NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Justice Department Files Complaint Against the District Court of Maryland for Ordering Automatic Injunctions on Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions

    Source: US State of California

    WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice announced the filing of a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland for implementing a “Standing Order” that automatic injunctions be issued for federal immigration enforcement actions. This order requires the court clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing or challenging the legal status of any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition. In doing so, the District Court defies procedural and substantive requirements for issuing preliminary injunctions, flouts congressional intent, and violates Supreme Court precedent.

    “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.  “The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

    Since the beginning of the new administration, district courts have abused their Article III powers by interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives. To date, district courts have entered more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of the administration than in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000. The District Court of Maryland’s automatic injunctions order is yet another egregious example of unlawful judicial overreach into the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce and administer federal law.

    This is the latest action taken by the Department of Justice to reign in unlawful judicial overreach.

    Read the full Complaint HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: The Justice Department Files Complaint Against the District Court of Maryland for Ordering Automatic Injunctions on Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice announced the filing of a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland for implementing a “Standing Order” that automatic injunctions be issued for federal immigration enforcement actions. This order requires the court clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing or challenging the legal status of any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition. In doing so, the District Court defies procedural and substantive requirements for issuing preliminary injunctions, flouts congressional intent, and violates Supreme Court precedent.

    “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.  “The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

    Since the beginning of the new administration, district courts have abused their Article III powers by interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives. To date, district courts have entered more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of the administration than in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000. The District Court of Maryland’s automatic injunctions order is yet another egregious example of unlawful judicial overreach into the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce and administer federal law.

    This is the latest action taken by the Department of Justice to reign in unlawful judicial overreach.

    Read the full Complaint HERE.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: The Justice Department Files Complaint Against the District Court of Maryland for Ordering Automatic Injunctions on Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice announced the filing of a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland for implementing a “Standing Order” that automatic injunctions be issued for federal immigration enforcement actions. This order requires the court clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing or challenging the legal status of any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition. In doing so, the District Court defies procedural and substantive requirements for issuing preliminary injunctions, flouts congressional intent, and violates Supreme Court precedent.

    “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.  “The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

    Since the beginning of the new administration, district courts have abused their Article III powers by interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives. To date, district courts have entered more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of the administration than in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000. The District Court of Maryland’s automatic injunctions order is yet another egregious example of unlawful judicial overreach into the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce and administer federal law.

    This is the latest action taken by the Department of Justice to reign in unlawful judicial overreach.

    Read the full Complaint HERE.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Anti-ICE Activists Help Convicted Child Rapist Evade ICE in Colorado

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    Colorado Rapid Response Network helped Jose Reyes Leon-Deras, a convicted child rapist and criminal illegal alien, evade ICE law enforcement

    WASHINGTON – After an anti-ICE activist group helped Jose Reyes Leon-Deras, a convicted child rapist, evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is warning the public to be on the lookout for this criminal illegal alien.  

    On June 20, 2025, ICE attempted to arrest Leon-Deras and members of the Colorado Rapid Response Network alerted Leon-Deras of ICE’s presence and facilitated his escape. The Colorado Rapid Response Network is known for protesting with bullhorns to warn illegal aliens and shouting profanities at ICE law enforcement officers attempting to arrest dangerous criminal illegal aliens.  

     Leon-Deras remains at large and is a public safety threat.  

    Criminal illegal alien: Jose Reyes Leon-Deras  

    “The Colorado Rapid Response Network and its 760 members disrupt ICE operations targeting dangerous criminal illegal aliens. In this case, they helped Jose Reyes Leon-Deras, an international fugitive and convicted child rapist, flee law enforcement— this dangerous monster is on the loose on American streets and could harm more innocent children,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “To report sightings of Leon-Deras, call 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) — help President Trump, Secretary Noem, and our brave law enforcement remove this public safety threat from our communities and make America safe again.”

    If you know or suspect Leon-Deras’ whereabouts, do not approach. If seen, anonymous tips may be reported on this form and via the toll-free ICE tip line, (866) 347-2423.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Affirms Hospitals Must Provide Access to Emergency Abortion Care

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James co-led 21 other attorneys general in a letter reminding hospitals of their obligation to provide emergency abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In a letter sent to the American Hospital Association on the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Attorney General James and the coalition advised hospitals that their obligation to comply with EMTALA’s emergency abortion care requirement has not changed despite the federal administration’s recent decision to revoke a prior guidance document.

    “When a pregnant patient shows up at an emergency room in need of help, they should never be turned away,” said Attorney General James. “Our hospitals have a legal responsibility to ensure they are providing life-saving care to all patients in need – including emergency abortion care when necessary. It is critically important that providers be aware of this obligation, so that we avoid further tragedy and save as many lives as possible.”

    Since it was enacted in 1986, EMTALA has required Medicare-participating hospitals to provide access to abortion care when it is the treatment necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient with an emergency medical condition. On May 29, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rescinded guidance that had been issued in 2022 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The 2022 guidance addressed EMTALA’s requirements to provide access to emergency abortion care, but it also did not change EMTALA’s statutory mandates.

    In the letter, Attorney General James and the coalition explain that the administration’s rescission of the 2022 guidance in no way alters hospitals’ legal obligations under EMTALA. The attorneys general highlight that EMTALA has always required hospitals to provide access to abortion care if it is the treatment necessary to stabilize pregnant patients with an emergency medical condition, even if the state in which they operate has passed laws limiting abortion access. Emergency medical conditions that require stabilizing abortion treatment can include, but are not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, hemorrhaging, preeclampsia, and other significant life-threatening conditions.

    The attorneys general assert that the Trump administration cannot change the law unilaterally through a guidance rescission, and EMTALA continues to remain in full force and effect throughout the country. The attorneys general also explain that continued compliance with EMTALA’s requirements is critical because of the devastating harms that result from denying abortion care to pregnant patients in emergency medical situations. The letter points out that the denial of this essential care increases the risk of death for pregnant patients and can cause irreparable harm, including hysterectomy, fertility loss, kidney failure, brain injury, and limb amputation.

    With this letter, Attorney General James and the coalition are reaffirming their commitment to ensuring that hospitals comply with the law and their commitment to protecting pregnant patients across the country.

    Joining Attorney General James in sending this letter are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Releases 2024 Hate Crime Report, Highlights Continued Efforts to Combat Hate in California

    Source: US State of California

    Amidst increase in reported hate crimes, urges agencies across California to recommit themselves to taking action 

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report and highlighted information and resources to support ongoing efforts across the state to combat hate. Reported hate crime events in California have increased by 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024. In particular, reported hate crimes against our LGBTQ+ and Jewish communities have increased, and too many communities continue to be unacceptably targeted by hate. Amidst this increase in reported hate crime offenses and events, Attorney General Bonta urges local partners and law enforcement to review the resources highlighted today and to recommit themselves to taking action.

    “There is absolutely no place for hate in California. Transparent and accessible data is a critical part of understanding where we are and how we can end hate crimes in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Everyone has a part to play as we continue to fight intolerance in California, and I urge leaders up and down the state to review the data and resources available and recommit to standing united against hate. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to continue working with law enforcement, elected leaders, and community organizations across California to keep our communities safe.” 

    The California Department of Justice has collected statewide data on hate crimes since 1995. Under California law, a hate crime is a criminal act committed in whole or in part because of a victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with someone with one or more of these characteristics. If you believe you or someone you know has been the victim of a hate crime, notify local law enforcement and consider taking the following steps:  

    • If you are in immediate danger, call 911 and if needed, seek medical attention.
    • Write down the exact words that were used and take note of any other relevant facts.
    • If safe to do so, save all evidence and take photos.
    • Get contact information for other victims and witnesses.
    • Reach out to community organizations in your area that deal with hate crimes or incidents.

    Hate crimes are distinct from hate incidents, which are actions or behaviors motivated by hate that may be protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents include name-calling, insults, and distributing hate material in public places. If a hate incident starts to threaten a person or property, it may become a hate crime. Hate crimes can be reported to the California Civil Rights Department’s CA v. Hate online portal at any time in 15 languages or by calling the CA v. Hate hotline at (833) 866-4283 or 833-8-NO-HATE, Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and talking to a trained civil rights agent in over 200 languages. Outside of those hours, people can leave a voicemail or call 211 to report a hate incident and seek support from a professional trained in culturally competent communication and trauma-informed practices. 

    Historically, hate crime data has generally been underreported and the California Department of Justice recognizes that the data presented in its reports may not adequately reflect the actual number of hate crime events that have occurred in the state. Caution should be used when comparing 2024 hate crimes data to prior years, as not all agencies were able to submit a full year of data for 2024. For more information, please reference the “Understanding the Data, Characteristics and Known Limitations” section in the report. 

    Some of the key findings from the 2024 Hate Crime in California Report include: 

    • Reported hate crime events increased 2.7% from 1,970 in 2023 to 2,023 in 2024.
    • Hate crime offenses increased 8.9% from 2,359 in 2023 to 2,568 in 2024.
    • The number of victims of reported hate crimes increased 8.2% from 2,303 in 2023 to 2,491 in 2024. 
    • Reported hate crime events involving a racial bias decreased 0.6% from 1,017 in 2023 to 1,011 in 2024. 
    • Anti-Black bias events remained the most prevalent, despite a 4.6% decrease from 518 in 2023 to 494 in 2024. 
    • Anti-Asian bias events decreased 4.8% from 125 in 2023 to 119 in 2024. 
    • Reported hate crime events involving a religion bias increased 3% from 394 in 2023 to 406 in 2024. 
    • Anti-Jewish bias events rose from 289 in 2023 to 310 in 2024, an increase of 7.3%.
    • Anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias events fell from 40 in 2023 to 24 in 2024. 
    • Between 2023 and 2024, hate crime events motivated by sexual orientation bias increased by 12.3% from 405 in 2023 to 455 in 2024, anti-transgender bias events increased by 12.3% from 65 in 2023 to 73 in 2024, and anti-LGBTQ+ bias events increased by 13.9% from 2023.
    • From 2023 to 2024, the number of hate crimes referred for prosecution increased from 679 in 2023 to 818 in 2024. Of the 818 hate crimes that were referred for prosecution, 506 cases were filed by district attorneys and elected city attorneys for prosecution. Of the 506 cases that were filed for prosecution, 327 were filed as hate crimes and 179 were filed as non-bias motivated crimes.

    In California, it is considered a hate crime if you are targeted because of your actual or perceived nationality, including your immigration or citizenship status. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta released updated guidance and resources on hate crimes for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the victims of these crimes in preparation for a potential increase in violence against immigrants as a result of President Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric. These resources include an updated law enforcement bulletin on laws prohibiting hate crimes, a hate crimes rapid response protocol for the deployment of DOJ resources, guidance to prosecutors to help strengthen hate crimes prosecution enforcement, and a fact sheet to help Californians understand their rights and protections under hate crime laws. These, and other resources can be found on oag.ca.gov/HATECRIMES.  

    Attorney General Bonta launched the Racial Justice Bureau, which, among other things, supports the California Department of Justice’s broader mandate to advance the civil rights of all Californians by assisting with new and ongoing efforts to combat hate and bias. Beginning in 2021, the Attorney General began proactively engaging with local city leaders in the biggest cities in California through roundtables in San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, Long Beach, Santa Ana, San Jose, Stockton, Anaheim, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Irvine. More broadly, the Attorney General is deeply committed to responding to the needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and, in July 2021, also launched the Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement to work directly with community organizations and members of the public as part of the effort to advance justice for all Californians.

    DOJ’s Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement will host a virtual Community Briefing on Wednesday, July 30th at 1pm PT to share highlights and findings from the report. People interested can register here: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_vDq6h0e1TbKG3D-DWByjfQ#/registration

    Members of the public can further explore the most recent hate crime data on OpenJustice.

    The 2024 Hate Crime in California Report can be found here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Conservation Champion Steve Rinella Calls Zinke’s Actions Heroic

    Source: US Congressman Ryan Zinke (Western Montana)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Steve Rinella published an article in The Free Press defending public lands and opposing any public land sales in the “Big Beautiful Bill.” Included in the article is direct praise for Western Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke and his fight to keep public lands in public hands.

    “Last month, a provision was inserted into the House’s version of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill mandating that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service sell a half-million acres of public land in Nevada and Utah. That proposal was eventually removed (heroically, in my view) thanks to Ryan Zinke, a second-term Republican congressman from Montana, who campaigned on a promise to keep ‘public lands in public hands.’”

    Read Rinella’s full article here.

    Steve Rinella is a popular podcaster, conservationist, outdoorsman, and business owner. He is the founder of MeatEater, Inc., and outdoor lifestyle brand located in Bozeman, MT. Alongside Zinke, Rinella also recently received the James D. Range Conservation Award, the top honor for conservation given by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

    Congressman Zinke has been the loudest voice protecting public lands in Congress and has been solid in his staunch opposition to any large-scale public land sales being included in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” He is also the author and sponsor of the “Public Lands in Public Hands Act,” originally introduced in the 118th Congress and reintroduced in the 119th Congress, which would ban the sale of most public lands and require congressional approval for disposal of publicly accessible federal land tracts over 300 acres and for public land tracts over 5 acres if accessible via a public waterway. Congressman Zinke is the co-chair and co-founder of the Public Lands Caucus. 

    Read more about Congressman Zinke’s success stripping public land sales out of the House reconciliation bill here.

    Read more about Congressman Zinke’s Public Lands in Public Hands Acthere.

    Read more about the Public Lands Caucus here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luttrell Co-Leads the GOLDEN DOME Act

    Source:

    WASHINGTON — Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX) is an original cosponsor of the GOLDEN DOME Act of 2025, legislation aimed at fortifying the United States’ missile defense capabilities in the face of growing global threats. It was introduced the U.S. House of Representatives today.

    “America’s enemies are getting bolder and more capable. This legislation will help keep our skies secure and ensure our children grow up under the shield of American strength, not foreign aggression,” said Congressman Luttrell. “Texas is leading the way on missile defense, hypersonics, and AI and this investment in the cutting-edge work happening in our backyard supports President Trump’s plan to protect this country with unmatched strength.”

    The GOLDEN DOME Act directly supports President Trump’s Golden Dome for America Initiative, established through his January 27th Executive Order, by modernizing and expanding our nation’s missile defense systems—including cutting-edge technologies like hypersonics, artificial intelligence, counter-unmanned aerial systems, and advanced radar capabilities.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Trump signals willingness to send Ukraine more Patriot missiles after meeting Zelenskiy

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump indicated he would consider supplying Ukraine with more of the Patriot air-defence missiles Kyiv relies on to defend itself from mounting Russian strikes, after meeting his Ukrainian counterpart on Wednesday.

    Both leaders said the 50-minute meeting on the sidelines of a NATO summit in The Hague was a positive step in a war now in its fourth year, and which Trump described as “more difficult than other wars”.

    Trump, during a press conference, said the weapons are “very hard to get” but that “we are going to see if we can make some of them available.”

    The U.S. leader also left open the possibility of providing more military aid to Kyiv, which has struggled to fend off grinding Russian advances on the battlefield in recent months.

    Trump had previously shown no signs of resuming the donations of weaponry to Ukraine against Russia’s invasion that his predecessor Joe Biden had instituted.

    Zelenskiy described the meeting as “long and substantive”, saying it covered “all the truly important issues”.

    “We discussed how to achieve a ceasefire and a real peace,” he wrote on X. “We spoke about how to protect our people.”

    Trump added that he would speak to Vladimir Putin again soon, saying the Russian president “really has to end that war”.

    Zelenskiy has worked to rebuild relations with Washington after a disastrous White House meeting in February with Trump, whose overtures to Russia in recent months have concerned officials in Kyiv.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: California enters final phase of construction on world’s largest wildlife crossing

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 25, 2025

    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 Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing has begun. What is soon to be the world’s largest wildlife crossing will connect open space on both sides of US Highway 101 in Agoura Hills and is expected to be completed by fall 2026.

    “Today, the state is beginning the final phase of construction for what will soon be the largest urban wildlife crossing in the world – all thanks to the visionary work of state, federal, and private partners. The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing will soon protect Los Angeles’ native wildlife and over 300,000 drivers daily, as well as provide a cutting-edge model for urban wildlife conservation.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing before phase two

    The final phase of this project includes extending the wildlife crossing over a two-lane local road. The work involves significant earthmoving, restoration of natural hydrology, protection of heritage oak trees, and coordination with multiple agencies to relocate essential utilities along the freeway corridor.

    The first phase of construction was completed this year and included over 26 million pounds of concrete, 82 bridge girders, vegetated sound walls, habitat rock features, and living soils to support native plant growth. Caltrans and partners laid 6,000 cubic yards of living soil across the bridge structure in preparation for planting this fall, which will include over 50 native species and restore the wildlife habitats both on the crossing and in surrounding open-space areas.

    The public is invited to follow along with construction on the bridge in real-time through its dedicated webcam. 
     

    How we got here

    On Earth Day 2022, Governor Newsom participated in the groundbreaking for the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing – a public-private partnership of monumental scope leveraging the expertise and leadership of dozens of organizations and institutions to protect and restore wildlife habitats in Southern California.

    Wildlife crossings are essential to building a network of interconnected conserved lands and waters that protect and restore biodiversity while also supporting transportation infrastructure.

    The habitat connectivity provided by wildlife crossings is critical to the success of California’s 30×30 targets and allows people and nature to thrive together.

    Building wildlife and transportation infrastructure is a key part of the Governor’s build more, faster agenda delivering infrastructure upgrades and thousands of jobs across the state.

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    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….

    Jun 24, 2025

    News What you need to know: California is providing $15 million in new apprenticeship funding for youth for new high-paying opportunities that do not require a traditional education or four-year degree. SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that 29 youth…

    Jun 24, 2025

    News What you need to know: Three years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Governor Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom warn that Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” would defund Planned Parenthood and strip millions of Americans — especially low-income women —…

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 25, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the full Berkshire Eagle story here and below. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US President vows to strike Iran again if nuclear facilities are restored

    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) — The United States will strike again if Iran restores its nuclear facilities, US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday.

    D. Trump issued a corresponding warning on the sidelines of the NATO summit held in the Netherlands’ The Hague. Answering the question whether the US would strike again if Iran resumed its uranium enrichment program, D. Trump replied: “Of course.”

    The American leader assured that Washington will not allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium, including allowing the possibility of preventing this by military means.

    “We will not allow this. First of all, by military means. I think that eventually we will have some kind of relationship with Iran,” he said. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Entire Michigan Congressional Delegation Calls on President Trump to Approve Disaster Declaration

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jack Bergman (MI-1)

    Today, Rep. Jack Bergman – alongside Senators Slotkin and Peters and Reps. Barrett, Dingell, Huizenga, James, McClain, McDonald-Rivet, Moolenaar, Scholten, Stevens, Thanedar, Tlaib, and Walberg – sent a bipartisan letter to President Donald J. Trump, urging him in the strongest possible terms to approve Governor Whitmer’s May 16 request for a Major Disaster Declaration.

    The Members wrote in part, “The unprecedented storm brought record levels of snow and freezing rain to thirteen counties and one federally recognized tribe, causing widespread damage to homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure. Tens of thousands of residents were left without heat or power, prompting the State of Michigan to activate the Michigan National Guard and local jurisdictions to implement emergency response efforts.

    “Although substantial progress has been made in restoring power, heating homes, clearing roadways, and removing debris, the recovery process remains far from complete nearly three months later. State and local resources have been expended, and federal support is desperately needed to continue recovery efforts.

    “Governor Whitmer’s May 16 request has received strong bipartisan support across both chambers of Congress. On May 19, Senator Peters, Senator Slotkin, and Representative Bergman wrote to you in full support of her request, and on June 9, they followed up with a letter to Small Business Administrator Loeffler endorsing the Governor’s June 5 request for an administrative declaration of disaster.

    “The counties of Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmet, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Kalkaska, Mackinac, as well as the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, can afford to wait no longer. Though they responded swiftly, and with the help of the State, and have made meaningful strides toward recovery, they cannot adequately handle this burden alone.”

    John Kran, President & CEO, Michigan Electric Cooperative Association (MECA) noted, “In late March and early April, northern lower Michigan and part of the Upper Peninsula were hit with an unprecedented ice storm, impacting cooperative members across 12 counites. The State of Michigan’s May 16 request for a major disaster declaration is a critical step in helping our communities and cooperatives move forward after this historic event. Michigan’s electric cooperatives are incredibly grateful to Congressman Bergman, Senator Peters, Senator Slotkin and their House colleagues for strong, bipartisan support on this critical issue.”

    You can read the full letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: During Telephone Town Hall, Feenstra Announces More Than $10.5 Million Returned to Iowans

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night, during a telephone town hall with nearly 5,400 Iowans, U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Hull) announced that his office has returned more than $10.5 million to constituents since 2021.

    “Since I was first elected to Congress, I pledged that I would work to protect taxpayers from federal overreach, high taxes, and wasteful government spending. It’s why I’m glad to announce that our office has returned more than $10.5 million to Iowans – where these dollars rightfully belong,” said Rep. Feenstra. “To ensure that Iowans keep more of their hard-earned money, I’m also working with President Trump to pass our ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill,’ which delivers the largest tax cut for working and middle-class families in American history. High-quality constituent service remains a top priority for me, and I will continue working to ensure that Iowans get their money when the federal government oversteps.”

    Feenstra also held a telephone town hall in January.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murkowski, Sullivan Support Repeal of Roadless Rule

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski
    06.24.25
    Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (both R-Alaska) released the following statements following U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins’ announcement that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is beginning the process to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule on a nationwide basis.  
    “The Roadless Rule has never fit Alaska, so I welcome this effort to rescind it,” Senator Murkowski said. “Even without the rule in place, nearly 80 percent of the Tongass National Forest will still be explicitly restricted from development. Repeal will not lead to environmental harm, but it will help open needed opportunities for renewable energy, forestry, mining, tourism, and more in areas that are almost completely under federal control. This is particularly critical for our continued efforts to build a sustainable year-round economy in Southeast Alaska.”
    “I welcome the decision by Secretary Rollins and President Trump to rescind the Roadless Rule and allow for proper management of U.S. Forest System lands in Alaska,” Senator Sullivan said. “Since 2001, this rule has hindered Alaskan’s ability to responsibly harvest timber, develop minerals, connect communities, or build energy projects at lower costs—including renewable energy projects like hydropower, which are especially critical to economic opportunities in Southeast Alaska surrounded by the Tongass National Forest. I am grateful that the Trump administration is once again rescinding this rule to put Alaskans back in the driver’s seat to make a living, support our families, and connect our communities while protecting our lands and growing our economy.”
    Background
    The Tongass National Forest spans nearly 16.7 million acres, covering nearly all of Southeast Alaska, and is home to 32 islanded communities. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has almost continually restricted access needed for timber, mining, tourism, recreation, and the development of renewable resources such as hydropower.
    Separate and apart from the Roadless Rule, the Tongass is well protected under existing law. Some 80 percent of the forest is already conserved in congressionally-designated wilderness, National Parks, National Monuments, or other natural setting land-use designations—meaning only a small fraction of the Tongass is available for any kind of development.
    In 2018, the Forest Service announced it would develop a state-specific Roadless Rule focused on the Tongass. The Alaska-specific rule, finalized in October 2020, exempted the Tongass from the one-size-fits-all Roadless Rule, which established sweeping prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest on inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands beginning in 2001. The 2020 rule came in response to a petition from the State of Alaska requesting a full exemption for the Tongass, and helped restore balanced management and reasonable economic prospects within the Tongass.
    In January 2023, the USDA Forest Service under the Biden administration finalized its repeal of the Tongass National Forest’s exemption from the 2001 Roadless Rule, against the request from the State of Alaska and data and analysis from the Trump administration that supported the 2020 exemption.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Capito Releases Updated EPW Budget Reconciliation Text

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, released updated legislative text within the EPW Committee’s jurisdiction to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill.

    “Our budget reconciliation title through the EPW Committee accomplishes what we pledged to do – stop Democrats’ natural gas tax and rescind unobligated dollars from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, as well as a full repeal of the wasteful Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Senate Republicans continue to move towards passage of this package that will help enact President Trump’s agenda,” Chairman Capito said.

    • Click HERE to view text.
    • Click HERE to view a section-by-section.
    • Click HERE to view a one-pager.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Aguilar: It is completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on Iran attack

    Source: US House of Representatives – Democratic Caucus

    The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI – June 24, 2025

    WASHINGTON, DC — Today, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, Whip Katherine Clark, Vice Chair Ted Lieu and Democratic Caucus National Security Task Force Co-Chairs Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Derek Tran held a press conference on the Trump Administration’s chaotic foreign policy putting American troops in harm’s way. 

    CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Good afternoon. Members today were supposed to receive a classified briefing from the Trump Administration, but clearly the chaos and the confusion coming out of the White House made that impossible. It is completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on this in a timely fashion. We need evidence, we need details and we need to know them now. There are a number of outstanding questions, including whether this attack achieved the Administration’s stated goals. Launching an attack without Congressional authorization is wrong—launching a potentially unsuccessful attack without Congressional authorization would be an administration-defining failure. And this is a defining week for the Trump presidency. He has asked Republicans to put the unpopular One Big Ugly Bill on his desk by July 4th so that he can celebrate Independence Day by throwing 16 million people off of their health insurance to pay for billionaire tax breaks that explode the deficit by over $3 trillion.  And now he’s putting American troops in harm’s way in the Middle East, after promising that he’d restore peace. The American people want a steady hand at the wheel and to fight back. 

    I’m proud to launch the House Democratic Caucus National Security Task Force, co-chaired by Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Derek Tran. And we want to thank Co-chair Mikie Sherrill, who can’t be with us here today. The members leading this task force will draw on their patriotism, expertise and commitment to service by providing the leadership that Donald Trump and the Rubberstamp Republicans lack the courage and moral clarity to deliver. Vice Chair Ted Lieu.

    VICE CHAIR LIEU: Thank you, Chairman Aguilar. Please to be joined today by veterans Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Derek Tran. Like Chairman Aguilar said, it is completely unacceptable that the Administration is unwilling to brief the House of Representatives on the strikes in Iran. It has been a longstanding bipartisan goal of both Democratic and Republican Administrations to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime is a theocratic autocratic regime. If they had nuclear weapons, they could launch them at U.S. bases, U.S. military interests and at Israel. And we have to make sure this regime never acquires a nuclear weapon. At the same time, I believe the Constitution means what it says: Only Congress has the power to declare war. I probably stated at the time that Obama needed Congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs Congressional authorization to strike Iran. My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the President happens to belong to. 

    Now, there’s some other news that happened today, including that consumer sentiment declined again, and what we know is that the economic policies of Donald Trump and the Republicans are harming Americans. The American people know it. Inflation has increased. Grocery prices have increased. People are having difficulty making ends meet, and now we have this huge, Big Ugly Bill that’s going to cut health care for millions and millions of Americans, in service of tax breaks for billionaires. We asked the Republican Senate and House Republicans to vote no. And with that, it is my honor and pleasure to introduce Representative Jason Crow, who served our country in combat prior to joining Congress.

    REP. CROW: Thank you, Chairman Aguilar, Vice Chairman Lieu and my fellow Co-chairs of the House Democratic National Security Task Force, Derek Tran and Maggie Goodlander. I’m Jason Crow from Colorado. And even though I’m a Member of Congress now, I view this issue, like many national security issues, more through my eyes as a former Army Ranger and paratrooper and combat veteran, than just as a Member of Congress. I deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan in my early and mid-20s. And I know the true costs of war. I know what happens when unaccountable elites in comfortable, air-conditioned offices in Washington pound their chests, saber-rattle and then send somebody else to go off and do the tough work. Because the people that I grew up with, working-class kids from around the country, from the middle of the country, from small towns that people in Washington don’t pay attention to that have to go out and carry out that tough talk. So I take it pretty personally when an elite like Donald Trump makes a cavalier decision without thought, without engagement with Congress, to potentially pull us into another long-term, endless conflict in the Middle East. But don’t get us wrong, there is no appetite in America for the United States to be pulled into another decades-long conflict in the Middle East. So, there’s a lot of talk about Congress and why Congress should be involved. A lot of discussion about the Constitution, a lot of discussion about war powers, and I just want to talk about why that should matter to Americans. Of course, the Constitution matters. And of course, obeying the rule of law matters. 

    But let’s drill down into that for just one moment. We spent 20 years and $3 trillion and over 6,000 American troop lives fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that should have ended much, much sooner and been far less costly than they were. How did that happen? Well, it happened in large part because there was just one vote the entirety of those wars, one vote and one formal debate in Congress. And then out of sight, out of mind. Congress is an essential part of this. That is what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. That the people closest to the American people have to go home every weekend and stand in high school auditoriums, in gyms and Rotary Clubs and Friday night fish frys across America, and be held accountable and say why we should spend taxpayer dollars to send our men and women to someplace around the world into conflict. Why we should do that. And to be accountable for it in real time. That’s why the involvement of Congress matters. Because nobody will ever tell me that things would have been different in Iraq and Afghanistan had we actually had that debate, had we actually pushed that accountability. We know, we know it would have been. So, Congress needs to step up. I know House Democrats are ready to step up. We’re already leading to reinsert ourselves into matters of war and peace. It’s time for the Republicans to step up too and say enough is enough. We have an independent Constitutional obligation to support our military, to support our troops and to discharge our obligations under the Constitution, regardless of what Donald Trump says. We are not asking them to storm the beaches of Normandy or to give their lives for this country; we are asking them to step up and fulfill their constitutional obligations. And with that, it is my pleasure to introduce the intrepid Whip of the House Democrats, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts.

    WHIP CLARK: Thank you so much Congressman Crow and thank you for your service to our country, both your military service and your service. And to all of you. And thank you to our Chairman and Vice Chairman for pulling this together. Our message today is clear: the Constitution is not a document of convenience. It is there to guarantee that there is accountability, because it is the people’s voice of this country. It is American families who are feeling every day that it is hard to get ahead. Who need to be informed of when this country is going to have military strikes and go to war. And that is where representative government comes in. That is the design. That as members of Congress, we are here representing our districts and the voice of the American people. So when we have a President and an Administration and now a Republican Party in Congress that has decided the American people are not entitled to know anything. It is a trust us, we are doing what we’re doing. You are just here to pay the taxes while we debate these things internally, without your representatives involved. That is an outrage and an insult to families at home. Who, at this time, where 60% of American families are feeling they can’t provide the basics, while we are debating a GOP bill that wants to take away health care from 16 million Americans, that wants to take away food programs, and strip funding from veterans benefits. The audacity of them coming forward and saying, on top of all that, we feel that you are not entitled to the basic information around our national security and such profound decisions about whether to go to war or not. This is far beyond a briefing and what day it will be held. It is the fact that we have been demanding information on behalf of American families, of American veterans, of those who are in active duty and their families who deserve answers on what our country is committing as far as foreign action and why. Thank you. 

    CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Thanks. Co-Chair Maggie Goodlander.

    REP. GOODLANDER: Thank you so much. I’m really grateful to our leadership and to my colleagues who are part of this task force, which I’m really proud to be part of. I represent the “Live Free or Die” State of New Hampshire here in Congress, and we’ve got freedom-loving patriots right here on this podium who believe deeply in our mission and our role. And what I’d say is, I’m about to turn it over to Derek Tran, who, like my dad, joined the military at age 18. My dad, Ted, always said he got his education in the United States Navy—and so did I. I really did. I served 11 years as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve. I learned in the Navy and saw firsthand that the United States of America has brutal and determined enemies all across the world, including in Iran. I saw firsthand how our patriotic service members, when they take an oath to this document, I bring my Constitution with me everywhere I go in this job, because it’s a useful document to have these days for questions big and small. When they take an oath to this, they mean it. I also learned in the Navy firsthand why our Framers were really smart to give Congress a central role in American national security and in matters of war and peace, because there are no more consequential decisions than can be made. What we see today is an Administration that is completely ignoring the role of Congress in matters of war and peace, and it’s having real consequences. It’s been said. We just came back. I was pounding the pavement all across New Hampshire. I heard from the families of service members who were asking basic questions, questions that this Administration should be answering to the American people, about why we went ahead and conducted a military strike without Congressional authorization? What the impact of that strike was, what damage it did to Iran’s nuclear program and their nuclear industrial base, and what is the plan now? This is why Congress has got a role in questions of war and peace, and why this administration is going to have to answer to us. I’m really proud to be in this effort alongside all of you, and delighted to turn it over to my colleague, and Army veteran. I’ll allow it. Go Navy! Derek Tran.

    REP. TRAN: Thank you so much, Rep. Goodlander. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for coming and thank you especially to my colleagues with whom I am so proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. I joined the Army Reserves when I was 18 years old. I walked into that recruitment office because I was committed to giving back to the country that has given me so much. My parents fled a communist dictatorship and came to the United States seeking the freedom and democracy that defined the core of our national values. I brought that background with me to Congress, and I’m so proud to lend my voice as a leader of the House Democratic Caucus on the National Security Task Force. Just this week, we learned in terrifying detail just how important our voices are at this critical moment. Iran and its proxies pose a serious threat to our nation, and American people are looking for measured, steady leadership to protect our national security. They’re not seeing it from President Trump. They’re not seeing it from Congressional Republicans, who refuse to hold this President accountable. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to urge a stronger, more stable approach to our national security. We are committed to keeping our service members safe. We are committed to protecting U.S. global leadership and we don’t want our country dragged into another reckless war. It is critical that we exhaust all diplomatic options to de-escalate this conflict, because we do not want more of our soldiers put in harm’s way. The United States has been the sole global superpower for decades, not only because of our military might, but because of our values, our adherence to the Constitution and our respect to the rule of law. We’re here today because we refuse to stand by, while the legacy, this legacy, is under threat. Thank you so much and I’m going to turn it back to our Chairman for questions.

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

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Underscores Support for Senator Kaine’s War Powers Resolution in the Wake of Trump’s Illegal Strike Against Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 24, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – After President Donald Trump illegally ordered a military strike against Iran over the weekend, today combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) condemned Trump’s actions as both unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Act and underscored her support for U.S. Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) War Powers Resolution, which would reassert that only Congress holds the power and solemn responsibility to declare war. Duckworth reiterated that while Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, the President of the United States and Commander in Chief should have pursued this goal through diplomatic means first before needlessly dragging the American people and our nation’s servicemembers into another war in the Middle East. Duckworth’s remarks can be found on the Senator’s YouTube.
    “When Donald Trump illegally bombed Iran without Congressional authorization, let’s be clear: there was no imminent threat to the U.S. or our troops,” said Duckworth. “It wasn’t time to strike, not when the democratically elected representatives of the American people have not had a chance to weigh the costs and risks against the gains to make an informed decision on behalf of our constituents—and to make sure the President is not getting us into yet another forever war in the Middle East.
    “Servicemembers will be the ones to risk their lives if we get drawn into another unnecessary war with no plan and no end state. Their Commander in Chief owes it to them—and to all Americans—to uphold the Constitution that they swore to support and defend.”
    In response to Senator Duckworth’s sharp questioning, Deputy Commander of United States Central Command Vice Admiral Charles B. Cooper II would not specifically state what end-state the US is seeking after Trump’s illegal military strike against Iran, even though combatant commands would normally be informed of the desired end-states in order to drive their operations. The lack of clarity on the desired end-state of U.S. military operations against Iran raises serious questions about whether the Trump Administration’s goals against Iran are being deliberately obscured from the American people or simply a product of chaotic policymaking. When asked, Vice Admiral Cooper also refused to commit to providing an option—even among many—to the White House that includes providing Iran with an off-ramp from further military action, if he is confirmed to be Commander of the United States Central Command.
    In light of Trump’s reckless statements that suggest he might order our military to pursue regime change, Duckworth said: “Like many who served and sacrificed in Iraq, I am sick with anger and dread at the thought that, in 2025, the President of the United States is talking of toppling another government in the Middle East—drawing Americans into a destabilizing military action in a volatile region and owning the chaos that follows.”
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: On the 3rd Anniversary of Roe Being Overturned, Duckworth, Durbin Help Introduce Bill to Restore Abortion Access Nationwide On the 3rd Anniversary of Roe Being Overturned, Duckworth, Durbin Help Introduce Bill to Restore Abortion Access Nationwide

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 25, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – On the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Patty Murray (D-WA) in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Put together, Trump and Congressional Republicans’ assault on Americans’ reproductive rights is a backdoor national abortion ban, ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to control their bodies.   
    “In the three years since the Supreme Court’s disastrous Dobbs decision, our nation has seen Donald Trump and extreme MAGA Republicans intensify their anti-choice crusade against basic health care and tear reproductive freedoms away from Americans across the country—especially from low-income women and women of color,” said Duckworth. “We cannot let Republicans’ extreme policies continue to force women into impossible, dangerous and potentially life-threatening scenarios over deeply personal healthcare decisions. The Women’s Health Protection Act would end this living nightmare and rightfully put women back in charge of their own bodies, their careers and their futures.”
    “The Dobbs decision reversed a nearly half-century guarantee to Americans that the Constitution grants them the right to abortion access.  Three years later, that right is still under attack by Republicans who are implementing draconian abortion laws. Americans deserve the right to choose,” said Durbin. “It is up to the individual to decide if and when they expand their family, not a judge or a politician. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation that codifies the right of each American to make their own reproductive health care decisions.”
    President Trump appointed the Supreme Court Justices who ruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to overturn Roe v. Wade and nearly 50 years of precedent. Since the Dobbs decision, 19 states have banned abortion or severely restricted women from being able to access the procedure, leaving one in three American women without access to safe, legal abortion care. Additionally, state legislatures across the country have introduced hundreds of bills to include medically unnecessary restrictions that limit access to abortion care.
    In his second term, President Trump has continued to relentlessly attack reproductive rights, including freezing Title X funding for clinics that offer reproductive care, cutting Biden-era emergency abortion protections, pardoning anti-abortion extremists, and fighting to defund Planned Parenthood. Additionally, the House-passed Republican budget bill kicks 16 million people off their health insurance and defunds Planned Parenthood – threatening the closure of 200 health centers across the country and putting access to vital reproductive care for millions of families at risk.
    The Women’s Health Protection Act creates federal rights for patients and providers to protect abortion access. Specifically, the Women’s Health Protection Act would:
    Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level restrictions in place prior to Dobbs, such as arbitrary waiting periods, medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds or requirements to provide medically inaccurate information.
    Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother.
    Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years.
    In addition to Duckworth and Durbin, the legislation is sponsored by the entire Senate Democratic caucus, including Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
    Full text of the bill is available on Senator Duckworth’s website.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News

    Source: US Whitehouse

    The world is far safer after President Donald J. Trump’s highly successful, decisive precision strikes against the Iranian regime’s key nuclear facilities.

    Take it from those who actually know:

    President Trump: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

    Israel Atomic Energy Commission: “The devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”

    IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir: “I can say here that the assessment is that we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.”

    Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei: “Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that’s for sure.”

    Vice President JD Vance: “I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordow nuclear site, and of course, do some damage to the other sites as well, but we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”

    Secretary Hegseth: “Given the 30,000 pounds of explosions and the capability of those munitions, it was DEVASTATION underneath Fordow … Any assessment that tells you otherwise is speculating with other motives.”

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan “Razin” Caine: “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “The Iranian program — the nuclear program — today looks nothing like it did just a week ago … That story is a false story and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening.”

    Secretary Rubio: “Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape … There’s no way Iran comes to the table if somehow nothing had happened. This was complete and total obliteration. They are in bad shape. They are way behind today compared to where they were just seven days ago because of what President Trump did.”

    Special Envoy Steve Witkoff: “We put 12 bunker buster bombs on Fordow. There’s no doubt that it breached the canopy, there’s no doubt that it was well within reach of the depth that these bunker buster bombs go to, and there’s no doubt that it was obliterated — so the reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous.”

    Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”

    International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred. At the Esfahan nuclear site, additional buildings were hit, with the US confirming their use of cruise missiles. Affected buildings include some related to the uranium conversion process. Also at this site, entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit. At the Natanz enrichment site, the Fuel Enrichment Plant was hit, with the US confirming that it used ground-penetrating munitions.”

    Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright: “Overall, Israel’s and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.  It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”

    Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program Deputy Director Andrea Stricker: “I think that because of the massive damage and the shock wave that would have been sent by 12 Massive Ordnance Penetrators at the Fordow site, that it likely would render its centrifuges damaged or inoperable.” 

    American Enterprise Institute Middle East Portfolio Manager Brian Carter: “There is no question that the bombing campaign ‘badly, badly damaged’ the three sites.”

    Institute for Science and International Security Senior Research Fellow Spencer Faragasso: “Overall, it may possibly take years for Iran to reconstitute the capabilities it lost at these facilities.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Barragán, Jayapal, and Booker Reintroduce Legislation to Eliminate Barriers to Health Care for Immigrants

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

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    June 24, 2025

    Contact: Jin.Choi@mail.house.gov

    Barragán, Jayapal, and Booker Reintroduce Legislation to Eliminate Barriers to Health Care for Immigrants

    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán (CA-44), along with Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ranking Member of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) today introduced the Health Equity and Access under Law (HEAL) for Immigrant Families Act. This bicameral bill, co-sponsored by 55 members of Congress and endorsed by more than 100 organizations, removes unnecessary and cruel barriers to health care for millions of immigrants of all statuses.

    Immigrants in the United States are far more likely to be uninsured than U.S. citizens. In 2023, half of all undocumented immigrant adults and one in five lawfully present immigrant adults were uninsured. Just 6 percent of naturalized citizen adults and 8 percent of U.S.-born citizens are uninsured.

    “Access to healthcare shouldn’t depend on your immigration status,” said Representative Barragán. “Healthcare is a basic human right, and it’s time we break down the needless barriers that keep immigrant families from the care they need to survive and thrive. The HEAL Act is a step toward addressing racial health disparities and expanding quality healthcare to everyone in our communities.”

    “Health care is a human right that must be accessible to everyone — regardless of immigration status,” said Representative Jayapal. “As a proud immigrant myself, I know that the HEAL Act is a necessary first step to allow more people across America to access the health care they need to live, making all of our communities healthier. As Republicans in Congress work to strip health coverage away from millions of Americans and further decimate our already broken immigration system, we’re working to ensure everyone in this country is able to see a doctor when they need it.”

    “Everyone deserves access to comprehensive, affordable, quality care, and the HEAL Act lifts unnecessary barriers to medical care for immigrants,” said Senator Booker. “A more equitable health care system will help create healthier communities and ensure that all families, regardless of immigration status, have access to the care they need.” 

    “Withholding health care from immigrants is cruel and doesn’t make our communities safer or healthier,” said Senator Warren. “While the Trump administration continues playing political games with immigrant families, Democrats are fighting to make sure a person’s immigration status doesn’t prevent them from getting life-saving care.”

    “As the Trump Administration guts access to health care and basic services for immigrant communities, breaking down barriers to health care for immigrants isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s critical for protecting our public health and economy,” said Senator Padilla. “California is the fourth-largest economy in the world not despite immigrants, but because of their contributions to our workforce. Everyone deserves access to affordable, quality health care no matter their immigration status, and I will keep fighting to continue expanding coverage for these hardworking members of our communities.”

    The HEAL for Immigrant Families Act will:

    • Restore Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) eligibility to lawfully present immigrants;
    • Remove discriminatory Medicare restrictions based on length of U.S. residency for green card holders;
    • End the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces
    • Ensure access to public and affordable coverage for Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients;
    • Create a state option to expand Medicaid and CHIP to immigrants regardless of immigration status.

    “Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Booker continue to be courageous and powerful champions for immigrant communities by reintroducing the HEAL for Immigrant Families Act,” said Lupe M. Rodríguez, executive director, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. “While immigrant families are currently being attacked and torn apart, this bill promotes a vision for what we want for our collective future. A future that supports immigrant communities by removing long standing systemic barriers to health coverage to help our communities access affordable health care. We are especially grateful that Sen. Booker and Rep. Jayapal are introducing this critical legislation today as we mark three years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. That decision has disproportionately harmed immigrant communities, for whom abortion bans, misinformation, and the threat of being detained and separated from our families has increased the barriers that keep us from getting the health care we need,” said Lupe M. Rodríguez, Executive Director, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. “We urge Congress to protect immigrant communities and pass this bill.”

    “The reproductive justice movement teaches us that true justice means being able to have children, not have children, and raise our families in safe, supportive communities,” said Sung Yeon Choimorrow, executive director, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF). “None of that is possible without health care. In a country that has always been shaped by immigrants, we cannot keep allowing people and families, including the Asian American immigrants who make up more than a quarter of immigrants in the U.S., to be shut out from basic health care because of harmful, outdated policies. These are our mothers, our sisters, and our neighbors. The HEAL Act tears down the barriers facing our communities and reaffirms that everyone deserves the right to care, regardless of background, income, or immigration status.”

    “Everyone deserves access to health care, no matter who they are or where they come from,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “It is unacceptable and cruel that many are denied affordable, high-quality, and comprehensive health care because of their immigration status. Amid the ongoing attacks on our immigrant communities and our health care, I thank Reps. Jayapal and Barragán and Senator Booker for reintroducing this critical bill that would break down unjust barriers to care for our immigrant families.”

    “As a physician, I’ve witnessed the barriers immigrant families face when trying to access health care. Insurance coverage is a cornerstone of meaningful access; without it, care remains out of reach for too many,” said Dr. Jamila Perritt, MD, MPH, FACOG, President and CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health. “At a time when attacks on immigrant communities are escalating, we must act now to ensure that everyone—regardless of status—has the right to timely, compassionate, and comprehensive health care. That’s why I join physicians across the country in calling for a swift passage of the HEAL Act. Expanding health coverage to immigrant communities ensures they receive the care they deserve, regardless of their immigration status. Health is a human right and no one should be excluded from receiving healthcare. Congress must pass HEAL – our patients are counting on it.”

    “With immigrant families under constant attack, it’s more important than ever to work toward a better, more inclusive future when everyone can get the care we all need,” said Adriana Cadena, campaign director, Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition. “We are proud to champion the HEAL Act – a critical step toward that better future.” 

    “Now more than ever, it is critical to affirm that everyone—including immigrants—should have access to health care coverage,” said Wendy Cervantes, Director, Immigration and Immigrant Families, CLASP. “Immigrants already face many restrictions to such care and an onslaught of attacks on them and their families’ health and well-being, ranging from the fear created by the Administration’s mass deportation efforts to the deeply harmful budget reconciliation bill currently under consideration. The HEAL for Immigrant Families Act is a critical step in moving us back in the right direction by giving children and families access to the health care they need to thrive. CLASP is grateful to Representative Jayapal and Senator Booker for their leadership in promoting a vision that supports health care for all.”

    The legislation is also co-sponsored by U.S. Representatives Becca Balint (VT-AL), Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (VA-08), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), André Carson (IN-07), Troy Carter (LA-02), Greg Casar (TX-35), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Judy Chu (CA-28), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Maxwell Frost (FL-10), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Jennifer McClellan (VA-04), James P. McGovern (MA-02), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Jerry Nadler (NY-12), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Nikema Williams (GA-05), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24), and U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Edward Markey (D-MA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

    The legislation is endorsed by AAPI Equity Alliance; AAPI NJ; Advocates for Youth; AFL-CIO; Alianza Nacional de Campesinas; All* Above All; Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Muslim Health Professionals (AMHP); Amica Center for Immigrant Rights; Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Asian American Federation of Florida; Asian Americans United (AAU); Asian Caribbean Exchange; Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network, Massachusetts; Asian Texans for Justice Action Fund; ASISTA; Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations; Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network; Ayuda; CA LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; CASA; Catholics for Choice; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Reproductive Rights; Center for Victims of Torture; Children’s HealthWatch; Cleveland Jobs with Justice; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition on Human Needs; Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking; Community Catalyst; Doctors for America ; End SIJS Backlog Coalition; Equality California; Esperanza United; First Focus Campaign for Children; Florida Asian Services ; Freedom Network USA; Georgia Conservation Voters; Global Refugee Awareness Healing Center; Global Urban Cultural Community; Guttmacher Institute; Haven Services Inc. dba Haven Neighborhood Servic; Health Action New Mexico; Healthy Teen Network; Her Justice ; Hispanic Federation; Ibis Reproductive Health; ICAH (Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health); Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Immigrant Welcome Network Johnson County; Immigration Institute of the Bay Area; In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda ; Inclusive Counseling; Indivisible; Institute for Women’s Policy Research; Ipas US; Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health; Justice for Migrant Women; Justice in Aging; KAN-WIN; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA); Laotian American National Alliance (LANA); Latino; Legal Voice; Maine Equal Justice; MANA, A National Latina Organization; Midwest Access Coalition; Moonbow; National Abortion Federation; National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association (NAAPIMHA); National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF); National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health; National Council of Jewish Women; National Employment Law Project; National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association; National Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Health Law Program; National Immigration Law Center; National Korean American Service and Education Consortium; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice; National Network of Abortion Funds; National Network To End Domestic Violence ; National Organization for Women ; National Partnership for New Americans; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; National Women’s Law Center Action Fund; NIRH Action Fund; NIWAP, Inc.; Northwest Health Law Advocates (NoHLA); Oasis Legal Services; OCA South Florida Chapter; Our Justice; Oxfam America; People Power United; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Plascencia Consulting; Population Connection Action Fund; Positive Women’s Network-USA; Power to Decide; PowHerNY; Prevention Institute; Protecting Immigrant Families; QASPIRA Association; Religious Community for Reproductive Choice; Reproductive Freedom For All; Reproductive Health Access Project; Reproductive Justice Action Collective (ReJAC); Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus; Sarin Gal; Shriver Center on Poverty Law; SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); SiX Action; South Asian Public Health Association (SAPHA); South Asian SOAR; State Voices Florida; Survivor Justice Center; The Children’s Partnership; The National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health (NPWH); The TransLatin@ Coalition; UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health; UnidosUS; Union for Reform Judaism; United Parent Leaders Action Network; URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity; Voices for Utah Children; Women of Reform Judaism; Women’s Law Project; Women’s Refugee Commission.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump administration aims to slash funds that preserve the nation’s rich architectural and cultural history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael R. Allen, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, West Virginia University

    The iconic ‘Walking Man’ Hawkes sign in Westbrook, Maine, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2019. Ben McCanna/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a “skinny budget” because it’s short on line-by-line details.

    But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention – and they might as well be skinned to the bone.

    Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund’s previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes.

    That said, the Trump administration hasn’t even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation.

    I’m a scholar of historic preservation who’s worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I’ve worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases.

    I’ve seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball or the pressures of the private market.

    A rare, deficit-neutral funding model

    Most Americans probably don’t realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes.

    The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation.

    However, many states and tribes didn’t have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts.

    The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach.

    Created during Gerald Ford’s administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it’s funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves.

    Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund.

    Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded.

    Boston’s Fenway Park was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2012, making it eligible for preservation grants and federal tax incentives.
    Winslow Townson/Getty Images

    Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years.

    The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it’s even involved in projects tied to the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778-79 and the restoration of Rhode Island’s Old State House.

    Filling financial gaps

    I’ve witnessed the fund’s impact firsthand in small communities across the nation.

    Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated LeClaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches.

    Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to LeClaire’s significance and which ones did not – and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape.

    The Allen House is one of approximately 415 single-family homes in the Leclaire neighborhood in Edwardsville, Ill.
    Friends of Leclaire

    Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund.

    In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don’t need to be reviewed at all.

    Oil money better than no money

    The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump’s proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund.

    Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund’s dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model.

    In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play.

    But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I’ve recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won’t be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding.

    That said, you’d be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy.

    For now, Trump’s administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties.

    Unfortunately, many people advocating for places important to their towns and neighborhoods may end up learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.

    Michael R. Allen is a member of the Advisor Leadership Team of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

    – ref. Trump administration aims to slash funds that preserve the nation’s rich architectural and cultural history – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-aims-to-slash-funds-that-preserve-the-nations-rich-architectural-and-cultural-history-258889

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Blocking exports and raising tariffs is a bad defense against industrial cyber espionage, study shows

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Akoto, Assistant Professor of Global Security, American University

    Cutting off China’s access to advanced U.S. chips is likely to motivate Chinese cyber espionage. kritsapong jieantaratip/iStock via Getty Images

    The United States is trying to decouple its economy from rivals like China. Efforts toward this include policymakers raising tariffs on Chinese goods, blocking exports of advanced technology and offering subsidies to boost American manufacturing. The goal is to reduce reliance on China for critical products in hopes that this will also protect U.S. intellectual property from theft.

    The idea that decoupling will help stem state-sponsored cyber-economic espionage has become a key justification for these measures. For instance, then-U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai framed the continuation of China-specific tariffs as serving the “statutory goal to stop [China’s] harmful … cyber intrusions and cyber theft.” Early tariff rounds during the first Trump administration were likewise framed as forcing Beijing to confront “deeply entrenched” theft of U.S. intellectual property.

    This push to “onshore” key industries is driven by very real concerns. By some estimates, theft of U.S. trade secrets, often through hacking – costs the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year. In that light, decoupling is a defensive economic shield – a way to keep vital technology out of an adversary’s reach.

    But will decoupling and cutting trade ties truly make America’s innovations safer from prying eyes? I’m a political scientist who studies state-sponsored cyber espionage, and my research suggests that the answer is a definitive no. Indeed, it might actually have the opposite effect.

    To understand why, it helps to look at what really drives state-sponsored hacking.

    Rivalry, not reliance

    Intuitively, you might think a country is most tempted to steal secrets from a nation it depends on. For example, if Country A must import jet engines or microchips from Country B, Country A might try to hack Country B’s companies to copy that technology and become self-sufficient. This is the industrial dependence theory of cyber theft.

    There is some truth to this motive. If your economy needs what another country produces, stealing that know-how can boost your own industries and reduce reliance. However, in a recent study, I show that a more powerful predictor of cyber espionage is industrial similarity. Countries with overlapping advanced industries such as aerospace, electronics or pharmaceuticals are the ones most likely to target each other with cyberattacks.

    Why would having similar industries spur more spying? The reason is competition. If two nations both specialize in cutting-edge sectors, each has a lot to gain by stealing the other’s innovations.

    If you’re a tech powerhouse, you have valuable secrets worth stealing, and you have the capability and motivation to steal others’ secrets. In essence, simply trading with a rival isn’t the core issue. Rather, it’s the underlying technological rivalry that fuels espionage.

    For example, a cyberattack in 2012 targeted SolarWorld, a U.S. solar panel manufacturer, and the perpetrators stole the company’s trade secrets. Chinese solar companies then developed competing products based on the stolen designs, costing SolarWorld millions in lost revenue. This is a classic example of industrial similarity at work. China was building its own solar industry, so it hacked a U.S. rival to leapfrog in technology.

    China has made major investments in its cyber-espionage capabilities.

    Boosting trade barriers can fan the flames

    Crucially, cutting trade ties doesn’t remove this rivalry. If anything, decoupling might intensify it. When the U.S. and China exchange tariff blows or cut off tech transfers, it doesn’t make China give up – it likely pushes Chinese intelligence agencies to work even harder to steal what they can’t buy.

    This dynamic isn’t unique to China. Any country that suddenly loses access to an important technology may turn to espionage as Plan B.

    History provides examples. When South Africa was isolated by sanctions in the 1980s, it covertly obtained nuclear weapons technology. Similarly, when Israel faced arms embargoes in the 1960s, it engaged in clandestine efforts to get military technology. Isolation can breed desperation, and hacking is a low-cost, high-reward tool for the desperate.

    If decoupling won’t end cyber espionage, what will?

    There’s no easy fix for state-sponsored hacking as long as countries remain locked in high-tech competition. However, there are steps that can mitigate the damage and perhaps dial down the frequency of these attacks.

    One is investing in cyber defense. Just as a homeowner adds locks and alarms after a burglary, companies and governments should continually strengthen their cyber defenses. Assuming that espionage attempts are likely to happen is key. Advanced network monitoring, employee training against phishing, and robust encryption can make it much harder for hackers to succeed, even if they keep trying.

    Another is building resilience and redundancy. If you know that some secrets might get stolen, plan for it. Businesses can shorten product development cycles and innovate faster so that even if a rival copies today’s tech, you’re already moving on to the next generation. Staying ahead of thieves is a form of defense, too.

    Ultimately, rather than viewing tariffs and export bans as silver bullets against espionage, U.S. leaders and industry might be safer focusing on resilience and stress-testing cybersecurity firms. Make it harder for adversaries to steal secrets, and less rewarding even if they do.

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

    – ref. Blocking exports and raising tariffs is a bad defense against industrial cyber espionage, study shows – https://theconversation.com/blocking-exports-and-raising-tariffs-is-a-bad-defense-against-industrial-cyber-espionage-study-shows-258243

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Grover Norquist’s lasting influence on the GOP and US economic policy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gibbs Knotts, Professor of Political Science, Coastal Carolina University

    Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, speaks on Capitol Hill on Nov. 7, 2017. Alex Wong/Getty Images

    In the “one, big, beautiful bill,” President Donald Trump has called for substantial decreases in federal domestic spending. However, a schism emerged between Republican lawmakers during the budget debates in Congress.

    Some Republicans in blue states called for a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans, prompting longtime anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist to call the increase an “incredibly destructive idea economically, and very foolish politically.”

    As he has done since the 1980s, Norquist demonstrated his influence over the GOP. Since Trump’s second inauguration, he has appeared in several high-profile news stories about the budget, including a Washington Post article where he said, “Tax cuts are income to Americans and a loss to the bureaucracy.”

    Ultimately, the tax increase was defeated, and the Trump budget proposal passed the House on May 22, 2025.

    Norquist praised the leadership from Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, saying taxpayers owe them “bigly for managing a narrow Republican House Majority that was united and committed to reducing taxes on the American people.”

    As scholars of U.S. politics, we examined Norquist’s emergence, traced debates about the scope and size of the American government and assessed Norquist’s relevance in the Donald Trump era, where he continues to wield considerable sway in the Republican Party.

    The conscience of a conservative

    In 1960, a slim, 123-page book changed the trajectory of American conservative thought.

    “The Conscience of a Conservative,” written by Barry Goldwater, laid out the premise that an expansive federal bureaucracy was the root evil of government.

    Four years later, Ronald Reagan launched his political career with a speech supporting Goldwater. His words echoed Goldwater: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size … a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

    Reagan ended the speech by noting, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.” Goldwater wouldn’t manifest that destiny, but Reagan, 16 years later, took this vision of fiscal conservatism to the White House.

    By the 1980s, Goldwater’s limited government creed had become part of Republican dogma. Government wasn’t just bloated, according to Reagan. It was, as he noted, the problem. The Reagan presidency ushered in the doctrine of supply-side economics, which rests on the premise that tax cuts are key to stimulating economic growth.

    Norquist’s emergence

    Into this landscape stepped a young Norquist.

    He had cut his teeth at the National Taxpayer’s Union, a fiscally conservative taxpayer advocacy group. Then, in 1981, he became the executive director of the College Republican National Committee.

    In the first issue of CR Report, a college Republican newsletter, Norquist’s position as executive director was announced, and he provided a list of suggested readings. Among the titles he recommended were Goldwater’s “Conscience,” Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” and Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.”

    In 1985, Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform to support his tax reduction efforts. As Norquist noted, “The tax issue is one thing everyone agrees on.”

    He and his organization effectively institutionalized a permanent tax revolt in Congress supported by his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” a promise made starting in 1986 to oppose all efforts to increase marginal tax rates or reduce deductions or credits.

    The pledge became a litmus test for fiscally conservative GOP candidates and cemented the party’s anti-tax stance.

    Feeling this pressure, GOP nominee George H.W. Bush delivered his famous line, “read my lips, no new taxes,” at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Those six words were repeatedly used by primary challenger Pat Buchanan and Bush’s opponent in the general election, Bill Clinton, to raise questions about Bush’s honesty – since he made a pledge that he was unable to keep.

    Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House of Representatives, holds up a copy of the ‘Contract With America’ during a speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in April 1995.
    Richard Ellis/AFP via Getty Images

    With Clinton in the White House in 1994, Norquist helped House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich write the “Contract with America” to legislate fiscal conservatism. Weaponizing government shutdowns and setting a more confrontational tone, congressional Republicans successfully rolled back welfare programs, reduced the size of government and cut taxes.

    In 1995, they came two votes shy in the Senate of approving an amendment to the Constitution that would have required the federal budget to be balanced – with no borrowing – every year.

    Anti-tax conservatism in the 21st century

    In 2001, Norquist told a reporter at The Nation: “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

    This objective would have to wait during the George W. Bush presidency. Resulting in part from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration saw dramatic expansions of federal power and spending in homeland security, defense and Medicare, as well as a large increase in the budget deficit.

    The tea party movement, a fiscally conservative political group, was formed in response to these Bush-era increases and two signature programs of the Barack Obama administration: the massive stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and his signature health care reform, the Affordable Care Act.

    Norquist reveled in renewed attention to tax policies and the size of government, urging readers of The Guardian to “join the Tea Party movement.”

    Norquist’s continuing legacy

    For more than four decades, Norquist has been a relentless advocate for fiscal conservatism. He is the living embodiment of an ideological thread that stretches from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich to current GOP leadership.

    Grover Norquist waits for the arrival of President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House on March 21, 2019.
    AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    The ongoing debates about the Trump budget are just the latest example of Norquist’s influence. He continues to play an active role in debates about the federal budget and still has considerable sway with Republicans.

    However, Norquist’s uncompromising stance on taxes has coincided with increases in federal spending, surging budget deficits and increased national debt.

    That additional debt is accumulating because many Republicans have adopted his anti-tax position while simultaneously increasing defense budgets, maintaining or expanding entitlement spending and lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

    Nevertheless, Norquist continues to be the fiscal conscience of the Republican Party. Politicians come and go. Powerful ideas, and those who champion them, endure.

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

    – ref. Grover Norquist’s lasting influence on the GOP and US economic policy – https://theconversation.com/grover-norquists-lasting-influence-on-the-gop-and-us-economic-policy-256978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gregory F. Treverton, Professor of Practice in International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    Iranians protest the U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Tehran on June 22, 2025. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    The Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran dramatically marks the now nearly half-century of hostility between the United States and Iran, which began in 1979 with Iran’s takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 diplomatic hostages.

    It remains uncertain whether the Iran-Israel ceasefire will hold, given President Donald Trump’s seemingly impulsive policy decisions and an Israeli leader who critics say pursues war to stay in power.

    Additional unpredictability can be seen in a weakened Iran government that is unpopular with its own people but must also bet that standing up to the U.S. and Israel will induce its people to rally around the flag, even if they don’t like who holds that flag.

    As a U.S. international relations scholar, I think whatever comes next will be well informed by what has already happened in U.S.-Iran history. That includes an offer from Trump – who considers himself the consummate negotiator – to Iran to return to the negotiating table.

    The shah’s last visit to Washington

    The opening bracket in modern U.S.-Iran relations was the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,“ whom a CIA covert action had restored to leadership a quarter-century earlier.

    As a young National Security Council staffer, I stood on the South Lawn of the White House as the shah’s helicopter landed in 1977 for a state visit to his close ally, the United States.

    The episode was perhaps a metaphor for the two countries’ relationship. I stood next to a colleague who had written for President Jimmy Carter remarks that included fulsome praise of the shah, but his crack to me was: “You’ll recognize the shah. He’s the one with blood under his fingernails.” Beneath a formal alliance, there was a good deal of cynicism on the U.S. part about the shah’s repressive regime and use of secret police to suppress opposition.

    Pro- and anti-shah protesters were demonstrating at the bottom of the Ellipse, the park south of the White House grounds. The U.S. Park Police, understandably but unwisely, sought to separate them with tear gas, which then wafted over the proceedings on the South Lawn.

    The Shah of Iran wipes tear gas from his eyes as President Jimmy Carter speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on Nov. 15, 1977.
    AP Photo

    The impact of the hostage crisis

    It’s impossible to overstate the effect of the 1979 hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 62 American hostages for 444 days.

    The Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords, which led to the release of the hostages in January 1981. There have been persistent accounts, none ever fully validated, that the incoming Reagan administration dealt with Iran to delay the release until after the new president’s inauguration.

    The crisis not only cost Carter his job, but it also cast an enduring shadow over the U.S.-Iran relationship, compounding Americans’ difficulty in understanding a regime that was not only theocratic but Muslim.

    The 1980s witnessed a whipsaw of relations.

    From 1980 to 1988, as Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war to a stalemate, the U.S. saw the power of both countries contained, but it did provide intelligence and logistical support to Iraq.

    Then came the Iran-Contra Affair of 1985 to 1987. It was the Reagan administration’s most serious scandal, in which White House officials illegally sold sanctioned arms to Iran and secretly diverted the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras. In a moment straight out of comic opera, National Security Council aides brought a goodwill chocolate cake to Tehran during a secret diplomatic mission in May 1986.

    Unidentified U.S. hostages arrive on Jan. 21, 1981, at Rhein-Main U.S. Air Force base in Frankfurt, West Germany, one day after their release from Iran.
    AP Photo

    In 1988, a U.S. ship struck an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. retaliated by destroying oil platforms and damaging Iranian ships in “Operation Praying Mantis,” and tragically – and mistakenly – shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians.

    The 1990s and 2000s again displayed the limits of the relationship.

    In 1995, President Bill Clinton imposed an oil and trade embargo against Iran, and Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act in 1996, which imposed economic sanctions on companies doing business with Iran and Libya.

    In 1998, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for a “dialogue of civilizations,” prompting cautious U.S. signals of engagement.

    Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “axis of evil,” a sharp rhetorical escalation. For its part, Iran alleged U.S. drone incursions and covert operations. Limited diplomatic back channels emerged, but to no outcome.

    In 2009, President Barack Obama reached out to Tehran amid post-election unrest in Iran, but two years later Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for oil shipments to the West.

    In 2015, the two countries were party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran agreeing to limit its nuclear program under international oversight.

    Two years later, though, President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed sweeping sanctions in a “maximum pressure” campaign.

    In 2019 and 2020, a series of tit-for-tat escalations culminated in the Jan. 3, 2020, U.S. drone strike that assassinated senior Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region.

    U.S. sanctions continued in the Biden administration as Iran pursued deeper ties with Russia, China and nonstate proxies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

    What lessons?

    What can be learned from this tangled history?

    First, that negotiations are possible between the two countries, but they are neither easy nor likely to produce more than limited outcomes. Indeed, high-level indirect talks mediated by Oman began in April 2025, though they were in suspension when the U.S. bombers struck.

    Second, despite the Iran regime’s unpopularity, regime change in Iran is unlikely. Assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khameini would likely abet the “rally ‘round the flag” effect, as did the assassination of Soleimani.

    Third, Iran has been careful in its responses even to Israeli aggression but especially in engaging the U.S. in military conflict, a caution the American B-2 bombings on June 21 can only underscore.

    Iran had to retaliate, so the attack on the U.S. base in Qatar came as no surprise. But Iran was careful in retaliating, even notifying the U.S. in advance.

    The dropping of U.S. bombs, followed by Iran’s careful retaliation, was the opportunity for Trump to make an offer Iran couldn’t refuse.

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

    – ref. What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-next-in-us-iran-relations-will-be-informed-by-the-two-countries-shared-history-259607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Baldwin and Colleagues Introduce No War Against Iran Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) joined her colleagues in introducing the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran without specific Congressional authorization. This action follows Israel’s military strikes against Iran and President Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that did not have congressional approval, threatening to further destabilize the Middle East and draw the United States into yet another military conflict. The bill contains an exception for self-defense as enshrined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.

    “I agree with the vast majority of Wisconsinites who don’t want to send American troops abroad and get us involved in another war in the Middle East. Period,” said Senator Baldwin. “President Trump got us into this situation by pulling out of the last deal, which would have restricted Iran’s nuclear program. No President, including Donald Trump, can start an all-out war without Congress signing off, and what Donald Trump did was frankly unconstitutional. The President should be laser-focused on diplomacy to reduce tensions and prevent our country from being launched into another conflict with no clear end in sight.”

    After President Trump’s bombing of Iran, Senator Baldwin released a statement slamming the decision, arguing that while Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, diplomacy is the only course of action, not an all-out war started by a President without the approval of Congress.

    The bill is led by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and co-sponsored by Senators Peter Welch (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN).

    Full text of the bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Simpson Votes to Boost National Security and Border Protections

    Source: US State of Idaho

    Rep. Simpson Votes to Boost National Security and Border Protections

    Washington, June 25, 2025

    WASHINGTON—The House Committee on Appropriations voted to advance the Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson supported this advancement. This bill invests in border security and public safety and supports the Trump administration’s policy initiatives.
    “Under President Trump’s leadership, we have the most secure border in American history,” said Rep. Simpson. “Now is the time to strengthen our border protections and provide our brave Border Patrol agents with the resources they need to keep our homeland safe. I have long maintained that border security is national security, and supporting this advancement reaffirms that commitment.”
    Highlights of the bill include:

    Upholding the America First vision by realigning the Department of Homeland Security’s priorities around its fundamental mission: defending the nation against the threat posed by terrorists, criminals, and foreign adversaries and ensuring the safety and security of every American.
    Prioritizing border security and the detention and swift removal of criminal aliens.
    Enhancing resources to detect and counter the spread of deadly fentanyl that poisons our communities.
    Protecting vulnerable children by strengthening exploitation investigations.
    Prohibiting funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Critical Race Theory.
    Prohibiting gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgery for ICE detainees.

    The measure was approved by the Committee with a vote of 36 to 27.
    This funding package will now go to the full floor of the House of Representatives for further consideration.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    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.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie 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. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    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.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie 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. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simin Fadaee, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester

    Iranians commemorate the 1979 revolution in Qom, central Iran. Mostafameraji via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    Israel’s recent surprise attack on Iran was ostensibly aimed at neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme, but it didn’t just damage nuclear installations. It killed scientists, engineers and senior military personnel.

    Meanwhile, citizens with no ties to the government or military, became “collateral damage”. For 11 days, Israel’s attacks intensified across Tehran and other major cities.

    When the US joined the attack, dropping its bunker-buster bombs on sites in central Iran on June 21, it threatened to push the region closer to large-scale conflict. Israel’s calls for regime change in Iran were joined by the US president, Donald Trump, who took to social media on June 22 with the message: “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

    Trump’s remarks are reminders of past US interventions. The threat of regime change by the most powerful state in the world carries particular weight in Iran, where memories of foreign-imposed coups and covert operations remain vivid and painful.

    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 the early 1890s, Iran was rocked by a popular uprising after the shah granted a British company exclusive rights to the country’s tobacco industry. The decision was greeted with anger and in 1891 the country’s senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mirza Shirazi, issued a fatwa against tobacco use.

    A mass boycott ensued – even the shah’s wives reportedly gave up the habit. When it became clear that the boycott was going to hold, the shah cancelled the concession in January 1892. It was a clear demonstration of people power.

    This event is thought to have played a significant role in the development of the revolutionary movement that led to the Constitutional Revolution that took place between 1905 and 1911 and the establishment of a constitution and parliament in Iran.

    Rise of the Pahlavis

    Reza Shah, who founded the Pahlavi dynasty – which would be overthrown in the 1979 revolution and replaced by the Islamic Republic – rose to power following a British-supported coup in 1921.

    Autocrat: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

    During the first world war, foreign interference weakened Iran and the ruling Qajar dynasty. In 1921, with British support, army officer Reza Khan and politician Seyyed Ziaeddin Tabatabaee led a coup in Tehran. Claiming to be acting to save the monarchy, they arrested key opponents. By 1923, Reza Khan had become prime minister.

    In 1925, Reza Khan unseated the Qajars and founded the Pahlavi dynasty, becoming Reza Shah Pahlavi. This was a turning point in Iran’s history, marking the start of British dominance. The shah’s authoritarian rule focused on centralisation, modernisation and secularisation. It set the stage for the factors that would that eventually lead to the 1979 Revolution.

    In 1941, concerned at the close relationship Pahlavi had developed with Nazi Germany, Britain and its allies once again intervened in Iranian politics, forcing Pahlavi to abdicate. He was exiled to South Africa and his 22-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, was named shah in his place.

    The 1953 coup

    Mohammad Mosaddegh became Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister in 1951. He quickly began to introduce reforms and challenge the authority of the shah. Despite a sustained campaign of destabilisation, Mossadegh retained a high level of popular support, which he used to push through his radical programme. This included the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry, which was effectively controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – later British Petroleum (BP).

    Mohammad Mosaddegh in court martial by Ebrahim Golestan.
    Ebrahim Golestan via Wikimedia Commons

    In 1953, he was ousted in a CIA and MI6-backed coup and placed under house arrest. The shah, who had fled to Italy during the unrest, returned to power with western support.

    Within a short time, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi established an authoritarian regime that governed through repression and intimidation. He outlawed all opposition parties, and numerous activists involved in the oil nationalisation movement were either imprisoned or forced into exile.



    Read more:
    Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future is so uncertain

    The 1979 revolution: the oppression continues

    The shah’s rule became increasingly authoritarian and was also marked by the lavish lifestyles of the ruling elite and increasing poverty of the mass of the Iranian people. Pahlavi increasingly relied on his secret police, the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State.

    Meanwhile, a scholar and Islamic cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, had been rising in prominence especially after 1963, when Pahlavi’s unpopular land reforms mobilised a large section of society against his rule. His growing prominence brought him into confrontation with the government and in 1964 he was sent into exile. He remained abroad, living in Turkey, Iraq and France.

    By 1964 cleric Ruhollah Khomeini had become the focus for some anti-government protests in Iran.
    emam.com via Wikimedia Commons

    By 1978 a diverse alliance primarily made up of urban working and middle-class citizens had paralysed the country. While united in their resistance to the monarchy, participants were driven by a variety of ideological beliefs, including socialism, communism, liberalism, secularism, Islamism and nationalism. The shah fled into exile on January 16 1979 and Khomeini returned to Iran, which in March became an Islamic Republic with Khomeini at its head.

    But the US was not finished in its attempts to destabilise Iran. In 1980, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in initiating a brutal eight-year war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives and severely disrupted the country’s efforts at political and economic reconstruction.

    Iran and the US have remained bitter foes. Over the years ordinary Iranians have suffered tremendously under rounds of US-imposed sanctions, which have all but destroyed the economy in recent years.

    This new wave of foreign aggression has arrived at a time of significant domestic unrest within Iran. Since the Woman, Life, Freedom protests, which began in September 2022 after the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police, there has been a general groundswell of demand for social justice and democracy.

    But the convergence of external aggression and internal demands has brought national sovereignty and self-determination to the forefront, as it did during previous major struggles. While world powers gamble with Iran’s future, it is the Iranian people through their struggles and unwavering push for justice and democracy who must determine the country’s future.

    Simin Fadaee 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. Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers – https://theconversation.com/irans-history-has-been-blighted-by-interference-from-foreign-powers-259700

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –