidance that reaffirmed hospitals and providers’ obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide life-saving abortion care to patients experiencing medical crises. On June 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “the Department”) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS” or “the Agency”) rescinded July 2022 guidance that reminds hospitals of their longstanding obligation under EMTALA and that protects pregnant women’s access to emergency abortion care, regardless of where they live. While EMTALA remains binding federal law, the rescission will create further confusion for hospitals and providers, especially in states with abortion bans, and will result in medically-necessary care being withheld from pregnant patients in crisis.
    In 1986, Congress enacted EMTALA to require Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing screening and treatment for any individuals—including pregnant women—experiencing emergency medical conditions. Under the law, hospitals are required to treat conditions determined by health care providers that, absent immediate medical attention, could reasonably result in placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ. EMTALA clearly requires hospitals to offer abortion care for cases in which their health care providers determine it medically necessary to prevent serious harm to their patients’ health and life, including in, but not limited to, cases of ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features. Since enacting EMTALA, Congress and administrations of both parties have consistently recognized that stabilizing care under the statute includes abortion. As a result, up until a few years ago, medical providers have not had to worry about the government interfering with their clinical judgement to provide necessary stabilizing medical care to pregnant women in emergencies.
    Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (Dobbs) in June 2022, 22 states passed laws to ban or severely restrict access to abortion, including 6 states with no exception for the health of the pregnant person. This has disrupted decades of certainty that hospitals are required to provide access to emergency abortion care under federal law, sowing chaos for patients and providers alike, and forcing doctors to play lawyers and lawyers to play doctors. When doctors are forced to navigate the complex legal interplay of state abortion bans and federal EMTALA protections, pregnant people experience care delays and may receive substandard care. In response to the confusion caused by these restrictive abortion bans, HHS Secretary Becerra issued guidance in July 2022 restating hospitals’ legal obligation under federal law to provide stabilizing treatment, including necessary abortion care, to pregnant patients in emergency situations. Even with such guidance in place, physicians across the country report that hospitals fail to meet the challenge of supporting doctors in navigating this extraordinary legal environment and, in many cases, hospitals continue to rely on guidance developed pre-Dobbs. While Republican-led states and anti-abortion groups have tried to challenge proper meaning and scope of the federal law, EMTALA has always and will continue to protect emergency abortion care and preempt all state laws to the contrary.
    The Trump administration’s decision to rescind this guidance will create more confusion, fear, and stress for hospitals and their staffs about what care they are legally required to provide pregnant patients whose lives are or could be in danger. Moreover, it will undermine patients’ faith that their doctor will be able to act in their best interest in the event of an emergency. State abortion laws with vague medical exceptions and criminal penalties force hospitals and physicians to delay and deny emergency abortion care for pregnant patients, placing patients at higher risk for medical complications, lasting health consequences, and avoidable death.
    By rescinding the guidance, HHS has needlessly put pregnant patients at severe risk of harm and preventable death. Given the threat to women’s lives following the rescission of this guidance, we request information and responses to the following questions by July 3, 2025, at 5:00pm ET.
    In your recent announcement regarding the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance, you stated that the July 2022 guidance “d[id] not reflect the policy of this Administration” with respect to EMTALA.
    What is the Administration’s policy related to EMTALA for pregnant patients who are experiencing emergency medical conditions that could result in serious bodily harm or death?
    When did the Administration develop this policy related to EMTALA?
    Which stakeholders and individuals did the Administration consult in the development of this policy?
    In the same announcement, you stated that “CMS would continue to enforce EMTALA … [for] all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment.”
    How will CMS enforce EMTALA, specifically for pregnant patients or patients experiencing pregnancy loss who are facing life-threatening or other serious emergency medical situations?
    How will CMS and its remaining regional offices adjudicate on and refer for investigation EMTALA complaints involving delayed or denied necessary emergency abortion care? 
    Does CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) have sufficient resources and personnel to investigate violations of EMTALA? Please provide detailed information on the number of employees and federal funding that HHS has available to investigate complaints of EMTALA violations.
    Please provide a list of EMTALA complaints since June 24, 2022, involving delayed or denied necessary emergency abortion care by state, hospital, incident date, nature of allegation, investigation status, recommended action by surveyors, and final action in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC § 552a).
    The announcement also stated, “CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to states – including state survey agencies – about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to hospitals about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to professional physician organizations about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    What specific steps will CMS take to address the legal confusion of patients, hospitals, and physicians caused by state abortion bans conflicting with federal law?
    Has the Administration created any materials to educate patients, hospitals, and physicians about this policy? If so, please produce them.
    The July 2022 guidance reaffirmed the longstanding legal and professional obligation hospitals have to provide patients with emergency abortion care under EMTALA.
    Will CMS issue new guidance making it clear to hospitals that they are legally required to follow EMTALA by providing stabilizing treatment for patients experiencing a medical emergency, including where that treatment is an abortion?
    Will CMS issue updates or require changes to the Medicare provider agreements for hospitals?
    Will CMS issue new guidance to state survey agencies related to EMTALA investigations?
    This abrupt decision will further the chaos and confusion that hospitals, physicians, and patients have experienced since the Dobbs decision and will result in negative and deadly consequences for women and families across the United States. HHS should immediately reverse its decision to rescind the guidance.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Hosts Telephone Town Hall, Highlighting Negative Impacts of Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ on Illinois

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 25, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) tonight hosted a telephone town hall to answer Illinois constituents’ questions and discuss how Donald Trump and Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” will profoundly harm Illinoisans. In tonight’s town hall, Duckworth highlighted how Senate Republicans are currently trying to jam through this legislation—that no one has seen final text for—in order to give Trump and his billionaire buddies a massive tax cut paid for by increasing taxes on and cutting basic needs services for the most vulnerable Americans and the middle class. Photos from tonight’s telephone town hall are available on the Senator’s website.
    “Donald Trump’s so-called Big, Beautiful Bill throws middle class families under the bus and increases taxes on low-income families in order to fund another monstrous tax cut for Trump’s billionaire Mar-A-Lago buddies,” Duckworth said. “This bill lets Republicans off the hook from having to earn a single Democratic vote to pass their deeply unpopular ‘well, we’re all going to die’ agenda that cuts Medicaid, guts critical food assistance programs and explodes our deficit and debt by trillions of dollars—selling out the middle class to enrich billionaires like Donald Trump.”
    If Republicans’ plan is passed, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans would be at risk of losing health coverage through Medicaid and food assistance through SNAP, and dozens of rural hospitals and nursing homes in our state would likely close—cutting off or restricting access to critical services for entire communities, including Illinoisans with private insurance. As a result of these cuts and other irresponsible slashes by Republicans, thousands of jobs across the clean energy, agriculture and medical industries are at risk.
    Duckworth hosted her last town hall in May in McHenry County, focusing on Veterans and all of the ways Donald Trump and his Administration are hurting our nation’s Veterans.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Massachusetts’ Women Congressional Leaders Stand in Defense of Women’s Reproductive Freedom

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)

    LOWELL, MA – Ahead of the third anniversary of Dobbs, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03),  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (MA-05), and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) joined Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts President Dominique Lee for a press conference calling out the attacks on reproductive freedom tucked into Republicans’ Big, Ugly Bill.
    “Three years ago, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court opened the floodgates to extreme abortion bans in GOP-controlled states across the country – bans that criminalize doctors, endanger women’s lives, and force survivors of rape to carry pregnancies against their will,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “Now, Republicans in Washington are trying to punish states like Massachusetts for protecting access to abortion by withholding federal health care funding for families who need it most. It’s a coordinated effort to force every state to fall in line with Trump’s anti-abortion, anti-woman agenda, and we have to do everything in our power to stop it from passing.”
    “Tomorrow will mark three years since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. For three years, the Republicans have marched nonstop toward their ultimate goal of a national abortion ban — with total control over women’s health care in every state, including Massachusetts,” said Whip Clark. “And now, we have their Big, Ugly Betrayal of Women Budget, which will impose the single biggest health care cut in our country’s history and inflict the biggest assault on women’s health care since Dobbs. To put it simply, this is a life-and-death fight every day. Republicans are choosing to make life harder and more expensive and more dangerous for America’s 170 million women and girls. All to help America’s 900 billionaires.”
    “Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn. Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion — even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it,” said Sen. Warren.
    “As we mark three years since the devastating day the Supreme Court denied us our bodily autonomy and ripped away the basic right to abortion care in America, we recommit to fighting for families across this country to access the basic medical care they need to survive, to be safe in birth, to be treated with human dignity,” said Rep. Pressley, Co-Chair of the House Reproductive Freedom Caucus. “It starts by defeating Republicans’ Big Ugly Bill – their shameful reconciliation bill that would put necessary health care further out of reach for millions of people and would drastically defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood clinics across this nation are quite literally saving lives – often the only option for miles for life saving cancer screenings, affordable birth control, and compassionate prenatal care. We will never yield to Trump and Republicans’ agenda to make America a nation of forced birth – this is not an inevitability, and I’m proud to join Whip Clark, Senator Warren, and Congresswoman Trahan in standing with Planned Parenthood in our fight to restore true bodily autonomy and reproductive justice.”
    “The so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ is a backdoor abortion ban, even in safe-haven states like Massachusetts,” said Dominique Lee, president of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “This bill would ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood by blocking Medicaid reimbursement, which could impact half of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts’ budget. PPLM serves more than 30,000 patients annually, and nearly 40% of them are on Medicaid. If this bill passes, it won’t matter that abortion is legal here. People could lose access to abortion, birth control, STI testing, cancer screenings and other care from the provider they trust most. Planned Parenthood will not abandon our patients, our staff, or our communities, but we need everyone with us to help stop this attack on people’s health and freedom.”
    Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ budget bill would defund Planned Parenthood health centers, bar private health insurers on the ACA marketplace from offering abortion coverage, and slash Medicaid health care coverage — leaving over 300,000 Massachusetts residents unable to access basic health care services.
    For event photos, click HERE. To watch the full press conference, click HERE.
    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Hickenlooper, Senators Host PRIDE Celebration at Kennedy Center

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado
    In case you missed it, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper, along with U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and Brian Schatz hosted a pride celebration and musical performance titled “Love is Love” on Monday at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum.
    The concert, produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller and directed by Seth Rudetsky and James Wesley Jackson, celebrated the important role that the arts have played in the gay rights movement. The actors and other creative talent who created this show gave their time and artistic energy to recognize and amplify this cultural transformation. The performance reminds us that our fight for equality – and for democracy – isn’t over. It’s happening right now, all around us.
    Photos from the event can be found HERE and attributable to the Office of U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper.
    Check out the headlines below:
    New York Times: With Broadway Tunes, Democrats Protest Trump’s Takeover of Kennedy CenterFive Democratic senators staged a gay pride concert at a small theater at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Monday night as a form of symbolic protest against President Trump’s takeover of the institution.The event, which was held before an invited audience, featured performances by Broadway artists including Javier Muñoz, a “Hamilton” alum who sang “Satisfied” from the hit musical. Many of the songs and monologues were rife with L.G.B.T. themes, including one penned by Harvey Fierstein.Other performances included Brandon Uranowitz’s singing “What More Can I Say?” from “Falsettos,” and Beth Malone’s rendition of “An Old-Fashioned Love Story” from “The Wild Party.” That song’s composer, Andrew Lippa, performed a song from his oratorio “I Am Harvey Milk” alongside the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington.The 90-minute concert was called “Love Is Love,” a slogan used by the gay rights movement and quoted by the “Hamilton” creator Lin-Manuel Miranda when his show won at the Tony Awards in 2016. It was produced by Jeffrey Seller, the lead producer of “Hamilton,” who recently canceled a planned 2026 run of the musical at the Kennedy Center, saying he did not want to support Mr. Trump’s vision for the venue.“What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light,” Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who hosted the concert, said in a statement. “The L.G.B.T.Q. community has long embodied this resilience, maintaining joy and creativity in the face of adversity.”
    National Public Radio (NPR): Democratic senators held an invite-only Pride event at the Kennedy CenterA group of Democratic senators and Hamilton producer Jeffrey Seller hosted a Pride celebration at the Kennedy Center Monday evening. But the Kennedy Center had nothing to do with programming it.Senators John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin rented the Justice Forum, a small theater at the REACH, an expansion to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts that opened in 2019.While the group of senators booked the space a few weeks ago, the Pride event, called Love Is Love, wasn’t announced until Monday. A statement from Sen. Hickenlooper’s office said the event was “about standing up for the arts and the progress the LGBTQ community has made. The performance reminds us that our fight for equality — and for democracy — isn’t over. It’s happening right now.”Directed by Seth Rudetsky and James Wesley, the show celebrated gay culture with songs and spoken word performances by top Broadway talent, including John Cameron Mitchell, Jelani Remy, Lisa Kron and Andrew Lippa.Details of Monday night’s show were first reported by The New York Times. Seller, whose credits also include Rent and Avenue Q, told the outlet that Hickenlooper called him to see if he’d like to engage in some “guerrilla theater.” Seller, who is gay, didn’t hesitate.
    Politico: Playbook Arts SectionSens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) hosted a Kennedy Center gay pride performance last night, per the NYT. Drawing a contrast with the Trump administration’s takeover of the theater, the Broadway concert-cum-protest included songs and performers from “Hamilton,” “Falsettos” and moreColorado Public Radio (CPR): Sen. Hickenlooper helps organize Pride concert at Trump-led Kennedy CenterColorado Sen. John Hickenlooper led a one-night takeover of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., Monday night to celebrate Pride month, in defiance of the Center’s move away from what President Trump has called “woke” programming.The concert, titled “Love is Love,” featured Broadway artists and was produced by Jeffrey Seller, who has been behind shows such as “Hamilton,” “Avenue Q” and “Rent.”The event started when Hickenlooper reached out to Seller with what he described as a “goofy idea.”“Taking songs from this arc of acceptance (of gay rights), so that we get to celebrate for a moment just how powerful our arts and culture is and how it’s changed America and how better off we are,” explained Colorado’s junior senator.Playbill: Beth Malone, Brandon Uranowitz, Jelani Remy, More to Perform in Pride Protest Concert at Kennedy CenterSince President Trump took over the Kennedy Center in February, the institution has cancelled a number of Pride-related events. In protest, Hamilton producer Jeffrey Seller and five Democratic Senators are going to stage a Pride-themed concert at the Kennedy Center the evening of June 23.According to a report in the New York Times, senators are allowed to rent space at the Kennedy Center. So the Democratic senators asked to rent the 144-seat Justice Hall and didn’t tell the Kennedy Center what they needed it for. The invitation-only event will be called Love Is Love and will feature queer-themed songs and readings. The participants include Tony winners John Cameron Mitchell, Lisa Kron, and Brandon Uranowitz, as well as Andrew Lippa, Beth Malone, Jelani Remy, Hennessy Winkler, Alexis Michelle, Dylan Toms, Javier Muñoz, Kathryn Gallagher, and Brandi Chavonne Massey.The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, D.C. (whose previously planned concert had been cancelled at the Kennedy Center), will also perform. The title of the concert is a Pride slogan, and Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda quoted it in a 2016 Tony Awards acceptance speech.Seller produced the event, after being invited to participate from Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado. As Seller told the Times: “This is our way of reoccupying the Kennedy Center. This is a form of saying, ‘We are here, we exist, and you can’t ignore us.’ This is a protest, and a political act.” Seller previously pulled a planned engagement of Hamilton from the Kennedy Center as protest against the Trump Administration. Seth Rudetsky and his husband, James Wesley Jackson, are directing the event. They previously helped organize a Broadway Rallies for Kamala event during the 2024 election.Said Rudetsky to Playbill: “I am honored that Jeffrey Seller reached out to me and my husband James to help put this concert together after Jeffrey was contacted by the Senator’s office. We decided together that we wanted to create concert of joy and pride! The gay community has been always integral to the arts and should be welcome in every artistic venue! I am so excited to be in the company of so many amazing queer artists who will be performing songs from the Broadway canon that celebrate PRIDE! Stay tuned for photos and videos of fabulous harmonies and belting!”Deadline: Democratic Senators To Host Kennedy Center Pride Concert To Protest Trump TakeoverFive Democratic senators will host an invitation-only Pride concert at the Kennedy Center Monday as a protest against President Donald Trump’s takeover of the Washington D.C. arts institution.The 90-minute concert, which is expected to feature Broadway performers as well as The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington D.C., is set for Monday night, The New York Times reports.Organized by John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., the group of Senators – Hickenlooper, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – have rented the Justice Forum, a 144-seat theater located in the Reach expansion of the Kennedy Center, using a privilege available to all members of Congress.“What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “The L.G.B.T.Q. community has long embodied this resilience, maintaining joy and creativity in the face of adversity.”Colorado Today Podcast: June 24, 2025Last night, Colorado’s U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper led a little guerrilla theater. It was supposed to be a sort of takeover of a venue that’s already been taken over by President Donald Trump. The venue was the Kennedy Center in Washington, where Hickenlooper and a handful of other Democrats put on a night to celebrate LGBTQ pride. 
    …If you’re wondering why Hickenlooper specifically organized this, I’m not surprised that he decided to do it. You know, he’s a performer, banjo player, and you know, enjoys music. So I can understand why he turned to the arts and celebrated not just for pride, but to try and ensure that the arts unites the country.KKTV Colorado Springs: 11 News at 6am
    A group of U.S. Senators, including Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came together and hosted a pride celebration in a musical performance titled “Love is Love.”Now, that performance was held last night at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum and produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller.The press release from Hickenlooper’s team said the performance reminds us that our fight for equality and democracy isn’t over. It’s happening right now, all across the world. Queerty: Dems hosted a private Pride bash at the Kennedy Center as a giant F.U. to Tr*mpWhen President Tr*mp took over the running of the Kennedy Center in February, he promised no more “woke” productions. He installed gay chum Richard Grenell as the art center’s acting President.Since then, not only have performers and productions pulled their appearances at the venue, but the center also canceled all of its planned Pride Month events.That was until last night!In a rebuke of the President’s takeover of the venue, five Democratic Senators hosted a private, invite-only Pride Month event. They didn’t tell the Kennedy Center in advance the exact nature of the private booking.The New York Times reported yesterday that the 90-minute show was booked at the 144-seat Justice Forum. It was organized by Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO). His co-hosts included Tammy Baldwin (WI), Jacky Rosen (NV), Brian Schatz (HI) and Elizabeth Warren (MA).
    …Hickenlooper reshared the New York Times story to X, saying, “Let’s do this,” with a pride flag emoji.LGBTQ Nation: Gay MAGA official scorns “Hamilton” creators for Kennedy Center boycott: They “cosplay as victims”As the Daily Beast notes, Grenell’s statement came the same day as an invite-only Pride concert produced by Seller and staged by Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Brian Schatz (D-HI) at one of the Kennedy Center’s theaters. According to the outlet, Miranda does not seem to have been involved in the event in any way. While the New York Times reported on the concert Monday, the paper was also not involved in its production, as Grenell suggested. While Grenell claimed in his Monday statement that “No one has been cancelled by the Kennedy Center” and that “we welcome everyone who wants to celebrate the arts, including our compatriots on the other side of the political aisle,” under his leadership, several Pride events and performances have, in fact, been canceled.According to the Times, Hickenlooper invited Seller to produce Monday’s concert, which Seller said was meant “to celebrate gay characters, gay culture, gay music and gay pride.”“This is our way of reoccupying the Kennedy Center,” Seller told the paper. “This is a form of saying, ‘We are here, we exist and you can’t ignore us.’ This is a protest, and a political act.”Daily Beast: Kennedy Center President Melts Down at ‘Hamilton’ Duo in Social Media TiradeHickenlooper said in an X post that “this is about standing up for freedom. It’s about standing up for self-expression. At the core of it all, it’s about standing up for love.”BroadwayWorld: Photos: Senators Host LOVE IS LOVE Pride Celebration at the Kennedy CenterOn June 23rd U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper, Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and Brian Schatz hosted a Pride celebration and musical performance titled Love is Love, which was produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller, at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum.
    …Senator Hickenlooper opened the program, which featured an evening of live performances and monologues celebrating LGBTQ culture and resilience.The Hill: 5 Democratic senators protest Trump Kennedy Center takeover with gay pride concertA group of five Democratic senators reportedly protested President Trump’s unprecedented overhaul of the Kennedy Center by hosting a gay pride concert.The performance, dubbed “Love is Love” and first reported by The New York Times, was held Monday night at a theater inside the Washington performing arts institution and included pro-LGBTQ songs and monologues. Sen. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) — one of the five Democrats behind the event — said in a statement, “What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light.”The Monday concert, which came during Pride Month, aimed to “honor the role that the freedom of expression and the theatrical arts play in continuing to expand LGBTQ rights in America,” Hickenlooper said.The musical performance was also hosted by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Jacky Rosen (Nev.).Colorado Pols: Hickenlooper Master Trolls Trump’s Censored Kennedy CenterAs Colorado Public Radio’s Caitlyn Kim reports, Washington is abuzz this morning after a group of Democratic U.S. Senators led by Colorado’s Sen. John Hickenlooper pulled off a protest concert inside the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which was taken over by the Trump administration soon after taking power, after Donald Trump personally objected to the content featured there during previous administrations:
    …Of course, none of this would be happening were it not for Trump’s takeover and ideological remake of the Center’s event schedule that Grenell himself presided over. There’s no amount of carping after the fact that can overcome the much bigger impression made by pulling off this protest concert inside the arts complex that Trump wants to micromanage like the infamous Carter White House tennis courts.These are the moments history remembers after repressive eras end, and this one belongs to Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.

    Read more: Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.

    Read more: Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    – Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them
    – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.



    Read more:
    Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.



    Read more:
    Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.



    Read more:
    Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.



    Read more:
    Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pressley, Lawmakers Demand Trump Admin. Exempt Essential Baby Products from Harmful Tariffs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Last Month, After Pressure from Pressley, Treasury and Trump Said Exemption Was “Under Consideration”

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) led 25 of her colleagues on a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demanding an immediate exemption for essential infant and toddler products—including car seats, strollers, cribs, and highchairs—from current and future tariffs. Last month, after sharp questioning from Congresswoman Pressley in the House Financial Services Committee, Secretary Bessent conceded that such an exemption was “under consideration,” which was later reaffirmed by President Trump.

    “There have been more than thirty days since your testimony and no exemptions on baby products have been announced. Hence, we urge you to relieve families of the high tariffs on products they need to care for their children,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “As you are aware, baby products are not optional luxury goods. They are necessities for millions of American families to ensure a safe environment for infants.”

    Car seats are legally required in all fifty seats, but more than 90% of them are made in China. Under the current on-again, off-again tariff regime, many of these products have seen price increases of up to 30%, placing a significant and unnecessary burden on working families. With approximately 3.5 million babies born each year in the United States, this means millions of families face steep cost increases to care for their newborns and comply with basic child safety laws. Further, according to BabyCenter, new parents now spend an estimated $20,000 during their child’s first year—including nearly $1,000 on baby safety gear alone.

    According to the Joint Economic Committee, new parents are at risk of paying an additional $875 million overall in 2025 on baby goods, including bouncers, activity centers, carriers, diaper bags, and other types of car seats, as a result of Trump’s tariffs. In Massachusetts, new parents could pay an additional $20.6 million.

    “At a time when families are already struggling with the rising costs of food, housing, and healthcare, trade policies that further inflate essential childcare expenses are both counterproductive and deeply concerning,” the lawmakers continued. “We therefore urge you to immediately work with the President to exempt baby and toddler products from current and future tariffs, particularly those involving imports from China.”

    The lawmakers noted that during the first Trump Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative created exclusions for baby safety products, an acknowledgement that the health and safety of infants should not be collateral damage in trade policy. They requested a response to their letter by July 10, 2025.

    Joining Rep. Pressley in sending the letter are Representatives Becca Balint, Greg Casar, Sharice Davids, Cleo Fields, Bill Foster, Josh Gottheimer, Al Green, Jonathan Jackson, Julie Johnson, Stephen F. Lynch, Betty McCollum, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chris Pappas, Delia Ramírez, Deborah K. Ross, Andrea Salinas, Brad Sherman, Eric Swalwell, Emilia Strong Sykes, Shri Thanedar, Rashida Tlaib, Jill Tokuda, Ritchie Torres, Eugene Simon Vindman, and Frederica S. Wilson.

    To view a copy of the letter, click here.

    Last month, in a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Rep. Pressley pressed Secretary Bessent about the harmful impact of Trump’s tariffs on families with young children and asked if he would support an exemption to tariffs on baby products and other items that parents need to care for their kids, such as car seats. In response to her questioning, Secretary Bessent conceded that such an exemption was “under consideration.”

    In April, Congresswoman Pressley joined 45 colleagues in sending a Congressional letter to the Trump Administration imploring them to end tariffs on essential baby goods.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Union Minister Bhupender Yadav chairs 21st Steering Committee Meeting of Project Elephant in Dehradun

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav on Thursday chaired the 21st Steering Committee Meeting of Project Elephant at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA) in Dehradun. The meeting convened senior officials, scientists, and field experts from elephant range states, alongside representatives from key conservation institutions, to review the progress of Project Elephant and chart the future of elephant conservation in India.

    A key focus of the meeting was addressing the ongoing challenge of human-elephant conflict, which poses significant risks to both human safety and elephant conservation. Yadav emphasized the critical need to involve local communities as active partners in wildlife conservation, particularly in regions heavily impacted by such conflicts. He stressed that effective management of human-wildlife conflict is essential for the success of conservation programs and called for improved working conditions and social security for frontline forest staff and ground-level conservation workers.

    The Minister urged coordinated efforts with Indian Railways, the Ministry of Power, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and mine developers to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. He also highlighted the role of institutions like the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), and State Forest Training institutions in implementing awareness and outreach programs. Additionally, Shri Yadav emphasized the importance of systematic data collection and analysis on elephant deaths due to railway accidents and the need for knowledge sharing among states, institutions, and experts to replicate best practices nationwide.

    The meeting reviewed significant progress in conservation efforts, including the development of Regional Action Plans for human-elephant conflict in Southern and North-Eastern India and the completion of surveys covering 3,452.4 km of sensitive railway stretches, identifying 77 high-risk areas for mitigation. DNA profiling of captive elephants has advanced, with 1,911 genetic profiles completed across 22 states. Phase-I of the synchronized elephant population estimation in North-Eastern states has been completed, with over 16,500 dung samples collected. Work on the Model Elephant Conservation Plan (ECP) for the Nilgiri Elephant Reserve is underway and expected to be finalized by December 2025.

    Several important documents were released during the meeting, including a report on measures to mitigate elephant-train collisions, a comprehensive study on 23 years of human-elephant conflict in Assam, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh, an advisory on safe tusk trimming practices for captive elephants, and the latest edition of Trumpet, Project Elephant’s quarterly newsletter.

    Looking ahead, the Committee discussed preparations for World Elephant Day on August 12, to be celebrated in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, where the Gaj Gaurav Awards will be presented. Upcoming initiatives include finalizing the Nilgiri ECP, launching a three-year elephant tracking study in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, conducting Management Effectiveness Evaluations (MEE) in Elephant Reserves with support from the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), and developing an integrated conservation strategy for the Ripu-Chirang Elephant Reserve, with a focus on the Udalguri landscape.

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Schwartz, Professor of Urban Policy, The New School

    Thousands of American families that can’t find affordable apartments are stuck living in extended-stay motels. Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    If there’s one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that rents are far too high.

    Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations.

    Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.

    As experts on housing policy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.

    However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.

    A financial sinkhole

    Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?

    According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.

    Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.

    Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.

    Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.

    We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.

    Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.

    The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.

    Vouchers offer more breathing room

    Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.

    In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.

    These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.

    The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.

    By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.

    The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.

    Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.

    Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.

    However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.

    The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.

    Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?

    Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.

    The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.

    However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.

    Only about 25% of eligiblge households receive rental assistance from the federal government.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.

    Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.

    Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.

    Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.

    On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.

    This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

    Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.

    Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/what-if-universal-rental-assistance-were-implemented-to-deal-with-the-housing-crisis-257213

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Schwartz, Professor of Urban Policy, The New School

    Thousands of American families that can’t find affordable apartments are stuck living in extended-stay motels. Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    If there’s one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that rents are far too high.

    Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations.

    Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.

    As experts on housing policy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.

    However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.

    A financial sinkhole

    Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?

    According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.

    Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.

    Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.

    Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.

    We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.

    Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.

    The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.

    Vouchers offer more breathing room

    Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.

    In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.

    These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.

    The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.

    By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.

    The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.

    Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.

    Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.

    However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.

    The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.

    Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?

    Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.

    The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.

    However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.

    Only about 25% of eligiblge households receive rental assistance from the federal government.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.

    Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.

    Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.

    Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.

    On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.

    This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

    Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.

    Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/what-if-universal-rental-assistance-were-implemented-to-deal-with-the-housing-crisis-257213

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

    Polarization has led many people to feel they’re being silenced. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

    A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

    That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

    Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

    Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

    I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

    A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023.
    AP Photo/Nathan Howard

    The muting of the American voice

    According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

    And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

    About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

    Censorship in the US and globally

    Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

    Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

    The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

    How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

    In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

    The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

    People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025.
    AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

    A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

    This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

    This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

    The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

    Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

    The consequences for democratic deliberation

    The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

    No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

    Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

    But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

    The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

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

    – ref. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

    Polarization has led many people to feel they’re being silenced. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

    A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

    That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

    Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

    Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

    I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

    A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023.
    AP Photo/Nathan Howard

    The muting of the American voice

    According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

    And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

    About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

    Censorship in the US and globally

    Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

    Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

    The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

    How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

    In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

    The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

    People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025.
    AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

    A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

    This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

    This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

    The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

    Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

    The consequences for democratic deliberation

    The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

    No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

    Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

    But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

    The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

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

    – ref. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel-Iran war recalls the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – a war my undergraduate students see as a relic of the past

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrea Stanton, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies & Faculty Affiliate, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver

    American troops topple a statue of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, in Baghdad. Gilles Bassignac/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

    After 12 days of trading deadly airstrikes, Israel and Iran confirmed on June 24, 2025, that a ceasefire is in effect, one day after President Donald Trump proclaimed the countries reached a deal to end fighting. Experts are wondering how long the ceasefire, which does not contain any specific conditions, will hold.

    Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike have debated whether the Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran’s three nuclear facilities on June 22 constituted an unofficial declaration of war – since Trump has not asked Congress to formally declare war against Iran.

    The United States’ involvement in the fighting between Iran and Israel, which Israel started on June 12, has also sparked concerned comparisons with the eight-year war the U.S. waged in Iraq, another Middle Eastern country.

    The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 20 years ago in March 2003, claiming it had to disarm the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction and end the dictatorial rule of President Saddam Hussein. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December 2003, but the war dragged on through 2011.

    A 15-month search by U.S. and United Nations inspectors revealed in 2004 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to seize.

    The Trump administration, bolstered by the Israeli government, has claimed that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons represents an imminent, dangerous threat to Western countries and the rest of the world. Iran says that its nuclear development program is for civilian use. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization that is part of the United Nations, monitors Iran and other countries’ nuclear development work, Iran has not complied with recent IAEA requests for information about its nuclear program.

    Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, writing on his Truth Social media platform on June 22 that he wants to “Make Iran Great Again”, though he has since walked back that plan. The case of U.S. involvement in Iraq might offer some lessons in this current moment.

    The start and cost of the Iraq War

    The conflict between Western powers and Iraq dragged on until 2011. More than 4,600 American soldiers died in combat – and thousands more died by suicide after they returned home.

    More than 288,000 Iraqis, including fighters and civilians, have died from war-related violence since the invasion.

    The war cost the U.S. over $2 trillion.

    And Iraq is still dealing with widespread political violence between rival religious-political groups and an unstable government.

    Most of these problems stem directly or indirectly from the war. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war that followed are defining events in the histories of both countries – and the region. Yet, for many young people in the United States, drawing a connection between the war and its present-day impact is becoming more difficult. For them, the war is an artifact of the past.

    I am a Middle East historian and an Islamic studies scholar who teaches two undergraduate courses that cover the 2003 invasion and the Iraq War. My courses attract students who hope to work in politics, law, government and nonprofit groups, and whose personal backgrounds include a range of religious traditions, immigration histories and racial identities.

    The stories of the invasion and subsequent war resonate with them in the same way that stories of other past events do – they’re eager to learn from them, but don’t see them as directly connected to their lives.

    Former President George W. Bush formally declared war on Iraq in a televised address on March 19, 2003.
    Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images

    A generational shift

    Since I started teaching courses related to the Iraq War in 2010, my students have shifted from millennials to Generation Z. The latter were born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s. There has also been a change in how these students understand major early 21st-century events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    I teach this event by showing things like former President George W. Bush’s March 19, 2003, televised announcement of the invasion.

    I also teach it through the flow of my lived experience. That includes remembering the Feb. 15, 2003, anti-war protests that took place in over 600 cities around the world as an effort to prevent what appeared to be an inevitable war. And I show students aspects of material culture, like the “Iraqi most wanted” deck of playing cards, distributed to deployed U.S. military personnel in Iraq, who used the cards for games and to help them identify key figures in the Iraq government.

    The millennial students I taught around 2010 recalled the U.S. invasion of Iraq from their early teen years – a confusing but foundational moment in their personal timelines.

    But for the Gen-Z students I teach today, the invasion sits firmly in the past, as a part of history.

    Why this matters

    Since the mid-2010s, I have not been able to expect students to enroll in my course with personal prior knowledge about the invasion and war that followed. In 2013, my students would tell me that their childhoods had been defined by a United States at war – even if those wars happened far from U.S. soil.

    Millennial students considered the trifecta of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to be defining events in their lives. The U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This followed the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11.

    By 2021, my students considered Bush’s actions with the same level of abstract curiosity that they had brought to the class’s earlier examination of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which said that a country could request help from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another country, and was used to justify U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1958.

    On an educational level, this means that I now provide much more background information on the first the Gulf War, the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush presidency, the immediate U.S. responses to 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion than I had to do before. All of these events help students better understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why Americans felt so strongly about the military action – whether they were for or against the invasion.

    The Iraq invasion lost popularity among Americans within two years. In March 2003, 71% of Americans said that the U.S. made the right decision to use military force in Iraq.

    That percentage dropped to 47% in 2005, following the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet those supporters continued to strongly endorse the invasion in later polls.

    In 2018, just over half of Americans believed that the U.S. failed to achieve its goals, however those goals might have been defined in Iraq.

    An Iraqi family flees past British tanks from the city of Basra in March 2003.
    Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images

    A new set of priorities

    Older Americans age 65 and up are more likely than young people to prioritize foreign policy issues, including maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

    Younger Americans – age 18 to 39 – say the top issues that require urgency are providing support to refugees and limiting U.S. military commitments abroad, according to a 2021 Pew research survey.

    Generation Z members are also less likely than older Americans to think that the U.S. should act by itself in defending or protecting democracy around the world, according to a 2019 poll by the think tank Center for American Progress.

    They also agree with the statement that the United States’ “wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” They prefer that the U.S. use economic and diplomatic means, rather than military intervention, to advance American interests around the world.

    Israel’s conflict with Iran may not flare again and give way to more airstrikes and violence. If the countries resume fighting, however, their conflict threatens to draw in Lebanon, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East, as well as likely the U.S. – and to drag on for a long time.

    This is an update from a story originally published on March 15, 2023.

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

    – ref. Israel-Iran war recalls the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – a war my undergraduate students see as a relic of the past – https://theconversation.com/israel-iran-war-recalls-the-2003-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-war-my-undergraduate-students-see-as-a-relic-of-the-past-259652

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Using TikTok could be making you more politically polarized, new study finds

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zicheng Cheng, Assistant Professor of Mass Communications, University of Arizona

    Are you in an echo chamber on TikTok? LeoPatrizi/E+ via Getty Images

    People on TikTok tend to follow accounts that align with their own political beliefs, meaning the platform is creating political echo chambers among its users. These findings, from a study my collaborators, Yanlin Li and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, and I published in the academic journal New Media & Society, show that people mostly hear from voices they already agree with.

    We analyzed the structure of different political networks on TikTok and found that right-leaning communities are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with.

    Our study is based on a massive dataset of over 16 million TikTok videos from more than 160,000 public accounts between 2019 and 2023. We saw a spike of political TikTok videos during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. More importantly, people aren’t just passively watching political content; they’re actively creating political content themselves.

    Some people are more outspoken about politics than others. We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok’s social rewards system. Engagement signals – likes, shares, comments – are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more.

    Why it matters

    People are turning to TikTok not just for a good laugh. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that almost 40% of U.S. adults under 30 regularly get news on TikTok. The question becomes what kind of news are they watching, and what does that mean for how they engage with politics.

    The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions.

    TikTok is not unique; social media generally fosters polarization.

    Amid the debates over banning TikTok, our study highlights how TikTok can be a double-edged sword in political communication. It’s encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that’s their medium of choice. However, if a user’s network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.

    When people are exposed to one-sided messages, it can increase hostility toward outgroups. In the long run, relying on TikTok as a source for political information might deepen people’s political views and contribute to greater polarization.

    What other research is being done

    Echo chambers have been widely studied on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, but similar research on TikTok is in its infancy. TikTok is drawing scrutiny, particularly its role in news production, political messaging and social movements.

    TikTok has its unique format, algorithmic curation and entertainment-driven design. I believe that its function as a tool for political communication calls for closer examination.

    What’s next

    In 2024, the Biden/Harris and Trump campaigns joined TikTok to reach young voters. My research team is now analyzing how these political communication dynamics may have shifted during the 2024 election. Future research could use experiments to explore whether these campaign videos significantly influence voters’ perceptions and behaviors.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

    – ref. Using TikTok could be making you more politically polarized, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/using-tiktok-could-be-making-you-more-politically-polarized-new-study-finds-258791

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    – ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark 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. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Can Zero Tariffs Drive Real Change? China’s New Trade Policy and Africa’s Energy-Led Future

    China’s zero-tariff policy for African goods has expanded rapidly in recent years, with 53 of the continent’s countries now eligible to export their taxable goods to the Chinese market duty-free. Promoted as a vehicle for deeper Sino-African cooperation and shared prosperity, the policy has gained attention for its potential to open access to one of the world’s largest consumer markets. But as the continent looks to secure long-term development and industrial transformation, a central question arises: will trade preferences like this serve as a catalyst for Africa’s economic evolution, or simply reinforce its role as a low-value commodity supplier?

    Eswatini – one of the few African countries that maintains diplomatic ties with Taiwan – was excluded from the tariff breaks, underscoring that access to China’s market remains conditional. The expanded duty-free and tax incentives also appear as a counter to the Trump-era tariffs, placing Africa in the throes of the China-U.S. trade war.

    As African Energy Week (AEW) 2025: Invest in African Energies prepares to convene in Cape Town from September 29 to October 3, the broader question for the continent is whether these expanding trade policies can deliver tangible, scalable benefits. Africa’s ability to meet its development and energy access goals will depend not only on increased trade, but on how effectively such policies translate into investment in infrastructure, energy, and industrial growth.

    The Promise and Limits of Zero-Tariff Access

    On paper, zero-tariff access is a welcome opportunity. For African countries seeking to diversify export destinations and boost agricultural, mineral and energy-based trade, the initiative offers a cost advantage that could help expand trade volumes. For oil and gas producers, there may be openings to increase exports of refined products, petrochemicals or fertilizers, if the necessary processing capacity exists.

    But therein lies the challenge. Most African countries lack the industrial and energy infrastructure to capitalize on such preferences. Many exports continue to be raw or semi-processed materials with limited value retention on the continent. Tariff-free access does little to change that if non-tariff barriers, unreliable power supply or inadequate transport logistics continue to undermine competitiveness.

    Energy sits at the core of that equation. Africa’s path to economic sovereignty depends on its ability to convert natural resources into industrial products – a process that begins with investment in upstream development and extends through midstream logistics and downstream transformation. Whether it’s building pipelines and LNG infrastructure, electrifying industrial corridors or developing fertilizer and plastics manufacturing hubs, Africa’s energy systems must evolve to support trade ambitions.

    Africa’s Path to Integrated Energy and Industrial Growth

    Several countries are already moving in that direction. Nigeria is pushing forward with its gas commercialization strategy; Mozambique is scaling up LNG; Senegal and Mauritania are emerging as cross-border gas hubs. These projects not only generate export revenue, but create the foundation for broader economic diversification, from petrochemical industries to power generation for local factories.

    Meanwhile, the African Continental Free Trade Area provides the framework to harmonize standards, reduce internal tariffs and build common infrastructure, such as pipelines, ports and refineries, thereby enabling economies of scale and intra-African trade. If combined with external access like China’s zero-tariff policy, this dual approach could allow African nations to integrate vertically and horizontally, moving from fragmented markets to unified production ecosystems.

    Still, risks remain. Trade with China remains heavily skewed toward raw materials, with manufactured imports often undercutting local industries. Without targeted support for African manufacturing, technology transfer and local content, tariff preferences risk entrenching the continent’s supplier status rather than overturning it. African governments must therefore ensure that policies – both trade- and energy-related – are designed to channel benefits inward, not just extract them outward.

    “That is the true promise of AEW 2025. As leaders, investors and institutions gather in Cape Town, the conference will not only facilitate deals and investment flows, but ask complex questions about how Africa can seize agency in its global partnerships. Energy security, industrialization and trade access must be viewed not in silos, but as interconnected levers for long-term prosperity,” says NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman, African Energy Chamber.

    AEW: Invest in African Energies is the platform of choice for project operators, financiers, technology providers and government, and has emerged as the official place to sign deals in African energy. Visit www.AECWeek.com for more information about this exciting event.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Next week will be the 40th anniversary of the Hawke government’s tax summit. Dominated by then treasurer Paul Keating’s unsuccessful bid to win support for a consumption tax, it was the public centrepiece of an extraordinary political and policy story.

    That story was about the possibilities for, but constraints on, bold reform; how a determined treasurer can muster a formidable department to push for change, and the way the ambitions of a minister can clash with the pragmatism of a prime minister.

    Ken Henry, later secretary of the treasury, was then part of what they dubbed the “treasury tax reform bunker”. He kept a timesheet, averaging 100 hours work a week for a three-month period. Officials brought sleeping bags and their small children (Henry’s were aged three and five) into the office.

    Before the summit, the government produced a comprehensive draft white paper. Keating battled to keep the conflicting interests “in the cart” for his blueprint. But the four-day summit, attended by business, unions, premiers and community groups, was inevitably divided by stakeholders’ self-interests. In particular, the unions couldn’t wear Keating’s consumption tax, and Bob Hawke kyboshed it unceremoniously. Keating, who had to settle for a more limited but still very significant set of reforms, was furious with Hawke, and it left a fracture in their relationship.

    Jim Chalmers was aged seven in 1985. But he’s a student of Keating (he did his PhD on his prime ministership) and you can be sure he’s boned up on what went right and wrong in that tax reform exercise. Now he is preparing for the government’s August 19-21 “roundtable” and his own bid at major tax reform.

    The roundtable, as first announced, focused on “productivity”, and that will be central. But Chalmers has taken to calling it an “economic reform” roundtable – its brief also includes budget sustainability and resilience – and he is effectively putting tax reform close to its heart, or at least letting others do so. After all, a fit-for-purpose tax system is one key to improving productivity.

    The roundtable (for which invitations to business and the union movement are now going out, with more to follow) is nothing like on the scale, in size (the 1985 summit had about 160 attendees, the roundtable will have about 25) or preparation, of the elaborate 1985 conference.

    And crucially, while that summit was the culmination of a process, Chalmers is using the roundtable to kick off a process.

    Chalmers is lowering expectations in regard to specific outcomes from the summit on tax. While those might be obtainable on some productivity issues, on tax he is likely to look for broad support for a direction of reform. For instance, is there a general appetite for reshaping the tax system towards lower personal and company tax, offset by higher taxes on certain investments and savings? `

    Most tax experts argue Australia’s system is too skewed towards taxing income rather than spending. This leads to calls to increase or broaden the GST, financing cuts to personal income tax.

    Chalmers has been a long-term opponent of changing the GST, but he says he is not ruling the GST out for discussion at the roundtable. (That’s a contrast to when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, commissioning Henry to lead a major tax review, excluded the GST from its terms of reference.)

    Almost certainly, however, it would not be possible to get “consensus” from business and unions for GST changes. Not least of the constraints is that compensating the losers in such a change is very expensive and there is not the money to do so these days.

    That immediately limits the extent of reform.

    Henry tells The Conversation’s podcast that if he were designing a tax reform package “I’d be looking at opportunities to broaden the GST and maybe to increase the rate as well”.

    But “I do think it is possible to achieve major tax reform […] without necessarily increasing the [GST] rate or extending the base”.

    Henry’s (non-GST) wish list includes getting rid of the remaining state transaction taxes, such as stamp duty on property conveyancing.

    Notably, he argues for extracting more revenue from taxing natural resources and land, and also from taxing pollution from various sources. “We’re going to need to tax those things more heavily if we’re going to relieve the tax burden on young workers through lower personal income tax and introducing tax indexation.”

    Henry is particularly focused on the unfair burden at present put on these younger taxpayers. He has come around to the idea of income tax indexation as one means of assisting them.

    A system more geared to younger workers raises immediate questions about the present generous treatment of superannuants. Chalmers is already caught in that hornets’ nest with his proposed changes for those with balances more than $3 million.

    To what extent will the roundtable tax debate revive the issues of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount? The government hosed down before the election the prospect of any changes to negative gearing this term. Chalmers, however, had work done on this last term and he would likely favour reining it in. But would this be a bridge too far for the prime minister?

    Indeed, where will Anthony Albanese’s limits be when it comes to reform? Would he only support changes that had strong consensus? And how far would he feel constrained in going beyond what he considers he has a mandate for?

    If Chalmers stays serious about the tax push, it is going to take many months of intense work. It can’t be rushed, but nor can it be delayed. If it ran for much over a year it would likely find the government’s political capital had been eroded. The size of its capital store can appear deceptive because so much of it is thanks to Peter Dutton and Donald Trump.

    In 2022, the Liberals boycotted Labor’s jobs and skills summit (although Nationals leader David Littlepround attended). This time, shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien has accepted Chalmers’ invitation and will participate in the roundtable.

    It will be a tricky gig for O’Brien, new to this shadow portfolio. He has to avoid being too negative, but nor can he endorse things the opposition might later reject. The Coalition will not have a tax policy against which to judge what’s said.

    The occasion will be a chance for O’Brien to make contacts and get more insight into stakeholders’ views on the key economic debates, much wider than just tax.

    Importantly, however, O’Brien will need to remember judgements will be being made about him by other participants in the room. Business in particular will be seeking to get a fix on whether opposition leader Sussan Ley’s declarations about wanting to be constructive where possible are fair dinkum.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-jim-chalmers-juggles-expectations-and-ambition-in-pursuing-tax-reform-258971

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Next week will be the 40th anniversary of the Hawke government’s tax summit. Dominated by then treasurer Paul Keating’s unsuccessful bid to win support for a consumption tax, it was the public centrepiece of an extraordinary political and policy story.

    That story was about the possibilities for, but constraints on, bold reform; how a determined treasurer can muster a formidable department to push for change, and the way the ambitions of a minister can clash with the pragmatism of a prime minister.

    Ken Henry, later secretary of the treasury, was then part of what they dubbed the “treasury tax reform bunker”. He kept a timesheet, averaging 100 hours work a week for a three-month period. Officials brought sleeping bags and their small children (Henry’s were aged three and five) into the office.

    Before the summit, the government produced a comprehensive draft white paper. Keating battled to keep the conflicting interests “in the cart” for his blueprint. But the four-day summit, attended by business, unions, premiers and community groups, was inevitably divided by stakeholders’ self-interests. In particular, the unions couldn’t wear Keating’s consumption tax, and Bob Hawke kyboshed it unceremoniously. Keating, who had to settle for a more limited but still very significant set of reforms, was furious with Hawke, and it left a fracture in their relationship.

    Jim Chalmers was aged seven in 1985. But he’s a student of Keating (he did his PhD on his prime ministership) and you can be sure he’s boned up on what went right and wrong in that tax reform exercise. Now he is preparing for the government’s August 19-21 “roundtable” and his own bid at major tax reform.

    The roundtable, as first announced, focused on “productivity”, and that will be central. But Chalmers has taken to calling it an “economic reform” roundtable – its brief also includes budget sustainability and resilience – and he is effectively putting tax reform close to its heart, or at least letting others do so. After all, a fit-for-purpose tax system is one key to improving productivity.

    The roundtable (for which invitations to business and the union movement are now going out, with more to follow) is nothing like on the scale, in size (the 1985 summit had about 160 attendees, the roundtable will have about 25) or preparation, of the elaborate 1985 conference.

    And crucially, while that summit was the culmination of a process, Chalmers is using the roundtable to kick off a process.

    Chalmers is lowering expectations in regard to specific outcomes from the summit on tax. While those might be obtainable on some productivity issues, on tax he is likely to look for broad support for a direction of reform. For instance, is there a general appetite for reshaping the tax system towards lower personal and company tax, offset by higher taxes on certain investments and savings? `

    Most tax experts argue Australia’s system is too skewed towards taxing income rather than spending. This leads to calls to increase or broaden the GST, financing cuts to personal income tax.

    Chalmers has been a long-term opponent of changing the GST, but he says he is not ruling the GST out for discussion at the roundtable. (That’s a contrast to when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, commissioning Henry to lead a major tax review, excluded the GST from its terms of reference.)

    Almost certainly, however, it would not be possible to get “consensus” from business and unions for GST changes. Not least of the constraints is that compensating the losers in such a change is very expensive and there is not the money to do so these days.

    That immediately limits the extent of reform.

    Henry tells The Conversation’s podcast that if he were designing a tax reform package “I’d be looking at opportunities to broaden the GST and maybe to increase the rate as well”.

    But “I do think it is possible to achieve major tax reform […] without necessarily increasing the [GST] rate or extending the base”.

    Henry’s (non-GST) wish list includes getting rid of the remaining state transaction taxes, such as stamp duty on property conveyancing.

    Notably, he argues for extracting more revenue from taxing natural resources and land, and also from taxing pollution from various sources. “We’re going to need to tax those things more heavily if we’re going to relieve the tax burden on young workers through lower personal income tax and introducing tax indexation.”

    Henry is particularly focused on the unfair burden at present put on these younger taxpayers. He has come around to the idea of income tax indexation as one means of assisting them.

    A system more geared to younger workers raises immediate questions about the present generous treatment of superannuants. Chalmers is already caught in that hornets’ nest with his proposed changes for those with balances more than $3 million.

    To what extent will the roundtable tax debate revive the issues of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount? The government hosed down before the election the prospect of any changes to negative gearing this term. Chalmers, however, had work done on this last term and he would likely favour reining it in. But would this be a bridge too far for the prime minister?

    Indeed, where will Anthony Albanese’s limits be when it comes to reform? Would he only support changes that had strong consensus? And how far would he feel constrained in going beyond what he considers he has a mandate for?

    If Chalmers stays serious about the tax push, it is going to take many months of intense work. It can’t be rushed, but nor can it be delayed. If it ran for much over a year it would likely find the government’s political capital had been eroded. The size of its capital store can appear deceptive because so much of it is thanks to Peter Dutton and Donald Trump.

    In 2022, the Liberals boycotted Labor’s jobs and skills summit (although Nationals leader David Littlepround attended). This time, shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien has accepted Chalmers’ invitation and will participate in the roundtable.

    It will be a tricky gig for O’Brien, new to this shadow portfolio. He has to avoid being too negative, but nor can he endorse things the opposition might later reject. The Coalition will not have a tax policy against which to judge what’s said.

    The occasion will be a chance for O’Brien to make contacts and get more insight into stakeholders’ views on the key economic debates, much wider than just tax.

    Importantly, however, O’Brien will need to remember judgements will be being made about him by other participants in the room. Business in particular will be seeking to get a fix on whether opposition leader Sussan Ley’s declarations about wanting to be constructive where possible are fair dinkum.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-jim-chalmers-juggles-expectations-and-ambition-in-pursuing-tax-reform-258971

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Corbett, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London

    Mark Rutte had an unenviable task at the Hague summit this week. The Nato secretary-general had to work with diverging American and European views of current security threats. After Rutte made extraordinary efforts at highly deferential, overt flattery of Donald Trump to secure crucial outcomes for the alliance, he seems to have succeeded for now.

    But what this meeting and the run-up has made increasingly clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having a single common enemy. Nato was established in 1949 as a defensive alliance against the acknowledged threat from the USSR. This defined the alliance through the cold war until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, Nato has focused on Moscow as the major threat to international peace. But the increasingly bellicose China is demanding more attention from the US.

    There are some symbolic moves that signal how things are changing. Every Nato summit declaration since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: “We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.”

    The declaration published during the Hague summit on June 25 conspicuously does not mention either. Indeed, in a departure from recent declarations, the five paragraphs of the Hague summit declaration are brutally short and focused entirely on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. No mention of international law and order this time.

    This appears to be a carefully orchestrated output of a deliberately shortened summit designed to contain Trump’s unpredictable interventions. This also seems symptomatic of a widening division between the American strategic trajectory and the security interests perceived by Canada and the European members of Nato.

    That this declaration was so short, and so focused on such a narrow range of issues suggests there were unusually entrenched differences that could not be surmounted.

    Since the onslaught of the full Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Nato allies have been united in their criticism of Russia and support for Ukraine; until now.

    Since January, the Trump administration has not authorised any military aid to Ukraine and significantly reduced material support to Ukraine and criticism of Russia. Trump has sought to end the war rapidly on terms effectively capitulating to Russian aggression; his proposal suggests recognising Russia’s control over Crimea and de facto control over some other occupied territories (Luhansk, parts of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Kherson) He has also suggested Ukraine would not join Nato but might receive security guarantees and the right to join the EU.

    Meanwhile, European allies have sought to fund and support Ukraine’s defensive efforts, increasing aid and military support, and continuing to ramp up sanctions.

    Another sign of the differing priorities of Europe and Canada v the US, was the decision by Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, to step back from leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, an ad-hoc coalition of states across the world providing military support to Ukraine. Hegseth also symbolically failed to attend the group’s pre-summit meeting in June.

    Trump has long been adamant that Nato members should meet their 2014 commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, and Rutte recognised that. In 2018, Trump suggested that this should be increased to 4 or 5% but this was dismissed as unreasonable. Now, in a decision which indicates increasing concern about both Russia as a threat and US support, Nato members (except for Spain) have agreed to increase spending to 5% of GDP on defence over the next 10 years.

    Donald Trump gives a press conference after the Nato summit.

    Nato’s article 3 requires states to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack. However, since 2022, it has become increasingly apparent that many Nato members are unprepared for any major military engagement. At the same time, they are increasingly feeling that Russia is more of a threat on their doorsteps. There has been recognition, particularly among the Baltic states, Germany, France and the UK that they need to increase their military spending and preparedness.

    For the US to focus more on China, US forces will shift a greater percentage of the US Navy to the Pacific. It will also assign its most capable new ships and aircraft to the region and increase general presence operations, training and developmental exercises, and engagement and cooperation with allied and other navies in the western Pacific. To do this US forces will need to reduce commitments in Europe, and European allies must replace those capabilities in order to sustain deterrence against Russia.

    The bedrock of the Nato treaty, article 5, is commonly paraphrased as “an attack on one is an attack on all”. On his way to the Hague summit, Trump seemed unsure about the US commitment to Nato. Asked to clarify this at the summit, he stated: “I stand with it [Article 5]. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”

    Lord Ismay, the first secretary-general of Nato, famously (if apocryphally) suggested that the purpose of the alliance was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Germany is now an integral part of Nato, and the Americans are in, if distracted. But there are cracks, and Rutte will have his hands full managing Trump’s declining interest in protecting Europe if he is to keep the Russians at bay.

    Andrew Corbett 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. How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy – https://theconversation.com/how-nato-summit-shows-europe-and-us-no-longer-have-a-common-enemy-259842

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Corbett, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London

    Mark Rutte had an unenviable task at the Hague summit this week. The Nato secretary-general had to work with diverging American and European views of current security threats. After Rutte made extraordinary efforts at highly deferential, overt flattery of Donald Trump to secure crucial outcomes for the alliance, he seems to have succeeded for now.

    But what this meeting and the run-up has made increasingly clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having a single common enemy. Nato was established in 1949 as a defensive alliance against the acknowledged threat from the USSR. This defined the alliance through the cold war until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, Nato has focused on Moscow as the major threat to international peace. But the increasingly bellicose China is demanding more attention from the US.

    There are some symbolic moves that signal how things are changing. Every Nato summit declaration since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: “We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.”

    The declaration published during the Hague summit on June 25 conspicuously does not mention either. Indeed, in a departure from recent declarations, the five paragraphs of the Hague summit declaration are brutally short and focused entirely on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. No mention of international law and order this time.

    This appears to be a carefully orchestrated output of a deliberately shortened summit designed to contain Trump’s unpredictable interventions. This also seems symptomatic of a widening division between the American strategic trajectory and the security interests perceived by Canada and the European members of Nato.

    That this declaration was so short, and so focused on such a narrow range of issues suggests there were unusually entrenched differences that could not be surmounted.

    Since the onslaught of the full Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Nato allies have been united in their criticism of Russia and support for Ukraine; until now.

    Since January, the Trump administration has not authorised any military aid to Ukraine and significantly reduced material support to Ukraine and criticism of Russia. Trump has sought to end the war rapidly on terms effectively capitulating to Russian aggression; his proposal suggests recognising Russia’s control over Crimea and de facto control over some other occupied territories (Luhansk, parts of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Kherson) He has also suggested Ukraine would not join Nato but might receive security guarantees and the right to join the EU.

    Meanwhile, European allies have sought to fund and support Ukraine’s defensive efforts, increasing aid and military support, and continuing to ramp up sanctions.

    Another sign of the differing priorities of Europe and Canada v the US, was the decision by Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, to step back from leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, an ad-hoc coalition of states across the world providing military support to Ukraine. Hegseth also symbolically failed to attend the group’s pre-summit meeting in June.

    Trump has long been adamant that Nato members should meet their 2014 commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, and Rutte recognised that. In 2018, Trump suggested that this should be increased to 4 or 5% but this was dismissed as unreasonable. Now, in a decision which indicates increasing concern about both Russia as a threat and US support, Nato members (except for Spain) have agreed to increase spending to 5% of GDP on defence over the next 10 years.

    Donald Trump gives a press conference after the Nato summit.

    Nato’s article 3 requires states to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack. However, since 2022, it has become increasingly apparent that many Nato members are unprepared for any major military engagement. At the same time, they are increasingly feeling that Russia is more of a threat on their doorsteps. There has been recognition, particularly among the Baltic states, Germany, France and the UK that they need to increase their military spending and preparedness.

    For the US to focus more on China, US forces will shift a greater percentage of the US Navy to the Pacific. It will also assign its most capable new ships and aircraft to the region and increase general presence operations, training and developmental exercises, and engagement and cooperation with allied and other navies in the western Pacific. To do this US forces will need to reduce commitments in Europe, and European allies must replace those capabilities in order to sustain deterrence against Russia.

    The bedrock of the Nato treaty, article 5, is commonly paraphrased as “an attack on one is an attack on all”. On his way to the Hague summit, Trump seemed unsure about the US commitment to Nato. Asked to clarify this at the summit, he stated: “I stand with it [Article 5]. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”

    Lord Ismay, the first secretary-general of Nato, famously (if apocryphally) suggested that the purpose of the alliance was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Germany is now an integral part of Nato, and the Americans are in, if distracted. But there are cracks, and Rutte will have his hands full managing Trump’s declining interest in protecting Europe if he is to keep the Russians at bay.

    Andrew Corbett 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. How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy – https://theconversation.com/how-nato-summit-shows-europe-and-us-no-longer-have-a-common-enemy-259842

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pelosi Statement on Support of War Powers Resolution

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

    Washington, D.C. – Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi released the following statement announcing her cosponsorship of H.Con.Res.40 to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran:
     
    “We must all exercise our best judgement in how we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon and honor our relationship with Israel in the interest of our national security. But over the weekend, the Trump Administration unilaterally conducted military airstrikes in Iran without consulting the Congress of the United States. This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. 

    “Yesterday, the Administration decided to withhold intelligence and delay the scheduled bipartisan classified Member briefing — which was already long overdue — in a slap in the face to the Congress. The Administration must work with their co-equal branch of government to fulfill the Constitutional requirement that the President comes to Congress before going to war. That is why I am supporting War Powers Resolutions which reassert the Article One powers of the Congress and ensure the Administration does not keep the American people and their Representatives in the dark.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pelosi Statement on Cancelation of Bipartisan Classified Member Briefing

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

    Washington, D.C. – Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the Trump Administration’s cancelation of a bipartisan classified Member briefing on Israel-Iran:
     
    “The decision of this Administration to withhold intelligence and cancel today’s scheduled bipartisan classified Member briefing — which was already long overdue — is a slap in the face to the Congress of the United States.

    “We must all exercise our best judgement in how we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon and honor our relationship with Israel in the interest of our national security. The unjustified cancellation of this briefing by the Trump Administration is an intolerable insult to their co-equal branch of government and the Constitutional requirement that the President comes to Congress before going to war.

    “The President owes the American people an explanation on why his Administration is keeping them and their Representatives in the dark.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pelosi at Aspen Ideas Festival to Celebrate 15 Years of the Affordable Care Act: “This was the challenge of our generation.”

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

    Aspen, CO – Yesterday, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joined former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretaries Kathleen Sebelius and Sylvia Burwell at the Aspen Ideas Festival for a behind-the-scenes look at the passage of the Affordable Care Act, moderated by former Congressman Charlie Dent.

    The conversation, hosted by the Aspen Institute, offered an inside look into one of the most consequential legislative efforts in American history, focusing on the intense political landscape in 2010, the stakes for working families and the coalition it took to get the ACA across the finish line.

    “For a hundred years they’d been trying to pass a [health care] bill,” Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi said. “This was the challenge of our generation—to do something very special for the American people that made a difference in their lives.”

    The panel recounted both the triumphs and trials of the legislative fight, including the instrumental leadership of Secretaries Sebelius and Burwell in its passage and implementation, efforts to prevent Republicans from repealing the ACA, and the ongoing fight to protect Medicaid from Republican attacks.

    Watch the full event HERE.

    Read coverage of the event below:

    The Aspen Daily News: Pelosi talks Affordable Care Act in Aspen

    [Rick Carroll, 6/23/25]

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi stuck to the script at Paepcke Auditorium on Sunday night. In Aspen for a panel discussion, Pelosi joined the stage with three others to discuss their roles in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which became law in 2010.

    The conversation was titled “Behind the Vote: How the ACA Became Law.” Likely due to its irrelevancy to the discussion, there was no mention of the United States’ strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran a day earlier.

    Pelosi was critical of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb the facilities on Saturday night. On X, she posted: “Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization. I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.”

    On Sunday, however, the discussion of the landmark legislation — also known as Obamacare and considered the largest piece of health-care legislation in the U.S. since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 — took center stage. 

    Noting that it took a century of wrangling, Pelosi said it was President Bill Clinton’s administration that gave a serious push to start health care reform in his first term starting in 1993. Facing strong opposition from conservatives and the insurance lobby, Clinton couldn’t pass it through. 

    “For over 100 years, presidents had been trying to pass, to provide … some kind of health care for all Americans,” Pelosi said. “The Clintons had attempted and it may have not succeeded in terms of passing the bill, but it certainly succeeded in raising the awareness and making it possible for us to pass a bill later. So I just give them credit for that.”

    Pelosi, a House member since 1987, was speaker from 2007 to 2011 and from 2019 to 2023.

    As speaker of the House, she played a key role in shepherding the ACA bill through a divided Congress and a Republican party fiercely opposed to the legislation. She also had to negotiate with those in her party, from the progressives to the moderates, over concessions in the bill. Even without a single vote from a Republican in either chamber of Congress, the ACA became law in March 2010. 

    The legislation made health coverage more accessible to people with low to moderate incomes or pre-existing conditions by giving them income-based subsidies. Its supporters also say the ACA stabilized the health-care market by making it more equitable and accessible.

    The ACA’s backlash, however, has included insurers leaving marketplaces in rural areas, fewer choices for doctors because of insurers tightening their provider networks, increased premiums for middle-class consumers, as well as public confusion over navigating a system rife with complexities. 

    Pelosi was joined on the panel by Kathleen Sebelius and Sylvia Burwell, the respective 21st and 22nd U.S. Secretaries of Health and Human Services, and former Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • EU leaders meet to decide on whether to back quick US trade deal or seek better terms

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    European Union leaders are to tell the European Commission on Thursday whether they want to reach a quick trade agreement with the United States on terms that favour Washington or keep fighting for a better deal.

    A quick deal seems to be the preferred option for most, officials and diplomats said, as the EU can then seek to address the unfavourable bias with some rebalancing measures of its own.

    “I support the Commission, I support the President of the European Commission in her endeavours to make progress on competitiveness. I also support the European Commission in all its endeavours to reach a trade agreement with the USA quickly,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said.

    “I want us to get Mercosur off the ground and conclude further trade agreements. Europe is facing decisive weeks and months,” he said.

    The Commission, which negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the EU, will ask leaders of the EU’s 27 members meeting in Brussels how they want to respond to President Donald Trump’s July 9 deadline for a deal, now less than two weeks away.

    The bloc has said it is striving for a mutually beneficial agreement, but as Washington looks set to stick to its 10% across-the board tariffs on most EU goods and threatening higher rates with prolonged talks, EU diplomats said a growing number of EU countries were now favouring a quick resolution.

    “A trade war makes both sides of the Atlantic poorer and is just stupid. So I support the approach of the Commission president, who always kept calm and has negotiated for a result,” said Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

    “If that were to end in one-sided and unfair tariffs then we have to take proportionate and very targeted countermeasures.”

    The bloc is already facing U.S. import tariffs of 50% on its steel and aluminium, 25% for cars and car parts, along with a 10% tariff on most other EU goods, which Trump has threatened could rise to 50% without an agreement.

    The United States’ only completed trade deal to date is with Britain, with the broad 10% tariff still in place. U.S. officials say it will not go lower for any trading partner.

    Some 23 of the leaders will come to Brussels straight from the NATO summit in the Hague. Few will want to follow accord there with an economic war.

    “There is a group of EU countries that want to protect companies by seemingly accepting something they have gotten used to – a 10% baseline,” one EU diplomat said.

    REBALANCING MEASURES

    One question EU leaders face is whether it should respond with its own measures to such a baseline tariff.

    The European Union has agreed, but not imposed, tariffs on 21 billion euros of U.S. goods and is debating a further package of tariffs on up to 95 billion euros of U.S. imports. Some EU countries favour watering it down.

    Among the EU rebalancing options is a tax on digital advertising, which would hit U.S. giants like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Meta, Apple, X or Microsoft and eat into the trade surplus in services the U.S. has with the EU. The bloc has a trade surplus with the U.S. in goods.

    The Commission has proposed an EU-U.S. deal to cut respective tariffs on industrial goods to zero, along with potential further EU purchases of liquefied natural gas and soybeans.

    Washington has shown little obvious interest, preferring to highlight items it considers as barriers, such as EU value-added tax, environmental standards and rules on online platforms, on which the EU does not want to move.

    On the sidelines of the summit, EU leaders will also seek to allay the concerns of Slovakia and Hungary over ending their access to Russian gas as foreseen by the EU’s plan to phase out all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027.

    EU diplomats said EU leaders’ assurances over gas should allow the two countries to back the EU’s 18th package of sanctions against Russia, which they are now blocking.

    Before the start of the summit however, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said he would demand a delay in voting for the sanctions until Slovak concerns were addressed.

    (Reuters)