NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Grills Bove During Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, grilled Emil Bove III, President Trump’s pick to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on multiple allegations of ethical misconduct throughout Mr. Bove’s tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Senator Welch also called out Mr. Bove’s refusal to acknowledge that President Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election.  
    Senator Welch: “This question of temperament obviously is relevant. You’d acknowledge that?” 
    Mr. Bove: “Yes, Senator.”   
    Senator Welch: “I was a defense attorney, worked with many prosecutors, had enormous respect for those prosecutors. So, the temperament issue doesn’t always get into the question of whether it’s an ethical violation. But it does get into the temperament and why that—in my view—is very important whatever our job is, but particularly for a judge where you’ve got that incredible power.” 
    Watch Senator Welch’s full remarks below: 

    Similar to other Trump nominees, Mr. Bove refused to acknowledge that President Biden had won the 2020 presidential election: 
    Senator Welch: “Who won the 2020 election for President of the United States?” 
    Mr. Bove: “President Biden was certified as the winner of that election.”   
    Senator Welch: “So, you give the standard answer. You can’t say that he won because he got the majority of votes and also got the electoral college victory?”   
    Mr. Bove: “I think that the characterizations that you just made, Senator, are both political. And so, I can’t address them under the canons, and they’re also tied up in ongoing litigation.”   
    Senator Welch: “Help me understand how it’s political to state who got the most votes in any election.”   
    Mr. Bove: [PAUSE] “…Senator, I’m just trying to be precise. The process by which our country declares the victor in an election is a certification process. President Biden was certified.” 
    Ahead of Mr. Bove’s nomination hearing today, Senator Welch joined six Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues in requesting personnel records relevant to Mr. Bove’s conduct throughout his career in the Southern District of New York. Last month, Senator Welch and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led their colleagues in referring Mr. Bove to the Office of the Inspector General and called for an investigation into Mr. Bove’s potential abuse of prosecutorial authority within the Civil Rights Division.   

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US to hold talks with Iran next week – D. Trump

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    THE HAGUE, June 25 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump announced in The Hague, the Netherlands, on Wednesday that the United States will hold talks with Iran next week.

    “We are going to talk to them – to Iran – next week. We can sign an agreement,” D. Trump said at a press conference following the NATO summit.

    Earlier on Wednesday, Trump noted that the ceasefire between Iran and Israel was being observed “very well.” –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Jimmy Gomez Statement On Supporting War Powers Resolution

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Gomez (CA-34)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (CA-34) released the following statement announcing his cosponsorship of H.Con.Res.40, the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran without congressional approval:

    “I support the War Powers Resolution to prevent the Trump administration from launching further offensive action against Iran without congressional approval. Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon — but Trump failed to properly consult Congress, and we shouldn’t have to take the President’s word on why this strike happened at this particular moment.

    “No intelligence of an imminent threat was presented to bipartisan congressional leadership, committees of jurisdiction or Congress as a whole ahead of time — and still hasn’t been presented to us. The administration continues to delay providing Congress with an explanation of the alleged imminent threat that prompted the strike. Now, media reports indicate the Defense Department isn’t even confident the strikes destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that Iran may have moved key equipment and uranium ahead of time.

    “Trump’s ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ foreign policy doctrine weakens America’s global standing, makes us less safe and unnecessarily puts our troops in harm’s way without achieving any meaningful defense or security goals.”

    “The American people, including my constituents, do not want to be dragged into another avoidable war. The Trump administration’s lack of transparency is unacceptable. Congress has the power to authorize the use of force against a foreign power — and it’s time we reassert that authority.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

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

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

    In opening comments, Vice Chair Murray said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [VA’S DISCRIMINATION GUIDELINES]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Well it does—” said Senator Murray.

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

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

    Secretary Collins answered, “It doesn’t.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [TOXIC EXPOSURE FUND]

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

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

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

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

    [VA RESEARCH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: At HELP Hearing, Senator Murray Presses CDC Nominee on Commitment to Scientific Integrity, Vaccine Access, as RFK Jr. Fires ACIP Members, Pushes Vaccine Conspiracies

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ICYMI: Murray Calls for Kennedy to Reinstate Fired ACIP Members or Delay Meeting Until New Members Appropriately Vetted

    Senator Murray, along with Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), authored the PREVENT Pandemics Act that made the CDC Director a Senate confirmed position for the first time starting this year

    Dr. Monarez on ACIP members: “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings”

    ***WATCH: Murray’s questioning of Dr. Monarez***

    Washington, D.C. – Today—during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the nomination for Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Senator Murray, senior member and former Chair of the Senate HELP Committee, questioned nominee Dr. Susan Monarez on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replacing them with 8 new unvetted members just two weeks ago, pressing Dr. Monarez on the need for the new ACIP members to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting today. Murray also raised alarm over Secretary Kennedy’s move to bring in Lyn Redwood, the leader of the anti-vaccine group founded by Secretary Kennedy, to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines at the ACIP meeting this week—furthering RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that the preservative used in vaccines causes autism. Senator Murray also pressed Dr. Monarez on the importance of ACIP in maintaining no-cost access to evidence-based vaccines for children and families, and how ACIP recommendation changes could force families to pay out of pocket for vaccines—or forgo vaccination.

    Yesterday, Senator Murray called on Secretary Kennedy to reinstate the ACIP members he fired without cause, or delay this week’s meeting until the new members have been appropriately vetted. Earlier this month, Senator Murray held a press call with Dr. Helen Chu of Washington state, one of the 17 ACIP members abruptly fired by Secretary Kennedy, laying out how Secretary Kennedy’s purge of the Committee threatened public health and vaccine confidence.

    Senator Murray was a vocal critic of President Trump’s first pick for CDC Director, Dave Weldon. The CDC Director is a Senate-confirmed position for the first time this year thanks to a provision in Senator Murray’s bipartisan PREVENT Pandemics Act, which she negotiated and passed with former Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in 2022.

    [ACIP MEMBER QUALIFICATION]

    Senator Murray began by questioning Dr. Monarez on the appointment process of members of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), as RFK Jr. appointed members with seemingly no vetting process, “Three weeks ago, Secretary Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of the ACIP. And then, he appointed 8 new, unvetted members—many of whom are known vaccine skeptics—and as we all know the Committee is starting today to vote on vaccine recommendations. As of last night, they’re down to just 7 members. I wanted to ask you, do you agree that any new ACIP members should have to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting?”

    Dr. Monarez replied, “The members of the ACIP do need to go through a thorough ethics review before they are allowed to participate in those critical meetings.”

    Senator Murray pressed, “So, if that ethics review process was not complete before the Committee met today—do you think any vaccine recommendations from this week’s meetings should be valid?”

    “My understanding is that to convene the ACIP meetings, there needs to be a quorum of participants,” replied Dr. Monarez.

    Senator Murray reiterated her question, “You just said they should through the ethics vetting before meeting, they are meeting today without that ethics review process. Should they make recommendations today? Should they be valid?”

    Dr. Monarez answered, “I’m not familiar whether or not the members that are participating in the meeting this week have or have not gone through the ethics review necessary to allow them to participate in those meetings.”

    “If it is known that they have not gone through the ethics process and they issue recommendations, would you accept them as valid?” asked Senator Murray.

    “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings,” said Dr. Monarez.

    Senator Murray continued, “I would agree with that. And I know Chair Cassidy has expressed concerns about that as well. These affect millions of people, and it’s not just the members that I’m concerned about. Secretary Kennedy is bringing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists from his former organization into that crucial vaccine meeting. Lyn Redwood, who is from the Children’s Health Defense, is scheduled to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines, to further RFK’s debunked claims that it causes autism, and she cited a study that does not exist. And after that was pointed out, CDC uploaded a new presentation. But let me ask you, do you think it is acceptable for a known conspiracy theorist who cites made-up sources to be presenting at CDC’s ACIP meeting and advising on vaccine recommendations?”

    Dr. Monarez replied, “I’m not familiar with the person you have identified. The ACIP is a public meeting and members of the public are in a position to be able to present what should be scientific and evidence-based information. And members of the ACIP should listen to that information and be able to evaluate the veracity of the data that is being discussed.”

    “The CDC Director makes the decision on whether a vaccine should be recommended to the public and does not have to follow recommendations passed by ACIP. What will you do if the Committee votes to remove vaccines from the vaccine schedule—or to not approve new ones—in opposition to clear, established science?” Senator Murray asked.

    “If I’m confirmed as a CDC Director, I will be an active listener and will be very interested in the discussions that take place at the ACIP meetings. I will be looking at how the ACIP members are able to evaluate this complex scientific information and the statistical analysis that goes into the risk benefit associated with that,” Dr. Monarez responded.

    Senator Murray said, “I appreciate that long answer there, but I have to say, many of us are very deeply concerned about the recommendations because they impact millions of people as I said. But they also translate directly into which vaccines get covered by insurance—and which vaccines are then accessible to patients.”

    [VACCINE COVERAGE]

    Senator Murray then questioned Dr. Monarez on access to vaccines as RFK Jr. attempts to obstruct coverage for millions of Americans, “Secretary Kennedy has spread really blatant disinformation about vaccines, and undermined the established science by pretending families need to do their own research on vaccine safety. Secretary Kennedy recently decided to revoke COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, meaning that their insurance may now not cover the cost of their vaccines.”

    “Do you think ‘leaving it up to the parents’ or the individual, if the ‘choice’ they are left with is to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get one vaccine that was previously free, is the right way to go here?” asked Senator Murray.

    Dr. Monarez said, “I think we need to make sure that we are providing transparent and clear, effective communications about the benefits and the risks associated with vaccines so parents can make informed decision-making for themselves, their children, their families.”

    Senator Murray concluded, “Well, it is hard to know if it’s informed if you have ACIP members who are listening to somebody who is a vaccine conspiracy theorist that has been debunked. And I just want to make this clear, when ACIP pulls its recommendation or refuses to recommend an evidence-based vaccine, a lot more kids and a lot more families will not get vaccinated. They will not be able to afford it. And that is the reality.”

    _______________

    Senator Murray forcefully opposed the nomination of notorious anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. to be Secretary of HHS, and she has long worked to combat vaccine skepticism and highlight the importance of scientific research and vaccines. Murray was also a leading voice against the nomination of Dr. Dave Weldon to lead CDC, repeatedly speaking up about her serious concerns with the nominee immediately after their meeting. In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy. Ahead of the 2019 hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander pressing Trump’s CDC Director and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination and vaccine confidence.

    Senator Murray has been a leading voice in Congress against RFK Jr.’s dismantling of HHS and attacks on America’s public health infrastructure, raising the alarm over HHS’ unilateral reorganization plan and slamming the closure of the HHS Region 10 office in Seattle and the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Spokane Research Laboratory. Senator Murray has sent oversight letters and hosted numerous press conferences and events to lay out how the administration’s reckless gutting of HHS is risking Americans’ health and safety and will set our country back decades, and lifting up the voices of HHS employees who were fired for no reason and through no fault of their own.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: At HELP Hearing, Senator Murray Presses CDC Nominee on Commitment to Scientific Integrity, Vaccine Access, as RFK Jr. Fires ACIP Members, Pushes Vaccine Conspiracies

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ICYMI: Murray Calls for Kennedy to Reinstate Fired ACIP Members or Delay Meeting Until New Members Appropriately Vetted

    Senator Murray, along with Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), authored the PREVENT Pandemics Act that made the CDC Director a Senate confirmed position for the first time starting this year

    Dr. Monarez on ACIP members: “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings”

    ***WATCH: Murray’s questioning of Dr. Monarez***

    Washington, D.C. – Today—during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the nomination for Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Senator Murray, senior member and former Chair of the Senate HELP Committee, questioned nominee Dr. Susan Monarez on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replacing them with 8 new unvetted members just two weeks ago, pressing Dr. Monarez on the need for the new ACIP members to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting today. Murray also raised alarm over Secretary Kennedy’s move to bring in Lyn Redwood, the leader of the anti-vaccine group founded by Secretary Kennedy, to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines at the ACIP meeting this week—furthering RFK Jr.’s debunked claims that the preservative used in vaccines causes autism. Senator Murray also pressed Dr. Monarez on the importance of ACIP in maintaining no-cost access to evidence-based vaccines for children and families, and how ACIP recommendation changes could force families to pay out of pocket for vaccines—or forgo vaccination.

    Yesterday, Senator Murray called on Secretary Kennedy to reinstate the ACIP members he fired without cause, or delay this week’s meeting until the new members have been appropriately vetted. Earlier this month, Senator Murray held a press call with Dr. Helen Chu of Washington state, one of the 17 ACIP members abruptly fired by Secretary Kennedy, laying out how Secretary Kennedy’s purge of the Committee threatened public health and vaccine confidence.

    Senator Murray was a vocal critic of President Trump’s first pick for CDC Director, Dave Weldon. The CDC Director is a Senate-confirmed position for the first time this year thanks to a provision in Senator Murray’s bipartisan PREVENT Pandemics Act, which she negotiated and passed with former Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in 2022.

    [ACIP MEMBER QUALIFICATION]

    Senator Murray began by questioning Dr. Monarez on the appointment process of members of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), as RFK Jr. appointed members with seemingly no vetting process, “Three weeks ago, Secretary Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of the ACIP. And then, he appointed 8 new, unvetted members—many of whom are known vaccine skeptics—and as we all know the Committee is starting today to vote on vaccine recommendations. As of last night, they’re down to just 7 members. I wanted to ask you, do you agree that any new ACIP members should have to go through a thorough ethics review process before meeting?”

    Dr. Monarez replied, “The members of the ACIP do need to go through a thorough ethics review before they are allowed to participate in those critical meetings.”

    Senator Murray pressed, “So, if that ethics review process was not complete before the Committee met today—do you think any vaccine recommendations from this week’s meetings should be valid?”

    “My understanding is that to convene the ACIP meetings, there needs to be a quorum of participants,” replied Dr. Monarez.

    Senator Murray reiterated her question, “You just said they should through the ethics vetting before meeting, they are meeting today without that ethics review process. Should they make recommendations today? Should they be valid?”

    Dr. Monarez answered, “I’m not familiar whether or not the members that are participating in the meeting this week have or have not gone through the ethics review necessary to allow them to participate in those meetings.”

    “If it is known that they have not gone through the ethics process and they issue recommendations, would you accept them as valid?” asked Senator Murray.

    “If they have not gone through an ethics approval process, they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings,” said Dr. Monarez.

    Senator Murray continued, “I would agree with that. And I know Chair Cassidy has expressed concerns about that as well. These affect millions of people, and it’s not just the members that I’m concerned about. Secretary Kennedy is bringing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists from his former organization into that crucial vaccine meeting. Lyn Redwood, who is from the Children’s Health Defense, is scheduled to give a presentation on thimerosal in vaccines, to further RFK’s debunked claims that it causes autism, and she cited a study that does not exist. And after that was pointed out, CDC uploaded a new presentation. But let me ask you, do you think it is acceptable for a known conspiracy theorist who cites made-up sources to be presenting at CDC’s ACIP meeting and advising on vaccine recommendations?”

    Dr. Monarez replied, “I’m not familiar with the person you have identified. The ACIP is a public meeting and members of the public are in a position to be able to present what should be scientific and evidence-based information. And members of the ACIP should listen to that information and be able to evaluate the veracity of the data that is being discussed.”

    “The CDC Director makes the decision on whether a vaccine should be recommended to the public and does not have to follow recommendations passed by ACIP. What will you do if the Committee votes to remove vaccines from the vaccine schedule—or to not approve new ones—in opposition to clear, established science?” Senator Murray asked.

    “If I’m confirmed as a CDC Director, I will be an active listener and will be very interested in the discussions that take place at the ACIP meetings. I will be looking at how the ACIP members are able to evaluate this complex scientific information and the statistical analysis that goes into the risk benefit associated with that,” Dr. Monarez responded.

    Senator Murray said, “I appreciate that long answer there, but I have to say, many of us are very deeply concerned about the recommendations because they impact millions of people as I said. But they also translate directly into which vaccines get covered by insurance—and which vaccines are then accessible to patients.”

    [VACCINE COVERAGE]

    Senator Murray then questioned Dr. Monarez on access to vaccines as RFK Jr. attempts to obstruct coverage for millions of Americans, “Secretary Kennedy has spread really blatant disinformation about vaccines, and undermined the established science by pretending families need to do their own research on vaccine safety. Secretary Kennedy recently decided to revoke COVID vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, meaning that their insurance may now not cover the cost of their vaccines.”

    “Do you think ‘leaving it up to the parents’ or the individual, if the ‘choice’ they are left with is to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get one vaccine that was previously free, is the right way to go here?” asked Senator Murray.

    Dr. Monarez said, “I think we need to make sure that we are providing transparent and clear, effective communications about the benefits and the risks associated with vaccines so parents can make informed decision-making for themselves, their children, their families.”

    Senator Murray concluded, “Well, it is hard to know if it’s informed if you have ACIP members who are listening to somebody who is a vaccine conspiracy theorist that has been debunked. And I just want to make this clear, when ACIP pulls its recommendation or refuses to recommend an evidence-based vaccine, a lot more kids and a lot more families will not get vaccinated. They will not be able to afford it. And that is the reality.”

    _______________

    Senator Murray forcefully opposed the nomination of notorious anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. to be Secretary of HHS, and she has long worked to combat vaccine skepticism and highlight the importance of scientific research and vaccines. Murray was also a leading voice against the nomination of Dr. Dave Weldon to lead CDC, repeatedly speaking up about her serious concerns with the nominee immediately after their meeting. In 2019, Senator Murray co-led a bipartisan hearing in the HELP Committee on vaccine hesitancy and spoke about the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism and getting people the facts they need to keep their families and communities safe and healthy. Ahead of the 2019 hearing, as multiple states were facing measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, Murray sent a bipartisan letter with former HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander pressing Trump’s CDC Director and HHS Assistant Secretary for Health on their efforts to promote vaccination and vaccine confidence.

    Senator Murray has been a leading voice in Congress against RFK Jr.’s dismantling of HHS and attacks on America’s public health infrastructure, raising the alarm over HHS’ unilateral reorganization plan and slamming the closure of the HHS Region 10 office in Seattle and the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Spokane Research Laboratory. Senator Murray has sent oversight letters and hosted numerous press conferences and events to lay out how the administration’s reckless gutting of HHS is risking Americans’ health and safety and will set our country back decades, and lifting up the voices of HHS employees who were fired for no reason and through no fault of their own.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Gut Bipartisan Foreign Policy Investments 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Rescissions package that Senate Republicans are debating—and House Republicans passed—would decimate core foreign policy investments made on a bipartisan basis 

    Lifesaving programs like PEPFAR, GAVI, humanitarian assistance; U.S. treaty obligations; investments to advance U.S. interests all on the chopping block  

    Washington, D.C. – Ahead of a hearing on President Trump’s $9.4 billion rescissions request with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released a new fact sheet detailing how the rescission package would devastate core bipartisan foreign policy investments—and breaking down the Trump administration’s misleading talking points on its request. 

    ____________________________ 

    FICTION: This package would simply cut “woke” Biden-era initiatives—or a highly-selective short list of *past* examples of funded projects that the Trump administration finds objectionable.

    FACT: President Trump himself signed most of these funds into law in March—and his administration has flexibility to determine how exactly to fulfill the objectives provided by Congress for the funding. 

    While Congress specifies particular objectives for the foreign assistance it has provided to advance U.S. interests, the Trump administration has discretion over how exactly to execute the funding in compliance with the law—just as any administration does. 

    The Trump administration has trotted out a highly-selective, tiny list of past initiatives funded by these broader pots of money allocated by Congress—but the plain fact is it now is in charge of executing these programs, and most of the funds in the rescission request were signed into law by Trump himself. 

    ____________________________ 

    FICTION: The cuts are merely to “wasteful foreign assistance spending” that is “antithetical” to American interests. 

    FACT: Passing the rescission package would gut funding provided for all manner of important, bipartisan foreign policy objectives. 

    Passing this package would: 

    • Rip away $900 million provided for global health programs that save millions of lives and protect Americans from public health threats. The package would cut $400 million from PEPFAR and another $500 million for other global health programs, which address maternal and child health, family planning, and diseases like malaria, TB, and Polio. 
    • Rescind $4.6 billion for economic and development assistance—half of the total amount provided for fiscal year 2025. This funding pot is used to support cybersecurity, the Counter PRC Influence Fund, critical mineral supply chain diversification, support to partners in the Indo-Pacific, food security programs, support for U.S. businesses abroad, efforts to address irregular migration in our hemisphere, and many other bipartisan initiatives. 
    • Zero out $1 billion to meet U.S. treaty obligations and contributions to international organizations. This includes funds to cover dues to the United Nations, support peacekeeping missions, support UNICEF, and more—ceding ground to countries like China to expand their influence and shape the rules of the road without the United States. 
    • Eliminate $1.3 billion provided for humanitarian assistance, leading to needless suffering, promoting instability, and undermining U.S. interests. This includes emergency food needs, shelter, and other commodities that help stabilize conflict and disaster-stricken populations and stabilize partner governments. 

    ____________________________ 

    FICTION: The Trump administration has transparently detailed what this package would mean for bipartisan foreign policy objectives long supported by Congress. 

    FACT: The Trump administration has refused to tell Congress or the public how it plans to effectuate the sweeping cuts it seeks, allowing Russ Vought and President Trump to decide what specific initiatives to slash well after Congress debates and passes the package.  

    The Trump administration’s proposed rescissions of a variety of foreign policy priorities only spell out cuts to high-level accounts—not the specific programs and initiatives funded from within those accounts that they will cut if this package passes.

    We do not know which humanitarian responses that Congress intended to support will be reduced. We do not have details on which infectious disease programs or support for maternal and child health will be curtailed. We do not know which economic and development programs are going to be cut off, undermining congressional direction. Will they cut funding to counter the Chinese government, support American farmers—both? We don’t know. 

    ____________________________ 

    FICTION: The $400 million cut to PEPFAR funding is surgical, and the package will preserve all life-saving assistance. 

    FACT: The package does not protect lifesaving care, nor does it detail what specifically will be cut or how—the Trump administration retains that discretion and has so far refused to provide details on what it plans to cut. Cutting preventative assistance means cutting lifesaving assistance, too.  

    Without robust prevention efforts, more people will become infected with HIV—costing lives and many more dollars in treatment down the line. Every dollar invested in prevention saves $20 in HIV treatment and care costs. The Trump administration’s decision to curtail support for prevention efforts is already seriously setting back efforts to end the H.I.V. epidemic. 

    ____________________________ 

    FICTION: Rescinding these funds will help “put the Nation’s fiscal house back in order.” 

    FACT: The requested cuts spanning multiple fiscal years represent less than 0.12% of all federal spending in fiscal year 2025. Rescinding these investments will do nothing to meaningfully tackle our debt—but President Trump and Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” would explode it by $4 trillion. 

    While some Republicans insist making these cuts is necessary in the interest of fiscal responsibility, the plain fact is President Trump and congressional Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which Senate Republicans are laboring to pass this week, would add $4 trillion to the national debt over just the next 10 years.  

    While rescinding these investments to advance U.S. interests abroad would do exceptionally little to address the deficit or our national debt, they would decimate core objectives Congress has long supported on a bipartisan basis. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Transfer of biometric data to the Trump administration – E-002416/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002416/2025
    to the Council
    Rule 144
    Özlem Demirel (The Left)

    The Enhanced Border Security Partnership (EBSP) is a security agreement that the US Government obliges countries to sign if they wish to participate in the Visa Waiver Programme (VWP). This gives US authorities direct access to police-maintained biometric databases for such personal data as fingerprints and facial images. However, the initiative has raised legal and political concerns as it runs counter to the common EU legal framework. Critics also warn of an imbalance because it is unclear whether the data exchange is to be on a reciprocal basis. Such an agreement is open to abuse, particularly under the current US administration.

    • 1.Does the Council know whether the Trump administration, like its predecessor, is requiring countries participating in the VWP to sign up to the EBSP, and whether and how it differs from previous demands?
    • 2.In what formats has the EBSP or a comparable programme been discussed between the EU and the Trump administration to date?
    • 3.To what end, and with what outcome, was the issue discussed at the EU-US Justice and Home Affairs ministerial meeting in early June 2025?

    Submitted: 16.6.2025

    Last updated: 25 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – EU cooperation with OCCRP in the context of USAID termination – E-002383/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002383/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Petr Bystron (ESN)

    The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is an influential globalist propaganda network, established in 2007, which maintains close ties with the United States and in the past received substantial funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID). According to investigative reports, between 2014 and 2023, OCCRP received approximately USD 1.1 million from the EU, in addition to funding from several individual European countries. This non-transparent and politically biased organisation uses the so-called ‘fight against corruption’ as a pretext for undermining democratic principles and discrediting critical views on various issues such as the war in Ukraine, US foreign policy or the actions of the Commission.

    Therefore, we would like to ask the Commission:

    • 1.How much funding has the Commission and its agencies provided to the OCCRP annually since 2020?
    • 2.How does the Commission justify its partnership with a foreign-funded, politically biased organisation that undermines democratic debate under the pretext of anti-corruption efforts?
    • 3.When does the Commission intend to terminate its cooperation with or financial support of OCCRP in light of the recent termination of USAID funding by US President Donald Trump?

    Submitted: 12.6.2025

    Last updated: 25 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall: The Reconciliation Bill Will Give Us More Prosperity and Security

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    Senator Marshall Joins Newsmax to Discuss the Iran and Israel Conflict and the Reconciliation Package in the Senate.
    Washington – On Tuesday night, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined Ed Henry on Newsmax’s The Briefing to discuss the President’s handling of the Iran and Israel conflict, the President’s push for peace worldwide, and what the Senate is doing to pass the reconciliation package. 

    Click HERE or on the image above to watch Senator Marshall’s full remarks.
    On CNN’s Iran Aftermath Report
    “I think it’s more lies from fake news. But you know, the proof will be in the pudding, and we’ll see what the pictures are in a week or two. I think it would take a year just to remove the rubble to get to where this facility once was. I just can’t imagine. …14 bombs we dropped, these were all a direct strike, the likes of which we’ve never seen. These are 30,000 pounds each – I’m going to bet on the United States Air Force. They know what they’re doing. It was a direct strike. I bet we got our mission done. We’ll wait for the final pictures here.”
    On President Trump being the ‘Peace President’:
    “President Trump is the most transparent President in history. This morning, we knew exactly where he was. He didn’t have to send an aide to go tell Bibi to knock it off – he told him in front of the whole world, and that’s who President Trump is.
    “I think that the regime in Iran is more worried about regime change than they are about nuclear weapons in the future. I think that’s what their big fear is. They’re trying to save face as well. And here’s President Trump offering another olive branch. He wants peace. He cares about the Iranian people who have been tortured and murdered by their government for decades as well. So, I think it’s another master class in negotiations by President Trump.
    “Look, we’re tired of the killing. That’s all I can say, we’re tired of the killing here. We’re tired of the killing in Gaza. We’re tired of the killing in Ukraine. President Trump wants to end all that, and when that happens, the economy, the world economy, will improve if we can get all these wars back under control.”
    On Democrats’ hypocrisy on foreign precision strikes:
    “And this is what I was talking about earlier, going from Trump obsession to Trump psychosis. And this is what you have, that they are dissociated from truth, from reality. The President has a constitutional duty to protect this nation. Iran was one week away from having a nuclear warhead – they had enough 60% enriched uranium to build 10 atomic bombs. The President had a duty to protect us. That’s what he did.
    “You pointed this out early, the hypocrisy of Obama, who did similar things. Clinton did similar things. President Nixon, of course, as well. So, this is psychosis. Thank God for President Trump that this is not phasing him, it’s not slowing him down. He’s going to do the right thing. I even saw some polling recently, 90% of Republicans support how President Trump has handled all this – I think he’s growing stronger, more popular. The United States is respected more. This is what peace through strength looks like.”
    On the next steps in the reconciliation process:
    “Like you said, President Trump’s done his job. Now it’s time for us to do our job. This bill is not perfect, but it’s going to prevent the largest tax increase for hard-working, middle-income families in the history of our country. It’s going to build 2000 miles of barrier. It’s going to give us border security funding for four years – we’re going to run out of funding very soon to secure the border. It’s going to give our military pay raises, make the military stronger for the next four years as well.
    “You know, some things that people aren’t talking about out there that I think are very important… this is going to defund Planned Parenthood. It’s going to allow us to purchase short-barreled rifles again. It’s going to give more flexibility with 529 education plans and with Pell Grants as well. … There are so many good things in this. It’s going to increase your Child Tax Credits to $2200 – If we don’t do this, it would be $1,000. So, there are so many great things in this bill. It’s going to be a rising tide that floats all boats. It’s going to give us more prosperity and security. We don’t have a choice – we need to get it done.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Leads Fight for Federal Disaster Aid for Kansas Communities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    WICHITA – Following multiple rounds of severe weather in May 2025, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS) joined by U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), and U.S. Congressmen Tracey Mann (R-KS-01), Derek Schmidt (R-KS-02), and Ron Estes (R-KS-04) have sent a letter to President Trump in support of the state’s request for a federal disaster declaration. If approved, the Federal government would be able to provide much-needed public assistance funding to ensure necessary repairs and the rebuilding of public infrastructure.
    In their letter, Kansas’ Republican Congressional Delegation wrote:
    “This devastating weather event included at least seven EF3 tornadoes, which caused widespread destruction, leveling entire towns and inflicting significant property loss across dozens of Kansas communities. Critical transportation routes, including Interstate 70, were closed due to storm damage, and widespread devastation affected utilities, public infrastructure, and private property.”
    If approved, the following Kansas counties would be eligible for public assistance: Bourbon, Cheyenne, Edwards, Gove, Kiowa, Logan, Pratt, Reno, Scott, Sheridan, and Stafford.
    Communities across Kansas sustained damage, with Plevna and Grinnell seeing near-total destruction. Upon approval of the disaster declaration, local governments and public utility providers would be eligible to submit storm-related expenses to FEMA for reimbursement.
    Click HERE to read the full text of the letter.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Leads Fight for Federal Disaster Aid for Kansas Communities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    WICHITA – Following multiple rounds of severe weather in May 2025, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS) joined by U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), and U.S. Congressmen Tracey Mann (R-KS-01), Derek Schmidt (R-KS-02), and Ron Estes (R-KS-04) have sent a letter to President Trump in support of the state’s request for a federal disaster declaration. If approved, the Federal government would be able to provide much-needed public assistance funding to ensure necessary repairs and the rebuilding of public infrastructure.
    In their letter, Kansas’ Republican Congressional Delegation wrote:
    “This devastating weather event included at least seven EF3 tornadoes, which caused widespread destruction, leveling entire towns and inflicting significant property loss across dozens of Kansas communities. Critical transportation routes, including Interstate 70, were closed due to storm damage, and widespread devastation affected utilities, public infrastructure, and private property.”
    If approved, the following Kansas counties would be eligible for public assistance: Bourbon, Cheyenne, Edwards, Gove, Kiowa, Logan, Pratt, Reno, Scott, Sheridan, and Stafford.
    Communities across Kansas sustained damage, with Plevna and Grinnell seeing near-total destruction. Upon approval of the disaster declaration, local governments and public utility providers would be eligible to submit storm-related expenses to FEMA for reimbursement.
    Click HERE to read the full text of the letter.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom announces $135 million available for new wildfire projects amid Trump’s assault on resources protecting communities

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 25, 2025

    What you need to know: Governor Newsom announced $135 million is available for wildfire prevention grants – protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire at the same time as President Trump adds new strain to firefighting resources.

    SACRAMENTO – As President Trump continues straining firefighting and prevention resources in California, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the state has $135 million available for new and ongoing projects to protect communities from catastrophic wildfire. 

    Grant applications are now open for CAL FIRE’s Wildfire Prevention Grants Program. It funds local projects that focus on increasing the protection of people, structures, and communities. Activities include hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire prevention planning, and wildfire prevention education.

    The funding builds on $72 million the Governor announced last month for forest health projects across the state – part of $2.5 billion in investments in wildfire prevention work that have more than doubled since the Governor took office. 

    Today’s announcement comes as the California National Guard’s (CalGuard) critical firefighting crews – known as Task Force Rattlesnake – are operating at just 40% capacity due to President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles. The National Guard impact is on top of the Trump administration’s dangerous cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which also threatens the safety of communities across the state.

    We won’t let Trump stand in the way of protecting Californians from catastrophic wildfire. We’re making millions more available to fund projects that are proven to keep communities safe.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    CAL FIRE’s Wildfire Prevention Grants are effective. Local projects like proactive vegetation management, defensible space creation and structure hardening helped preserve historical structures and homes in Los Angeles County in 2025. In 2024 in Sonoma County, over 300 acres of shaded fuel breaks, created by clearing brush and small trees along roads, helped reduce flammable vegetation and slowed a fire’s spread. Residents were able to evacuate safely, and firefighters were able to stop the spread of fire quickly.

    “These examples demonstrate how grant funds are effectively helping to improve wildfire resilience in California communities through thoughtful planning and preventative work funded through CAL FIRE grants,” said Chief Daniel Berlant, California State Fire Marshal. “Over the last five years, over $500 million has been awarded to over 490 projects across the state.”

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

    Despite the strain caused by President Trump, California stands ready to protect communities. As part of the state’s ongoing investment in wildfire resilience and emergency response, CAL FIRE has significantly expanded its workforce over the past five years by adding an average of 1,800 full-time and 600 seasonal positions annually – nearly double that from the previous administration. Over the next four years and beyond, CAL FIRE will be hiring thousands of additional firefighters, natural resource professionals, and support personnel to meet the state’s growing demands.

    Late last month, the Governor announced $72 million for projects across the state that help reduce catastrophic wildfire risk. Additionally, 20 new vegetation management projects spanning nearly 8,000 acres have already been approved for fast-tracking under the Governor’s new streamlining initiative.

    This builds on consecutive years of intensive and focused work by California to confront the severe ongoing risk of catastrophic wildfires, and Governor Newsom’s emergency proclamation signed in March to fast-track forest and vegetation management projects throughout the state. Additionally, to bolster the state’s ability to respond to fires, Governor Newsom recently announced that the state’s second C-130 Hercules airtanker is ready for firefighting operations, adding to the largest aerial firefighting fleet in the world. 

    New, bold moves to streamline state-level regulatory processes builds long-term efforts already underway in California to increase wildfire response and forest management in the face of a hotter, drier climate. A full list of California’s progress on wildfire resilience is available here.

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: As part of California Jobs First, the state is awarding $15 million through the Regional Investment Initiative to support California Native American tribal partners in creating jobs and developing high-paying and fulfilling careers….

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: The First Partner launched her annual Book Club today, which features great kids’ reads curated by librarians across California, as well as investments to support library community programming. SACRAMENTO – California First Partner Jennifer…

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: Today marked the start of the final phase of work on the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing – a monumental wildlife preservation effort in Southern California. LOS ANGELES – Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the final phase of the…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LEADER JEFFRIES: “THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO RUN AWAY FROM CONFRONTING THESE SITUATIONS ON CAPITOL HILL IS VERY PROBLEMATIC”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

    Today, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe where he emphasized that Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States and the Trump administration must follow the Constitution and stop hiding its actions in the Middle East from Congress and the American people.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Leader Jeffries, thanks so much for being with us. I’m wondering, do you consider his win last night in New York City, do you think it provides a roadmap for Democrats running in 2026 on how to energize the base?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: I think what’s clear is that the relentless focus on affordability had great appeal all across the City of New York. He also clearly out-worked, out-organized and out-communicated the opposition. And when someone is successful in being able to do all three things at the same time, it’s usually going to work out for them.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, The New York Times editorialized that he was not qualified to be mayor. Of course, The Wall Street Journal and others say that he is far too extreme on economic issues and even issues involving Israel. I’m curious what your thoughts are on him ideologically. Is that—does he have an ideology that you would want your candidates in 2026 to have?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, from the standpoint of House Democrats and what our focus has been, clearly, we have an affordability crisis in the United States of America, and our focus will continue to be on driving down the high cost of living in this country. Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Costs haven’t gone down. They’re going up. He’s crashing the economy in real time, his tariffs are going to impose thousands of dollars in additional cost on everyday Americans per year and he may even be driving us toward a recession. That’s the reason why Donald Trump has become so unpopular, it’s because he’s failed the country on the economy. And so, our vision is going to be for an affordable America—work hard, play by the rules, live the good life, provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family. That means being able to actually afford a home, educate your children, have access to healthcare, go on vacation with your children and your family every now and then and, of course, Joe, one day retire with grace and dignity.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Democrats look at Donald Trump’s approval ratings and you have a lot of other Democrats and people on media asking the question, why is the Democratic Party’s approval ratings, why are they lower than Donald Trump’s? I take it that’s something that you all grapple with every day. Why has the Democratic Party over the past year found itself at sort of its lowest ebb in recent history? And how do Democrats get out of that?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, no, it’s a very important question and, listen, institutions are unpopular right now in the United States of America and that includes, of course, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The dynamics that we have to work through, of course, one, Donald Trump and Republicans have given the American people every reason to run away from them, and it’s going to be important for us to continue to make clear why this administration failed on the economy, failed foreign policy, trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans, ripping food out of the mouths of children and seniors and veterans. Of course, all of that is problematic, all of that is unpopular. That’s why the One Big Ugly Bill has such a high disapproval rate in the United States of America. We also recognize, as Democrats, that it’s going to be important for us to articulate our affirmative agenda, what we stand for, this principle of working hard and playing by the rules, being able to live the good life, an affordable life for hardworking American taxpayers. And that is something that we’re going to have to lean into. The other thing I’d note, Joe, as you know, perhaps the most important thing in terms of a midterm election dynamic, is what’s the generic ballot say to us? Every single significant generic ballot poll has House Democrats beating House Republicans consistently, including a recent Fox News poll that had us up by about eight points. And so, at the end of the day, yes, we have to lean into improving the Democratic brand. But at the end of the day, what will be most significant, most important is how our vision contrasts with the management of this President, which has been a failure in the United States of America.

    JONATHAN LEMIRE: Leader Jeffries, let’s turn you now to the situation in Iran. We played some sound from you earlier in the show, expressing unhappiness that the administration briefing was postponed. The White House saying it’s well, it’s so Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense can be part of it later this week. Is that acceptable to you, and do you have concerns that the administration is not being fully forthcoming as to what actually transpired in Iran over the weekend?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Yes, there’s every reason to be concerned. There was this briefing that had been scheduled to take place in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. There was absolutely no reason that we’ve been provided that it should have been canceled in terms of the important questions that need to be asked and answered by the Trump administration. What was the imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States of America that justified this strike without seeking the congressional authorization required by the Constitution? What is the assessment of the damage that was done to Iran’s nuclear program? Was it completely and totally decimated? No evidence to date has been provided to suggest that that representation made by Donald Trump is accurate. What is the plan to avoid another costly failed war in the Middle East? Why was aggressive diplomacy abandoned by the Trump administration, notwithstanding the success that had taken place under President Obama’s administration in actually pushing back Iran’s nuclear aspirations. These are questions that need to be answered by the administration. And the fact that they continue to run away from confronting these situations on Capitol Hill is very problematic.

    JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, Leader Jeffries, to that point, you and many people who have had your position in the decades before this, have expressed frustration when presidents don’t seek congressional authority for military action like this. Do you feel like that a greater good was achieved here if Iran’s program was, if not destroyed, but at least significantly delayed? What should be the next steps for this administration in this process?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, to be clear, Iran can never be allowed to become a nuclear-capable power. Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States, of Israel, of Jordan, of our allies in the Middle East, a sworn enemy of the free world. But the question, of course, is, was this strike successful in meaningfully pushing back Iran’s nuclear aspirations, or is it going to complicate things in the Middle East in ways that put our men and women in uniform, American troops and America in harm’s way? That’s simply the reason that having an all-Member briefing on Capitol Hill sooner rather than later is important so these answers can be obtained for the American people, the representatives of the American People, in the United States Congress. That is the reason, fundamentally, why it’s been Congress that was given the power to declare war, to authorize military force and when administrations act differently, they have an obligation and a responsibility to provide the facts, the evidence and the truth, justifying their actions to the American people.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, this has been the debate, and we talked about it yesterday with another Member of Congress. This has been a debate going back 30, 40, 50 years. Obviously Republicans were saying this after Barack Obama attacked Libya. Republicans were saying this with Bill Clinton in the 1990s on Kosovo. But if you’re going to have a surprise attack with B-2 bombers that are going to be going over to Iran, striking their nuclear facilities. Do you think it’s a good idea to inform 535 members of Congress before that operation takes off?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, the key here is what was the imminent nature of the threat that justified immediate military action and surprise military action—

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right—

    LEADER JEFFRIES: If there was no imminent threat—

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, the United Nations, I’m curious if you’re concerned, like the United Nation’s nuclear agency, the IAEA had said that Iran had already enriched uranium up to 60 percent, and as you know, the jump from 60 to 100 percent is negligible, and had enough enriched uranium for several weapons. Would you consider that to be considerable enough? A considerable enough threat to strike Iran under those circumstances?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, certainly it’s a challenging situation, but one of the reasons why we need a briefing, Joe, is to have an understanding, was that enriched uranium even damaged or was it removed by the Iranians prior to the strike? We don’t know the answers to that question. It certainly is something that should be talked about, and the American people should be informed about the reality of whether it was a successful strike or not. In terms of the Iranian nuclear threat, I think we’ve all been clear that Iran can never be permitted to become nuclear capable. But the constitution is not a mere inconvenience, it’s the reality and if members of the executive branch, if hawkish individuals across the country want to change things, there’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. They can put forward a constitutional amendment but the framers of this country saw fit to vest this authority within the House and the Senate, not the executive branch.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right. And at what point should that be triggered? Should it be triggered by every strike, like, for instance, Barack Obama in 2011 in Libya, or countless strikes by the Bush administration and the Obama administration after September the 11th? Is it every strike or is it when you are going in sending troops in? When do you think that action is triggered?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Seems to me, and it’s a great question, Joe, that it has to relate to whether the step that was taken, one, is in response to an imminent threat to American interests, and two, whether it’s an act of war. And part of the reason why, after the fact, it’s important for Members of Congress to be able to have a briefing with the administration that is comprehensive and that gives Members the opportunity to ask questions so we can provide these answers to the American people who clearly do not want another failed, costly, deadly war in the Middle East.

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right. Leader Hakeem Jeffries, thank you so much for being with us.

    Full interview can be watched here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Griffith Announces $1.29 Million HHS Grant to STEP Inc.

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded STEP Inc., located in Franklin County, Virginia, a $1,296,059 grant. The funding supports head start and early head start projects. U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement:

    “Solutions that Empower People (STEP) serves communities in Franklin and Patrick Counties. 

    “This grant for nearly $1.3 million helps STEP support its head start and early head start programs.”

    BACKGROUND

    According to its website, Solutions That Empower People (STEP), Inc. is a dynamic community action agency that provides services at significant milestones throughout life. Programs are designed to partner with individuals and families to help them overcome adversity and enhance their quality of life through community, economic, personal, and family development.

    In a recent Health Subcommittee hearing with Congressman Griffith present, Secretary Kennedy noted President Trump’s Budget request recommends Head Start continue to receive funding equal to the FY 2025 enacted level.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: The Justice Department Files Complaint Challenging Minnesota Laws Providing In-State Tuition Benefits for Illegal Aliens

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    Today the United States is challenging laws in Minnesota that provide reduced in-state tuition — and in some cases, free tuition — for illegal aliens. These laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens, who are not afforded the same privileges, in direct conflict with federal law. The Department of Justice has filed the complaint in the District of Minnesota. This challenge builds upon a recently successful lawsuit against the state of Texas on a similar law.

    “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first.”

    In the complaint, the United States seeks to enjoin enforcement of Minnesota laws that require public colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition rates (and free tuition under certain circumstances, including if they meet a certain income threshold) for illegal aliens who maintain state residency, regardless of whether those aliens are lawfully present in the United States. Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from providing postsecondary education benefits to aliens that are not offered to U.S. citizens. These laws blatantly conflict with federal law and thus are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    This lawsuit follows two executive orders recently signed by President Trump that seek to ensure illegal aliens are not obtaining taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment.

    Read the complaint here.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

    During Donald Trump’s first term, he made clear that he wanted his foreign policy to be as unpredictable as possible, stating: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”

    With the US’s recent attack on Iran, Trump certainly kept everyone in suspense. While US enemies may not have known what Trump was thinking, the problem was neither did US allies nor US legislators. Trump apparently did not bother to inform his own vice-president, J.D. Vance, when he had made the decision.

    Trump has portrayed this as a strength, that he is the only one capable of getting certain things done in foreign policy because his unpredictability and risk-taking behaviour gives him more leverage.

    But thus far he has had fewer successes than wins with this approach. His dalliance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Trump’s first term only resulted in the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear programme.

    His great relationship with Vladimir Putin has so far led to no concessions from Moscow regarding the war in Ukraine, even causing Trump to effectively give up trying to resolve that crisis, at least for now.

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

    In Trump’s second term his Maga base has been a bit more divided than in his first. On the issue of tariffs, key Republican senators begged him to backpedal with concerns that the new tariffs would be catastrophic for the US economy – one of the issues that propelled him to victory. Yet he went ahead with the tariffs anyway, as some members of his base were in support.

    With the Middle East crisis, Trump supporters appeared to be mostly against the US getting involved in a foreign conflict, with “no more wars” being a common slogan on the campaign trail.

    In the lead up to the US strikes, key leaders in the Maga movement criticised the idea of the US getting involved in the conflict. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson told hawkish Senator Ted Cruz that he should know far more about the regime that the senator wanted to topple. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Representative Marjorie Taylor Green were also calling for the US to stay out of the conflict.

    Before the attacks, a YouGov poll showed that 60% of Americans did not want the US to get involved in the conflict, which has since increased to 80%. However when asked more specifically about support for US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as many as 94% of Maga Republicans gave their approval.

    Trump announces that the US has carried out air strikes on Iran.

    Is there voter backing?

    Trump also believes he can sell the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a huge win, making good on his promise to eradicate Iran’s nuclear programme. The US intelligence community is saying otherwise, but Trump has rejected this.

    Trump took an early victory lap, claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme had been “completely destroyed”. It was arguably comparable to George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May 2003, after Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was ousted by US-led forces. Bush’s approval ratings were as high as 70% in the immediate aftermath, but had plunged by 40 points by 2008 after five years of fighting the Iraqi insurgency that emerged in Hussein’s absence.

    Trump seems to be revelling in taking more risks and being more unpredictable. As he has become increasingly bold in his second term, he has been more willing to test the loyalty of his base when they don’t agree with his instincts. Though the isolationist wing of Maga has been critical, Trump assumes that his base will unite and rally around him.

    Trump was more careful to not betray his base in his first term. Trump had ordered strikes on Iran in 2019, but backed down at the last minute. But now he has gone so far as to suggest the door may be open to regime change in Tehran.

    With the ceasefire now in place (at least in theory), Trump is heralding his action as a huge win. Iran has backed down after a limited attack on its nuclear facilities.

    Just weeks ago, the US seemed less relevant in the Middle East, and more likely to follow Israel’s instructions than the other way around. With Trump’s confidence growing, it is now Trump that is telling Israel that he is not happy.

    For Trump the risks involved were huge. There may appear to be the potential for some short-term domestic political gains if the ceasefire holds. But Trump may not have thought through the long-term implications of his decision on stability in the Middle East more generally, or what voters will think about his foreign policy gambles when the next election rolls around.

    Natasha Lindstaedt 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. Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds? – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-high-risk-iran-strategy-pay-dividends-at-home-if-the-peace-deal-holds-259736

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

    During Donald Trump’s first term, he made clear that he wanted his foreign policy to be as unpredictable as possible, stating: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”

    With the US’s recent attack on Iran, Trump certainly kept everyone in suspense. While US enemies may not have known what Trump was thinking, the problem was neither did US allies nor US legislators. Trump apparently did not bother to inform his own vice-president, J.D. Vance, when he had made the decision.

    Trump has portrayed this as a strength, that he is the only one capable of getting certain things done in foreign policy because his unpredictability and risk-taking behaviour gives him more leverage.

    But thus far he has had fewer successes than wins with this approach. His dalliance with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Trump’s first term only resulted in the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear programme.

    His great relationship with Vladimir Putin has so far led to no concessions from Moscow regarding the war in Ukraine, even causing Trump to effectively give up trying to resolve that crisis, at least for now.

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

    In Trump’s second term his Maga base has been a bit more divided than in his first. On the issue of tariffs, key Republican senators begged him to backpedal with concerns that the new tariffs would be catastrophic for the US economy – one of the issues that propelled him to victory. Yet he went ahead with the tariffs anyway, as some members of his base were in support.

    With the Middle East crisis, Trump supporters appeared to be mostly against the US getting involved in a foreign conflict, with “no more wars” being a common slogan on the campaign trail.

    In the lead up to the US strikes, key leaders in the Maga movement criticised the idea of the US getting involved in the conflict. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson told hawkish Senator Ted Cruz that he should know far more about the regime that the senator wanted to topple. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Representative Marjorie Taylor Green were also calling for the US to stay out of the conflict.

    Before the attacks, a YouGov poll showed that 60% of Americans did not want the US to get involved in the conflict, which has since increased to 80%. However when asked more specifically about support for US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as many as 94% of Maga Republicans gave their approval.

    Trump announces that the US has carried out air strikes on Iran.

    Is there voter backing?

    Trump also believes he can sell the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a huge win, making good on his promise to eradicate Iran’s nuclear programme. The US intelligence community is saying otherwise, but Trump has rejected this.

    Trump took an early victory lap, claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme had been “completely destroyed”. It was arguably comparable to George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May 2003, after Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was ousted by US-led forces. Bush’s approval ratings were as high as 70% in the immediate aftermath, but had plunged by 40 points by 2008 after five years of fighting the Iraqi insurgency that emerged in Hussein’s absence.

    Trump seems to be revelling in taking more risks and being more unpredictable. As he has become increasingly bold in his second term, he has been more willing to test the loyalty of his base when they don’t agree with his instincts. Though the isolationist wing of Maga has been critical, Trump assumes that his base will unite and rally around him.

    Trump was more careful to not betray his base in his first term. Trump had ordered strikes on Iran in 2019, but backed down at the last minute. But now he has gone so far as to suggest the door may be open to regime change in Tehran.

    With the ceasefire now in place (at least in theory), Trump is heralding his action as a huge win. Iran has backed down after a limited attack on its nuclear facilities.

    Just weeks ago, the US seemed less relevant in the Middle East, and more likely to follow Israel’s instructions than the other way around. With Trump’s confidence growing, it is now Trump that is telling Israel that he is not happy.

    For Trump the risks involved were huge. There may appear to be the potential for some short-term domestic political gains if the ceasefire holds. But Trump may not have thought through the long-term implications of his decision on stability in the Middle East more generally, or what voters will think about his foreign policy gambles when the next election rolls around.

    Natasha Lindstaedt 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. Will Trump’s high-risk Iran strategy pay dividends at home if the peace deal holds? – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-high-risk-iran-strategy-pay-dividends-at-home-if-the-peace-deal-holds-259736

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Caleb H. Wheeler, Senior Lecturer in Law, Cardiff University

    The recent US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites has prompted renewed questions about whether the UN charter’s prohibition on the use of force is meaningful.

    Considered one of the keystones of international law, article 2(4) of the charter specifically forbids member states from using force – or threatening to do so – against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

    A significant amount of commentary exists about what the prohibition entails. This tries to clarify ambiguities around the terms “force”, “threats of force”, “territorial integrity” and “political independence”. Although no absolute consensus has been reached, it is commonly thought that member states are prohibited from launching armed attacks against other states, or threatening to do so, unless acting in self-defence or with the authorisation of the UN security council.

    Other exceptions have been suggested. These include use of force as part of a larger humanitarian intervention operation. There’s also a question of whether it’s permissible when a state is rescuing its nationals abroad. But the legality of either of these situations is contentious and remains unsettled.

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

    Early in its existence, the UN made concerted efforts to protect and respect article 2(4) and to comply with its provisions. In 1950, the security council authorised UN member states to provide South Korea with the assistance necessary to repel the armed attack launched by North Korea, triggering the increased internationalisation of the Korean war.

    While article 2(4) was not explicitly mentioned in resolution 83, it was alluded to through repeated references to North Korea’s “armed attack” against South Korea. As such, it can be interpreted as an effort by the security council to use its authority to address a violation of article 2(4), even if it did not clearly frame it in those terms.

    The security council also authorised member states in 2011 to take all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya. Unfortunately, it quickly became apparent that the member states may have exceeded their authority in Libya and carried out acts that could themselves be construed as violations of the UN charter.

    Rather than just protecting civilians, as the security council resolution instructed, legal experts were concerned they had effectively intervened in a civil war. Any possible violations went unpunished by the security council.

    Security council actions taken with regard to Korea were, in many ways, the high watermark for the prohibition of the use of force, given the scale of the conflict. There are two reasons for that. First, a significant proportion of the wars taking place after 1945 have been domestic and not subject to the provisions of article 2(4). The prohibition specifically applies to a member state’s international relations so is not inapplicable when a member state attacks a group within its own borders.

    Second, the UN has failed to address many of the acts occurring after 1945 that might fall under the provisions of article 2(4). The reason for this inaction lies primarily in the flawed structure on which the UN is built.

    Chapter VII of the charter makes the security council responsible for addressing acts of aggression that would constitute uses of force under article 2(4). But it has repeatedly failed to fill that role, allowing states to commit these acts without meaningful response.

    The UN veto problem

    UN security council decisions can only be enacted when at least nine members vote in favour. This must also include the affirmative vote or abstention of all five of the permanent members: the US, Russia, China, the UK and France. This essentially gives each of the permanent members the right to veto security council resolutions.

    Permanent members have commonly used the threat of their veto in their own political interests. This can be seen in a variety of instances, most notably the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both situations clearly involved uses of force prohibited by article 2(4), and in both situations the security council was prevented from acting by some of its permanent members.

    This inaction is consistent with the UN’s failure to address many other acts that might fall under the provisions of article 2(4), including US involvement in south-east Asia in the 1960s and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    The security council’s failure to adequately perform its role has caused some to try and find a workaround. The Council of Europe, disappointed at the lack of accountability for Russia’s acts of aggression against Ukraine, has entered into an agreement with Ukraine to establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.

    In the special tribunal’s draft statute, an act of aggression is defined to almost exactly mirror the type of conduct that would constitute a use of force under the UN charter.

    Bombing Iran

    Which brings us to the current situation in Iran. There is little question that the US violated article 2(4) when it bombed Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan on the evening of Saturday June 21. This is a clear use of force against the territory of another state.

    But even if the attacks themselves were not enough to establish a violation, they were also accompanied by US president Donald Trump’s suggestion that a regime change in Iran might be appropriate. These comments, coming immediately after the initial attack, could be construed as a threat of further force against Iran’s political independence should such a change not occur.

    Under the UN charter, such threats and uses of force should elicit a response from the security council. But just as with Iraq in 2003 and Ukraine in 2022, none will probably be forthcoming as the US will block any efforts to hold it to account.

    But equally chilling is the lack of condemnation of the US actions by its allies. German chancellor Friedrich Merz saw “no reason to criticise” the bombings, and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte insisted that the bombings did not violate international law.

    As the respected Dutch scholar of international law André Nollkaemper suggests, this refusal to condemn a clear violation of the prohibition of the use of force creates a real danger that the bar for when a state can legally use force will be lowered.

    Should that be allowed to happen it could further hollow out the prohibition, effectively making it less likely that states will be held to account for violating international law. Further, it could also lead to the return of a world where “might makes right”. This would undo more than a century of legal evolution.

    Caleb H. Wheeler 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. Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed? – https://theconversation.com/bombing-iran-has-the-un-charter-failed-259751

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

    The apartheid years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Religious links

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell Statement on Continued Lee Efforts to Sell Off America’s Public Lands: “The Latest Lee Proposal Is Just One More Attempt To See If Congress Blinks”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    06.25.25

    Cantwell Statement on Continued Lee Efforts to Sell Off America’s Public Lands: “The Latest Lee Proposal Is Just One More Attempt To See If Congress Blinks”

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), senior member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, released the following statement in response to the latest proposal from U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to sell off America’s public lands to the highest bidder.

    Lee’s most recent draft comes after the Senate Parliamentarian rejected his opening gambit because it fails to meet strict Senate rules governing the budget process that Senate Republicans are relying on to circumvent the Senate filibuster, which normally curtails divisive partisan proposals. It is expected that Lee will continue to modify his controversial land sales proposal to pass muster with the parliamentarian until right up to the Senate votes on the measure later this week as part of the larger reconciliation bill.  After the Senate Parliamentarian rejected Lee’s opening gambit — deeming the proposal ineligible under budget reconciliation process rules — Lee responded, “I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward.” He promised, “We’re just getting started.”

    “Republicans seem hell bent on trying to sell public lands. Members need to stand up and stop this giveaway of our natural heritage. The latest Lee proposal is just one more attempt to see if Congress blinks. A massive change to our public land policy should not be included in a budget bill. We need climbers, hikers, hunters, gateway communities, and everyone who loves the outdoors to call their elected representatives right away to say our public lands are not for sale,” Sen. Cantwell said.

    Lee’s revised language would require the Secretary of Interior to sell between 0.25 percent and 0.50 percent of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in the 11 Western states, minus Montana. It would also allow for the nominations of BLM land to be sold. The land would have to be in a 5-mile radius of the border of a population center.

    Yesterday, Sen. Cantwell hosted a virtual press conference to push back on Lee’s proposal. She was joined by Boise Mayor Lauren McLean, professional athletes and outdoorsmen Tommy Caldwell and Graham Zimmerman, REI leader Susan Viscon, and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers spokesperson Kaden McArthur.

    READ MORE:

    The Associated Press:  GOP plan to sell more than 3,200 square miles of federal lands is found to violate Senate rules

    The Seattle Times: Pitch to sell public lands hits snag. What does that mean for WA?

    The Spokesman Review: Public land sales provision would violate Senate rule, but its backer pledges to try again

    The Tri-City Herald: What public lands near Tri-Cities could be sold under new Trump tax plan?

    Video of yesterday’s virtual press conference is available HERE; a transcript of Sen. Cantwell’s opening remarks is HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: V. Zelensky met with D. Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    KYIV, June 25 /Xinhua/ — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague /Netherlands/ on Wednesday, the Ukrainian leader’s Telegram channel reported.

    V. Zelensky noted that “all truly significant issues” were raised at the meeting. In particular, according to him, the parties discussed ways to establish peace in Ukraine and protect Ukrainian citizens from Russian attacks.

    V. Zelensky stressed that Ukraine appreciates the attention of the United States and its readiness to help end the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hickenlooper Statement on Republicans’ Last-Ditch Effort to Sell Our Public Lands

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado

    This week, the Senate parliamentarian struck down Senate Republicans’ initial provision to their budget to sell three million acres of public land to bankroll tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy

    WATCH: Hickenlooper also spoke in a Senate roundtable today about protecting our public lands

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper released the following statement about Senate Republicans’ updated proposal in the budget reconciliation bill to sell off Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land after their previous provision was struck down by the Senate parliamentarian.

    “Republicans’ provision to sell off our American treasures is wildly unpopular in Colorado and throughout the country. It is flat out wrong.

    “We’ll keep fighting against their last-ditch efforts to sneak their provision back into their big ugly bill. Our public lands are not for sale now, or ever.”

    In an attempt to skirt the Senate parliamentarian, Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee recently released updated budget reconciliation text that focuses on the sale of BLM lands. It mandates BLM dispose of between 0.25% and 0.50% of their estate within five miles of a population center. The Wilderness Society estimates up to 1.2 million acres would be required to be put up for sale. The bill specifies that those sales will be mandated in Colorado and ten other western states.

    Hickenlooper called out how this reckless fire-sale of our public land would devastate our outdoor recreation industry and Americans’ access to public lands today at ENR Ranking Member Senator Martin Heinrich’s public lands roundtable. Watch his remarks HERE. 

    In addition to the public lands sale provision, the bill rescinds Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding for the National Park Service (NPS) and BLM, including $267 million for NPS to pay for rangers, maintenance, emergency responders, and scientists. The bill would also eliminate IRA funding for updates to the electric grid, industrial decarbonization, and tribal energy loans.

    Hickenlooper also voted against the Republican budget resolution twice, and will vote against the budget bill again. In April, Hickenlooper led a group of Western senators to introduce an amendment to the budget bill to protect public lands from being sold to pay for Republicans’ tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. He took to the Senate floor to condemn the public lands sale provision in the House version of the bill. At the end of May, Hickenlooper held a press conference in Estes Park with Congressman Neguse, public lands advocates, and local elected officials to call out the Trump administration’s threats to Colorado’s national parks and public lands – including Rocky Mountain National Park.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Pushes for Federal Right to Repair for Farmers at Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, this week questioned witnesses about how a federal Right to Repair would boost competition and strengthen sustainability of rural agricultural economies in Vermont. 
    “One of the issues that keeps coming up in Vermont—I talk to farmers, and they want to repair their equipment, and they can’t. And if there’s anything a farmer can do, it’s fix things. It’s a way they save money and keep things going, and they can’t take the time it takes to have somebody else come in and fix it. And they’re not being allowed to do it. So, a number of us think there should be a Right to Repair—you buy the tractor, you should be able to repair it,” said Senator Welch. “If something goes wrong, why can’t you—when you are somebody who knows how to do things—fix it?” 
    In response to questioning, officials from the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice agreed with Senator Welch on the need for a federal Right to Repair. 
    Mr. Mark Meador, Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), testified: “I think it’s incredibly important. And as you alluded to, the FTC has enforcement efforts in this exact area. I think it’s critical that when a consumer buys a product they can use their own labor—or that of anyone capable—to repair and maintain that product.” 
    In response to a question about right to repair, Mr. Roger Alford, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, testified: “The answer to your question is yes—right to repair is a critical argument that is important in antitrust enforcement.” 
    Watch Senator Welch’s full remarks below: 

    Read more excerpts from Senator Welch’s remarks: 

    Senator Welch: “Can you just describe how a federal Right to Repair would promote a more sustainable and competitive agricultural economy?” 

    Ms. Doha Mekki, Senior Fellow, Berkley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, testified: “When I was the Principal Deputy and then Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division, it was our mantra in the front office: ‘Don’t mess with the farmers.’ We took the view that when big, rapacious companies abused farmers, that they needed to be prepared to meet the Justice Department on the other side…So, I think this is a wonderful idea because we know what happens when companies pivot from being sort of an industrial monopolist to a sort of big data monopolist and then are charging expensive subscriptions and service fees in order for you to just interact with the product that you thought you bought.” 

    Senator Welch: “Thank you. That’s very helpful, and I like your advice: ‘Don’t mess with the farmers.’” 

    ••• 
    Senator Welch has led the fight to protect consumers from corporate rip-offs and combat mounting monopolies. In April, Senator Welch called out President Trump for firing Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission and discussed the importance of a fully functioning FTC to safeguard consumers from corporate greed. 
    At a Senate Judiciary hearing in November, Senator Welch grilled Visa and Mastercard executives about their duopoly over the credit card market and the interchange fees—or swipe fees—charged to businesses in the United States and highlighted the importance of passing his bipartisan, bicameral Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) to enhance choice and competition in the credit card market and help bring down costs for small businesses.  
    Last Congress, Senator Welch led a bipartisan letter to the Biden Administration raising concerns about FanDuel and DraftKings’ conduct and slammed online sports gambling companies for exploiting the addictive nature of gambling and undermining antitrust law. Senator Welch also introduced the Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act and Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act, bills to prevent companies from using algorithms to set higher prices for consumers and crack down on companies that help landlords increase rents in already high-priced markets. 
    Learn more about Senator Welch’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Graham Releases Updated Homeland Security Reconciliation Text

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, today released the updated legislative text for the Homeland Security portion of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees’ title of the reconciliation bill. This text meets the border security funding request from President Trump and his administration.

    “As Budget Chairman, I will do my best to ensure that the President’s border security plan is fully funded because I believe it has been fully justified.

    “The President promised to secure our border. His plan fulfills that promise. The Senate must do our part and pass this bill.”

    View the full text HERE.

    View the one-pager HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Clyburn, Leger Fernández, Klobuchar, Luján Lead Effort to Press Commerce Secretary Lutnick to Reverse Harmful Broadband Policy

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative James E (Jim) Clyburn (6th District of South Carolina)

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman James E. Clyburn (SC-06), Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) led a group of congressional Democrats in writing a letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick addressing the Trump Administration’s recently announced Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Restructuring Policy Notice. The BEAD program was established by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to provide high-quality, affordable, and sustainable broadband to connect the nearly 25 million Americans that continue to wait for high-speed internet access.

    In their letter to Secretary Lutnick, the lawmakers urge the Department of Commerce to ensure that states receive the full funding and flexibility they retained prior to the issuance of the restructuring notice to fully meet those statutory objectives. 

    “Access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life in the United States” the Members wrote. “We therefore urge you to implement the BEAD program in accordance with the best reading of the statute so we can make high-quality internet accessible and affordable for all Americans.”

    The BEAD program, enacted into law in 2021 as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provides $42 billion to provide high-quality internet access to millions of Americans who remain unserved, to ensure affordability, and to facilitate adoption. The bipartisan process that crafted the program was informed by the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, comprehensive broadband legislation formulated by the House Democratic Rural Broadband Task Force in conjunction with the Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Democrats.

    The letter was also signed by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Angus King (I-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) as well as Representatives Leger Fernández (D-NM-03), Bishop (D-GA-02), Bynum (D-OR-05), Carson (D-IN-07), Carter (D-LA-02), Cleaver (D-MO-05),  Davis (D-IL-07), DelBene (D-WA-01), Evans (D-PA-03),  Fields (D-LA-06), Figures (D-AL-02), Garcia (D-TX-29), Goodlander (D-NH-02), Hoyle (D-OR-04), Huffman (D-CA-02), Lofgren (D-CA-18), McGovern (D-MA-02), Menendez (D-NJ-08), Mrvan (D-IN-01), Neguse (D-CO-02), Pappas (D-NH-01), Scholten (D-MI-03), Sewell (D-AL-07), Soto (D-FL-09), Thompson (D-MS-02), Titus (D-NV-01), Tlaib (D-MI-12), Tokuda (D-HI-02), Williams (D-GA-05), and Wilson (D-FL-24).  

    The full text of the letter is available here and below:

    Dear Secretary Lutnick: 

    We write to express our opposition to the Department of Commerce’s recently announced BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program was established by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to provide high-quality, affordable, and sustainable broadband to connect the nearly 25 million Americans that continue to wait for high-speed internet access. We urge you to ensure that states receive the full funding and flexibility they retained prior to the issuance of the restructuring notice to fully meet these statutory objectives. 

    The broadband division of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law begins with this congressional finding: “Access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life in the United States.” This fundamental reality is why the BEAD program was established to fulfill the subsequent finding that “the benefits of broadband should be broadly enjoyed by all.” To achieve this goal, the statute states that funding recipients must “ensure coverage of broadband service to all unserved locations” before using any funds for other purposes. The restructuring notice appears to violate this requirement by allowing applicants to exclude certain unserved locations. Such an allowance would defy bipartisan congressional intent, which was predicated on the understanding that public investment was needed to achieve universal service precisely because building the infrastructure to cover many rural areas was too costly to be profitable. 

    In addition to excluding unserved, predominantly rural locations, the restructuring notice would likely result in others receiving worse service. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires that “priority broadband projects” funded by the program be “designed to provide broadband service that meets speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine; and [to] ensure that the network[s] built by the project[s] can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses, and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.” Of currently available technologies, fiber-optic networks are faster and more reliable and can scale speeds much more easily. We made the decision to invest larger sums now in broadband infrastructure that would be resilient and capable of meeting Americans’ growing digital demands for decades. 

    The restructuring notice also undermines the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s provisions designed to ensure that broadband service is affordable and put to good use. The new rules remove specific requirements that ensured that participating providers would provide a low-cost internet option for low-income customers as required by the statute. Additionally, while the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law specifically allows funds to be spent on “broadband adoption, including programs to provide affordable internet-capable devices,” the notice rescinds approval of previously approved “non-deployment activities” and puts all funding for these activities on hold. For example, this provision of the notice puts on hold a South Carolina plan to use BEAD program funds for virtual primary health—equipping low-income households in rural health deserts with access to the full suite of virtual health services at no cost to the patients. If the broadband infrastructure being built by BEAD program funds isn’t put to good use, much of the investment will have been wasted. 

    As reflected in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s congressional findings, high-quality internet access is a requirement to fully participate in the world, and the BEAD program is our once-in-a century opportunity to finish closing the digital divide. We fear this opportunity would be squandered by the restructuring notice and its changes to coverage, quality, and affordability. We therefore urge you to implement the BEAD program in accordance with the best reading of the statute so we can make high-quality internet accessible and affordable for all Americans.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Americans are Counting on Congress to Pass the One Big Beautiful Bill

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)

    WASHINGTON — Yesterday, House GOP Leadership invited constituents from each of their districts to discuss how the One Big Beautiful Bill will benefit every industry, and every profession, in every district in America. Fox News’ Liz Elkind spoke with those constituents; read their testimonies below.

    “I believe that our tax rates in Louisiana for small businesses will jump up to around 43.4%. I mean, that’s literally half of what we’re working for,”  Louisiana resident and small business owner Toni McAllister said. “So what will we be working for to pay taxes?”

    Read the full article here or below:

    EXCLUSIVE: Toni McAllister is a prominent voice in Louisiana’s logging industry, but as she told Fox News Digital on Tuesday, she is also “a mom and a wife” from a middle-class family.

    She is one of four Americans from across the country invited by House GOP leaders to Capitol Hill to promote President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill.”

    It is a vast piece of legislation aimed at advancing Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt – which is taking Herculean political maneuvering to pass.

    On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and other leaders pivoted from promoting it themselves, instead inviting their four guests to talk about their support for the bill, and what is at stake if it does not pass by the end of this year.

    “I believe that our tax rates in Louisiana for small businesses will jump up to around 43.4%. I mean, that’s literally half of what we’re working for. So what will we be working for to pay taxes?” McAllister told Fox News Digital.

    She is the executive director of the Louisiana Logger’s Association, a trade group representing loggers in the Bayou State. In addition to that, however, McAllister said she was concerned about a tax hike for her family if the bill is not passed.

    “I’m just a regular middle-class family. And in Louisiana, the average tax hike would be around $1,300. That’s a month of groceries. That’s anything extra that we can do with our kids. $1,300 is a lot of money,” she said.

    Projections released by the House GOP show that under the lower chamber’s version of the bill, an average family could see an additional $1,300 in tax relief, while a failure to pass it could lead to a $1,700 tax hike.

    Republicans are aiming to use the bill to extend Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as well as implement a host of new policies like eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages.

    Retired Sheriff James Stuart said those latter measures, which Trump campaigned on in 2024, will be critical to law enforcement recruitment in Minnesota.

    “One of the most persistent struggles of agencies across the country is retention and recruitment. No tax on overtime will increase take-home pay for our peace offices, which will boost morale and ease burdens for them and their families,” Stuart, who is also executive director of the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, told Fox News Digital.

    However, Paul Danos, the head of a family-owned offshore energy service company in Gray, Louisiana, told Fox News Digital that Republicans’ energy policies are also critical for his business.

    “If this bill doesn’t pass, then we find ourselves where we were in the last administration, with that lack of predictability around lease sales,” Danos said.

    “Those multibillion-dollar investments that are creating jobs, that are providing safe and affordable energy here in the US, are jeopardized. We start having to depend on other nations for our oil and gas.”

    That, he argued, would lead to higher prices for everyone.

    Sam Palmeter, who leads engineering at Laser Marking Technologies, one of the last two laser technology companies owned and operated in America, said he and others in Michigan were “tired of brain drain,” hoping Trump’s bill could reverse that and revitalize manufacturing in the region.

    “We won’t grow, and we won’t provide as many jobs in the industrial manufacturing and engineering space,” Palmeter said.

    “And that’s sad, because there’s nothing that makes me more proud than hiring a local kid…So he’s working 13 miles from home. He doesn’t have to leave his family and everything to exercise that degree.”

    It is not yet clear if their arguments or others in favor of Trump’s bill will have any effect, however.

    The legislation has been met with Republican critics in the House and Senate, while GOP leaders have styled it as the best possible path forward for a conservative policy overhaul while they control Congress and the White House.

    While the dissent is coming from a relatively small number of Republicans, it could be enough to derail the legislation – both House and Senate GOP leaders are grappling with razor-thin margins of just a few votes.

    Trump recently ordered lawmakers to remain in Washington, D.C., until the bill is passed – despite a planned recess next week for the Fourth of July holiday.

    The bill passed the House by one vote last month, and a modified version is expected to get a Senate vote sometime this week. Both the House and Senate must pass identical products before they can be sent to Trump’s desk.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Mike Levin Reintroduces Bill to Improve Public Engagement on Nuclear Safety & Waste Removal Issues

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Levin (CA-49)

    June 25, 2025

    Washington, D.C.—Today, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) and Sen. Ed Markey (MA) reintroduced the bicameral NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation (NRC OPEP) Act to establish an Office of Public Engagement and Participation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Office would help the public better understand and participate in the decision-making process on nuclear energy issues. Every American should have a say when government agencies make decisions that affect our health and safety.

    The NRC considers public opinion in their nuclear regulatory decisions, but oftentimes the public does not understand how to engage with the complicated administrative processes at the Commission to offer their opinions. The proposed independent Office of Public Engagement and Participation would create opportunities for the public to be better informed and weigh in on the Commission’s work while streamlining processes for the NRC. The Office would provide educational, legal, and technical guidance and assistance to members of the public who want to comment on nuclear issues.

    “Communities across the country impacted by nuclear power, safety, and waste deserve to have their voices heard by the regulatory agency in charge of handling important nuclear safety issues. Unfortunately, too often there is no clear line of communication between the public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That must change,” said Rep. Levin. “This bill could not be more necessary as the Trump Administration is encroaching on the independence of the NRC and seeking to build out more nuclear power while cutting communities out of the process. I thank Senator Markey for his partnership, and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this bill.”

    “As independent agencies like the NRC come under attack by the Trump administration, we must defend open and transparent federal decision-making. The NRC should proactively and meaningfully work with communities living at the frontline of nuclear energy infrastructure and make its regulatory processes more accessible,” said Senator Markey. “The NRC OPEP Act would enable the Commission to carry out these responsibilities by creating a new, independent office dedicated to centering and uplifting community voices, while also breaking down financial barriers that limit public participation through needs-based, up-front compensation.” 

    The Trump Administration has undertaken a number of concerning actions that could compromise the safety of nuclear energy in America. The Administration’s plans to build out more nuclear power and unleash a “nuclear renaissance” are premised on “reducing unnecessary burdens” and undermining the federal government’s ability to protect public health and safety. Further, President Trump’s recent illegal firing of NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson undermines the independence of the agency in an attempt to consolidate his power. The public must have a clear pathway to provide input on decisions related to nuclear issues in their communities in light of these actions.

    Since entering Congress in 2019, Rep. Levin has fought for federal action and resources to address the challenges at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and remove thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste out of the region. Rep. Levin has secured over $148 million to expand the DOE’s nuclear waste removal program, and continues to fight as a member of the House Appropriations Committee for resources to address spent nuclear fuel challenges.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: California awards $15 million to support economic growth in tribal communities across the state

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 25, 2025

    What you need to know: As part of California Jobs First, the state is awarding $15 million through the Regional Investment Initiative to support California Native American tribal partners in creating jobs and developing high-paying and fulfilling careers.

    Sacramento, California – Today, Governor Newsom and the California Jobs First Council announced $15 million in grants to 14 California Native American tribes, tribal coalitions, and tribally led organizations. The grants support projects aimed at spurring economic growth, providing job training, cultivating business development, protecting the environment, and conducting research and development.

    This $15 million commitment recognizes that, since time immemorial, California tribes have been best aware of the opportunities and advantages of their regions and communities. California is proud to partner with tribes across the state to support good jobs and expand economic opportunity in a meaningful and lasting way, delivering on the promises we made years ago.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    “Our tribal partners are uniquely positioned to grow their local communities and economies utilizing cultural values and principles of self-determination,” said Tribal Affairs Secretary Christina Snider-Ashtari. “Today’s awards promise to advance our shared goals for a stronger economy and greater opportunities for all Californians.” 

    Today’s announcement includes awards for projects spanning a range of local investments, from developing community centers to constructing a bioenergy production facility:

    • Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians was awarded $1.51 million to develop a strategic energy plan.

    • California Indian Museum and Cultural Center was awarded $587,000, and will develop a career pathway program in the health sector titled “Climate-Ready Tribal Community Health Representatives.”

    • Kashia Band of Pomo Indians were awarded $999,000 in order to conduct the pre-development activities necessary to establish the Kashia Aquaculture Center.

    • Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria was awarded $999,000, to conduct the pre-development activities necessary to establish a Resilience Hub and Multi-Functional Community Center.

    • Native Development Network was awarded $776,000 to conduct research supporting the development of career pathways in the clean economy, healthcare, and high-tech sectors.

    • Native First Lending was awarded $1 million to develop a revolving loan fund for Native American businesses in Los Angeles County.

    • Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe was awarded $744,000 to support land restoration activities on two culturally significant historical sites.

    • Owens Valley Career Development Center was awarded $1.995 million to develop career pathways in the clean economy.

    • Pit River Tribe was awarded $954,000 for a comprehensive land use assessment to identify locations for new businesses in industries such as tourism and outdoor recreation.

    • Scotts Valley Energy Corporation was awarded $1 million for a bioenergy production facility.

    • Southern California Tribal Chairperson’s Association was awarded $933,000 to develop an Innovation Ecosystem to support small businesses in the clean economy sector.

    • Table Mountain Rancheria was awarded $950,000 to conduct pre-development activities for the TMR Healthcare Center.

    • The Sierra Fund was awarded $945,000, which will provide economic and workforce development planning support for two local Tribes.

    • Tule River Economic Development Corporation was awarded $1.6 million to develop career pathways and provide training in the clean economy sector.

    “Each of these awards represents our efforts to invest in locally driven projects that will advance meaningful job creation, attraction, and access across California,” said Dee Dee Myers, Senior Advisor to Governor Newsom and Director of GO-Biz and Stewart Knox, Secretary of Labor & Workforce Development. “The California Jobs First Council is honored to have the opportunity to invest in these 14 communities, and we look forward to working closely with our tribal nation partners to ensure the ongoing success of their projects.”

    See full award details here. 

    California Jobs First

    In February, Governor Newsom released the California Jobs First Economic Blueprint — a new economic vision for California’s future. The Blueprint outlines key initiatives to support regional growth throughout the state, invest in job training for the future, attract job creators, and strengthen California’s innovation economy — all to help increase access to good-paying jobs for Californians. 

    As part of California Jobs First, the state has invested $287 million since 2022 to develop viable projects that advance strategic sectors in regional economies.

    California is the fourth-largest economy in the world. With an increasing state population and recent record-high tourism spending, California is the nation’s top state for new business starts, access to venture capital funding, and manufacturing, high-tech, and agriculture.

    Recent news

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: The First Partner launched her annual Book Club today, which features great kids’ reads curated by librarians across California, as well as investments to support library community programming. SACRAMENTO – California First Partner Jennifer…

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: Today marked the start of the final phase of work on the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing – a monumental wildlife preservation effort in Southern California. LOS ANGELES – Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the final phase of the…

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: President Trump’s unlawful deployment of military personnel to Los Angeles has slashed California’s National Guard fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32% — undermining public safety and weakening border fentanyl seizure operations….

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement from U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez on Vote to Table Impeachment Resolution

    Source: US Representative Gabe Vasquez’s (NM-02)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – On June 25, 2025, U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) issued the following statement regarding his vote to table a House resolution seeking the impeachment of President Trump:

    “Impeachment is one of the most serious responsibilities Congress holds. It deserves thoughtful, strategic deliberation, not a rushed vote with no debate or opportunity for consideration. Congress has a duty to take this process seriously. 

    My focus remains where it belongs: stopping Republican attacks on health care and food assistance for thousands of New Mexican veterans, working families, and children.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –