NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaine Announces the Filing of a War Powers Resolution to Prevent War with Iran

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, introduced a war powers resolution expressing concern about the escalating violence in the Middle East and its potential to pull the U.S. into conflict. The resolution will require a prompt debate and vote prior to using any U.S. military force against Iran.
    “It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,” said Kaine. “The American people have no interest in sending servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation’s men and women in uniform into harm’s way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.”
    War powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the Senate will be required to promptly consider and vote upon the resolution. The resolution underscores that Congress has the sole power to declare war, as laid out in the Constitution. The resolution requires that any hostilities with Iran must be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force, but would not prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack. The resolution will ensure a public debate and vote in Congress as intended by the framers of the Constitution.
    For years, Kaine has been a leading voice in Congress raising concerns over presidents’ efforts to expand the use of military force without congressional authorization. In 2017, Kaine wrote a piece in TIME warning of the consequences if President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran. In 2018, Kaine wrote a piece in The Atlantic warning that Trump was blundering toward war with Iran. In March 2020, Congress passed Kaine’s bipartisan war powers resolution to prevent further escalation of hostilities with Iran without congressional authorization. In 2023, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation led by Kaine to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) and formally end the Gulf and Iraq wars.
    Text of the resolution is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Business Insider: Millions of student-loan borrowers are getting a ‘financial scarlet letter’ that could risk their home purchases and job prospects, Elizabeth Warren says

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 10, 2025

    Millions of student-loan borrowers could be facing a financial strain that will hinder their abilities to buy a house or get a new job, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said.

    Ahead of a Tuesday meeting with Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s education secretary, Warren published a blog post — first viewed by Business Insider — detailing her concerns with the Trump administration’s move to restart collections on defaulted borrowers’ student loans.

    After Trump announced on May 5 that consequences for student-loan defaults would resume after a five-year pause — including garishment of wages and federal benefits — the New York Federal Reserve released a report that said 8.04% of borrowers moved into serious delinquency in the first quarter of 2025, putting them at greater risk of defaulting this summer.

    …

    Read the full story here

    By:  Ayelet Sheffey
    Source: Business Insider

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Joins Durbin, 39 Senate Democrats in Pressing Trump Administration to Resume Processing DACA Applications 

    US Senate News:

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

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently limited a nationwide injunction to only Texas, giving the Administration the greenlight to resume processing initial DACA applications for all other states 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 39 Senate Democrats in urging U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, following a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that limited a District Court’s injunction against DACA to only Texas. 
    The Senators began by highlighting the popular support for providing Dreamers a pathway to citizenship, writing: “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.” 
    The Senators continued by making their request, writing: “Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.” 
    Sunday, June 15 marked the thirteenth anniversary of President Obama establishing the DACA program. Since then, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA, empowering recipients to bolster their careers and contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.  
    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. More than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS. 
    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas. 
    The Senators further elaborated on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit the injunction, writing: “Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.” 
    The Senators concluded by reiterating their request, writing: “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.” 
    In addition to Senators Welch and Durbin, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). 
    Read and download the full text of the letter. For a PDF of the letter to USCIS, click here. 
    Last week, Senator Welch joined his colleagues for a forum examining the Trump Administration’s attacks on constitutional rights that define our country and highlighted DREAMERS as a group threatened by Trump’s lawless rampage. This Congress, Senator Welch joined 26 of his colleagues in introducing The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2025, legislation to provide unaccompanied children with legal representation for their court when they appear in proceedings before an immigration judge. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER: TRUMP’S “BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” COULD SPELL “BIG” ENERGY PRICE HIKES & “BIG” JOB LOSSES FOR BUFFALO; STANDING AT ONE OF WESTERN NY’S LARGEST HOME SOLAR INSTALLERS, SENATOR REVEALS HOW GOP PLAN…

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer

    Buffalo Clean Energy Biz Like Solar Liberty Were Boosted By Federal Clean Energy Incentives – But Now Face Major Issues For Future Of Business Under GOP Job-Killing Bill – And Families Who Tap These Programs To Lower Their Energy Bills In WNY Could Be Left High & Dry

    House GOP Rushed Trump’s Tax Giveaway To Billionaires, Gutting Fed Clean Energy Tax Credits That Lower Energy Costs and Boost & Local Jobs – Now Even House Rs Are Regretting It, Asking Senate GOP To Reverse Cuts They Voted For; Senator – With Impacted Buffalo Businesses, Families, Union Workers – Shows Local Impact Of These Cuts, Demands GOP Block It

    Schumer: ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Is A ‘Big, Bad Blow’ To Western NY Jobs, Families & Businesses

    Standing at Buffalo’s Solar Liberty, one of the largest solar installers in the region, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer warned how the GOP plan to kill clean energy tax credits could raise energy costs for Western NY families, slash local jobs, and devastate Buffalo’s clean energy businesses & manufacturers.

    Schumer explained these unpopular, job-killing cuts in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” have already created panic among House Republicans and companies, and even House Republicans who voted for this bill last month are now begging to save these tax credits. Schumer said Solar Liberty is just one of many local Buffalo businesses that could be decimated by this bill and demanded the GOP block these tax hikes that could devastate Buffalo families and small businesses.

    “Right now, we are at Defcon 1 for America’s clean energy future. Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ would deal a ‘big bad blow’ to Buffalo, raising families’ energy costs and killing good-paying local jobs. These federal clean energy investments have boosted Buffalo’s businesses, like Solar Liberty, which is helping families and businesses save on their monthly energy bills. The current GOP bill would decimate the programs these companies rely on, which will kill jobs and drive up energy costs for consumers,” said Senator Schumer. “It guts investment to bring clean energy manufacturing back from overseas and eliminates one of the most effective tax credits middle-class families use to lower their monthly energy bills and that Buffalo families use to help weatherize their homes to make them warmer in the winter, all to give bigger breaks to billionaires; It’s outrageous. America needs to be producing more energy, investing in making sure these jobs grow in places like Buffalo, not go back overseas. That’s why I’m demanding Republicans to stop this plan to gut America’s clean energy future and block these tax hikes that will hurt Buffalo families’ wallets and decimate jobs.”

    Schumer was joined by workers from leading clean energy company Solar Liberty, who said the elimination of these investments would be a massive blow to their businesses, employees, and customers. Buffalo’s Solar Liberty employs nearly 100 workers and has helped thousands of families and businesses across the Northeast install solar panels for over two decades, reducing their energy bills by hundreds or even thousands per year.

    Three years ago, new and expanded clean energy tax credits created in the Inflation Reduction Act expanded Solar Liberty’s ability to bring the manufacturing of solar energy parts back to Western New York. Solar Liberty is growing rapidly by building out community solar projects, partnering with schools and nonprofits to take advantage of new direct-pay credits, and expanding battery storage, now eligible for a 30% federal tax credit even when deployed without solar. These IRA-driven incentives have not only boosted deployment and manufacturing but are also helping underserved communities and energy transition hubs across Western New York access affordable, reliable, clean power.

    However, the House GOP bill would make it more difficult for both residents and businesses to work with Solar Liberty to install solar panels. Cutting the Residential Clean Energy Credit – which gives New York families a 30% discount on home energy improvements, like solar panels – would make the cost of installing solar panels skyrocket for hardworking families, gutting Solar Liberty’s main customer base. Schumer said if this bill passes, it will pull the rug out from under Solar Liberty just as it is growing, rendering their investments in Buffalo worthless and forcing them to lay off local workers.

    “Since 2005, the Federal Investment Tax Credit has supported 280,000 American jobs, strengthened energy independence, and delivered cost-saving solutions for millions of families and businesses,” said Adam Rizzo, President of Solar Liberty. “As energy demand accelerates, solar’s unmatched speed of deployment makes it one of the most effective tools we have to strengthen America’s energy future. We’re grateful to Senator Schumer for his steadfast support in advancing solar energy and helping drive this progress forward.”

    Brian Gould, retired Cheektowaga Police Chief, hired Solar Liberty to install solar panels with help from the Residential Clean Energy Tax Credit. Gould said the cost would have been prohibitive without these tax credits, but now he is saving over $1,000 every year on his energy bill. If these tax credits are repealed, the cost of making homes more energy efficient will skyrocket, and families like Gould’s would not have the support they need to bring their energy costs down. Thousands of families across New York State are waiting to see what the GOP does in Washington and are holding off on new clean energy installations, hurting companies like Solar Liberty and the thousands of workers in the clean energy industry. Singer Farm Naturals used the 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit to install two solar arrays, cutting a significant portion of their upfront costs and lowering long-term energy expenses. Programs like this, along with USDA Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants, have been essential to keeping operating costs down — and are now under threat in the proposed federal budget.

    “As a homeowner who installed solar back in 2013, I know firsthand how important federal tax credits are in making clean energy affordable,” said Brian Gould, a residential solar customer. “Those incentives made it possible for me to go solar—and today, I save over $1,000 a year on my electric bills. The Inflation Reduction Act builds on that foundation, making it easier than ever for families to make the switch. These credits are helping more people access solar, lower their energy costs, and invest in a cleaner future. Rolling them back now would make home solar harder to afford and deny others the same opportunity I had to take control of my energy and support local jobs.”

    The GOP bill would kill clean energy incentives already benefiting hundreds of New York businesses with ongoing projects and the families who are using them to help improve their homes’ energy efficiency and lower their electric bills. Schumer specifically highlighted how the bill:

    • Eliminates the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credit, which provides families in New York up to $3,200 to help weatherize their homes for better protection in the harsh winters and make improvements to their home’s energy efficiency, lowering their electric bills with qualifying items like doors, windows, better insulation and heat pumps, and more.
    • Eliminates the Residential Clean Energy Credit, which gives New York families a 30% discount on home energy improvements, like solar panels, heat pumps, or energy storage, that help lower energy bills and keep the lights on during power outages.

    It isn’t just solar that would be hurt; these cuts hurt businesses across the clean energy sector and its supply chains. Viridi Parente, a fast-growing company on Buffalo’s East Side, has added hundreds of good-paying jobs, growing the domestic battery manufacturing industry with support from clean energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Production tax credit. Viridi Parente helped breathe new life into the former American Axle Factory, which was once the beating heart of the community. However, if the GOP bill becomes law, it would be a major blow to Viridi Parente’s progress in growing the domestic battery manufacturing industry, gutting federal investment at a time when it is critically needed.

    Schumer said clean energy tax incentives have spurred a clean energy boom in New York State, and rolling them back would have devastating impacts. The Clean Economy Tracker estimates the Inflation Reduction Act’s incentives have spurred over $5 billion worth of investments in clean manufacturing in New York, creating over 7,200 jobs. Data from NERA Economic Consulting shows that repealing clean energy tax credits could cause New York to lose up to 20,300 jobs as clean energy projects are cancelled or scaled back, with a whopping nearly $3.5 billion hit to the state’s GDP, and New Yorkers paying up to $650 in higher energy costs each year by 2032 if these devastating cuts become law.

    Already, Republicans have shown doubts about the provisions in this bill. Earlier this month, thirteen House Republicans sent a letter to Senate Republican leaders urging them to scale back clean energy cuts in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” – the very bill their votes helped pass in the House.

    “The fight is far from over. House Republicans’ latest flip-flopping shows our pressure is working, and we have a real opportunity to get them to go back to the drawing board on this bill, and stop their attacks to totally eliminate these clean energy tax credits. And we are doing that by showing the real-world impacts, the jobs lost, and lives devastated by their brutal cuts,” added Schumer.

    Schumer said if this House Republican plan goes through, many of the clean energy projects spurred by the IRA could be forced to scale back or even stop, the workers building the future of American energy would be laid off, and projects that otherwise would have plugged into the grid will never come to fruition. That would impact both major NY employers and manufacturers in the clean energy, manufacturing, electric vehicle, battery, and research sectors, and also our small businesses and major economic projects slated to come to New York. Schumer said the House Republican bill would repeal the very parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that have helped companies grow in New York and spurred millions of investments, many of which are in Republican districts such as:

    • Eliminates the Clean Electricity Investment & Production Credits that support more cheap, clean electricity. With natural gas turbines on a five-year delay, the IRA’s clean electricity tax credits have ensured a robust buildout of wind and solar power while spurring demand for American-made energy products and helping keep electricity prices from increasing.
    • Sabotages the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit that has generated a more than five-fold increase in investment in manufacturing in the solar and EV supply chains, creating thousands of good-paying jobs and shifting these industries out of China to the U.S.
    • Eliminates the IRA’s Electric Vehicle Tax Credits that make it cheaper to buy new and used electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and has led to a massive onshoring of EV and battery supply chain manufacturing, undercutting China and bolstering American companies.
    • Eliminates the New Energy-Efficient Home Credit that makes it cheaper to build new, highly efficient and affordable homes, expanding the housing supply while reducing energy costs.
    • Eliminates the Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit that supports American-made clean hydrogen, led by New York companies like Plug Power and Air Products, to be used for clean manufacturing and agriculture.

    Repealing the clean energy tax incentives would also be a disaster for America that Schumer said would cede energy manufacturing leadership to China, which already produces a significant amount of the world’s clean technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. If companies can no longer support clean energy manufacturing in the United States, they will bring these projects to America’s competitors, and jobs that would’ve otherwise been created in America will be created in countries like China. This will destabilize American supply chains and make American families and businesses reliant on China and other foreign countries for cheap energy.

    “We’re grateful to Senator Schumer for providing strong, common-sense leadership at a time when what we’ve fought so hard to deliver for working people is being threatened by this administration. Organized Labor has fought nationally for generational investments in clean energy and a green transition away from fossil fuels, and we’ve won many of those fights with Senator Schumer’s support. Now those wins are being threatened. The climate crisis is already making workers less safe on the job. From blistering farm fields to sweltering classrooms, workers will continue to suffer and die as long as the current President and Congress continue to deny scientific consensus and defund projects and programs that set us on an environmentally stable path. Working families in Buffalo know better than most the devastation of changing industry and the benefits of renewable energy sources for our communities. Corporate and political greed—lining the pockets of billionaires at workers’ expense—is unsustainable, and we’ll keep fighting it every step of the way forward,” said Buffalo Central Labor Council President Denise Abbott.

    “Clean Air members are working class people who have suffered the brunt of pollution from the burning of gas and coal for energy. Clean energy tax credits can lower our energy bills, reduce pollution protecting our health, and provide family- sustaining jobs. he house bill is a bad deal for the working class. We stand with Senator Schumer to ask that these clean energy credits be protected,” said Chris Murawski, Executive Director, Clean Air Coalition of Western New York.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Mayor Bass, and Congressional, State Legislators Unite In Call To End Raids Ahead of Trump’s Military March on Saturday

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)

    LOS ANGELES – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) and Mayor Bass were joined today by nearly 30 Congressional and state legislators to call for an end to immigration raids ahead of the President’s military march this weekend. Watch the press conference here. 

    Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove

    “Trump is manufacturing chaos in Los Angeles, using our city as his movie set to justify his authoritarian crackdowns and cruel ICE raids. This is all a distraction. To distract from the fact that Trump isn’t going after ‘criminals,’ but citizens, legal immigrants, and immigrants seeking legal status the right way. To distract from his effort to cut $880 billion from Medicaid. To distract from his destruction of our economy through his Temper Tariffs. These are the real issues that the American people care about—and we will not be distracted.”

    Mayor Karen Bass

    “We are here today because the White House ordered raids of home depots, they took over our state’s national guard, and they activated the U.S. Marines. Let me be clear – Los Angeles is not a war zone. What you’re seeing and hearing out of this Administration is not representative of our city, of our state, of our country. The Trump Administration has caused unnecessary chaos and fear in our city and across the country. It’s not keeping anyone safe. We’ve come together today to demonstrate the American values of tolerance, freedom, and a respect for our Constitution and to show the world what L.A. is really about.”

    Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire

    “Our rights, our freedoms, and our Constitution are under attack. America’s armed forces have been illegally deployed in our communities, our representatives have been threatened and detained, and a sitting U.S. Senator has been handcuffed and muzzled. Today, it’s Los Angeles County in the crosshairs, but make no mistake, tomorrow it could be your community, your neighborhood, or your family. These are the actions of an authoritarian not the leader of the free world. This cannot continue. We’re grateful to Mayor Bass for standing up for all Angelenos and demanding action and accountability from the Trump Administration.”

    Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas

    “Here in California, we are not going to be intimidated. I stand as the first Speaker of the California State Assembly born to immigrant farmworkers. This is personal. My family came from Mexico seeking opportunity, and they found it — in the fields, in the classroom and in the promise of this state. That promise still belongs to every Californian, no matter where they were born or how long they’ve been here.”

    Congresswoman Judy Chu

    “Tonight, I am honored to stand alongside local and federal leaders in Los Angeles to demand an end to the ICE raids and to speak out against Trump’s dangerous militarization of our communities. This is not what public safety looks like, this is fear, intimidation, and overreach. Enough is enough, Los Angeles deserves peace, dignity, and compassion, not armored vehicles and mass arrests.”

    Congressman Mark Takano

    “I am proud of this state, I am proud of the community which I represent, and I am proud of the leadership of this state who are showing the world that we will not be ruled by a king. We will continue to use our voice to object to ICE’s inflammatory tactics to meet arbitrary deportation quotas. My community and constituents deserve more out of a President and our Country.”

    Congresswoman Norma Torres

    “We will not stand by as we see the Trump Administration break the law and harm our state. They are continuing to deploy ICE, the National Guard and the Marines into our city streets without legal authority or coordination with local officials. That’s not just dangerous—it’s unlawful and unnecessary. This kind of unilateral action wastes taxpayer dollars and directly undermines the stability of California—the world’s fourth-largest economy and the backbone of the United States. I am proud to see California’s Congressional Delegation and Mayor Bass standing united to protect our communities, uphold the rule of law, and support the people of Los Angeles.”

    Assemblymember Tina McKinnor

    “This President and his Administration? They not like us. On behalf of the 10 million people that call LA County home, we have a simple message for the current President of the United States. STOP. Mr. President, stop violating the constitutional rights of the people of LA County. Mr. President, stop violating the due process rights of the people of LA County. Mr. President, stop provoking fear and violence in LA County. LA is strong, diverse and resilient. Our resilience is our strength and we will not be intimidated by anyone threatening our peace. Including threats by this President.” 

    Senator María Elena Durazo
    “The Trump Administration is detaining everyday workers, denying them due process, and summarily deporting them. It’s deploying military forces against our own peaceful citizens. Make no mistake, this is an unprecedented assault on our democracy. We all must organize peacefully, defend our communities from this authoritarian overreach, and stand united in our defense to protect everyone’s constitutional rights.”

    Assemblymember Mark González
    “I’m not just speaking today as an Assemblymember — I’m speaking as a son of Los Angeles. I grew up in these neighborhoods. I’ve seen the fear ICE has brought into our homes — parents hiding, children walking alone, families torn apart. This is not justice. This is trauma. But Los Angeles does not live in fear — we rise in love, in courage, and in community. I want to thank Mayor Karen Bass for her steady, principled leadership in this moment. She’s shown what it means to lead with both strength and compassion. So I’m calling on our people: check on your neighbors. Show up for one another. Speak out, organize, and lead with the values that built this city. Because when we stand together, no raid, no troop, no fear can divide us. This is Los Angeles. And we take care of our own.”

    Assemblymember José Luis Solache

    “The families I represent are hardworking people who came here to chase their dreams, not to be treated like criminals. They contribute to our economy, they strengthen our communities, and they deserve dignity. I urge the President to stop these raids, return federal resources to where they belong, and respect the humanity of our people. We stand with peaceful demonstrations, and we will continue to lift our voices with unity and heart.”

    Attendees: 

    • Rep. Sydney Kamlager Dove, California’s 37th Congressional District

    • Sen. Mike McGuire, California State Senate Pro Tempore

    • Asm. Robert Rivas, California State Assembly Speaker

    • Rep. Judy Chu, California’s 28th Congressional District

    • Rep. Mark Takano, California’s 39th Congressional District

    • Rep. Norma Torres, California’s 35th Congressional District

    • Asm. Tina McKinnor, State Assembly District 61

    • Sen. María Elena Durazo, State Senate District 26

    • Asm. Mark Gonzalez, State Assembly District 54

    • Asm. José Solache, State Assembly District 62

    • Sen. Laura Richardson, State Senate District 35

    • Sen. Caroline Menjivar, State Senate District 20

    • Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, State Senate District 28

    • Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, State Senate District 25

    • Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur, State Assembly District 51

    • Asm. Mike Gipson, State Assembly District 65

    • Asm. Al Muratsuchi, State Assembly District 66

    • Asm. Issac Bryan, State Assembly District 55

    • Asm. Mike Fong, State Assembly District 49

    • Asm. Jacqui Irwin, State Assembly District 42

    • Asm. Juan Carrillo, State Assembly District 39

    • Asm. Lisa Calderon, State Assembly District 56

    • Asm. Sade Elhawary, State Assembly District 57

    • Asm. Celeste Rodriguez, State Assembly District 43

    • Asm. Jessica Caloza, State Assembly District 52

    • Asm. Nick Schultz, State Assembly District 44

    • Asm. John Harabedian, State Assembly District 41

    • Asm. Blanca Pacheco, State Assembly District 64

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Mayor Bass, and Congressional, State Legislators Unite In Call To End Raids Ahead of Trump’s Military March on Saturday

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)

    LOS ANGELES – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) and Mayor Bass were joined today by nearly 30 Congressional and state legislators to call for an end to immigration raids ahead of the President’s military march this weekend. Watch the press conference here. 

    Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove

    “Trump is manufacturing chaos in Los Angeles, using our city as his movie set to justify his authoritarian crackdowns and cruel ICE raids. This is all a distraction. To distract from the fact that Trump isn’t going after ‘criminals,’ but citizens, legal immigrants, and immigrants seeking legal status the right way. To distract from his effort to cut $880 billion from Medicaid. To distract from his destruction of our economy through his Temper Tariffs. These are the real issues that the American people care about—and we will not be distracted.”

    Mayor Karen Bass

    “We are here today because the White House ordered raids of home depots, they took over our state’s national guard, and they activated the U.S. Marines. Let me be clear – Los Angeles is not a war zone. What you’re seeing and hearing out of this Administration is not representative of our city, of our state, of our country. The Trump Administration has caused unnecessary chaos and fear in our city and across the country. It’s not keeping anyone safe. We’ve come together today to demonstrate the American values of tolerance, freedom, and a respect for our Constitution and to show the world what L.A. is really about.”

    Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire

    “Our rights, our freedoms, and our Constitution are under attack. America’s armed forces have been illegally deployed in our communities, our representatives have been threatened and detained, and a sitting U.S. Senator has been handcuffed and muzzled. Today, it’s Los Angeles County in the crosshairs, but make no mistake, tomorrow it could be your community, your neighborhood, or your family. These are the actions of an authoritarian not the leader of the free world. This cannot continue. We’re grateful to Mayor Bass for standing up for all Angelenos and demanding action and accountability from the Trump Administration.”

    Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas

    “Here in California, we are not going to be intimidated. I stand as the first Speaker of the California State Assembly born to immigrant farmworkers. This is personal. My family came from Mexico seeking opportunity, and they found it — in the fields, in the classroom and in the promise of this state. That promise still belongs to every Californian, no matter where they were born or how long they’ve been here.”

    Congresswoman Judy Chu

    “Tonight, I am honored to stand alongside local and federal leaders in Los Angeles to demand an end to the ICE raids and to speak out against Trump’s dangerous militarization of our communities. This is not what public safety looks like, this is fear, intimidation, and overreach. Enough is enough, Los Angeles deserves peace, dignity, and compassion, not armored vehicles and mass arrests.”

    Congressman Mark Takano

    “I am proud of this state, I am proud of the community which I represent, and I am proud of the leadership of this state who are showing the world that we will not be ruled by a king. We will continue to use our voice to object to ICE’s inflammatory tactics to meet arbitrary deportation quotas. My community and constituents deserve more out of a President and our Country.”

    Congresswoman Norma Torres

    “We will not stand by as we see the Trump Administration break the law and harm our state. They are continuing to deploy ICE, the National Guard and the Marines into our city streets without legal authority or coordination with local officials. That’s not just dangerous—it’s unlawful and unnecessary. This kind of unilateral action wastes taxpayer dollars and directly undermines the stability of California—the world’s fourth-largest economy and the backbone of the United States. I am proud to see California’s Congressional Delegation and Mayor Bass standing united to protect our communities, uphold the rule of law, and support the people of Los Angeles.”

    Assemblymember Tina McKinnor

    “This President and his Administration? They not like us. On behalf of the 10 million people that call LA County home, we have a simple message for the current President of the United States. STOP. Mr. President, stop violating the constitutional rights of the people of LA County. Mr. President, stop violating the due process rights of the people of LA County. Mr. President, stop provoking fear and violence in LA County. LA is strong, diverse and resilient. Our resilience is our strength and we will not be intimidated by anyone threatening our peace. Including threats by this President.” 

    Senator María Elena Durazo
    “The Trump Administration is detaining everyday workers, denying them due process, and summarily deporting them. It’s deploying military forces against our own peaceful citizens. Make no mistake, this is an unprecedented assault on our democracy. We all must organize peacefully, defend our communities from this authoritarian overreach, and stand united in our defense to protect everyone’s constitutional rights.”

    Assemblymember Mark González
    “I’m not just speaking today as an Assemblymember — I’m speaking as a son of Los Angeles. I grew up in these neighborhoods. I’ve seen the fear ICE has brought into our homes — parents hiding, children walking alone, families torn apart. This is not justice. This is trauma. But Los Angeles does not live in fear — we rise in love, in courage, and in community. I want to thank Mayor Karen Bass for her steady, principled leadership in this moment. She’s shown what it means to lead with both strength and compassion. So I’m calling on our people: check on your neighbors. Show up for one another. Speak out, organize, and lead with the values that built this city. Because when we stand together, no raid, no troop, no fear can divide us. This is Los Angeles. And we take care of our own.”

    Assemblymember José Luis Solache

    “The families I represent are hardworking people who came here to chase their dreams, not to be treated like criminals. They contribute to our economy, they strengthen our communities, and they deserve dignity. I urge the President to stop these raids, return federal resources to where they belong, and respect the humanity of our people. We stand with peaceful demonstrations, and we will continue to lift our voices with unity and heart.”

    Attendees: 

    • Rep. Sydney Kamlager Dove, California’s 37th Congressional District

    • Sen. Mike McGuire, California State Senate Pro Tempore

    • Asm. Robert Rivas, California State Assembly Speaker

    • Rep. Judy Chu, California’s 28th Congressional District

    • Rep. Mark Takano, California’s 39th Congressional District

    • Rep. Norma Torres, California’s 35th Congressional District

    • Asm. Tina McKinnor, State Assembly District 61

    • Sen. María Elena Durazo, State Senate District 26

    • Asm. Mark Gonzalez, State Assembly District 54

    • Asm. José Solache, State Assembly District 62

    • Sen. Laura Richardson, State Senate District 35

    • Sen. Caroline Menjivar, State Senate District 20

    • Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, State Senate District 28

    • Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, State Senate District 25

    • Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur, State Assembly District 51

    • Asm. Mike Gipson, State Assembly District 65

    • Asm. Al Muratsuchi, State Assembly District 66

    • Asm. Issac Bryan, State Assembly District 55

    • Asm. Mike Fong, State Assembly District 49

    • Asm. Jacqui Irwin, State Assembly District 42

    • Asm. Juan Carrillo, State Assembly District 39

    • Asm. Lisa Calderon, State Assembly District 56

    • Asm. Sade Elhawary, State Assembly District 57

    • Asm. Celeste Rodriguez, State Assembly District 43

    • Asm. Jessica Caloza, State Assembly District 52

    • Asm. Nick Schultz, State Assembly District 44

    • Asm. John Harabedian, State Assembly District 41

    • Asm. Blanca Pacheco, State Assembly District 64

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Doggett, Ways and Means Democrats Demand Answers on the Trump Administration’s Palantir Surveillance Database

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)

    This formal inquiry follows Rep. Doggett’s questioning of Secretary Bessent on allegations of the IRS releasing Americans’ private information to DOGE.

    Contact: Alexis.Torres@mail.house.gov

    WASHINGTON, DC—Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee, led by Health Subcommittee Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), are demanding information on the Trump Administration’s secretive partnership with Palantir to build a vast, centralized database that will compile deeply personal information on the American people. This database is reportedly set to include confidential taxpayer, identity, wage, child support, bank account, student loan, health and medical, and financial data gathered from the Social Security Administration and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury, as well as records seized by the ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’ 

    “Once again, this Administration is putting power and control above people’s rights,” said Ranking Member Richard E. Neal. “With privacy next to liberty in our Democratic system, a surveillance state is anti-American. The people entrust the government to safeguard their most private data, not weaponize it against them. While House Republicans fail to even lift a finger in protecting the people’s rights, Ways and Means Democrats are demanding answers, and I commend Ranking Member Doggett for his relentless oversight work.”

    “DOGE is seeking unprecedented access, not authorized by federal law, to highly sensitive taxpayer data information. It seeks to merge that data into an omnibus information sharing agreement across multiple federal agencies that will create a federal master file on every American,” said Rep. Doggett. “Placing confidential information on earnings, bank accounts, health care into a single universally accessible format makes it much more exposed to unauthorized individuals. It would be a gross violation of our basic privacy rights. Treasury Secretary Bessent’s evasive answers to inquiries about this scheme make our need to act all the more urgent. This Resolution of Inquiry aims to expose the damage done in order to protect against this dangerous overreach.”

    This mass aggregation of private information—without transparency, guardrails, or consent—is a grave assault on Americans’ liberty and privacy. Privacy advocates, including Republican Members of Congress, have warned of the danger of such a massive pool of government data being handed over to a corporation for undisclosed current or future use without the people’s knowledge.

    Ways and Means Democrats are demanding answers and accountability by giving the President 14 days to provide all documents and copies, records, audio recordings, memorandum, and more, to the House of Representatives relating to the (1) development of a centralized database by the Federal government and Palantir; (2) the purpose and potential uses of a centralized database; and (3) services provided by Palantir to the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Read the full Resolution of Inquiry HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: King, Colleagues Press White House to Resume Processing DACA Applications

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) and his colleagues are urging the White House to abide by a court ruling and resume processing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In a letter to Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Angelica Alfonso-Royals, the Senators highlight the popular support for providing Dreamers a pathway to citizenship and request that the administration comply with the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to resume processing applications for DACA.

    Sunday, June 15th marks the thirteenth anniversary of President Obama establishing the DACA program via policy memorandum in 2012. Since then, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA, empowering recipients to bolster their careers and contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes. 

    The Senators wrote, “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”

    “Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately,” the Senators continued.

    The Senators concluded by reiterating their request, “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.”

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. More than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas.

    In addition to King, the letter is signed by Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), 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), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), 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).

    Senator King is a strong opponent of the Trump Administration’s continued efforts to repeal protections for DACA recipients. He has repeatedly sought a legislative solution to provide stability for DACA recipients. He previously joined a group of his Senate colleagues in a letter urging former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to immediately take up the bipartisan House-passed American Dream and Promise Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for Dreamers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). In addition, King led a bipartisan proposal with Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) that would have provided legislative protections for Dreamers.

    The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

    +++

    Dear Acting Director Alfonso-Royals:

    Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship,1 and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.2 Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.

    In 2001, the Dream Act was introduced on a bipartisan basis to provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children but remained vulnerable to deportation. Since that time, the Dream Act has been introduced in every Congress. It has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with bipartisan majority votes, but no version has yet to be signed into law.3 In response to bipartisan pressure to protect Dreamers until Congress acted, 4 the Obama Administration implemented DACA through a policy memorandum in 2012.

    Since 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA. Many DACA recipients report that deferred action—and the accompanying employment authorization —allowed them to apply for their first job or move to a higher-paying position more commensurate with their skills.7 Since its establishment, DACA recipients have contributed an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power, and $40 billion dollars in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.

    In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. Over 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.

    On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas. 11 Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.

    We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Benjamin Muller, Professor & Program Coordinator in Migration and Border Studies, King’s University College, Western University

    Was it just a coincidence that within days of Canada’s Liberal government announcing Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, Donald Trump’s administration in the United States released its long anticipated travel ban?

    Perhaps. But the timing also highlights the longtime shared border saga between Canada and the U.S. — and should compel Canada to carve its own path.

    Like Trump’s 2017 travel ban, his 2025 directives significantly prevent or limit access to the U.S. for citizens from 12 mostly African and Middle Eastern countries, with more possibly on the horizon. It’s likely to face judicial challenges and may not survive for long.

    In contrast, Bill C-2 could lead to several significant and broad statutory changes that Canadians will contend with for years to come.

    Data privacy concerns

    Days before Trump’s announcement, the Canadian government advanced the controversial Strong Borders Act covering a wide swath of proposed legislative changes, from intensified border security measures to more restrictive immigration and asylum policies.

    Embedded within the proposed legislation, as Canadian law professor Michael Geist and others have pointed out, are significant risks to digital privacy, along with increased executive authority — also known as “warrantless” powers — without judicial or civilian oversight.

    In these respects, the proposed Canadian legislation could be considered more worrisome than Trump’s travel bans.

    In the fog of the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and Canada, the focus is on American tariffs and their economic impact. But little attention is being paid to Canada’s longstanding co-ordination and co-operation with the U.S. in terms of border management.

    Unfortunately, Canada has a history of appeasing the U.S. on the border. The period following 9/11 is worth noting.

    Increased co-ordination post 9/11

    Successive Canada-U.S border agreements have brought about significant institutional change and reform. These include the Smart Border Declaration — signed shortly after 9/11 — and Beyond the Border, inked a decade later between the Barack Obama and Stephen Harper governments.

    These agreements included greater reliance on biometric and surveillance technology, binational information-sharing and accelerated, robust co-ordinated and co-operative border enforcement (specifically the Shiprider program and the Integrated Border Enforcement Team or IBET).

    The early 2000s saw the rise of new institutions such as the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), along with significant policy changes that included prolific and more robust American pre-clearance of people and goods, and authorizing CBSA agents to carry firearms (which was once controversial).

    Frequently, these reforms were in response to American pressure or reactionary U.S. policies. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), for example, is an American policy that has compelled travellers to produce passports when crossing the U.S. border for almost 20 years.

    In contrast to the “elbows up” rhetoric of the last several months, Canada hastily made changes to its border policies.

    The narrative of co-operative and collaborative Canada-U.S. border management, however, has not always been as it appeared. Frequently, negotiations and co-operation were difficult, and not without cost to some autonomy in Canada’s border management.

    Asylum seekers

    In the past year, there have been increasing concerns about the impact of potential increases in asylum claims in Canada because of American policies. Those raising concerns often make reference to Roxham Road, the unofficial border crossing that thrived during the last Trump administration due to a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).



    Read more:
    Roxham Road: Asylum seekers won’t just get turned back, they’ll get forced underground — Podcast

    Such gaps in legislation were modestly addressed, including in the proposed Bill C-2, which will require arriving migrants to claim asylum within 14 days of arrival. After that time, claimants will not receive a hearing and be subject to deportation.

    It’s troubling to contemplate deporting asylum seekers amid the ongoing deportation spectacle in the U.S. being carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration

    Amid renewed American pressures under Trump and a history of border co-operation, it’s not surprising Prime Minister Mark Carney is following his predecessor in trying to appease the U.S. president via Canadian border policy. And because asylum claimants often languish for up to two years in Canada’s immigration and asylum system, it’s clear there are problems.

    But that doesn’t preclude the need to think critically about the sweeping powers proposed in Bill C-2.

    In particular, enhanced executive powers — in many cases by institutions that have no civilian oversight — must be scrutinized.

    Many of these changes are reminiscent of the kind of co-operative — and sometimes coercive — border policies that emerged in the post-9/11 years. It could be argued that Canadians should have expressed “elbows up” responses to American pressures to reimagine our border almost 25 years ago.

    Furthermore, these changes serve as reminder that co-operative and co-ordinated management of our border is increasingly “baked in,” and despite tariff rhetoric, that’s unlikely to change dramatically without significant pushback from Canadians.

    Revisionist history

    It’s worth reflecting on the nostalgic and revisionist accounts of the coercive — not truly co-operative and collaborative — post-9/11 era of border security management, especially in the heat of the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade war.

    Canadians should remember they live during a time of deep integration in border management — but Canada can always assert its own interests and marshal its own resources to manage borders and those who cross it.

    In the long Canada-U.S. relationship, coercion has often masqueraded as co-operation. There are far fewer coincidences in border policy than we might think, possibly including the timing of the Strong Border Act. But Canada must always evaluate its policies in terms of whether they serve Canadian, not American, interests.

    Unlike the Trump administration’s travel bans and deportations, Bill C-2 introduces a wide swath of changes Canadians could grapple with for decades.

    Benjamin Muller receives funding from SSHRCC and King’s University College at Western University.

    – ref. Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans – https://theconversation.com/why-canadas-strong-borders-act-is-as-troublesome-as-donald-trumps-travel-bans-258366

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representative Smith statement on Trump’s Withdrawal from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Adam Smith (9th District of Washington)

    SEATTLE, WA. –  Today, Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) released the following statement after the Trump Administration announced a withdrawal from the historic agreement between the federal government and the Six Sovereigns – the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, Washington State, and Oregon State – regarding the Columbia-Snake River system. 

    “President Trump has taken a crude axe to environmental conservation, modernized infrastructure, salmon recovery, and clean energy generation by abandoning the historic Resilient Columbia River Basin Agreement.  

    “This agreement paused decades of litigation and charted a desperately needed path forward for the Columbia River Basin. The Trump Administration’s reckless decision today sets the Pacific Northwest back tremendously and undermines our relationship with Tribal nations.  

    “Now, we must find a new path forward that ensures a future for the salmon, expands our reliable clean energy grid, and protects the irreplaceable environment of the Pacific Northwest.” 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representative Smith statement on Recissions Package

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Adam Smith (9th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) released the following statement following the passage of the recissions package through the U.S. House of Representatives.
     
    “I am adamantly opposed to the recissions packaged offered on the House floor yesterday, which would codify President Trump and Elon Musk’s unlawful cuts to funding for USAID and public broadcasting, among other important programs.

    “This is part of an effort from the Trump Administration to clean the record on their unlawful cuts to vital programs and agencies which provide essential, often life-saving, services for Americans and individuals across the globe. We need to reinvest in these vital programs instead of kneecapping them.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Durbin Join Padilla, Entire Senate Democratic Caucus in Demanding Trump Remove Military Forces From Los Angeles

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 14, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) abd U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) joined Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty service members to American cities. 

    The letter comes after Trump’s unprecedented move to federalize and deploy the California National Guard without the consent of the California Governor and mobilize U.S. Marine Corps elements, deploying approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest created by the President’s indiscriminate and intentionally inflammatory immigration enforcement raids across the region. The first 200 Marines arrived at the Los Angeles Federal Building yesterday, marking the first time in more than 30 years that the Marines have been deployed in the United States.

    Trump deployed these military personnel without the request or support of Governor Newsom, manufacturing a crisis and repeatedly escalating the conflict in order to create a spectacle. The federalizing of California’s National Guard marked the first time the Guard had been deployed without a Governor’s consent since 1965.

    “We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders,” wrote the Senators. “This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.”

    The Senators slammed the deployment of military personnel as an abuse of power that undermines state and local leadership, interferes with critical law enforcement operations and wastes military resources and taxpayer dollars. They also expressed concern for the dangerous precedent Trump’s misguided deployment of military forces could set for mobilizing military personnel to other cities across the country.

    “For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order,” continued the Senators. “Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

    “We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor,” concluded the Senators. “Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.”

    In addition to Senator Duckworth, Durbin and Padilla, the letter to President Trump was signed by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, including Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), 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), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), 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 letter is available here and below:

    June 14, 2025

    Dear President Trump,

    We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders. This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.

    For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order. Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    We are particularly concerned by the precedent that this ill-conceived deployment of military personnel to Los Angeles sets for other cities and states. Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guards when operating within state borders. As Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said last year when serving as Governor of South Dakota, “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”

    We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor. Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.

    Sincerely,

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Durbin Join Padilla, Entire Senate Democratic Caucus in Demanding Trump Remove Military Forces From Los Angeles

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 14, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) abd U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) joined Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty service members to American cities. 

    The letter comes after Trump’s unprecedented move to federalize and deploy the California National Guard without the consent of the California Governor and mobilize U.S. Marine Corps elements, deploying approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest created by the President’s indiscriminate and intentionally inflammatory immigration enforcement raids across the region. The first 200 Marines arrived at the Los Angeles Federal Building yesterday, marking the first time in more than 30 years that the Marines have been deployed in the United States.

    Trump deployed these military personnel without the request or support of Governor Newsom, manufacturing a crisis and repeatedly escalating the conflict in order to create a spectacle. The federalizing of California’s National Guard marked the first time the Guard had been deployed without a Governor’s consent since 1965.

    “We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders,” wrote the Senators. “This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.”

    The Senators slammed the deployment of military personnel as an abuse of power that undermines state and local leadership, interferes with critical law enforcement operations and wastes military resources and taxpayer dollars. They also expressed concern for the dangerous precedent Trump’s misguided deployment of military forces could set for mobilizing military personnel to other cities across the country.

    “For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order,” continued the Senators. “Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

    “We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor,” concluded the Senators. “Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.”

    In addition to Senator Duckworth, Durbin and Padilla, the letter to President Trump was signed by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, including Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), 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), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), 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 letter is available here and below:

    June 14, 2025

    Dear President Trump,

    We write to express deep concern over your decision to deploy the National Guard and United States Marine Corps to Los Angeles without consultation or coordination with the Governor and local leaders. This unilateral action represents an alarming abuse of executive authority, continues to inflame the situation on the ground, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles unless their presence is explicitly requested by the Governor and local leaders.

    For the federal government to deploy military forces into American cities without consulting the Governor and local leaders is a dangerous misuse of federal power that has actively disrupted local law enforcement efforts to maintain peace and order. Deploying military personnel should always be a last resort – not a first step – and should only occur when local law enforcement makes a specific request for such federal resources. The decision to use military personnel to create a spectacle has escalated tensions on the ground and created confusion among local law enforcement. Significantly, it also pulls military assets away from other critical missions and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    We are particularly concerned by the precedent that this ill-conceived deployment of military personnel to Los Angeles sets for other cities and states. Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guards when operating within state borders. As Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said last year when serving as Governor of South Dakota, “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”

    We urge you to immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days and to cease any further threats of deploying National Guard or active-duty military personnel into American cities absent a request from the Governor. Respect for our Constitution and for our civilian law enforcement demands nothing less.

    Sincerely,

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth: “Trump’s Birthday Parade Is Nothing More Than an Ego Boost for a Known Draft Dodger”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 13, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) today issued the following statement ahead of Donald Trump further politicizing our military by diverting $25 to $45 million of Army resources in order to throw himself a birthday parade:

    “Donald Trump’s birthday parade has nothing to do with celebrating the Army’s 250th birthday—it’s to stroke his own ego and make taxpayers foot the bill.

    “If he truly cared about celebrating the Army and our Soldiers, Trump could spend the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars he’s spending on this autocratic show of bravado toward long-term investments in our servicemembers that would actually help military families struggling to make ends meet—like covering the costs of child care, reimbursing tuition or expanding food assistance so they can put food on the table. If you asked any servicemember to list a thousand things they need, I bet an extravagant military parade to celebrate a known draft dodger’s birthday wouldn’t make the cut.

    “Whether it’s this obscene misuse of our military, deploying our servicemembers against their fellow Americans in California or the violent attempt to silence Senator Alex Padilla, our nation is witnessing the very democracy our troops swore an oath to defend look more and more like an authoritarian regime with each passing day. Republicans must grow a spine and stand up for our servicemembers and our Constitution—before it’s too late.”

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal Statement on the Dissolution of the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    SEATTLE, WA — U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) released the following statement on the dissolution of the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement between the Federal Government, Tribes and the states of Washington and Oregon for the management and restoration of the Columbia River Basin:

    “This Executive Order represents the careless discarding of many years of work on the Columbia-Snake River system between the Federal Government, Pacific Northwest Tribes, and the states of Oregon and Washington to address energy, irrigation, environmental, and recreation challenges. Salmon play an essential role in our ecosystem, our community, Tribal culture, and our economy. Breaking up this historic agreement will harm salmon protection efforts — also impacting efforts to recover endangered Southern Resident killer whale populations, jeopardize energy stability and production, and fly in the face of our commitments to our Tribal Nations. 

    “This agreement had been a major accomplishment for the Northwest, and Trump’s moves to pull the Departments of Energy, the Interior, and Commerce out of binding agreements come after months of inaction to fulfill the commitments made in the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. Instead of supporting federal agencies’ implementation of the agreement, the Trump administration gutted federal funding for programs like Columbia River Fish Mitigation, forced out career federal employees at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and undermined the use of science within the federal government.

    “My office has been in close communication with many stakeholders impacted by and involved in the health of and operations on the Columbia-Snake River system. We must continue to work in partnership with conservationists to support regional sovereigns and use all available tools to prevent salmon extinction, rebuild salmon populations to healthy abundance, and create a more resilient energy future.”

    Issues: Environment

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Monday, June 16, 2025

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Note: All times local

    Kananaskis, Alberta

    9:00 a.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    10:00 a.m The Prime Minister will welcome G7 leaders to Kananaskis, Alberta.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    • Pooled photo opportunity

    10:30 a.m. The Prime Minister will participate in the G7 Working Session I on the global economic outlook.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    12:10 p.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the President of the European Council, António Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Closed to media

    12:30 p.m. The Prime Minister will participate in the G7 working lunch on economic growth, security, and resilience.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Closed to media

    2:10 p.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the Prime Minister of Japan, Ishiba Shigeru.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    2:45 p.m. The Prime Minister will participate in the G7 Working Session III on making communities safe.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Closed to media

    4:15 p.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    4:50 p.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge

    Note for media:

    5:45 p.m. The Prime Minister will participate in a G7 family photo.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Country Golf Course

    Note for media:

    • Pooled photo opportunity

    6:00 p.m. The Prime Minister will participate in the G7 working dinner on making the world secure.

    Pomeroy Kananaskis Country Golf Course

    Note for media:

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gov. Pillen Encourages Observance of Flag Day

    Source: US State of Nebraska

    MEDIA . Pillen Encourages Observance of Flag Day

    LINCON, NE – Today, Governor Jim Pillen issued the statement below, regarding the observance of Flag Day.

    “I encourage all Nebraskans to proudly display their American flags in accordance with President Trumps’s proclamation marking June 14 as Flag Day.

    The U.S. flag is the most recognizable symbol of freedom, strength and unity across the globe.  It is a reminder of the hard-fought battles that were waged and won, permitting us to live under its banner.   On this day, we should look upon the Stars and Stripes with reverence for all that it represents.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman Bashes Elise Stefanik for Using Congressional Committee for Her Gubernatorial Campaign, Condemns Republicans for Rubber Stamping Trump’s Authoritarian ICE Raids

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Rep. Dan Goldman: “I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do.” 

     

    Goldman: “You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after Moms and Dads, separating parents from children. You have a voice, Republicans. Speak up.” 

     

    Watch the Full Committee Exchange Here 

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today excoriated Rep. Elise Stefanik for her desperate theatrics in the Oversight Committee that were clearly designed to generate five minutes of internet fame in pursuit of her quixotic 2026 gubernatorial campaign. Goldman then challenged committee Republicans to stand up to the Trump administration’s authoritarian crackdown on law-abiding, non-violent immigrants. 

    A rough transcript of the committee is available below. Watch Congressman Goldman’s committee remarks here. 

    Rep. Dan Goldman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    I would urge you to reserve comment on what happened to Mr. Padilla until you get full information. In fact, I would urge all of my Republican colleagues to take a breath before you once again desperately run to bend the knee to Donald Trump and to Kristi Noem, because anyone with two eyes that can see can see that that was authoritarian, lawless behavior that no person in America, much less a senator conducting constitutional oversight, should have received. 

    And I know it’s hard for all of you to speak up against Donald Trump and that’s why we’re here at this hearing, talking all about Joe Biden, talking all about Joe Biden’s policy. 

    Is it just because you’re consistently trying to ignore the fact that Joe Biden is not President? Donald Trump is President. And what he’s doing right now, which you all know, is he is going after people who are lawfully present. 

    Now, I appreciate the governors being here. I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do. 

    I will give you the opportunity to actually answer some questions, unlike she did. And I will allow you to explain exactly what the policies in New York are, as it relates to cooperation between the state and federal agents.  

    Governor Hochul: 

    First of all, I’m glad you’re not running against me. Thank you. Secondly, I appreciate the opportunity to break through all the noise here today and to stop the talking points that keep mischaracterizing our policies in the great state of New York. 

    New York is not a sanctuary or a haven for criminals. We devote an enormous amount of our energy working to keep New Yorkers safe. $2.5 billion, I’ve allocated just in the last few years.  

    We do cooperate with ICE when it comes to investigating or building a case against criminals.  

    We do this all the time, and when someone goes through the criminal justice system in the state of New York, they do their time in prison. 

    We alert ICE 30 days in advance of when they’re to be removed, and we send them away. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But what we do not do under our laws is divert our essential resources that protect everyday New Yorkers from crimes themselves, and have that help ICE with civil immigration enforcement. That is their job. That is the federal government’s job. And we cannot be told to enforce federal laws.  

    Goldman: Or to use all your limited resources to spend all that time doing their job.   

    Hochul: My concern is that every minute that ICE officers are going after moms and dads and kids and separating families, perhaps one more criminal is still out there at large. 

    Goldman: I actually, in my district office down in lower Manhattan, witnessed ICE officers waiting for immigrants to come out of a courtroom.  

    These are immigrants who have asylum applications. And I’m sure you agree with me that asylum is a lawful pathway to immigrate to this country. Is that correct? 

    Hochul: That is absolutely correct.  

    Goldman: So, in order to make these immigrants here unlawfully, the DHS is now dismissing their cases, their own removal proceedings against them to void out the asylum claim. That way, when they go downstairs in the elevator, there are ICE agents that can be there to arrest them and put them in expedited removal. 

    And they don’t have an asylum claim that is live anymore because they’ve just voided it out. These are non-criminal, nonviolent immigrants who are here going through the lawful process. And this is who the Trump Administration is going after every single day. It’s a disgrace. 

    You said you were going to go after the worst of the worst. You were going to go after convicted criminals. You’re here questioning about all these criminals.  

    You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after moms, dads, separating parents from children.   

    You have a voice. Republicans speak up. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman Bashes Elise Stefanik for Using Congressional Committee for Her Gubernatorial Campaign, Condemns Republicans for Rubber Stamping Trump’s Authoritarian ICE Raids

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Rep. Dan Goldman: “I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do.” 

     

    Goldman: “You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after Moms and Dads, separating parents from children. You have a voice, Republicans. Speak up.” 

     

    Watch the Full Committee Exchange Here 

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today excoriated Rep. Elise Stefanik for her desperate theatrics in the Oversight Committee that were clearly designed to generate five minutes of internet fame in pursuit of her quixotic 2026 gubernatorial campaign. Goldman then challenged committee Republicans to stand up to the Trump administration’s authoritarian crackdown on law-abiding, non-violent immigrants. 

    A rough transcript of the committee is available below. Watch Congressman Goldman’s committee remarks here. 

    Rep. Dan Goldman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    I would urge you to reserve comment on what happened to Mr. Padilla until you get full information. In fact, I would urge all of my Republican colleagues to take a breath before you once again desperately run to bend the knee to Donald Trump and to Kristi Noem, because anyone with two eyes that can see can see that that was authoritarian, lawless behavior that no person in America, much less a senator conducting constitutional oversight, should have received. 

    And I know it’s hard for all of you to speak up against Donald Trump and that’s why we’re here at this hearing, talking all about Joe Biden, talking all about Joe Biden’s policy. 

    Is it just because you’re consistently trying to ignore the fact that Joe Biden is not President? Donald Trump is President. And what he’s doing right now, which you all know, is he is going after people who are lawfully present. 

    Now, I appreciate the governors being here. I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do. 

    I will give you the opportunity to actually answer some questions, unlike she did. And I will allow you to explain exactly what the policies in New York are, as it relates to cooperation between the state and federal agents.  

    Governor Hochul: 

    First of all, I’m glad you’re not running against me. Thank you. Secondly, I appreciate the opportunity to break through all the noise here today and to stop the talking points that keep mischaracterizing our policies in the great state of New York. 

    New York is not a sanctuary or a haven for criminals. We devote an enormous amount of our energy working to keep New Yorkers safe. $2.5 billion, I’ve allocated just in the last few years.  

    We do cooperate with ICE when it comes to investigating or building a case against criminals.  

    We do this all the time, and when someone goes through the criminal justice system in the state of New York, they do their time in prison. 

    We alert ICE 30 days in advance of when they’re to be removed, and we send them away. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But what we do not do under our laws is divert our essential resources that protect everyday New Yorkers from crimes themselves, and have that help ICE with civil immigration enforcement. That is their job. That is the federal government’s job. And we cannot be told to enforce federal laws.  

    Goldman: Or to use all your limited resources to spend all that time doing their job.   

    Hochul: My concern is that every minute that ICE officers are going after moms and dads and kids and separating families, perhaps one more criminal is still out there at large. 

    Goldman: I actually, in my district office down in lower Manhattan, witnessed ICE officers waiting for immigrants to come out of a courtroom.  

    These are immigrants who have asylum applications. And I’m sure you agree with me that asylum is a lawful pathway to immigrate to this country. Is that correct? 

    Hochul: That is absolutely correct.  

    Goldman: So, in order to make these immigrants here unlawfully, the DHS is now dismissing their cases, their own removal proceedings against them to void out the asylum claim. That way, when they go downstairs in the elevator, there are ICE agents that can be there to arrest them and put them in expedited removal. 

    And they don’t have an asylum claim that is live anymore because they’ve just voided it out. These are non-criminal, nonviolent immigrants who are here going through the lawful process. And this is who the Trump Administration is going after every single day. It’s a disgrace. 

    You said you were going to go after the worst of the worst. You were going to go after convicted criminals. You’re here questioning about all these criminals.  

    You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after moms, dads, separating parents from children.   

    You have a voice. Republicans speak up. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Rep. Hinson Joins The Signal Sitdown

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-01)

    Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-02) joined Daily Signal’s Bradley Devlin on The Signal Sitdown podcast. The two discussed the media bias contributing to the cover-up of President Biden’s mental decline, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, countering the CCP’s illicit practices, and more.

    In case you missed it…

    Click here to watch the full episode of The Signal Sitdown.

    China Has Secret Police in the US. This Congresswoman Is Trying to Stop It.
    The Daily Signal
    Bradley Devlin
    June 12, 2025

    In December 2024, Chen Jinping, a 60-year-old Manhattan resident, pleaded guilty to opening and operating a secret Chinese police station for China’s Ministry of Public Security in Manhattan’s Chinatown neighborhood. Chen was arrested with “Harry” Lu Jianwang in April 2023, following an FBI investigation into the outpost.

    Though these arrests were the first of their kind, according to Justice Department officials, American authorities suspect that China has these kinds of outposts all over the country. 

    And China’s nefarious activities in New York City hardly scratch the surface. For decades, Chinese operatives have infiltrated American universities and companies, smuggled drugs and human beings across America’s borders, and stolen American intellectual property and technology—even corn seeds from fields in Iowa.

    President Donald Trump was one of the first to see the threat of China clearly. Under the president’s leadership, Republicans in Congress are trying to prevent and punish this malign Chinese activity. This week, one of the House Republicans spearheading that effort, Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, joins “The Signal Sitdown” to discuss.

    “My passion for this policy started in my district,” Hinson said. The aforementioned seed-stealing spies were operating in Hinson’s backyard. “There was actually a Chinese spy ring busted stealing seeds out of a cornfield in Dysart, Iowa.”

    “They wanted to take them back to China. They want to cheat,” Hinson explained. “It’s all about reverse engineering because there is so much R&D that has gone into seed technology so that we can grow the most resilient, best yielding plants in the world.”

    China’s unfair trade practices can often be more subtle than outright theft, however. “[The Chinese] are using tactics like transnational shipment,” Hinson told The Daily Signal.

    “So, especially in the auto-parts industry, for example,” Hinson explained, “something coming in from China is gonna be tariffed, so then they ship it through Singapore or Vietnam or someplace with a lesser tariff to get around our tariff laws.”

    “They’re economically cheating and getting a better deal,” Hinson continued. “Meanwhile, you’ve got American producers trying to play on that same playing field and it’s not level.”

    Hinson has introduced the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act with Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., to provide federal law enforcement more capacity to crack down on these trade practices.

    “What we’re trying to do is make sure that President Trump’s Department of Justice… [will have] the resources and a specific task force to be able to go after these malign actors who are, again, intentionally cheating,” she explained.

    “We think this cost is hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the low end,” Hinson said. “This has been decades in the making, right? You’ve got entire industries that have been ceded and now China owns them.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The battle for TikTok is at the forefront of a deeper geopolitical trend

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shweta Singh, Assistant Professor, Information Systems and Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    Mijansk786/Shutterstock

    After years of mounting scrutiny over TikTok’s data practices, in 2024 the Chinese video platform was threatened with a forced sale in the US or a nationwide ban. With the deadline looming on June 19, US–China tech rivalry has entered a new and more aggressive phase. TikTok vowed to fight forced divestment, claiming it would “trample” free speech.

    But what started as a controversy over data privacy now has global implications. This conflict is about more than just an app. It represents a shift in the balance of digital power — one that could redefine how nations view national security, economic sovereignty and the internet itself.

    In light of my research on AI bias, algorithmic fairness, and the societal impact of digital platforms and my experience advising government on AI regulation and digital ethics, I see TikTok as the flashpoint of a broader, more dangerous trend. Digital spaces are becoming battlefronts for geopolitical influence.

    TikTok has evolved from a social media app to – in the eyes of some policymakers – a digital weapon. Its massive global following has made it a cultural juggernaut. But this viral success has also made it a prime target in the escalating US-China tech war.

    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.

    US politicians worry that its owner, ByteDance, could be forced by the Chinese government to hand over American user data, or manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to serve Beijing’s political agenda.

    The concerns are serious, even if not proven. Platforms have been used to sway political sentiment before — as with Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But TikTok is different. Its algorithm isn’t like those of other social platforms that rely on a user’s social graph (what you follow, who you know) to connect people, organisations and places.

    Instead, TikTok uses a real-time recommendation system based on micro-interactions: how long you watch a video, whether you pause or replay it and even your swipe patterns. The result is an ultra-addictive content stream. This gives TikTok an almost unprecedented power to shape opinions, whether intentionally or not.

    TikTok in the US: three possible scenarios

    There are three potential outcomes for TikTok. The first is a forced sale to a US-based entity, which could satisfy lawmakers but likely provoke severe retaliation from China.

    The second is a ban, which may be more symbolic than effective, but would send a strong message. The third, and perhaps most likely, is a long, drawn-out legal battle that results in a stalemate. Trump seems set to extend the June 19 deadline, after all.

    But there’s a deeper issue here. The world is becoming increasingly divided along digital lines. The US and China are building rival digital ecosystems, each suspicious of the other’s platforms.

    Like past restrictions on Huawei and Nvidia chip exports, this case signals how national security and economic policy are merging in the digital age. This threatens to splinter the internet, with countries choosing sides for their suppliers based on political and economic allegiances rather than technical merit.

    For China, TikTok is a symbol of national pride. It’s one of the few Chinese apps to achieve global success and become a household name in western markets. Forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok, or banning it, could be seen as an affront to China’s ambitions on the global digital stage. It’s no longer just about a platform — it’s about control over the future of technology.

    TikTok’s defenders argue that banning the app would undermine free speech, stifle creativity and unfairly target a foreign-owned platform. These concerns are valid, but the broader landscape of digital platforms is far from straightforward.

    Other platforms have faced criticism over allegations of spreading misinformation, amplifying bias and contributing to social harm. However, the key distinction with TikTok lies in its algorithm and its ability to sway opinions on a global scale.

    TikTok’s “for you” feed tracks micro-interactions, serving up personalised content with an addictive intensity. As a result, users can find themselves pulled deeper into curated content streams without realising the extent to which their preferences are being shaped.

    While its competitors might be able to spread misinformation and stoke division in more traditional ways, TikTok could potentially do so through the finely tuned manipulation of the user’s attention. This is a potent tool in the world of digital politics.

    It also raises critical questions about how the US approaches regulation. Is TikTok a genuine national security threat or simply a symbol of the growing strategic competition between two superpowers?

    Rather than relying on bans and trade wars, what is needed is robust, cross-border frameworks that prioritise transparency, data protection, algorithmic accountability and the mitigation of online harms.

    Concerns about harassment, disinformation, addictive design and algorithms that amplify toxic content are not unique to TikTok. US legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act and the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act signal growing concern. But these efforts remain piecemeal.

    The EU’s Digital Services Act is a welcome model for accountability. But global coordination is now essential. Without it, there is the risk of further fragmentation of the internet (what has been called the “splinternet” — where access is determined by geopolitics rather than universal principles).

    The digital world has long been dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Now it is increasingly shaped by state rivalries. The battle over TikTok is a harbinger of deeper tensions around how data, influence and trust are distributed online.

    The real question now is not whether TikTok survives, but whether nations can craft a digital future that prioritises democratic values, cross-border collaboration and the public good. This isn’t just about national security or free speech. It’s a defining moment in the battle for the future of the internet.

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

    – ref. The battle for TikTok is at the forefront of a deeper geopolitical trend – https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-tiktok-is-at-the-forefront-of-a-deeper-geopolitical-trend-258341

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

    Smoke rises from locations targeted in Tehran amid the third day of Israel’s waves of strikes against Iran, on June 15, 2025. Photo by Khoshiran/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Israel’s conflict with Iran represents far more than another Middle Eastern crisis – it marks the emergence of a dangerous new chapter in nuclear rivalries that has the potential to reshape global proliferation risks for decades to come.

    What began with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and other targets on June 13, 2025 has now spiraled into the world’s first full-scale example of what I as an expert in nuclear security call a “threshold war” – a new and terrifying form of conflict where a nuclear weapons power seeks to use force to prevent an enemy on the verge of nuclearization from making that jump. As missiles continue to rain down on both Tehran and Tel Aviv – with hundreds dead in Iran and at least 24 killed in Israel – the international community is witnessing the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks in real time.

    Unlike traditional nuclear rivalries where both sides possess declared arsenals – like India and Pakistan, who despite their tensions operate under mutual deterrence – this new threshold dynamic creates an inherently unstable escalation spiral. Iran increasingly believes it cannot deter Israeli aggression without nuclear weapons, yet every step toward acquiring them invites more aggressive Israeli strikes. Israel, for its part, cannot permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear knowledge through military means – it can only delay it through means that would seemingly guarantee future Iranian determination to acquire the ultimate deterrent.

    Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome: for Israel, an Iran more determined than even in becoming a nuclear weapons nation capable of deterring Israeli action and ending its regional military dominance; for Iran, the risk of regime change through devastating Israeli strikes. The consequences of this deadly logic extend far beyond the Middle East.

    Flames rise from an oil storage facility after it appeared to have been hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025.
    AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

    The preventive strike precedent

    The stakes could not be higher, as Iranian officials have called the attack “a declaration of war” and vowed that destroyed nuclear facilities “would be rebuilt.” Israel, meanwhile has warned its campaign will continue “for as many days as it takes.”

    Most ominously, the scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran were called off, with Tehran dismissing any such dialogue as “meaningless.” This may suggest diplomacy’s window – which opened for just a few months under Trump’s second administration, after being closed during his first – was deliberately slammed shut.

    More broadly, the Israeli strikes mark a dangerous evolution in international norms around preventive warfare. While Israeli officials called this a “preemptive strike,” the legal and strategic reality is different. Preemptive strikes respond to imminent threats – like Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War against Arab armies preparing to attack. Preventive strikes, by contrast, target distant future threats when conditions seem favorable – like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

    Israel justified its action by claiming Iran could rapidly assemble up to 15 nuclear bombs. Yet, as the International Atomic Energy Agency director, Rafael Grossi, warned beforehand, an Israeli strike could solidify rather than deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, potentially prompting withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. True to that warning, on June 16, Iran announced it was preparing a parliamentary bill that would see the country leave the 1968 treaty.

    Israel’s calculations in opting to strike build on the same erosion of international legal frameworks that has legitimized preemptive warfare since the United States’ military action in Afghanistan and Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged sovereignty norms through practices like drone strikes and preemptive attacks. More recently, operations in Gaza and elsewhere have demonstrated that violations of international humanitarian law carry limited consequences in practice. For Israel, this permissive environment has seemingly created both opportunity and justification regarding striking Iran – something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pursuing for decades.

    Already, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant demonstrated nuclear facilities’ vulnerability in modern warfare. I believe Israel’s actions further risk normalizing attacks on nuclear infrastructure, potentially legitimizing similar preventive actions by India, China or the U.S. against emerging nuclear programs elsewhere.

    From strikes to regional conflagration

    Israel’s initial strike quickly triggered inevitable escalation. Iran’s retaliation came in waves: first hundreds of drones and missiles on June 13, then sustained barrages throughout the following days. By the morning of June 15, both countries were trading strikes on energy infrastructure, military bases and civilian areas, with no immediate end in sight.

    The Houthis in Yemen have since joined the fight, by launching ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. Notably absent are Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s Iraqi militias – all significantly damaged by recent action by Israel. This degradation of Iran’s “axis of resistance” – its traditional forward deterrent – fundamentally alters Tehran’s strategic calculations. Without strong proxies to threaten retaliation, Iran is more exposed to Israeli strikes, making nuclear weapons seem like the only reliable deterrent against future attacks.

    The escalation pattern illustrates what can happen when when a government casts aggression as prevention. Having initiated the recent escalation of hostilities, Israel now faces the consequences. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s vow that destroyed facilities “would be rebuilt” underscores that Israeli action designed to prevent nuclearization may instead result in Iran pursuing it with renewed determination.

    The commitment trap

    This creates what strategists call the “commitment trap” – a dynamic where both sides face escalating costs but cannot back down. Israel faces its own strategic dilemma. The strikes may ultimately accelerate rather than prevent Iranian nuclearization, yet backing down would mean accepting a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu’s promise that current strikes are “nothing compared to what they will feel in coming days” shows how quickly strikes sold as preventative escalate toward total war.

    Missiles fired from Iran are pictured in the night sky over Jerusalem on June 14, 2025.
    Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

    Unlike established nuclear powers that can negotiate from positions of strength, threshold states, such as Iran, face a stark choice: remain vulnerable to preventive strikes and regime change or race toward the protection that nuclear deterrence provides.

    North Korea offers the clearest example of this dynamic. Despite decades of sanctions and military threats, Pyongyang’s nuclear program has made it essentially immune to preventive strikes. Iranian leaders understand this lesson well – the question is whether they can reach the same protected status before suffering decisive preventive action.

    Traditional nuclear deterrence theory assumes rational actors operating under mutual vulnerability. But threshold wars break these assumptions in fundamental ways. Iran cannot fully deter Israeli action because it lacks confirmed weapons, while Israel cannot rely on deterrence to prevent Iranian weaponization because Iran’s nuclear program continues advancing.

    This creates “use it or lose it” dynamics: Israel faces shrinking windows to act preventively as Iran approaches weaponization; Iran faces incentives to accelerate its program before suffering additional strikes.

    The absence of effective external mediation compounds these risks. U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the strikes reveals this dynamic starkly. Initially opposing military action and preferring diplomacy to “bombing the hell out of” Iran, Trump pivoted dramatically after the strikes began, and warned that “there’s more to come. A lot more.”

    His post on Truth Social – “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it!” – demonstrates how quickly diplomatic efforts can collapse once threshold wars begin.

    Global implication

    The international response reveals how thoroughly Israel’s Operation Rising Lion has normalized aggression against nuclear facilities. While European leaders called for “maximum restraint,” none condemned Israel’s initial attacks. Russia and China condemned the attacks but took no concrete action. The U.N. Security Council produced only statements of “concern” about “escalation.”

    This normalization sets what I believe to be a catastrophic precedent. The threshold war model threatens to unravel decades of nuclear governance based on deterrence rather than preemption.

    Indeed, the Iran-Israel threshold war sets dangerous precedents for other regional nuclear competitions. Successful preventive strikes could incentivize similar actions elsewhere, eroding diplomatic nonproliferation efforts. Conversely, rapid nuclearization by Iran could encourage other threshold states, like Saudi Arabia, to pursue nuclear capabilities swiftly and secretly.

    When preventive strikes become the enforcement mechanism for nonproliferation norms, the entire architecture of nuclear governance begins to crumble. Without these frameworks, the world faces an unstable future defined by cycles of preventive strikes and accelerated nuclear proliferation – far more dangerous than the Cold War-era standoffs that shaped nuclear governance.

    Farah N. Jan 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. Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules – https://theconversation.com/iran-israel-threshold-war-has-rewritten-nuclear-escalation-rules-258965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

    Smoke rises from locations targeted in Tehran amid the third day of Israel’s waves of strikes against Iran, on June 15, 2025. Photo by Khoshiran/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Israel’s conflict with Iran represents far more than another Middle Eastern crisis – it marks the emergence of a dangerous new chapter in nuclear rivalries that has the potential to reshape global proliferation risks for decades to come.

    What began with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and other targets on June 13, 2025 has now spiraled into the world’s first full-scale example of what I as an expert in nuclear security call a “threshold war” – a new and terrifying form of conflict where a nuclear weapons power seeks to use force to prevent an enemy on the verge of nuclearization from making that jump. As missiles continue to rain down on both Tehran and Tel Aviv – with hundreds dead in Iran and at least 24 killed in Israel – the international community is witnessing the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks in real time.

    Unlike traditional nuclear rivalries where both sides possess declared arsenals – like India and Pakistan, who despite their tensions operate under mutual deterrence – this new threshold dynamic creates an inherently unstable escalation spiral. Iran increasingly believes it cannot deter Israeli aggression without nuclear weapons, yet every step toward acquiring them invites more aggressive Israeli strikes. Israel, for its part, cannot permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear knowledge through military means – it can only delay it through means that would seemingly guarantee future Iranian determination to acquire the ultimate deterrent.

    Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome: for Israel, an Iran more determined than even in becoming a nuclear weapons nation capable of deterring Israeli action and ending its regional military dominance; for Iran, the risk of regime change through devastating Israeli strikes. The consequences of this deadly logic extend far beyond the Middle East.

    Flames rise from an oil storage facility after it appeared to have been hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025.
    AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

    The preventive strike precedent

    The stakes could not be higher, as Iranian officials have called the attack “a declaration of war” and vowed that destroyed nuclear facilities “would be rebuilt.” Israel, meanwhile has warned its campaign will continue “for as many days as it takes.”

    Most ominously, the scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran were called off, with Tehran dismissing any such dialogue as “meaningless.” This may suggest diplomacy’s window – which opened for just a few months under Trump’s second administration, after being closed during his first – was deliberately slammed shut.

    More broadly, the Israeli strikes mark a dangerous evolution in international norms around preventive warfare. While Israeli officials called this a “preemptive strike,” the legal and strategic reality is different. Preemptive strikes respond to imminent threats – like Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War against Arab armies preparing to attack. Preventive strikes, by contrast, target distant future threats when conditions seem favorable – like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

    Israel justified its action by claiming Iran could rapidly assemble up to 15 nuclear bombs. Yet, as the International Atomic Energy Agency director, Rafael Grossi, warned beforehand, an Israeli strike could solidify rather than deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, potentially prompting withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. True to that warning, on June 16, Iran announced it was preparing a parliamentary bill that would see the country leave the 1968 treaty.

    Israel’s calculations in opting to strike build on the same erosion of international legal frameworks that has legitimized preemptive warfare since the United States’ military action in Afghanistan and Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged sovereignty norms through practices like drone strikes and preemptive attacks. More recently, operations in Gaza and elsewhere have demonstrated that violations of international humanitarian law carry limited consequences in practice. For Israel, this permissive environment has seemingly created both opportunity and justification regarding striking Iran – something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pursuing for decades.

    Already, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant demonstrated nuclear facilities’ vulnerability in modern warfare. I believe Israel’s actions further risk normalizing attacks on nuclear infrastructure, potentially legitimizing similar preventive actions by India, China or the U.S. against emerging nuclear programs elsewhere.

    From strikes to regional conflagration

    Israel’s initial strike quickly triggered inevitable escalation. Iran’s retaliation came in waves: first hundreds of drones and missiles on June 13, then sustained barrages throughout the following days. By the morning of June 15, both countries were trading strikes on energy infrastructure, military bases and civilian areas, with no immediate end in sight.

    The Houthis in Yemen have since joined the fight, by launching ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. Notably absent are Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s Iraqi militias – all significantly damaged by recent action by Israel. This degradation of Iran’s “axis of resistance” – its traditional forward deterrent – fundamentally alters Tehran’s strategic calculations. Without strong proxies to threaten retaliation, Iran is more exposed to Israeli strikes, making nuclear weapons seem like the only reliable deterrent against future attacks.

    The escalation pattern illustrates what can happen when when a government casts aggression as prevention. Having initiated the recent escalation of hostilities, Israel now faces the consequences. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s vow that destroyed facilities “would be rebuilt” underscores that Israeli action designed to prevent nuclearization may instead result in Iran pursuing it with renewed determination.

    The commitment trap

    This creates what strategists call the “commitment trap” – a dynamic where both sides face escalating costs but cannot back down. Israel faces its own strategic dilemma. The strikes may ultimately accelerate rather than prevent Iranian nuclearization, yet backing down would mean accepting a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu’s promise that current strikes are “nothing compared to what they will feel in coming days” shows how quickly strikes sold as preventative escalate toward total war.

    Missiles fired from Iran are pictured in the night sky over Jerusalem on June 14, 2025.
    Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

    Unlike established nuclear powers that can negotiate from positions of strength, threshold states, such as Iran, face a stark choice: remain vulnerable to preventive strikes and regime change or race toward the protection that nuclear deterrence provides.

    North Korea offers the clearest example of this dynamic. Despite decades of sanctions and military threats, Pyongyang’s nuclear program has made it essentially immune to preventive strikes. Iranian leaders understand this lesson well – the question is whether they can reach the same protected status before suffering decisive preventive action.

    Traditional nuclear deterrence theory assumes rational actors operating under mutual vulnerability. But threshold wars break these assumptions in fundamental ways. Iran cannot fully deter Israeli action because it lacks confirmed weapons, while Israel cannot rely on deterrence to prevent Iranian weaponization because Iran’s nuclear program continues advancing.

    This creates “use it or lose it” dynamics: Israel faces shrinking windows to act preventively as Iran approaches weaponization; Iran faces incentives to accelerate its program before suffering additional strikes.

    The absence of effective external mediation compounds these risks. U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the strikes reveals this dynamic starkly. Initially opposing military action and preferring diplomacy to “bombing the hell out of” Iran, Trump pivoted dramatically after the strikes began, and warned that “there’s more to come. A lot more.”

    His post on Truth Social – “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it!” – demonstrates how quickly diplomatic efforts can collapse once threshold wars begin.

    Global implication

    The international response reveals how thoroughly Israel’s Operation Rising Lion has normalized aggression against nuclear facilities. While European leaders called for “maximum restraint,” none condemned Israel’s initial attacks. Russia and China condemned the attacks but took no concrete action. The U.N. Security Council produced only statements of “concern” about “escalation.”

    This normalization sets what I believe to be a catastrophic precedent. The threshold war model threatens to unravel decades of nuclear governance based on deterrence rather than preemption.

    Indeed, the Iran-Israel threshold war sets dangerous precedents for other regional nuclear competitions. Successful preventive strikes could incentivize similar actions elsewhere, eroding diplomatic nonproliferation efforts. Conversely, rapid nuclearization by Iran could encourage other threshold states, like Saudi Arabia, to pursue nuclear capabilities swiftly and secretly.

    When preventive strikes become the enforcement mechanism for nonproliferation norms, the entire architecture of nuclear governance begins to crumble. Without these frameworks, the world faces an unstable future defined by cycles of preventive strikes and accelerated nuclear proliferation – far more dangerous than the Cold War-era standoffs that shaped nuclear governance.

    Farah N. Jan 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. Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules – https://theconversation.com/iran-israel-threshold-war-has-rewritten-nuclear-escalation-rules-258965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LaLota and Stefanik Renew Charge Against Hochul’s Commuter Tax

    Source: US Representative Nick LaLota (NY-01)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Nick LaLota (R-NY), Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and Members of the New York and New Jersey Congressional Delegations sent a letter to President Donald J. Trump and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, thanking them for their leadership in fighting to block New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s controversial congestion pricing plan, calling it an unfair commuter tax on hardworking families and small businesses. They further urged the Administration to continue their work in stopping this proposal from moving forward, emphasizing that congestion pricing would disproportionately burden middle- and working-class commuters from Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and New Jersey.

    “Hochul’s commuter tax was never about improving transit—it’s about squeezing hardworking suburban families to paper over the MTA’s bloated, mismanaged budget,” said Rep. LaLota. “She’s forcing law-abiding, taxpaying commuters into a system riddled with crime, delays, and dysfunction—without demanding a shred of accountability. I’m proud to stand with President Trump and Secretary Duffy in the fight to stop Hochul’s commuter tax and protect our constituents from this reckless and unfair scheme.”

    “I stand strongly with President Donald Trump, Secretary Sean Duffy, and my fellow New Yorkers fighting Kathy Hochul’s insane and costly congestion pricing tax scheme that harms New York workers and families — all while Hochul further exacerbates subway crime! New Yorkers across the political spectrum oppose this insane and costly failed policy,” said Chairwoman Stefanik.

    “Governor Hochul’s congestion pricing is a shameless cash grab—punishing hardworking New Yorkers to cover up her own mismanagement. I’m grateful to President Trump and his Administration for standing up for our commuters and pushing back against this disastrous plan, and I urge them to keep up the fight,” said Rep. Andrew Garbarino. 

    “Thank you, President Trump and Secretary Duffy, for standing up to Kathy Hochul’s disgraceful commuter tax scheme on behalf of middle and working-class commuters. Hochul’s ridiculous push to stick them with a tax or ride a subway system plagued by violent crime. This out-of-touch tax grab is a slap in the face to hardworking New Yorkers, and I’ll keep fighting alongside this administration for real solutions that prioritize safety and affordability,” said Rep. Mike Lawler. 

    “The MTA’s reckless mismanagement has left law-abiding commuters to foot the bill, while fare evasion skyrockets, service and public safety decline — yet the Governor refuses to take responsibility. The Trump Administration is right and acting well within its legal discretion to rescind the Biden Administration’s rubber-stamping of this tax. We’ll keep fighting this cash grab by using every tool at our disposal and look forward to working with President Trump and Secretary Duffy,” said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis. 

    “Since January 5th, New Jersey commuters have faced a flawed and unfair cash grab under New York City’s congestion pricing plan,” said Congressman Kean. “We must put an end to this extremely dysfunctional program, created by Governor Hochul and New York State Democrats, which places many commuters at a disadvantage—especially New Jersey residents, who already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. I am committed to standing up for New Jersey taxpayers to ensure this unfair burden is lifted, and I will continue working closely with President Trump and Secretary Duffy until congestion pricing is permanently canceled.”

    “I am proud to stand with my colleagues in thanking President Trump and Secretary Duffy for their unwavering commitment to stopping the deeply flawed commuter tax scheme peddled by Kathy Hochul,” said Congressman Langworthy. “It is heartening to finally have an administration who stands with working families, small businesses, and everyday commuters across our state. Thank you for standing with us and being steadfast advocates for the people of New York State and I look forward to our continued partnership.”

    In the letter, the Members highlighted the public safety crisis plaguing New York’s transit system, the MTA’s mismanagement and ongoing financial irresponsibility, and the devastating impact that congestion pricing would have on suburban communities across New York and New Jersey. They further emphasized that while the fight against this ill-conceived tax is not yet over, the Administration’s leadership offers hope to the thousands of commuters across the region who deserve better.

    To read the full text of the letter, click HERE.

    Background: 

    The Central Business District Tolling Program is part of New York City’s broader congestion pricing plan, which charges vehicles for entering Manhattan’s Central Business District below 60th Street. New York Governor Hocul’s plan for congestion pricing began on January 5, 2025.

    In November 2024, LaLota, former Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, and Reps. Garbarino, Lawler, and Malliotakis sent a letter to President Trump requesting an end to the planned implementation of the congestion pricing.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Conflicted, disillusioned, disengaged: The unsettled center of Jewish student opinion after Oct. 7

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jonathan Krasner, Associate Professor of Jewish Education Research, Brandeis University

    Pro-Palestinian students pass the flag of Israel while walking out of commencement in protest at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on May 30, 2024. AP Photo/Charles Krupa

    As commencement season comes to a close, many campuses remain riven by the Israel-Hamas war. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the undergraduate class president was banned from walking at her graduation after delivering a fiery – and unauthorized – speech accusing her school of complicity in Israel’s campaign to “wipe out Palestine off the face of the earth.” Anti-Israel protests broke out at graduation ceremonies across the United States, from Columbia to the University of California at Berkeley.

    Since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack and Israel’s retaliatory invasion of Gaza, many American campuses have been punctuated by vigils, demonstrations and disruptions. But the loudest voices aren’t necessarily the most representative. Activists’ pronouncements on either side fail to capture the range of student opinion about the war and its reverberations at home, including the documented rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia.

    This is certainly true for Jewish students – buffeted by the war, the hostage crisis, campus protests and federal politics. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has used campus antisemitism and anti-Zionism as a pretext to assault higher education and implement hard-line immigration policies.

    Indeed, one of the most striking findings of my study
    on Jewish undergraduate attitudes, published in May 2025, is how many students described themselves as conflicted, uncertain, disaffected and even detached. Interviews across the country convinced my research team that any attempt to gauge Jewish student opinion with either/or categories are reductive and misleading.

    Moving beyond numbers

    In the wake of Oct. 7, my office hours quickly became a refuge for distraught Jewish students as they processed their thoughts. Few were content with pat answers.

    Students at USC attend a vigil on Oct. 10, 2023, days after Hamas’ attack on Israel.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    I began wondering how representative they were. Tufts researchers Eitan Hersh and Dahlia Lyss found that since Oct. 7, more students were valuing and prioritizing their Jewish identities, even while an increased number were hiding their Jewishness on campus.

    My Brandeis colleagues Graham Wright, Leonard Saxe and their research team, meanwhile, found that a clear majority of Jewish students said they felt a connection to Israel but were sharply divided in their views of its government. While most considered statements calling for the country’s destruction to be antisemitic, they differed about where to draw the line between reasonable and illegitimate criticisms of Israel.

    These findings were instructive. But I was interested in learning more about the “how” and the “why” behind the numbers. Over the spring 2024 semester, my team and I interviewed 38 students on 24 campuses across 16 states and the District of Columbia. Participants reflected the broad religious, political, economic, geographical, sexual and racial diversity within the American Jewish population, particularly among Jews under 30. Some of the campuses were relatively placid; others were hotbeds of protest.

    The ‘missing middle’

    As my team analyzed transcripts, we identified six categories.

    About one-third of the Jewish students we spoke with were actively engaged on either side of the conflict, whether through demonstrations or online advocacy. “Affirmed” students’ connection to Israel deepened after Oct. 7. “Aggrieved” students, on the other hand, had joined anti-war protests and voiced anger at Jewish organizations for ignoring Israel’s culpability for Palestinian suffering.

    Many more of our participants, however, were ambivalent, despondent or even apathetic. As journalist Arno Rosenfeld put it in an article about my research, the majority of Jewish students inhabit a “great missing middle” in Israeli-Palestinian discourse.

    Two-thirds of the students we spoke with are in this “missing middle,” divided into four categories:

    • “Conflicted” students were inconclusively grappling with the moral and political complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    • “Disillusioned” students struggled to reconcile their sentimental attachment to Israel with their disappointment – their sense that the country betrayed its own values in its treatment of Palestinians.
    • “Retrenched” students turned inward, fearful of being identified as Jewish on campuses they perceived as hostile to Jews.
    • The last category, “disengaged” students, were detached or actively steering clear of controversy.
    Students gather at the University of Maryland to celebrate Hanukkah with a menorah lighting ceremony in 2007.
    Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Out of the fray

    The most straightforward of these categories is the “disengaged” students. Some, like Bella, on the West Coast – all of the names in this article are pseudonyms – knew little about the conflict before the war. What they learned since convinced them it was unsolvable and that they were powerless to promote change.

    The distance that some students felt from events in Israel and Gaza made it all the more baffling and odious to them when peers protested in ways that implied Jewish Americans were complicit.

    “I’m not personally doing anything,” complained Salem, a first-year student in the Midwest. “I don’t have anything to do with this.”

    Students whom we classified as “retrenched” reported anxiety, loss of sleep and a sense of isolation. Many of them were concerned that rejecting Zionism – that is, the movement supporting the creation and preservation of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish people – had become a litmus test in their progressive circles. That was untenable for these students, because they viewed Zionism as a constituent part of being Jewish.

    Interviewees like Jack, a junior in the Pacific Northwest, spoke of removing their Star of David necklaces and censoring elements of their biography, because they perceived a social penalty for being Jewish.

    Since the start of the war, more students have said they try to hide their Jewish identity at times.
    Maor Winetrob/iStock via Getty Images

    Rejecting simple narratives

    By far, the largest group of Jewish students were struggling with mixed feelings about the war and its reverberations. What united these “conflicted” or “disillusioned” students was wariness of grand narratives and talking points that reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a contest between good and evil, or the powerful and the powerless. They also eschewed labels such as “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist,” saying they lacked nuance.

    Consider Elana, a “conflicted” sophomore in the mid-Atlantic, who told us she was uncomfortable in most Jewish spaces on campus because they effectively demanded that she declare her Israel politics at the door. It seemed to her that activists on both sides were more comfortable retreating into echo chambers than engaging in dialogue across differences.

    Then there was Shira, a “disillusioned” first year in the Midwest who viewed Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, however implausible, as the only alternative to mutual destruction. She refused to participate in anti-war demonstrations on her campus because she couldn’t abide the organizers’ confrontational tactics – but also to avoid blowback from pro-Israel family and friends.

    Students from Bowdoin College light Shabbat candles during a visit to Shaarey Tphiloh Synagogue in Portland, Maine, in 2011.
    Gregory Rec/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

    ‘Safe spaces’ and ‘groupthink’

    One unambiguous finding from our study was how often our interviewees used language prevalent in progressive discourse. They spoke repeatedly about the importance of “safe spaces,” and felt that listeners’ understandings mattered more than speakers’ intentions when evaluating “hate speech” and “microaggressions.”

    Leo, a “conflicted” junior in the Deep South who uses they/them pronouns, acknowledged that some protesters who chant slogans such as “Free Palestine” and “Globalize the Intifada” may not recognize how many Jewish students interpret them: as antisemitic calls for Israel’s destruction. But that was no excuse, they insisted. “What I’ve noticed is that the people who are at those demonstrations have created their own definition of antisemitism,” without input from the vast majority of Jews – something progressive protesters would not have stood for if another racial, religious or ethnic minority were being discussed.

    The use of provocative and arguably antisemitic language was responsible for keeping Jews like Leo and Shira, who evinced deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, from joining the protests.

    Fundamentally, however, many of the Jewish students we spoke with said they’d welcome opportunities to discuss the war and the broader conflict. But the “groupthink” on campus was stifling, they complained, whether in Hillel centers that toe a reflexively pro-Israel line or student organizations that demand unquestioned buy-in to a set of progressive orthodoxies.

    Joe, a “disillusioned” student in New England who just received his diploma two weeks ago, reflected, “When my friends complain that the ‘Free Palestine’ stickers on my campus are antisemitic, I think they just don’t want to be uncomfortable.” Discomfort can be productive, he added – as long as it is expressed in an environment that values intellectual risk-taking, dialogue across difference, and empathy.

    Research discussed in this article was sponsored by the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education at Brandeis University.

    – ref. Conflicted, disillusioned, disengaged: The unsettled center of Jewish student opinion after Oct. 7 – https://theconversation.com/conflicted-disillusioned-disengaged-the-unsettled-center-of-jewish-student-opinion-after-oct-7-257521

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Most Americans believe misinformation is a problem — federal research cuts will only make the problem worse

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University

    Americans say the government and social media companies need to do something about misinformation and disinformation. Boris Zhitkov/Getty Images

    Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administration’s restructuring of federal research priorities.

    Following President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation.

    Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans – 95% – believe misinformation’s misleading narratives are a problem.

    Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired.

    The attack on misleading narrative research

    Trump’s executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies’ free speech.

    The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case.

    Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 “censorship industrial complex” hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration.

    The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship.

    Trump’s executive order to “restore free speech,” the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

    These actions have already led to significant problems – death threats and harassment included – for disinformation researchers, particularly women.

    So let’s tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn’t.

    Misleading content

    Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts.

    For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception.

    Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech.

    Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That’s what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research.

    It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government – not citizens or businesses – can be censors.

    So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms.

    Trump’s own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as “sexual content and explicit language,” but also anything moderators deem as trying to “trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users.” Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump’s account.

    Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them.

    Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site’s algorithm reducing “the reach of a user if they’re frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.” Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to “bot mitigation” procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid.

    Research shows that conservatives are more susceptible to misinformation than liberals.
    klevo/Getty Images

    Is it censorship?

    Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their content, censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly.

    The “censorship industrial complex” hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged “censorship industrial complex,” but that it was focused on conservative voices.

    But there isn’t evidence to support this assertion.

    Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified on social media networks.

    When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts.

    This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in “community notes” – X’s alternative and Meta’s proposed alternative to fact checking – and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts.

    Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals.

    Misleading America

    Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so.

    Here’s how.

    The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump’s executive order, that many Republicans believe it’s true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true.

    Researchers have also identified a tactic known as “accusation in a mirror.” That’s when someone falsely accuses one’s perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing.

    So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute “accusations in a mirror.”

    Other tactics include “accusation by anecdote.” When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories – sometimes completely fabricated – that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality.

    Facts on fact-checking

    Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers “got it wrong.”

    These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers.

    Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of misleading content.

    Research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked.
    Liudmila Chernetska/Getty Images

    In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are rated the most effective.

    When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it’s because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more.

    When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made.

    Seeking solutions

    Account bans or threats of account suspensions may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more controversial. They are considered more akin to censorship than fact-check labels.

    Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions that conservatives and liberals agree on.

    Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off.

    But Trump’s executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken Americans’ defenses.

    H. Colleen Sinclair receives funding from a variety of government and foundation sources. The statements and opinions included in this The Conversation article are solely the author’s. Any statements and opinions included in these pages are not those of the Social Research and Evaluation Center, the College of Human Sciences & Education, the Louisiana State University, or the LSU Board of Supervisors.

    – ref. Most Americans believe misinformation is a problem — federal research cuts will only make the problem worse – https://theconversation.com/most-americans-believe-misinformation-is-a-problem-federal-research-cuts-will-only-make-the-problem-worse-255355

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • Israel says Tehran residents to ‘pay price’ after Tel Aviv, Haifa attacks

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (2)

    srael and Iran kept up their attacks, killing and wounding civilians and raising concern among world leaders at a G7 meeting in Canada this week that the biggest battle between the two old enemies could lead to a broader regional conflict.

    The Iranian death toll in four days of Israeli strikes, carried out with the declared aim of wiping out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, had reached at least 224, with 90% of the casualties reported to be civilians, an Iranian health ministry spokesperson said.

    Early on Monday, the Israeli military said it had detected more missiles launched from Iran towards Israel.

    “At this time, the (Israeli Air Force) is operating to intercept and strike where necessary to eliminate the threat,” the Israeli Defence Forces said. Live video footage showed several missiles over Tel Aviv and Reuters witnesses said explosions could be heard there and over Jerusalem.

    At least 10 people in Israel, including children, have been killed so far, according to authorities there.

    Group of Seven leaders began gathering in the Canadian Rockies on Sunday with the Israel-Iran conflict expected to be a top priority.

    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his goals for the summit include for Iran to not develop or possess nuclear weapons, ensuring Israel’s right to defend itself, avoiding escalation of the conflict and creating room for diplomacy.

    “This issue will be very high on the agenda of the G7 summit,” Merz told reporters.

    Before leaving for the summit on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump was asked what he was doing to de-escalate the situation. “I hope there’s going to be a deal. I think it’s time for a deal,” he told reporters. “Sometimes they have to fight it out.”

    Iran has told mediators Qatar and Oman that it is not open to negotiating a ceasefire while it is under Israeli attack, an official briefed on the communications told Reuters on Sunday.

    FIRST DAYLIGHT ATTACK ON ISRAEL

    Explosions shook Tel Aviv on Sunday during Iran’s first daylight missile attack since Israel’s strike on Friday. Shortly after nightfall, Iranian missiles hit a residential street in Haifa, a mixed Jewish-Arab city, and in Israel’s south.

    In Bat Yam, a city near Tel Aviv, residents braced on Sunday evening for another sleepless night after an overnight strike on an apartment tower.

    “It’s very dreadful. It’s not fun. People are losing their lives and their homes,” said Shem, 29.

    Images from Tehran showed the night sky lit up by a huge blaze at a fuel depot after Israel began strikes against Iran’s oil and gas sector – raising the stakes for the global economy and the functioning of the Iranian state.

    Brent crude futures were up $1.04, or 1.4%, to $75.39 a barrel by 0115 GMT, having jumped as much as $4 earlier in the session. While the spike in oil prices has investors on edge, stock and currency markets were little moved in early trading in Asia on Monday.

    “It’s more of an oil story than an equity story at this point,” said Jim Carroll, senior wealth adviser and portfolio manager at Ballast Rock Private Wealth. “Stocks right now seem to be hanging on.”

    TRUMP VETOES PLAN TO TARGET KHAMENEI, OFFICIALS SAY

    In Washington, two U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    When asked about the Reuters report, Netanyahu told Fox News on Sunday: “There’s so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to get into that.”

    “We do what we need to do,” he told Fox’s “Special Report With Bret Baier.”

    Israel began the assault with a surprise attack on Friday that wiped out the top echelon of Iran’s military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will escalate in the coming days.

    The intelligence chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Kazemi, and his deputy were killed in attacks on Tehran on Sunday, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said.

    Iran has vowed to “open the gates of hell” in retaliation.

    TRUMP WARNS IRAN NOT TO ATTACK

    Trump has lauded Israel’s offensive while denying Iranian allegations that the U.S. has taken part and warning Tehran not to widen its retaliation to include U.S. targets.

    Two U.S. officials said on Friday the U.S. military had helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed toward Israel.

    The U.S. president has repeatedly said Iran could end the war by agreeing to tough restrictions on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but which Western countries and the IAEA nuclear watchdog say could be used to make an atomic bomb.

    The latest round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S., due on Sunday, was scrapped after Tehran said it would not negotiate while under Israeli attack.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC

    By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France

    The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments.

    Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters, making it fundamental to protecting 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030.

    Fifty countries, plus the European Union, have now ratified the Treaty.

    New Zealand has signed but is yet to ratify.

    Deep sea mining rose up the agenda in the conference debates, demonstrating the urgency of opposing this industry.

    The expectation from civil society and a large group of states, including both co-hosts of UNOC, was that governments would make progress towards stopping deep sea mining in Nice.

    UN Secretary-General Guterres said the deep sea should not become the “wild west“.

    Four new pledges
    French President Emmanuel Macron said a deep sea mining moratorium is an international necessity. Four new countries pledged their support for a moratorium at UNOC, bringing the total to 37.

    Attention now turns to what actions governments will take in July to stop this industry from starting.

    Megan Randles, Greenpeace head of delegation regarding the High Seas Treaty and progress towards stopping deep sea mining, said: “High Seas Treaty ratification is within touching distance, but the progress made here in Nice feels hollow as this UN Ocean Conference ends without more tangible commitments to stopping deep sea mining.

    “We’ve heard lots of fine words here in Nice, but these need to turn into tangible action.

    “Countries must be brave, stand up for global cooperation and make history by stopping deep sea mining this year.

    “They can do this by committing to a moratorium on deep sea mining at next month’s International Seabed Authority meeting.

    “We applaud those who have already taken a stand, and urge all others to be on the right side of history by stopping deep sea mining.”

    Attention on ISA meeting
    Following this UNOC, attention now turns to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meetings in July. In the face of The Metals Company teaming up with US President Donald Trump to mine the global oceans, the upcoming ISA provides a space where governments can come together to defend the deep ocean by adopting a moratorium to stop this destructive industry.

    Negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty resume in August.

    John Hocevar, oceans campaign director, Greenpeace USA said: “The majority of countries have spoken when they signed on to the Nice Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty that they want an agreement that will reduce plastic production. Now, as we end the UN Ocean Conference and head on to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva this August, they must act.

    “The world cannot afford a weak treaty dictated by oil-soaked obstructionists.

    “The ambitious majority must rise to this moment, firmly hold the line and ensure that we will have a Global Plastic Treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, and delivers justice for Indigenous Peoples and communities on the frontlines.

    “Governments need to show that multilateralism still works for people and the planet, not the profits of a greedy few.”

    Driving ecological collapse
    Nichanan Thantanwit, project leader, Ocean Justice Project, said: “Coastal and Indigenous communities, including small-scale fishers, have protected the ocean for generations. Now they are being pushed aside by industries driving ecological collapse and human rights violations.

    “As the UN Ocean Conference ends, governments must recognise small-scale fishers and Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, secure their access and role in marine governance, and stop destructive practices such as bottom trawling and harmful aquaculture.

    “There is no ocean protection without the people who have protected it all along.”

    The anticipated Nice Ocean Action Plan, which consists of a political declaration and a series of voluntary commitments, will be announced later today at the end of the conference.

    None will be legally binding, so governments need to act strongly during the next ISA meeting in July and at plastic treaty negotiations in August.

    Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC

    By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France

    The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments.

    Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters, making it fundamental to protecting 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030.

    Fifty countries, plus the European Union, have now ratified the Treaty.

    New Zealand has signed but is yet to ratify.

    Deep sea mining rose up the agenda in the conference debates, demonstrating the urgency of opposing this industry.

    The expectation from civil society and a large group of states, including both co-hosts of UNOC, was that governments would make progress towards stopping deep sea mining in Nice.

    UN Secretary-General Guterres said the deep sea should not become the “wild west“.

    Four new pledges
    French President Emmanuel Macron said a deep sea mining moratorium is an international necessity. Four new countries pledged their support for a moratorium at UNOC, bringing the total to 37.

    Attention now turns to what actions governments will take in July to stop this industry from starting.

    Megan Randles, Greenpeace head of delegation regarding the High Seas Treaty and progress towards stopping deep sea mining, said: “High Seas Treaty ratification is within touching distance, but the progress made here in Nice feels hollow as this UN Ocean Conference ends without more tangible commitments to stopping deep sea mining.

    “We’ve heard lots of fine words here in Nice, but these need to turn into tangible action.

    “Countries must be brave, stand up for global cooperation and make history by stopping deep sea mining this year.

    “They can do this by committing to a moratorium on deep sea mining at next month’s International Seabed Authority meeting.

    “We applaud those who have already taken a stand, and urge all others to be on the right side of history by stopping deep sea mining.”

    Attention on ISA meeting
    Following this UNOC, attention now turns to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meetings in July. In the face of The Metals Company teaming up with US President Donald Trump to mine the global oceans, the upcoming ISA provides a space where governments can come together to defend the deep ocean by adopting a moratorium to stop this destructive industry.

    Negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty resume in August.

    John Hocevar, oceans campaign director, Greenpeace USA said: “The majority of countries have spoken when they signed on to the Nice Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty that they want an agreement that will reduce plastic production. Now, as we end the UN Ocean Conference and head on to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva this August, they must act.

    “The world cannot afford a weak treaty dictated by oil-soaked obstructionists.

    “The ambitious majority must rise to this moment, firmly hold the line and ensure that we will have a Global Plastic Treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, and delivers justice for Indigenous Peoples and communities on the frontlines.

    “Governments need to show that multilateralism still works for people and the planet, not the profits of a greedy few.”

    Driving ecological collapse
    Nichanan Thantanwit, project leader, Ocean Justice Project, said: “Coastal and Indigenous communities, including small-scale fishers, have protected the ocean for generations. Now they are being pushed aside by industries driving ecological collapse and human rights violations.

    “As the UN Ocean Conference ends, governments must recognise small-scale fishers and Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, secure their access and role in marine governance, and stop destructive practices such as bottom trawling and harmful aquaculture.

    “There is no ocean protection without the people who have protected it all along.”

    The anticipated Nice Ocean Action Plan, which consists of a political declaration and a series of voluntary commitments, will be announced later today at the end of the conference.

    None will be legally binding, so governments need to act strongly during the next ISA meeting in July and at plastic treaty negotiations in August.

    Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Seeking unity, G7 meets amid escalating Ukraine, Middle East conflicts

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders from the Group of Seven nations begin annual talks on Monday amid wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that add to global economic uncertainty, as host Canada tries to avoid a clash with U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The G7 leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.S., along with the European Union, are convening in the resort of Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies until Tuesday.

    But beyond the serene and picturesque mountain setting, they confront challenges. The first five months of Trump’s second term upended foreign policy on Ukraine, raised anxiety over his closer ties to Russia and resulted in tariffs on U.S. allies.

    With an escalating Israel-Iran conflict, which is spiking global oil prices, the summit in Canada is seen as a vital moment to try and restore a semblance of unity between democratic powerhouses.

    “The most important goal will be for the world’s seven largest industrial nations to reach agreement and take action,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said before attending his first G7.

    That will not be easy. After years of consensus, the traditional allies have scrambled to keep Trump engaged and maintain unity.

    Canada has abandoned any effort to adopt an all-encompassing comprehensive communique to avert a repeat of a 2018 summit in Quebec, when Trump instructed the U.S. delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique after leaving.

    Instead, Ottawa has sought to get consensus for a chair’s statement that summarizes the key discussions and six other pre-negotiated declarations on issues such as migration, artificial intelligence and forest fires.

    Talks on Monday will centre around the economy, advancing trade deals, and China.

    Efforts to reach an agreement to lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if Trump decided to opt out have been complicated by the surge in oil prices since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 12, two diplomatic sources said.

    The escalation between the two regional foes is on the agenda, with diplomatic sources saying they hope to achieve at least a joint statement to urge restraint and a return to diplomacy.

    “We are united. Nobody wants to see Iran get a nuclear weapon and everyone wants discussions and negotiations to restart,” France’s President Emmanuel Macron told reporters in Greenland on Sunday before travelling to Canada.

    He added that given Israel’s dependence on U.S. weapons and munitions, Washington had the capacity to restart negotiations.

    Trump said on Sunday many calls and meetings were taking place to broker peace.

    RUSSIAN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

    Highlighting the unease among some of Washington’s allies, Trump spoke on Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and suggested the Russian leader could play a mediation role.

    Macron dismissed the idea, arguing that Moscow could not be a negotiator because it had started an illegal war against Ukraine.

    A European diplomat said Trump’s suggestion showed that Russia, despite being kicked out of the group in 2014 after annexing Crimea, was very much on U.S. minds.

    “In the eyes of the U.S., there’s no condemnation for Ukraine; no peace without Russia; and now even credit for its mediation role with Iran. For Europeans, this will be a really tough G7,” the diplomat said.

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte will attend the summit on Tuesday. European officials said they hoped to use the meeting, and next week’s NATO summit, to convince Trump to toughen his stance on Putin.

    “The G7 should have the objective for us to converge again, for Ukraine to get a ceasefire to lead to a robust and lasting peace, and in my view it’s a question of seeing whether President Trump is ready to put forward much tougher sanctions on Russia,” Macron said.

    (Reuters)