Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Trump, Cassidy Photos from HALT Fentanyl Act Bill Signing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) today released photos with President Trump during the signing of his Halt All Lethal Trafficking (HALT) Fentanyl Act, which gives law enforcement another tool by permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances (FRS) as Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act.
    “Proud to work alongside President Trump to take this historic step against the scourge of fentanyl. Together, we will make America fentanyl-free!” said Dr. Cassidy.
    During the event, President Trump thanked Cassidy for his effort to pass the bill. Cassidy released a statement immediately following the bill signing yesterday.
    Click here to download photos from the meeting.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Statement on Senate Passage of the Rescissions Package

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    Washington – On Thursday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) issued the following statement after the passing of the rescissions package.
    “The American people gave us a mandate to eliminate wasteful spending and address our $37 trillion national debt. Early this morning, the Senate voted to pass the first rescissions package, cutting $9 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse,”said Senator Marshall. “Kansans’ taxpayer dollars deserve careful stewardship and efficient use—this is another promise made, promise kept by President Trump. Delivering significant savings that the American people voted for.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration Rule That Would Make It Harder for Americans to Obtain Health Coverage Under the ACA

    Source: US State of California

    By the Trump Administration’s own estimates, the rule will cause up to 1.8 million people to lose their health insurance

    OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led with the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New Jersey, a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging an unlawful final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that would create significant barriers to obtaining healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Trump Administration’s final rule would make numerous amendments to rules governing federal and state health insurance marketplaces which the administration estimates will cause up to 1.8 million people to lose their health insurance, while causing millions more to pay increased insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The final rule also excludes coverage of gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit (EHB) under the ACA. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the HHS and CMS rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The coalition is also seeking preliminary relief, and a stay, to prevent the challenged portions of the final rule from taking effect in the Plaintiff States before the August 25 effective date.

    “Far from delivering on their promises to drive down costs and ‘make America healthier’ the Trump Administration’s HHS and CMS are doing their best to make it harder and more expensive for Americans to obtain health insurance and access care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These sweeping changes would impose onerous verification requirements, junk health insurance premiums for some consumers, shorten enrollment periods in federal and state healthcare exchanges like Covered California, deprive up to 1.8 million Americans of health insurance, drive up out-of-pocket healthcare costs and so much more. It’s unlawful and it’s wrong – we’re meeting the Trump Administration in court to defend Americans’ healthcare coverage.”

    Congress enacted the ACA in 2010 to increase the number of Americans with health insurance and decrease the cost of healthcare. Fifteen years later, the Act continues to meet its goals, with annual enrollment on the ACA marketplace doubling over the past five years, resulting in over 24 million people signing up for health insurance coverage in plan year 2025 on the ACA exchanges and receiving subsidies to make such coverage affordable, including millions of people in the Plaintiff States. Now, with less than four months until open enrollment for plan year 2026 begins, the Trump Administration’s final rule would abruptly reverse that trend, erecting a series of new barriers to enrollment that will deprive up to 1.8 million people of insurance coverage by the Administration’s own estimates, and significantly drive up the costs incurred by Plaintiff States in providing healthcare, including increasing state expenditures on Medicaid, uncompensated emergency care, and funding other services provided to newly uninsured residents.

    California has approximately two million ACA plan enrollees, the third highest of any state. The final rule by HHS would make substantial changes to the operation of the ACA marketplaces, including adding new bureaucratic barriers, imposing an automatic monthly charge on all automatically reenrolled consumers who qualify for $0 premiums, shortening the open enrollment period for signing up for health coverage, and making other changes which will make coverage less affordable for millions of individuals nationwide. The final rule would also exclude gender-affirming care as an EHB on federal exchange plans, leaving states responsible for paying for the portion of insurance premiums attributable to any such coverage (but the availability of such care in California would not be impacted).  

    In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the HHS and CMS rule is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and would cause significant harm to states and their residents. All of the challenged marketplace changes implemented by the final rule will be harmful to individual consumers and state and local governments. The final rule imposes burdensome and costly paperwork requirements, limits the opportunities to sign up for health coverage, substantially increases cost-sharing limits, and forces exchanges and consumers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prove eligibility for coverage and subsidies. These changes will result in direct and immediate costs to States as well as harms tied to decreased enrollment.

    In filing the lawsuit, California Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Platkin are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. 

    A copy of the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction will be made available here and here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: VIDEO: Ricketts Fights to Protect America

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, during his weekly press call with Nebraska media, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) discussed the One Big Beautiful Bill and his work to protect America.
    Watch the video here.
    “Lasting prosperity depends on lasting security,” said Ricketts.  “No nation can thrive without secure borders and a strong military.  The One Big Beautiful Bill is the strongest national security and border security package in American history.  This bill protects the good life in Nebraska.”
    TRANSCRIPT:
    Senator Ricketts: “Thank you for joining our press call today. 
    “Lasting prosperity depends on lasting security.
    “No nation can thrive without secure borders and a strong military.  
    “The One Big Beautiful Bill is the strongest national security and border security package in American history.  
    “This bill protects the good life in Nebraska.
    “Under the Biden Administration every state was a border state. 
    “Illegal immigration has real consequences for every state, including Nebraska.  
    “We have seen the flow of fentanyl, the rise of human trafficking, and its terrible consequences on Nebraskans.
    “We have lost young lives like Taryn Lee Griffith.
    “This bill gives law enforcement the tools to fight back and protect our communities while restoring the rule of law.   
    “Nebraska families deserve a federal government that secures our border and enforces the law.  
    “President Biden oversaw 10.5 million illegal border encounters.  
    “We are still seeing the effects of the Biden Border Crisis in Nebraska.  
    “Just last week, authorities arrested two members of the violent MS-13 gang in Omaha.  
    “The One Big Beautiful Bill responds with a historic investment in border security.  
    “It includes $46.5 billion to complete the border wall system, including roads, fiber, sensors, and cameras.  
    “It provides $10 billion in grants to reimburse states for the costs of Biden’s federal failure.  
    “Another $6.1 billion goes to cutting-edge surveillance tools that will give Border Patrol agents better eyes on the ground.  
    “The bill also creates jobs by providing funding for the hiring of 16,000 new immigration and customs agents while expanding detention capacity to end catch-and-release.
    “The security threats we face do not stop at our borders, we must also deter foreign adversaries and threats.
    “Nebraska’s airmen, missile programs, and military bases help defend our country every day.  
    “We are proud to host key parts of America’s defense infrastructure, and we understand the importance of peace through strength.
    “The One Big Beautiful Bill includes over a $150 billion dollar in investment in America’s defense, making it clear to Communist China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that we will meet any threats with force and resolve.   
    “It strengthens the Defense Production Act, so our military supply chains remain resilient and ready for any challenge. 
    “It includes $25 billion for the Golden Dome, a layered missile defense shield that will protect Americans from evolving threats.  
    “It provides $29 billion for shipbuilding and expanding the maritime industrial base, that includes funds for a Virginia-class submarine, two destroyers, new oilers, and unmanned surface vehicles.
    “Our Coast Guard will be bolstered, to be able to counter drug and human trafficking as well as deter adversaries in the Arctic.
    “This is through funding for 17 new icebreakers, 21 new cutters, and more than 40 helicopters and 6 new planes.
    “There’s funding for the advanced X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, developing the B-21 bomber fleet, ramping up munitions production, and applying artificial intelligence to the battlefield.
    “Through these investments, we are demonstrating peace through strength. 
    “The bill also helps reverse dangerous recruitment trends in our military.  
    “Under President Trump, we are seeing record-breaking recruitment numbers.  
    “We are renewing the warrior spirit.  
    “That is good news for America’s readiness and morale.  
    “It’s bad news for America’s adversaries.
    “For Nebraska, the bill brings real investment.  
    “It includes $2.5 billion for risk reduction activities tied to the Sentinel ICBM program, which will be partly based in Western Nebraska.  
    “It also includes $168 million to accelerate production of the Survivable Airborne Operations Center, also known as SAOC, at Offutt Air Force Base.  
    “These investments will mean more jobs, more innovation, and a stronger defense posture right here in Nebraska.
    “The One Big Beautiful Bill keeps America secure and protects Nebraskans.  
    “It honors the brave women and men who serve in uniform, defend our borders, and operate from bases across the state.  
    “As President Trump responds to rising global threats and reverses Biden’s open border policies, this bill gives our nation the resources to act.  
    “The One Big Beautiful Bill protects Nebraska and protects America.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Secretary Noem to Host Press Conference Exposing “Worst of the Worst” Criminal Illegal Aliens in Tennessee

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    Headline: Secretary Noem to Host Press Conference Exposing “Worst of the Worst” Criminal Illegal Aliens in Tennessee

    Secretary Noem to Host Press Conference Exposing “Worst of the Worst” Criminal Illegal Aliens in Tennessee
    aunica.brockel

    On Friday, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will host a press conference in Nashville, Tennessee at 11am EDT (10am CDT) exposing the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens arrested by the Department under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership in the Volunteer State.

    Watch on YouTube

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Deluzio Calls on Dept. of Education to Restore $7 Billion in K-12 & Adult Education Funding

    Source: US Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA)

    CARNEGIE, PA – Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA-17) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education and the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget demanding that they reverse their decision to illegally withhold nearly $7 billion dollars of funding for K-12 schools and adult education from states and local school districts around the country. In the letter, Congressman Deluzio joins 149 of his fellow lawmakers in insisting that the funding be immediately released after hearing intense concern from over a dozen school districts in Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District. 

    “This unnecessary delay of education funding, which accounts for at least 10 percent of federal K-12 funding in every state, is alarming parents, local elected officials, and education agencies. It is disrupting school and district planning, jeopardizing the education of millions of students, and is already resulting in layoffs as well as program delays and cancellations, write the Members of Congress in their letter to Administration officials. “There is no legitimate reason why any review of these programs should prevent the Administration from fulfilling its responsibility to the American people on time. No more excuses – follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families.”

    The Trump Administration’s actions here are threatening to take away $230 million from Pennsylvania’s schools. This week, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro joined a multistate lawsuit challenging the Administration’s unlawful withholding of funds from the Commonwealth’s kids and schools. 

    The full letter is available here and is copied below: 

    LETTER TEXT 

    July 10, 2025

    The Honorable Linda McMahon  
    Secretary of Education  
    United States Department of Education  
    400 Maryland Avenue, SW  
    Washington, DC 20002 

    The Honorable Russell Vought  
    Director Office of Management and Budget  
    Executive Office of the President  
    725 17th Street, NW  
    Washington, DC 20503 

    Secretary McMahon and Director Vought,  

    We write to request more information about your decision to illegally withhold nearly $7 billion dollars of funding for K-12 schools and adult education from states and local school districts around the country and to insist that this funding be immediately released. Without these funds, schools are facing difficult and unnecessary decisions on programs for students and teachers.  

    On June 30, 2025, just one day before these funds become available for obligation, the Department notified states that they would not receive these funds by July 1 and that “[g]iven the change in Administrations, the Department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding … and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year.” This late-breaking decision, which provided no timeline for which states can expect a final decision, is leaving states financially vulnerable and forcing many to make last minute decisions about how to proceed with K12 education in this upcoming school year. The education funding withheld by the Administration reflects resources provided by Congress that are designed to help schools with a variety of issues, including student learning and achievement, after-school programs, and teacher training. Additionally, education funding provided by Congress to help with adult education and literacy is also being withheld.2  

    This unnecessary delay of education funding, which accounts for at least 10 percent of federal K-12 funding in every state, is alarming parents, local elected officials, and education agencies. It is disrupting school and district planning, jeopardizing the education of millions of students, and is already resulting in layoffs as well as program delays and cancellations.3 Further, it is causing concern to adult education programs that are faced with similar decisions without immediate access to expected funding. 

    Accordingly, please provide responses to the following questions no later than July 15, 2025. 

    1. When will the Administration finish its review and release the funding provided by Congress to states to use for the school year beginning next month?
    2. Has the Administration done any outreach or offered any sort of support for state and local education agencies to assist them and their partners in navigating this period of uncertainty?
    3. If the Administration knew it wanted to review these funds, why didn’t this review start earlier in the year? Was the review or the timely release of funds affected by the lack of staff at the Department, which is a direct result of the reductions in force (RIFs) executed by the Administration?  

    There is no legitimate reason why any review of these programs should prevent the Administration from fulfilling its responsibility to the American people on time. No more excuses – follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families.  

    We look forward to hearing from you and seeing these dollars allocated immediately.  

    Sincerely, 

    (signatories) 

    1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I-C, 20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq., Title II-A, 20 U.S.C. 6611 et seq., Title III-A, 20 U.S.C. 6812 et seq., Title IV-A, 20 U.S.C. 7111 et seq., Title IV-B, 20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.; https://www.npr.org/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5453457/trump-school-funding-grants 

    2. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II, 29 U.S.C. 3271 et seq 

    3. States Face Uncertainty as an Estimated $6.2 Billion in K–12 Funding Remains Unreleased: Here’s the Fiscal Impact by State | Learning Policy Institute 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Peters Statement on Republicans Passing Bill to Gut Bipartisan Funding Congress Approved to Support Local Public Media, U.S. National Security Interests

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters

    Ahead of Final Passage, Peters Delivered Speech on Senate Floor to Voice His Opposition to the Bill

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI), a member of the Appropriations Committee, released the following statement after Senate Republicans passed a bill to cut more than $9 billion in funding Congress previously approved on a bipartisan basis to support local public media and U.S. security interests around the globe: 

    “Republicans just gutted funding for local public TV and radio stations across our country that provide invaluable services to the American people, including emergency alerts that help keep folks safe and informed during disasters. When catastrophic ice storms swept through Northern Michigan earlier this year, local radio stations literally saved lives by broadcasting emergency warnings after commercial towers went down. Those services and more are now at risk.      

    “The bill Republicans just passed also guts funding for programs that play a key role in maintaining U.S. leadership and protecting our national security interests around the globe. These initiatives also help stimulate local businesses and economies here at home. Much of that support is now gone. 

    “But the real issue at hand is that Republicans just showed how quickly they will roll over for President Trump, and bypass the bipartisan funding laws that many of them voted for, even if it harms their constituents. I voted against these reckless cuts because Congress, not the President, passes the laws to determine where our federal resources go.” 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: As Trump’s Chaos Jeopardizes America’s Farmers, Duckworth Discusses Agriculture Priorities with Illinois Corn Growers and Illinois Soybean Association

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 17, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) yesterday met with leaders and members from the Illinois Corn Growers and the Illinois Soybean Producers to discuss their shared priorities to grow Illinois’s agriculture industry and support our farmers. Duckworth and the members discussed the importance of supporting our family farmers by expanding the biofuels market, increasing agricultural exports and improving farm safety net programs as Donald Trump continues to threaten critical federal agricultural programs. Photos from yesterday’s meeting with the Illinois Corn Growers can be found on the Senator’s website. Photos from yesterday’s meeting with the Illinois Soybean Producers can be found on the Senator’s website.

    “America has always depended on our nation’s farmers to grow the food and fuel we need, and I’m proud to advocate for them on both the national and international stage,” Duckworth said. “The work of Illinois’s farmers is so important to the strength of our state and our nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to support the Illinois Corn Growers, the Illinois Soybean Association and our farmers across the state at the federal level.”

    In the Senate, Duckworth has been a leader in supporting biofuels, including expansion of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and permanent authority to use E15 fuel year-round. Duckworth, the founding co-chair of the Senate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Caucus, helped introduce the bipartisan Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act and the bipartisan Next Generations Fuel Act to allow the year-round, nationwide sale of ethanol blends higher than 10 percent. Duckworth additionally helped introduce the bipartisan Home Front Energy Independence Act to ban Russian oil and expand use and production of biofuel that’s grown in the American heartland, while providing American families with a less expensive option to fuel their vehicles. Previously, she introduced the SAF Accuracy Act and helped introduce the Farm to Fly Act and to help accelerate the production and development of SAF.

    As a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Duckworth has been an advocate for Illinois agriculture across the globe and helped secure significant wins for Illinois and American agriculture. After Duckworth’s visit in 2023, Japan announced a regulatory change that will lead to an increase in imports from U.S. biofuel producers, supporting our farmers and growing Illinois’s economy, and following a prior trip to Taiwan in 2022, she helped secure a commitment from Taiwan to purchase an estimated $2.6 billion of our Illinois’s corn and soybeans.

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: As Trump’s Chaos Jeopardizes America’s Farmers, Duckworth Discusses Agriculture Priorities with Illinois Corn Growers and Illinois Soybean Association

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 17, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) yesterday met with leaders and members from the Illinois Corn Growers and the Illinois Soybean Producers to discuss their shared priorities to grow Illinois’s agriculture industry and support our farmers. Duckworth and the members discussed the importance of supporting our family farmers by expanding the biofuels market, increasing agricultural exports and improving farm safety net programs as Donald Trump continues to threaten critical federal agricultural programs. Photos from yesterday’s meeting with the Illinois Corn Growers can be found on the Senator’s website. Photos from yesterday’s meeting with the Illinois Soybean Producers can be found on the Senator’s website.

    “America has always depended on our nation’s farmers to grow the food and fuel we need, and I’m proud to advocate for them on both the national and international stage,” Duckworth said. “The work of Illinois’s farmers is so important to the strength of our state and our nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to support the Illinois Corn Growers, the Illinois Soybean Association and our farmers across the state at the federal level.”

    In the Senate, Duckworth has been a leader in supporting biofuels, including expansion of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and permanent authority to use E15 fuel year-round. Duckworth, the founding co-chair of the Senate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Caucus, helped introduce the bipartisan Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act and the bipartisan Next Generations Fuel Act to allow the year-round, nationwide sale of ethanol blends higher than 10 percent. Duckworth additionally helped introduce the bipartisan Home Front Energy Independence Act to ban Russian oil and expand use and production of biofuel that’s grown in the American heartland, while providing American families with a less expensive option to fuel their vehicles. Previously, she introduced the SAF Accuracy Act and helped introduce the Farm to Fly Act and to help accelerate the production and development of SAF.

    As a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Duckworth has been an advocate for Illinois agriculture across the globe and helped secure significant wins for Illinois and American agriculture. After Duckworth’s visit in 2023, Japan announced a regulatory change that will lead to an increase in imports from U.S. biofuel producers, supporting our farmers and growing Illinois’s economy, and following a prior trip to Taiwan in 2022, she helped secure a commitment from Taiwan to purchase an estimated $2.6 billion of our Illinois’s corn and soybeans.

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Risch Statement on Passage of President Trump Spending Cuts in Rescission Package

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Idaho James E Risch

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) released the following statement today on the Senate’s passage of nearly $10 billion in federal spending cuts through President Trump’s rescission package.

    “U.S. tax dollars should not subsidize radical programs and organizations that undermine American values. This $9 billion rescissions package cuts woke and excessive funding to ensure the responsible use of Americans’ tax dollars,” said Risch. “The fight to root out waste is not over. Congress must take a close look at our bloated federal spending habits, and like hardworking Idahoans, learn to live within its means.”

    Senator Risch has repeatedly introduced legislation to rein in federal spending and require Congress to pass a balanced budget.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Will Donald Trump get Vladimir Putin (before Maga gets Trump)?

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

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


    You know when the Kremlin is worried about something – it starts talking about nuclear weapons. And so it was, just two days after Donald Trump revealed he had decided to lift his administration’s pause on the supply of US-made weapons to Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, raised Russia’s nuclear doctrine. In response to a handy question from a friendly reporter as to whether Russia’s nuclear doctrine was still active, Peskov said: “Russia’s nuclear doctrine remains in effect, and thus, all its provisions continue to apply.”

    By saying “all its provisions”, he was emphasising the changes made in December last year which significantly lowered the bar for Russia to use its nuclear deterrent. It states that Russia “reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons” in response to nuclear weapons or “other types of weapons of mass destruction” against itself or its allies.

    Whether Putin and his team consider the sorts of weapons the US is prepared to allow Ukraine to use against Russia as weapons of mass destruction is not clear as yet. The US president specifically said that a fresh supply of Patriot systems was already en route to Ukraine from Germany. But he also hinted that other more offensive weapons could also be in the mix. And in a July 4 phone call he is reported to have asked the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whether he could hit Moscow or St Petersburg, to which Zelensky replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

    Trump is reported to have gone on to say that it was important to “make [Russians] feel the pain”.

    At the beginning of the week, the US president was also keen for Russia to feel the economic pain of indirect sanctions, with 100% tariffs promised against any country buying Russia’s oil. Could this be a turning point?


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    Interesting question, says David Dunn. Dunn, professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham, says Trump’s decision – if he follows through with it – pretty much brings the US back in line with its policy under the Biden administration. Particularly now that Trump appears to have ruled out, for the time being, allowing Ukraine to use long-range offensive missiles against targets in Moscow.

    As Dunn points out, there’s no sense that Trump has changed his overall tack on what he is looking for from Putin: a ceasefire, rather than, as Biden repeatedly insisted, a settlement that respects Ukrainian sovereignty and restores the land occupied illegally by Russian troops.

    Meanwhile the economic pain he promised to inflict on Russia has been scheduled to begin in 50 days. This – as many commentators have been quick to point out – has irresistible echoes of his off-again, on-again tariff regime. So will these sanctions actually happen?




    Read more:
    What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war


    The Russian stock market certainly wasn’t that worried. Shortly after trump made his announcement, the Moscow stock exchange increased by 2.7% and the rouble strengthened. Oil markets also appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks. Maybe this is another case of “Taco” (Trump always chickens out)?

    Patrick O’Shea, an international relations and global governance specialist at the University of Glasgow, believes that the markets’ reaction is more than just indifference to what Trump was threatening. It was relief.

    “Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible, the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow,” O’Shea writes. “The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.”

    What has not been widely reported in the UK is that a bipartisan bill making its way through the US congress would have been far more punitive that anything Trump is threatening. Now this has been paused pending Trump’s initiative in 50 days’ time.




    Read more:
    Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously


    Back in Europe, meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies got together in Rome last weekend to discuss what will be needed to rebuild the war-torn country and how to raise the necessary funds. Stefan Wolff was watching proceedings and believes that while countries in the “coalition of the willing” are ready to open their coffers to help Ukraine get back on its feet, the funds so far pledged will not touch the sides.

    Ukraine’s allies at the conference have pledged more than €10 billion (£8.7 billion). But, Wolff – an expert in international relations at the University of Birmingham who has contributed regular analysis of the war in Ukraine – points out that this sum looks minuscule alongside the World Bank’s latest assessment that Ukraine will need at least US$524 billion (£388 billion) over the next decade to fund its recovery.

    There have been some fairly upbeat forecasts about Ukraine’s potential for growth. The IMF forecasts growth for Ukraine of between 2% and 3% for 2025, which is likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But it cautions that this will not happen without considerable overseas support. And an end to the war. Neither is certain anytime soon.




    Read more:
    Over €10 billion has now been pledged for Ukraine’s recovery. It’s nowhere near enough


    Maga moves – but will Trump take responsiblity?

    To Washington, where the US president is having what would probably count as the worst week of his second administration so far. Large sections of his faithful Maga base are in almost open revolt at his seeming reluctance to release what have become known as the “Epstein files”. You may remember he littered his election campaign last year with dark hints about the revelations the files must surely contain about the possible involvement of the rich and powerful in child-sex exploitation. But this week he essentially said it was old news, which was “pretty boring”, adding that “I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.”

    This is not only at odds with what he spent much of 2024 saying. It also flies in the face of what his own attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in February when she said Epstein’s client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review”. Now of course, the justice department says there is no list. This is not what much of his base wants to hear.

    Rob Dover, an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull who has researched conspiracy theories and the people who obsess about them, says this is a dangerous moment for the Trump presidency. He points to Maga unrest over Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and to resume military aid to Ukraine, both of which appear to contradict his pledge to keep the US out of foreign conflicts. Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, which has cut medicaid and other benefits to the poorest people in the US, will also inflict hurt on many is his base. Even his recent musing that he agrees with his health secretary’s questionable assertion that Coca-Cola should be made with sugar cane not corn syrup to “make America healthy again” is sure to anger corn farmers in the Midwest, another core Trump constituency.

    “Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him,” Dover concludes.




    Read more:
    Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base


    Trouble brewing in Bosnia

    I had the great good fortune to visit Sarajevo in December last year where I spent a few days exploring, taking a walking tour of the old town and a wider tour of the whole city which took us across the notional border with the Republika Srpska, one of the two main constituent parts of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    Sarajevo: a beautiful but troubled city.
    Julian Nyča via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    The country was created by the Dayton accord, bringing an end to the ethnic conflict in the mid-1990s that saw whole populations displaced as ethnic Serbs and Croats sought to create new pure mini-states by expelling mainly Muslim Bosniaks.

    When visiting, I felt a pervading sense that the two parts of the new country sit uncomfortably next to each other – and in recent months the friction has intensified considerably. Birte Julia Gippert of the University of Liverpool, who has researched extensively the conflict in the Balkans and the attempts to bring peace to the region, explains how the situation has become so tense.




    Read more:
    Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession


    Why is Israel bombing Syria?

    Conflict in Syria escalated again this week, with Israeli warplanes launching airstrikes against government buildings in Damascus this week. A Netanyahu government minister, Amichai Chikli, referred to Syria’s leader, Ahmed al-Shara, as “a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay”.

    Mixed up in all this is sectarian fighting in southern Syria was has been going on sporadically since al-Shara took power at the end of last year. But, as Ali Mamouri of Deakin University explains, Israel wants to see the emergence of a federal Syria, which the new regime has ruled out. It also want to retain influence in the region and secure its northern border with Syria.

    While a ceasefire is in place for now, Mamouri sees the situation as extremely fragile with further clashes “not only possible but highly probable”.

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


    ref. Will Donald Trump get Vladimir Putin (before Maga gets Trump)? – https://theconversation.com/will-donald-trump-get-vladimir-putin-before-maga-gets-trump-261416

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden Demands Answers on Shadowy, Mass Collection of DNA from Immigrants by DHS

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    July 17, 2025

    Agents Often Take DNA Without Explanation, Including from Thousands of Children; DNA Surveillance Targets Immigrant Communities and Resembles Authoritarian Government Practices

    Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., slammed the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice for massively expanding the DNA collection of immigrant children and adults to permanently store in a national criminal database that could be weaponized by the Trump administration. 

    Wyden demanded answers from the Trump administration, which has failed to explain why it has vastly expanded DNA collection from immigrants by 5000%. Department of Homeland Security agents fail to clearly notify immigrants their DNA is being taken, fail to follow the department’s own policies, and often threaten individuals with arrest or criminal charges if they refuse to give their DNA, according to reports.  

    “Governments exercising such broad discretion to involuntarily collect and retain DNA are repressive authoritarian regimes also engaging in gross human rights violations, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, and more,” Wyden wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. “In fact, the U.S. Government has condemned the involuntary collection of DNA by the People’s Republic of China and has sanctioned entities engaged in this practice, yet this practice appears to be ongoing on our own soil.”

    The collection of samples includes more than 133,000 children as young as four years old, whose DNA will be used by law enforcement for every potential future investigation. 

    Legal experts have warned that the Administration’s secret, mass-collection of immigrant DNA may also violate constitutional due process rights. The Trump administration has green lighted DHS agents’ ability to detain and collect samples from immigrants without prior judicial authorization. 

    In order for Congress and the American people to understand the Trump administration’s collection of DNA from immigrants, Wyden requested answers to the following questions by August 1, 2025:

    1. What is the United States Government’s interest in collecting and retaining DNA from noncitizens in the course of immigration detention and enforcement?

    2. Which agencies, including DHS subcomponent agencies, has the Attorney General authorized to participate in the collection of DNA from noncitizens?

    3. Please describe in detail how DHS is able to access and utilize DNA samples and related information collected in the course of immigration detention and enforcement once the samples and information are retained in CODIS and any other databases.

    4. Please describe in detail how DOJ is able to access and utilize DNA samples and related information collected in the course of immigration detention and enforcement once the samples and information are retained in CODIS and any other databases.

    5. When DHS or subcomponent agencies collect DNA material from individuals in immigration detention and enforcement, where are DNA samples stored following collection?

    6. To date, how many adult noncitizens have DHS officials collected DNA from during immigration detention and enforcement activities? Further, how many DNA samples from adult noncitizens have been collected by DHS since January 2025?

    7. To date, how many minors (18 years old and younger) have DHS officials collected DNA from during immigration detention and enforcement activities in the last five years?

    8. Further, how many DNA samples from minors have been collected by DHS since January 2025?

    9. What Department-wide guidance and/or agency-specific guidance is provided to DHS officials regarding the collection of DNA from noncitizens?

    10. How often is DNA collected by DHS, without judicial authorization, being used in criminal investigations and prosecutions?

    11. Does DHS policy prohibit intimidation, coercion, or the threat of criminal prosecution to compel a noncitizen to provide a DNA sample?

    12. Does DHS or any subcomponent currently have a process in place to expunge DNA and related information stored in CODIS that were collected in the course of a noncitizen’s detention?

    13. Does DHS by practice or policy notify individuals whose DNA and related information have been collected during immigration detention?

    14. What information are DOJ and DHS, respectively, able to extract from the DNA they retain? Is DNA accessed to determine any ethnographic or racial information about the individual?

    Wyden has consistently advocated in the Senate for humane immigration reform.  In July, he criticized the Trump administration’s hostile immigration policies and joined colleagues to introduce a bill to require immigration enforcement agents to display clear identification. In March, he slammed the Trump administration for its resurrection of a draconian immigration order that requires immigrants to register with the federal government and carry proof of their registration at all times. In April, he reintroduced legislation to guarantee legal representation for unaccompanied children in immigration court. In June, he reintroduced legislation to protect TPS and DED recipients from Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

    The text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Votes To Protect Life-Saving Foreign Aid, Save Local Public Radio And TV

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, today voted against a Republican bill that cuts $9 billion to foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Republican rescissions bill will devastate public TV and radio stations across the country, making it more difficult for people – especially those in Native communities and rural areas – to get news and critical emergency alerts. The bill will also gut life-saving foreign aid programs that millions of people around the world rely on. The legislation was passed without any bipartisan support and heads back to the House of Representatives for consideration.

    “We used to be the indispensable nation that people around the world counted on for help. But not anymore. With these cuts, we will cause death, spread disease, and deepen starvation across the planet,” said Senator Schatz.

    Schatz continued, “Public TV and radio stations deliver news, emergency alerts, weather forecasts, health information, public safety announcements, and election coverage. Stations like HPR tell local stories that no one else does. To gut all of that overnight, in the name of finding savings or to punish certain outlets that Donald Trump doesn’t like is unacceptable.”

    Earlier today, Schatz spoke out against the Trump administration’s illegal dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the catastrophic consequences the elimination of aid has had on vulnerable people around the world.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: RELEASE: Senate Approves $9 Billion in DOGE Cut Savings for Taxpayers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) released the following statement on this morning’s passage of S.Amdt.2853 to H.R.4, Rescissions Act of 2025. The package targets $9 billion in taxpayer-funded public broadcasting and wasteful foreign aid:

    “This is the first step in the right direction to claw back wasteful spending and programs identified by DOGE. Oklahomans sent me to Washington to fight for them and ensure their hard-earned tax dollars are being used responsibly,” said Senator Mullin. “We have a lot of work left to do and we’re just getting started. President Trump and Senate Republicans will continue to work tirelessly to deliver for the American people.”

    Below are just 10 of the cuts made by President Trump’s 2025 Rescissions Act:

    1. $1.1 Billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
    2. $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda
    3. $6 million for “Net Zero Cities” in Mexico
    4. $8,000 for promoting vegan food in Zambia
    5. $3.3 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe
    6. $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street
    7. $1 million for Voter ID in Haiti
    8. $18 million to improve gender diversity in the Mexican street lighting industry
    9. $21 million on wind farms in Ukraine
    10. $882,000 to fund social media mentorship in Serbia and Belarus 

    NOTE: This first recissions package targeted one tenth of one percent of the federal budget. For additional information on S.Amdt.2853 to H.R.4, click here.

    Senator Mullin provided timely updates throughout the rescissions process in a series of social media posts, including here and here. If you missed Senator Mullin’s behind-the-scenes tours of the U.S. Capitol which he recorded last night between votes on the floor, follow @SenMullin on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested a new trade deal with the United States is now most likely to include tariffs. There is, in his own words, “not a lot of evidence right now” that the Donald Trump administration is willing to stand down from imposing levies on Canadian imports.

    In making this acknowledgement, Carney has backed down from his previous insistence that Canada would “fight to bring these tariffs to an end.”

    But rather than continuing to retaliate with tariffs of its own, the government has begun to confess that such a tactic may be a losing battle.

    Carney has instead announced Canada will restrict the tariff-free import of cheap, foreign steel to help domestic manufacturers reeling from American tariffs.

    In the wake of the federal government’s recent concession on the Digital Services Tax levied against big American tech companies, it’s another indicator that — unlike the hawkish “elbows up” rhetoric used throughout the federal election campaign — the Canadian government has taken on a more conciliatory tone in advance of the Aug. 1 deadline for a new economic and security deal between Canada and the U.S..

    Dual purposes

    The timing of Carney’s comments can be interpreted two ways.

    Their first and primary purpose is about message control and the need to manage expectations. In announcing this now, the government is not only better able to keep its justification for conceding to Trump at the forefront of media narratives, but it can also prepare Canadians for any further potential concessions in the course of trade negotiations.

    The fact that these comments were made prior to a cabinet meeting could be seen as Carney’s attempt to isolate any cabinet ministers who may still favour a more aggressive stance.

    More substantively, however, the pivot is also a reflection of the realities of both Canada’s actual position vis-à-vis the U.S. and the pragmatism needed to accomplish real trade agreements.




    Read more:
    U.S. tariff threat: How it will impact different products and industries


    Although Trump is unpredictable, it increasingly seems that levies on imports are among his genuinely held and signature policy commitments. As Carney noted, the administration’s recent trade deals with both the United Kingdom and Vietnam included tariffs. And, despite the president’s talk of annexing Canada, Carney’s new stance suggests a more reasonable, albeit very costly, deal is possible — even amid Trump’s bluster.

    Still, for all the attention they’ve received, tariffs are only part of the ongoing negotiations on the economic and security deal.

    What does Trump want?

    The U.S. administration, for example, continues to justify higher tariff threats not just for economic purposes, but ostensibly to counter the illegal drug trade.

    The fact that the Canadian government has already allotted $1 billion to border defence makes it difficult to assess what would satisfy American negotiators.

    More broadly, Trump has expressed a desire to push Canada for changes in security, supply management of the dairy industry, fresh water use and access to rare earth minerals, among others.




    Read more:
    Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump’s rhetoric over Canada’s water science-fiction or reality?


    Regardless of how the trade talks proceed in the coming weeks, though, the domestic consequences for Carney will be determined by how willing Canadians are to continue trusting and supporting him.

    On the one hand, his comments that tariff-free trade deals with the U.S. aren’t realistic could be costly given the fact that more than two-thirds of Canadians continue to favour a hard-line stance with little to no concessions on key files.

    This could result in voters viewing Carney as weak and shifting their support to other leaders. No incumbent stands to benefit from the detrimental effects on economic growth, investments and employment rate Trump’s tariffs will cause.

    But support also depends on Carney’s legitimacy. He could maintain public support despite the fact that, on paper, they oppose his actions. Taking a “hard” versus “soft” line in negotiations is itself an ambiguous and fluid set of designations.

    A major reason why Canadians elected Carney is because they viewed him as having sound personal judgment and the skill set to deal with Trump. This is why, rather than challenging the value of the decision to compromise on tariffs, the Conservatives and other opponents have focused on conveying him as an unreliable and dishonest leader.

    What’s ahead for federal politics?

    At this point, polls suggest that Canadians are generally split down the middle on Carney. While around 50 per cent of Canadians are supportive, the other half remain divided between those strongly opposed and those with a more ambiguous position.

    Could Carney win over the support of those with an unambiguous view? It seems unlikely. Leaders are the usually the most impactful when they enter office. And while rally-around-the-flag effects are real, they are short-lived. That means the long-term challenge for Carney remains maintaining the support of the voters that brought him to power.




    Read more:
    How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so


    The Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to develop in a dynamic and unpredictable fashion, even if the economic and security deal is reached soon.

    After voters dramatically consolidated around the Liberals and Conservatives in the 2025 election, the most important question for federal Canadian politics moving forward in this shifting global environment is which electoral coalition will endure.

    Carney seeks to preserve trust, while the Conservatives search for a compelling alternative. Who will come out on top in the Trump 2.0 era?

    Sam Routley 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. Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/elbows-down-why-mark-carney-seems-to-keep-caving-to-donald-trump-261304

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Trump Signs the HALT Fentanyl Act Into Law; Rep. Moore Was an Original Co-sponsor

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Riley Moore (WV-02)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, President Trump signed the HALT Fentanyl Act into law. Congressman Riley M. Moore was an original co-sponsor of the House version of the legislation, which permanently classifies fentanyl and fentanyl related substances as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

    “We’ve lost countless lives in West Virginia to fentanyl poisoning. I am very proud to have co-sponsored this legislation and thrilled to see it be signed by President Trump. This new law is a key tool in the fight to reduce overdoses and save lives,” said Congressman Moore. “I will continue to champion policies that push back on this deadly poison which has ravaged our communities.

    BACKGROUND: In recent years, chemically altered fentanyl has been pushed by the drug cartels as a way of getting around existing U.S.’ criminal statutes. The HALT Fentanyl Act closes this loophole.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Previously Convicted Felon Found Guilty by Jury for Illegal Possession of a Firearm

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

                WASHINGTON –Guy Cummings, 29, of the District of Columbia, was found guilty yesterday in U.S. District Court of being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.

                Following a three-day trial, a federal jury found Cummings guilty on the one-count indictment charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm by an individual previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year. Chief Judge James E. Boasberg scheduled sentencing for Nov. 3, 2025.

                This case is being prosecuted under the Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful initiative. Make D.C. Safe Again is a law enforcement initiative in support of President Trump’s Executive Order to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful. Make D.C. Safe Again aims to crack down on gun violence, prioritize federal firearms violations, pursue tougher penalties for offenses, and seek detention for federal firearms violators.

                According to court documents, on Jan. 18, 2025, about 1:30 a.m., Metropolitan Police Department Officers were patrolling the 300 block of 50th Street NE, in the Lincoln Heights neighborhood.

                As officers approached a group gathered on the sidewalk, Cummings immediately turned away and ran. One of the officers pursued Cummings on foot through the snow, never losing sight of him. The officer saw Cummings make a tossing motion with his right hand over a brick wall. Shortly after, the officer apprehended Cummings and recognized him as someone who had been ordered to stay away from the neighborhood. Cummings had also been issued a barring notice from the DC Housing Authority Police Department for five years after being arrested for carrying a pistol without a license.

                Retracing Cummings flight path, officers found a loaded Glock 26 9mm pistol where it had landed in the snow after the officer had earlier watched Cummings throw an object over the wall. The firearm had previously been reported stolen.

                In 2017, Cummings had been convicted and sentenced to 36 months in prison for robbery and for carrying a dangerous weapon, and therefore was prohibited from possessing any firearm.

                This case was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division, with assistance from the FBI Washington Field Office. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Martin, Benjamin Helfand, and Jared English.

    25cr44

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    During his 2024 US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly said he would declassify and release the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting his sex trafficking trial.

    The so-called Epstein files are thought to contain contacts, communications and – perhaps most crucially – flight logs. Epstein’s private aircraft was the means by which to visit what has been later termed “paedophile island”, where he and his associates allegedly trafficked and abused children.

    Conspiracy-minded Trump supporters, many of whom believe Epstein was murdered by powerful figures to cover up their roles in his child sex crimes, think the Epstein files will provide them with a who’s who of the supposed elites involved in child-sex exploitation.


    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.


    During his campaign, Trump hinted that the Epstein files would compromise powerful people – suggesting he knew their identities and what they had done. It was simultaneously a warning shot to these individuals and a way to energise his “Make America Great Again” (Maga) support base. It also validated part of the so-called QAnon conspiracy theory around a “deep-state” cover-up of an elite child sex abuse network.

    But the justice department recently announced that its review of these papers revealed no client list of politically important men, and also that Epstein had died by suicide. This struck down two of the most important beliefs of Trump’s base. For a large section of the Maga movement, this somewhat dull set of conclusions has felt like a betrayal.

    Musk smells opportunity

    Trump’s former close ally, funder and adviser, Elon Musk, has used the Epstein files imbroglio to go on the attack via social media. Musk has, without offering evidence, repeatedly insinuated that Trump’s name is in the files. Trump has responded by accusing Musk of “losing his mind” and used evidence from Epstein’s former lawyer, David Schoen, to refute Musk’s accusations.

    Musk’s allegations could be toxic for Trump. A good portion of the Maga movement think the QAnon conspiracy has some truth to it. So being potentially tied to a child sex exploitation ring would damage Trump’s reputation with his base on a subject they care about strongly. Musk has caused some Maga activists to wonder if Trump is part of a cover up.

    The Maga base largely remains loyal to Trump. But this loyalty has required considerable pragmatism since Trump was reelected. A key position supported by Maga voters, Trump’s opposition to foreign military adventures, was reversed by his attack on Iranian military sites in June.

    Maga-aligned spokespeople justified these actions on the grounds they were limited and a response to exceptional provocation. They are portrayed as a counterpoint to the near open-ended commitment of former US president George Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s.

    Further Maga pragmatism has been required over the so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will add trillions of US dollars to national debt, as well as the cuts to healthcare and food stamp funding. These latter actions have removed coverage and aid from a good portion of Maga-aligned voters.

    Despite the personal financial pain, Maga loyalists have couched their support in terms of reducing waste and shrinking the size of the government. These loyalists have faith in Trump’s word that they will ultimately not be disadvantaged – though the implementation phase will be the test of this.

    Trump has also stretched the patience and loyalty of corn farmers in mid-western states, a natural base for him. He has called for Coca-Cola to use cane sugar rather than corn syrup in the full-sugar version of its drink. Trump and his controversial health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that cane sugar is healthier – which is open to question – and will “make America healthy again”.

    While the question of which sweetener is used in Coke is marginal, supporting something that damages mid-western farmers will be difficult for Maga loyalists to reconcile. In having to find a way of overcoming the tensions in the policy, they may begin to question Trump’s wisdom.

    A Trump supporter sporting a red ‘Keep America Great’ hat at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa.
    Aspects and Angles / Shutterstock

    The arguments surrounding the Epstein files might be uniquely dangerous for Trump and his relationship with his Maga base. The QAnon paedophile ring conspiracy is core to a great number of Maga loyalists, and Trump was their man to reveal “the truth”.

    But the justice department has now effectively rejected that part of their world view. And the response of some has been to question whether Trump is also part of a cover up.

    Worse still, Trump has gone on the attack. He has said the Epstein conspiracy was never real and has described some of his supporters as “gullible weaklings” for continuing to believe in it. For some supporters this has been too much, and they have aired their frustration on Trump’s Truth Social media platform as well as on right-leaning blogs and podcasts.

    Trump has begun to soften his critique of those believing in the Epstein conspiracies, saying he would want to release any credible information. He has also returned to a campaigning tactic of whataboutery, pointing at what he says is the unfair treatment he receives compared to his predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

    The Epstein files episode might well pass. But the question of whether Maga is now bigger than Trump will not. For a president who once joked that his support was so strong he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing voters, the loyalty and pragmatic flexibility of his supporters is important.

    Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him. From beyond the grave, Epstein might have helped begin a new era in American politics.

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

    ref. Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base – https://theconversation.com/trumps-changing-stance-on-epstein-files-is-testing-the-loyalty-of-his-maga-base-261406

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Miller-Meeks Leads Bipartisan Bill to Stop Fentanyl Sales on Social Media

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ (IA-02)

    Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) today announced the reintroduction of the bipartisan Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act, legislation aimed at cracking down on the sale of deadly fentanyl on social media platforms and giving law enforcement the tools to combat this growing threat.

    The bipartisan bill, led by Miller-Meeks and Congresswoman Angie Craig (D-MN), requires social media companies and other communication service providers to alert federal law enforcement when illicit drug activity, including fentanyl trafficking, is detected on their platforms.

    “Fentanyl is tearing apart families and devastating communities across America,” said Miller-Meeks. “The Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act gives law enforcement the tools they need to stop the online sale of deadly fentanyl and hold those targeting our kids accountable. By requiring social media and communication platforms to report fentanyl activity, we can save lives and shut down this growing threat. I’m proud to lead this bipartisan, bicameral effort to protect our youth and strengthen our national response to the fentanyl crisis.”

    “Fentanyl has wreaked havoc on Minnesota communities, and we know that too many fentanyl overdoses have been caused by drugs that were sold through social media,” said Rep. Craig. “We can and should hold social media companies accountable for drug trafficking on their platforms. That’s why I’m proud to be working across the aisle to pass this common-sense legislation that will force social media companies to report drug trafficking to the authorities, help law enforcement curb the sale of illicit drugs and keep Minnesotans safe online.”

    Background:

    The bill is named for two teenagers: Cooper Davis of Kansas and Devin Norring of Minnesota, who died after unknowingly taking counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl purchased through Snapchat. The National Crime Prevention Council estimates that eight in ten teen and young adult fentanyl overdose deaths are associated with social media contact.

    “Our family and the Devin J. Norring Foundation wholeheartedly support the Cooper Davis & Devin Norring Act – legislation that serves as a critical step toward protecting families from the deadly threat of fentanyl sold through social media,” said the family of Devin J. Norring and the Devin J. Norring Foundation. “This bill honors the lives of Cooper and Devin by holding tech companies accountable and giving law enforcement the tools they need to respond to this crisis. No parent should have to search for answers in a system that shields predators. It’s time for truth, transparency, and action.”

    “Our family continues to be extremely grateful for Senator Marshall and his colleagues’ dedication to this legislation,” said Libby Davis, mother of Cooper Davis. “We are both honored and saddened to have another name, Devin Norring, added to this bill. However, the harsh reality is that there are thousands of other teenagers’ names that could be added to this bill because they too lost their lives in this same tragic way. Each with a story demonstrating that this can happen to any family. We, as parents and grandparents, do so many things to keep our kids safe, from baby gates, car seats, and seatbelts, to bike helmets, sunscreen, and vaccinations. This is no different. We need our legislators to come together and get this bipartisan bill across the finish line so that countless children can be saved, theirs being no exception.”

    This reintroduction builds on Miller-Meeks’ leadership on fentanyl policy. Just yesterday, President Trump signed the HALT Fentanyl Act into law, a bill Miller-Meeks helped introduce and champion in the House as an original cosponsor. The new law permanently criminalizes fentanyl-related substances and gives law enforcement the authority they need to get synthetic opioids off the streets.

    The Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act is endorsed by the Alexander Neville Foundation, the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies, the American College of Emergency Physicians, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Community Anti-Drug Coalition, the Cooper Davis Memorial Foundation, the Devin J. Norring Foundation, Houston HIDTA, Mothers Against Prescription Drug Abuse, the National Association of Counties, the National District Attorneys Association, the National HIDTA Directors Association, the Partnership for Safe Medicines and Snap, Inc..

    Representatives Kim Schrier (D-WA), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Addison McDowell (R-NC), Thomas Suozzi (D-NY), Derek Schmidt (R-KS) and Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ) are original co-sponsors of the legislation in the House. 

    It is sponsored in the Senate by Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Todd Young (R-IN).

    Read the bill text HERE.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: AFSCME’s Saunders: We urge Congress to protect federal workers’ freedom to collectively bargain

    Source: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union

    WASHINGTON – AFSCME President Lee Saunders released the following statement in support of efforts to hold a vote on the Protect America’s Workforce Act, which will override Trump’s union-busting executive order and safeguard federal workers’ collective bargaining rights:

    “We applaud the bipartisan coalition of elected officials who are working to push an immediate vote on legislation in the House of Representatives to protect federal workers’ freedom to collectively bargain. The House of Representatives has the votes to stop this illegal, union-busting executive order from continuing to strip more than 1 million workers of their voice on the job, and the speaker of the House should not be blocking this bill from coming to a vote. We urge the bill’s supporters to act swiftly and compel an immediate vote on the Protect America’s Workforce Act. Federal workers have dedicated their lives to keeping our communities safe and healthy, and they need a voice on the job to continue to defend the essential work they do from the billionaires and anti-union extremists who are trying to rob working people of our power.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: NATO Deputy Secretary General discusses a stronger and fairer NATO, and deterring aggression, at LANDEURO symposium

    Source: NATO

    On Thursday (17 July 2025), NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska addressed the LANDEURO symposium of The Association of the United States’ Army, discussing the role of the Allies’ armed forces and industry in deterring aggression.

    Thank you, General Brown.

    And good afternoon, everyone.

    It’s great to be here in Wiesbaden, home to the US Army’s Europe and Africa Headquarters.

    And a critical hub for America’s efforts to ensure stability across the region, but also beyond.

    Wiesbaden also houses our NATO command, the Security Assistance and Training command for Ukraine.

    With hundreds of personnel from NATO and partner countries who work hard, every day.

    To support Ukraine and to coordinate thousands of movements of military supplies, so that Ukraine can fight for it’s freedom, for peace, and for security.

    So what a better place to discuss the role of our armed forces and industry in deterring aggression.

    Let me start by thanking the organisers, the Association of the United States’ Army, for bringing us together to discuss this and many other important topics.

    Less than a month ago, leaders of all Allied nations gathered for the NATO Summit in The Hague.

    And they all had one clear objective.

    How to keep one billion people living in NATO countries safe today.

    And how to deter any possibility of aggression in the future.

    How to make sure that our Alliance can fulfil and I would say continue, in the next 75 and more years, to fulfil our sacred mission.

    What we saw in The Hague at the NATO Summit was bold decisions from our political leaders.

    A strong demonstration of our transatlantic unity and resolve.

    Allies have managed to agree on a very ambitious Defence Investment Plan, a new one, The Hague one,

    to invest 5 percent of GDP for our security by 2035.

    And this really is a game-changer.

    And I shouldn’t be saying this in this room, because you can understand how much of an impact will this have for our deterrence and our defence.

    It will massively increase NATO’s strength and war-fighting capabilities.

    And it will definitely ensure that we continue what we do best, and this is deliver peace, but through strength.

    At least 3.5% of GDP out of the 5% target will be spent on so called core miliary requirements.

    They will be spend on what one can say is the heavy metal of our armed forces — many of you here today.

    And this is the heavy metal that you all need to deter and defend.

    Among all these capability requirements that all Allies have agreed to even a month before the Hague Summit,

    What we have included in this number is a five-fold increase of our air and missile defence systems,

    thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks,

    and millions more artillery shells,

    and drones, and air jets.

    All these things contribute to the capability targets that we need, and the capability targets that require 3.5% of GDP so that they can be financed in due time.

    At the same time, Allies agreed to spend 1.5% of GDP on defence and security related expenses.

    This means more money to support our militaries and societies to become more secure.

    In a world where microchips matter as much as the latest missiles every part of our society and our economy must step up for security.

    From strong cyber defences to secure supply chains.

    From greater resilience to more investment in roads, railways and ports for the sake of our defence plans.

    This is all about making sure that we can get our forces to the right place at the right time, but equipped with the right capabilities.

    It’s also about responding to the world as it is now, not as we wish it to be.

    Preparing for war costs money, 5% is a lot of money.

    But not preparing for it will cost us far more, both in terms of money and in terms of lives. We are no longer fighting wars of choice, where everything is plannable and we set the timetable.

    It is our adversaries that are setting the pace of production and defining the moment.

    Russia is rearming faster than many people have imagined.

    It is enabled by Chinese technology, Iranian drones, and North Korean missiles but also boots on the ground.

    What’s more, Putin has shown that he will not hesitate to use military force to achieve his goals.

    China is also carrying out its own massive military modernisation.

    It is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, completely unconstrained by any arms control agreements.

    It is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and sharpening its tools of economic coercion in the Euro-Atlantic.

    And while all this is happening, we also cannot underestimate the persistent instability in the Middle East,

    divisive rhetoric in the Western Balkans,

    and the ongoing threats of terrorism.

    So as the world becomes more dangerous, more turbulent,

    NATO must become stronger, fairer and, and this is the right place to use the word, more lethal.

    To leave no adversary in any doubt that we will do what it takes to protect and defend each other.

    A couple of weeks ago, we bid a fond farewell to General Cavoli, who as you know wore two hats.

    He was both NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, our SACEUR, but also Commander of the US’s European forces.

    And let me use this opportunity to say that he has played really a fundamental role in transforming the Alliance, even prior to the NATO Summit.

    He has really supported us in fostering a stronger bond between NATO’s Supreme Allied Headquarters in Mons, SHAPE, and the United States’ European Command in Stuttgart.

    General Cavoli made sure that we have robust regional plans to defend every inch of Allied territory.

    And that we continue to modernise NATO’s multi-domain warfighting capabilities.

    From the seabed to outer space, we cannot afford to have any weak links.

    The conflicts in Ukraine, but also the instability and the conflicts in the Middle East have transformed modern warfare.

    In Ukraine, we have seen tactics and trench-warfare from the last world wars, combined with the completely new technology from the next.

    Ukraine has pioneered the use of drones, I was able to see remarkable examples for this, but not only in the air domain.

    But also to neutralise the threat of the Russian army in the Black Sea.

    And to strike Russian military targets far beyond the frontlines.

    Both Russia and Ukraine have carried out kinetic and non-kinetic attacks — across land, sea, air, cyber and information space — and all of this simultaneously.

    This was done to certain extent in devastating ways.

    And we need to therefore think differently about how we operate.

    Not in silos — but really seamlessly across all domains — and at the same time.

    So when we develop our capabilities, this is the thinking, this is the logic.

    This is the philosophy that we have to take into account.

    We also need to think about how we integrate the latest technologies with conventional capabilities to gain the maximum effect.

    And this was very much what SACEUR and SACT worked on in the last years.

    But this is why we were also delighted to welcome General Alexus Grynkewich as our new Supreme Allied Commander.

    He has championed innovation and developed cutting-edge capabilities for our armed forces.

    His appointment demonstrates the United States’ ironclad commitment to our shared security.

    As America continues to put forward its brightest and best in service of the United States of America, but also in the service of the Alliance.

    At the Summit, we heard really strong statements from the US leadership, from President Trump, but also from the two Secretaries and all the representatives.

    How dedicated and how committed they are to NATO and to our collective defence.

    The US continues to stand foursquare with its NATO Allies.

    Because it is good for America’s security and it is vital for the transatlantic security.

    The US has played and continues to play an indispensable role in our Alliance.

    Providing critical enablers, reinforcements, and of course its nuclear deterrence – the ultimate guarantor of our security.

    At the same time, America’s Allies, European and Canada, are stepping up.

    All Allies, all 32 of them, will spend 2 percent of GDP on defence this year, as we have agreed time ago in Wales.

    And many are already going much further and much faster.

    Some of them have stepped up and approached 5% even before the Summit. And this is remarkable leadership.

    They are making sure that we have collectively what we need to deter and defend.

    That’s why the other major focus of the Summit in The Hague was defence production.

    Because cash alone does not deter our adversaries. It does not by itself provide security.

    But concrete capabilities do.

    Our adversaries won’t be deterred just because of our statements, because of our pledges, because of our words.

    But by strong defences, well-equipped troops, and the latest weapons systems.

    This is why the Secretary General has been tireless in his efforts to engage not only with Allied leaders or with the militaries, but also with defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic.

    He has been urging them to open new production lines, put in the extra shifts, really ramp up production.

    But also to boost innovation and come up with capabilities that are actually meaningful today and tomorrow.

    And they are.

    They are really prepared for this game-changing environment around us.

    Across the Alliance, industry has opened hundreds of new production lines and expanded existing ones.

    We are now on course to produce more ships, more planes and ammunition than we have done in decades.

    But we still need to do more.

    NATO Allies today are home to world-class defence companies – some of them present today here with us – the best researchers, and the most innovative entrepreneurs.

    But we need to do these things more, better and faster to drive even more production both on the American but also on the European side of the Atlantic.

    And, again, we need to think differently about how and who we partner with.

    This means working with everyone from the defence primes to civilian start-ups to integrate the latest technologies into our defence.

    But it also means working together not among us in the Alliance, but also with our partners, from Ukraine, European Union, to the Indo-Pacific. All of them joined us for the Hague Summit and we agreed to do more, together, including or especially focusing on defence production.

    There is so much we can learn from Ukraine, and we already are learning.

    We have opened a new joint centre in Poland, the so-called JATEC [the NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre] to do that exactly. To help Ukraine, but also, in the same way use the experience so that we can create stronger deterrence and defence.

    We are also determined to work even more closely with our partners — Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea — including on defence production.

    They are the source of so many of today’s cutting-edge capabilities.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    NATO is the strongest and most successful defensive Alliance in history of mankind.

    We have done that. We have secured. We have protected one billion citizens.

    Because we combine the finest armed forces, with the most innovative economies.

    And because of our solemn promise to protect and defend each other.

    So this sense of unity, solidarity, joint work is very strong and continues to be very important for us.

    So let me end by thanking all of you here for the vital role you have played in our security.

    I know I can count and we can count on you to keep our Alliance strong and our one billion people safe.

    Thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to our discussions.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Supreme Court news coverage has talked a lot more about politics ever since the 2016 death of Scalia and GOP blocking of Obama’s proposed nominee

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Boston, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bowling Green State University

    Reporters used to treat the Supreme Court as a nonpolitical institution, but not anymore. Tetra Images/Getty

    The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

    And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

    The public typically finds out about the court – including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments – from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different – they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

    Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

    Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

    What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

    When public goodwill prevailed

    Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore – the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

    Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

    The New York Times story about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore indicated the justices’ names and votes but neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings.
    Screenshot, The New York Times

    Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

    One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

    For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” – what we call political frames – do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

    This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

    Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

    Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

    A contemporary political court

    It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

    Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

    Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

    Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

    How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

    President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

    Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

    President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama pay respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, whose 2016 death brought lasting change in newspaper coverage of the court.
    Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

    Scalia vacancy changed everything

    February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

    The day after, 10.48.

    We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

    Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

    How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

    If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” – an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law – then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

    But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

    We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

    We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

    That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

    In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win – that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

    Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

    Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

    If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

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

    ref. Supreme Court news coverage has talked a lot more about politics ever since the 2016 death of Scalia and GOP blocking of Obama’s proposed nominee – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-news-coverage-has-talked-a-lot-more-about-politics-ever-since-the-2016-death-of-scalia-and-gop-blocking-of-obamas-proposed-nominee-259120

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Canada’s proposed Strong Borders Act further threatens the legal rights of migrants

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shiva S. Mohan, Research Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program, Toronto Metropolitan University

    Canada’s federal government recently introduced the Strong Borders Act, also known as Bill C-2, that proposes Canada tighten migration controls and modernize border enforcement between Canada and the United States.

    Critics have warned the bill “could pave the way for mass deportations” as well as increase precarity for legal migrants.




    Read more:
    Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans


    Even now, under existing laws, a migrant could be “legal” and still be denied health care, lose their job or effectively be unable to leave Canada for fear of being denied re-entry.

    Bill C-2’s expanded enforcement powers and increased risk of status revocation could make these precarities much worse.

    This is already the quiet reality for thousands of migrants in Canada under their “maintained status”, formerly “implied status.” This status is a legal provision designed to protect continuity for temporary residents who apply to extend their permits.

    Maintained status itself is not the problem. On paper, it offers legal protection.

    But in practice, it often collapses because of the ecosystem in which it operates: fragmented institutions, absent co-ordination and lack of transparency.

    Maintained status has been narrowed

    In May 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) quietly narrowed the scope of maintained status.

    Under the new rules, if a person’s first application is refused while they are on maintained status, any second application submitted during that period is now automatically refused.

    This effectively strips applicants of legal status, including protections under maintained status, to remain in Canada. The change shows how even compliant migrants can lose status abruptly, further heightening the insecurity built into the system.

    This is a clear expression of complex precarity: a condition in which migrants face legal, economic and social insecurity, even when they follow all the rules.

    Maintained status is just one example of this larger phenomenon of Canadian policy generating hidden forms of exclusion.

    Legal, but not recognized?

    Migrants on maintained status are legally allowed to stay in Canada and continue working or studying under the same conditions as their expired permit. Yet no new permit is issued to confirm this status.

    Proof of this legal standing varies depending on how a person applies. Those who apply online may receive a WP-EXT letter confirming their right to continue working. However, this isn’t issued to post-graduation work-permit holders, and expires after 365 days.

    Paper-based applicants are advised that no such letter will be provided. Instead, they must rely on a copy of their application, a fee payment receipt or courier tracking information to demonstrate continued legal status.

    If no letter is available, or once it expires, IRCC advises applicants to direct employers to the Help Centre web page as proof of their right to remain and work.

    These workarounds are legally valid but fall short of what many employers, landlords and service providers consider adequate proof of status.




    Read more:
    Canada’s new immigration policy favours construction workers but leaves the rest behind


    The limits of informal proof

    My current ongoing research points to how employers following rigid HR protocols often reject informal documentation. Some migrants even obtain letters from immigration lawyers to explain their legal right to remain and work.

    IRCC does not publish public data on the number of people on maintained status or how long they remain in that condition. Some front-line organizations have adjusted their services in response to this gap.

    MOSAIC, for example, a major settlement agency in British Columbia, explicitly lists “migrant workers on maintained status” as eligible for support. This signals institutional recognition of the category.

    The broader situation, however, reflects a disconnect between legal recognition by the state and practical verifiability in everyday life.

    The risk of travel

    Travel while on maintained status is legally permitted only under narrow conditions, such as holding a valid Temporary Resident Visa, being visa-exempt or returning from the U.S. under specific circumstances.

    But even in these cases, leaving Canada terminates maintained status.

    Migrants may be allowed to re-enter as visitors, but they cannot resume work or study until a new permit is issued. This introduces major uncertainties for people who may need to travel for family, emergencies or professional obligations.

    Disparities in provincial health access

    Access to public health insurance during maintained status varies widely across provinces.

    In Ontario, OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) cards are directly tied to the expiration of work permits. Unless migrants know to proactively request extended coverage and can meet specific document requirements, they risk losing health insurance entirely. Even when eligible, coverage is not automatic and may require out-of-pocket payment pending reimbursement.

    In Québec, RAMQ (Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec) treats migrants on maintained status like new arrivals. They must reregister for coverage and face a three-month waiting period from the time of renewal, regardless of continuous legal presence.

    In British Columbia, by contrast, the MSP (Medical Services Plan) offers temporary coverage for up to six months (extendable) to individuals on maintained status, provided they previously held MSP and submit IRCC receipt proof.

    This more inclusive approach highlights how uneven provincial co-ordination amplifies the precarity of federal policy.

    Infrastructure is needed immediately

    Migrants face great risks on maintained status.

    Despite investments in automation and digital infrastructure, IRCC continues to experience chronic processing delays, leaving migrants in prolonged uncertainty: legally present, but practically unrecognized.

    To address this, Canada needs systems and resources designed to uphold legal recognition in daily life. It needs to:

    • Create a secure centralized portal that allows migrants to control who can verify their legal status in real time. The U.K.’s share code platform and the American myE‑Verify system provide clear examples of how this can work, reducing confusion for employers, landlords, and service providers.

    • Issue co-ordinated provincial guidance, particularly regarding access to essential services such as health care, so that front-line staff have clarity on migrants’ rights under maintained status.

    • Protect continuity of status after international travel, ensuring that those who leave Canada while on maintained status do not lose the ability to return and resume work or study.

    As Canada advances legislation like Bill C‑2, we must not ignore the country’s quiet erosion of its existing legal architecture for migrants.

    Migrants on maintained status have followed the rules.

    If we are serious about building trust in immigration systems, we must commit to infrastructure that is workable, visible and fair.

    Shiva S. Mohan receives funding from the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration Program at Toronto Metropolitan University. He has no other affiliations or financial interests that would benefit from this article.

    ref. Canada’s proposed Strong Borders Act further threatens the legal rights of migrants – https://theconversation.com/canadas-proposed-strong-borders-act-further-threatens-the-legal-rights-of-migrants-259349

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy votes for rescissions package to eliminate $9 billion in wasteful spending

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)

    WASHINGTON – Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate approved the Trump administration’s rescissions request to cut $9 billion in wasteful spending from the federal budget identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This package, H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act, which accounts for one-tenth of one percent of the federal budget, returns to the U.S. House of Representatives for final consideration. 

    “President Trump ran on a platform of reducing the size of government and cutting unnecessary, wasteful spending. Thanks to his bold leadership and the support of the DOGE team, your hard-earned taxpayer dollars will no longer be wasted on this outrageous spending porn. American taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill to fund woke foreign aid or activist media. Their taxpayer money should be spent on initiatives that improve their lives, put more money in their pockets, and protect our great country. I’m eager for the House to pass this bill and send it to President Trump’s desk for his signature,” said Kennedy. 

    Background:

    • The Trump administration’s initial rescissions package totals more than $9 billion in unnecessary spending.
    • This package codifies spending cuts identified by DOGE, including $1.1 billion of cuts from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides funding to NPR and PBS, both politically biased and activist media systems, at taxpayers’ expense and $7.9 billion in radical and wasteful foreign aid spending at the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), among other programs. 

    Some examples of the wasteful spending porn that the Rescissions Act will cut:

    • $18 million to improve gender diversity in the Mexican street lighting industry. 
    • $6 million for media organizations and civic life for Palestinians.
    • $3.9 million for LGBTQI+ populations in the Western Balkans.
    • $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street.
    • $2.5 million to teach children how to make environmentally friendly “reproductive health” decisions.
    • $2.4 million to make aid more considerate of “sexual orientation and gender identity.” 
    • $1 million for voter ID in Haiti.
    • $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.
    • $500,000 for biodiversity in Peru.

    Legislative Process:

    • The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Executive Branch to spend the money Congress allocates each year, even though Congress allocated that money when President Biden was in office and Democrats controlled the Senate.
    • Under the Impoundment Control Act, a new administration can attempt to permanently halt previously appropriated spending by submitting a rescissions request for congressional approval. 
    • President Trump did just that. In his initial rescission request, made in May 2025, he asked Congress to rescind roughly $8.3 billion from wasteful foreign aid programs and $1.1 billion from public broadcasting.
    • The U.S. House of Representatives approved these initial cuts on June 12, 2025. The Impoundment Control Act only gives Congress 45 days to approve a rescissions request.

    The full text of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act, is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand Statement On Senate Passage Of The Rescissions Package

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand
    Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, released the following statement following Senate passage of a rescissions package that claws back funding for public broadcasting that has already been allocated by Congress.
    “I’m appalled that Senate Republicans voted to slash funding for the programs that our rural communities rely on. Our public broadcasting system is one of the few remaining institutions committed to providing free, fact-based programming to every American–regardless of zip code. By rescinding funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), this legislation threatens to gut funding for the local radio and television stations that millions of families rely on for trusted news, high-quality educational content, and lifesaving emergency alerts.
    These cuts will have a particularly devastating impact in rural communities, where stations rely heavily on CPB funding to stay afloat and where sources of local news are already limited. Public broadcasters often serve as the only source of information about natural disasters, transportation accidents, national security threats, and public safety matters in areas that face limited connectivity. In emergency situations, the closure of stations and reduction of this programming due to budget cuts could cost lives. On the education front, public television’s early childhood education services help ensure that every family has access to high-quality, non-commercial educational content, regardless of their ability to pay for such services. At a time when misinformation is rampant, taking away this content is dangerous and irresponsible.
    Make no mistake; this legislation is not about saving money. Just weeks ago, the same Republicans who now call for cost-cutting at the expense of rural communities voted to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and add over $3 trillion to the national debt by supporting President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’ It’s outrageous, and the American people deserve better.
    I will keep fighting to protect public broadcasting, support rural communities, and make sure that hardworking families have access to the resources they deserve.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján: GOP Vote to Rip Away Public Broadcasting Funds Endangers Rural and Tribal Communities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    1500+ Local Public Radio and TV Stations At Risk of Losing Funding

    WATCH: Luján Offers Motion to Recissions Package to Protect AMBER & Emergency Alerts

    WATCH: Luján Sounds Alarm on Dangerous GOP Plan to Gut Public Broadcasting

    WATCH: Luján Joins Democratic Leadership Press Conference on Cuts Package

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) issued the following statement after Senate Republicans voted for President Trump’s reckless plan to steal funding from public broadcasting and foreign assistance:

    “On the heels of the devastating GOP Budget Betrayal that threatens to strip health care and nutrition assistance from millions of Americans, Senate Republicans have now passed a reckless spending cuts package that slashes funding for public broadcasting, threatens public safety, and undermines our national security. This is a dangerous rubber stamp for Trump’s unchecked power.

    “In rural and Tribal areas, when disaster strikes, public broadcasting is often the only source of evacuation notices, shelter locations, and updates from first responders and law enforcement. Yet Senate Republicans voted to steal millions from public broadcasting that help keep our communities informed and safe.

    “Even Republican leadership has acknowledged that the Trump administration has no real plan for how these cuts would be implemented. Without fully understanding the consequences, Senate Republicans blindly voted to strip away bipartisan funding and turn their backs on the constituents they were elected to serve.”

    Senator Luján offered a motion to the Republican recissions package to protect public broadcasting and the lifesaving emergency alerts it provides. Last week, Senator Luján took to the Senate floor to call out the Trump administration’s plan to defund public radio and television stations nationwide following deadly flooding in New Mexico and Texas. This week, Senator Luján joined Senate Democrats in continuing to sound the alarm on the dangers of cutting previously allocated federal funding for public broadcasting.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Democratic Women’s Caucus Co-Chairs Kamlager-Dove and Ross Unveil Policy Agenda to Demand a Better Future for Women; Defend Women and Families

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

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Thursday, July 17, the Democratic Women’s Caucus (DWC), led by Policy Task Force Co-Chairs Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) and Deborah Ross (NC-02), released its Better Future policy agenda, focused on economic security, affordable and equitable health care, and the safety of all women and girls. 

    This agenda comes at a time when women and families are under constant attack from the Trump administration and Republicans. From gutting reproductive health care access and cutting Medicaid to slashing food assistance and taking away critical resources for survivors of domestic violence, the Trump Administration and Republicans have launched a full-scale assault on women.

    In the face of these relentless attacks from Trump and Republicans, the Democratic Women’s Caucus is not only dedicated to pushing back and defending women, but also paving a path for a better future for all women and girls.

    That’s why the Better Future policy agenda calls for clear priorities that will actually help women and families across three pillars:

    • Economic Security: Lowering costs, raising salaries, expanding paid leave, protecting Social Security, and investing in care work and women-owned businesses.
    • Health Care: Defending reproductive freedom, expanding access to health care including Medicaid and Medicare, and improving maternal health.
    • Rights & Safety: Ending gender-based violence, protecting voting rights, and confronting discrimination.

    As the Caucus continues to fight back against Trump and Republicans’ attacks on women and families, the Democratic Women’s Caucus is keenly focused on continuing to push for proactive policies that will help women and families achieve a better future.

    Read the full agenda here.

    Para leer la agenda en español, haga clic aquí.

    Democratic Women’s Caucus Executive Steering Committee Members support for the agenda:

    “At 96 women strong, the Democratic Women’s Caucus is fighting every single day for the economic security, health, and safety of all women and girls,” said DWC Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03). “Yes, in this moment we must defend women from Trump’s relentless attacks on our safety, rights, and equal opportunities. But we are also demanding a better future for women and will fight to build a good life for all women. We will never stop pushing for the policies that make life better for women and for all hardworking American families.”

    “As the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress continue to attack women and families, the Democratic Women’s Caucus is stepping up to demand a better future for women,” said DWC Policy Task Force Co-Chair Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37). “In the wake of record cuts to health care and food assistance, ongoing assaults on our reproductive freedoms, and the largest transfer of wealth in our nation’s history, we must defend our rights and livelihoods while striving for a brighter tomorrow for our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and beyond. American women can trust that the Democratic Women’s Caucus is fighting for them through the policies outlined in this agenda.”

    “At a time when the rights of women and families are under continuous assault by Donald Trump and his allies, the DWC Policy Agenda meets the moment,” said DWC Policy Task Force Co-Chair Deborah Ross (NC-02). “We are laying out clear steps to lower costs, expand health care, and protect women’s reproductive freedom in the face of Republicans’ extreme attempts to roll back our rights. As Co-Chair of the DWC Policy Task Force, I am proud to unveil this agenda and will keep working toward a future where women and girls have the freedom and opportunity to thrive.”

    “The Democratic Women’s Caucus is dedicated to building a future where every woman can live, work, and raise a family with dignity and security,” said DWC Vice Chair Emilia Sykes (OH-13). “Whether we are working to expand access to reproductive and maternal health care, lower costs for families, protect Social Security, or improve economic opportunity for women, I’m proud to lead these efforts with a coalition committed to putting women and families first.”

    “In West Michigan and across the country, women are calling for real solutions—not political stunts. The Democratic Women’s Caucus is answering that call with a bold, unflinching agenda that demands a better future by defending the rights, health, and safety of women and families,” said DWC Vice Chair Hillary Scholten (MI-03). “From the grocery store to the doctor’s office to the ballot box, women are feeling the weight of Trump and Republicans’ relentless attacks. We are fighting back with policies that lower costs, expand reproductive freedoms, protect care workers, and ensure every woman has the chance to thrive.”

    “I am proud to join my Democratic Women’s Caucus in demanding a better future for women and families. As the Trump administration continues to assault our rights, our health care, and our economic security, we are charting a new path forward. Our agenda is bold and focused on what women need: affordable health care, an economy that works for them, reproductive freedom, and safer communities,” said DWC Communications Task Force Co-Chair Shontel Brown (OH-11).

    “When women and families thrive, our communities thrive. But right now, our freedoms, our healthcare, and our economic security are under attack. I’m proud to serve in a leadership position on Democratic Women’s Caucus and to promote this policy agenda demanding a better future for women, children, and everyone across the country to have the freedom, rights and opportunities we all deserve,” said DWC Member Services Task Force Co-Chair Melanie Stansbury (NM-01).

    “Women and families deserve more—and we won’t wait for it to be handed to us, we are working for it now,” said DWC New Member Liaison LaMonica McIver (NJ-10). “The DWC’s agenda is a demand for a future built for women where costs come down, care is expanded, and everyone has an opportunity to thrive. We are standing together to create that future, and standing against the extremism of the Trump administration and Republicans who are trying to set back the clock.”

    “As a proud member of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, I’m committed to demanding a future where the needs of military families, especially women and children, are prioritized.  That means improving access to safe, affordable, and high-quality child care and addressing the ongoing health care needs of our service members and their families, including their faster access to obstetric and gynecological care, and adequate medical staffing.  These priorities are not just policy, they are essential to the success, readiness, and well-being of the families who serve, support, and sustain our armed forces,” said DWC Servicewomen, Women Veterans, & Military Families Task Force Chair Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06).

    “Right now, women and families are under attack by Trump and Republicans in Congress — from our pregnancies to our paychecks — our autonomy is being eliminated. The Democratic Women’s Caucus is drawing a line in the sand: we demand an economy that works for women, health care that protects us, and communities where our rights and safety come first. This agenda represents our commitment to building a future where every woman and family can thrive with dignity and security,” said DWC Equality Caucus Liaison Julie Johnson (TX-32).

    “As a proud Executive Steering Committee member of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, I’m fighting for women, for families, and for the future we all deserve,” said National Leaders & Advocacy Organizations Liaison Joyce Beatty (OH-03). “Donald Trump and extreme Republicans love to call themselves ‘pro-family’—but ripping away healthcare and food assistance from children and moms, and attacking women’s freedoms, is anything but. You can’t be ‘pro-family’ while pushing policies that hurt moms, kids, and caregivers. Our DWC Agenda delivers what real families need: affordable childcare and healthcare, economic opportunity, reproductive freedom, and safe communities. These are common-sense solutions—and exactly what the majority of Americans support. Because when women rise, America rises.”

    “I have always prioritized giving all women—including Latinas—the tools they need to thrive. But with President Trump’s dangerous policies targeting women and families, it’s more important than ever that we defend the progress we’ve made and find real solutions to support women”, said Congressional Hispanic Caucus Liaison Andrea Salinas (OR-06). “As a Caucus, we demand an economy that works for women and families, better health care, safer communities, and fair pay. Upholding these rights will strengthen our communities for everyone, and I am ready to work alongside my colleagues to ensure that every woman can live without worry or fear.”

    “With Trump and Republicans’ leading a full-scale assault on our fundamental rights, this moment demands a better future for women everywhere,” said DWC Reproductive Health Care Task Force Co-Chair and Liaison Ayanna Pressley (MA-07). “The Democratic Women’s Caucus’ policy agenda lays out how we will continue to fight to support and defend women and families – whether that be by building an inclusive care economy, protecting and expanding reproductive health care, ending gender-based violence, or making gender equality the law of the land. I am proud to work alongside my DWC colleagues as we push back against this hostile Administration and continue to build the more just America that women and families demand and deserve.”

    “Every woman deserves the freedom to care for a loved one without risking her job or paycheck,” said DWC Whip Sarah McBride (DE). “Paid family and medical leave isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity for working families. As Trump tries to strip away our rights and economic security, the Democratic Women’s Caucus is fighting back with a clear, compassionate agenda that focuses on the needs of women and their families. I’m proud to stand with my colleagues to demand the dignity, fairness, and care that every working family deserves.”

    “As a mom and a Member of Congress, I know the challenges women and families face every day—whether it’s finding housing you can afford, accessing healthcare no matter where you live, putting food on the table, or securing a good job and quality education for your kids. These are the kitchen table issues I fight for in Congress and back home in Hawaii,” said DWC Progressive Caucus Liaison Jill Tokuda (HI-02). “That’s why I’m proud to support the Democratic Women’s Caucus’ new policy agenda. It recognizes the essential role women play in building strong families, strong economies, and strong communities, and it defends our rights and the resources we need to thrive.”

    “Women and families deserve an economy that works for them—not one that works for billionaires. The instability and rising costs created by Donald Trump and Republicans have made it harder for women to care for their families and build a secure future. We are fighting for an economy that prioritizes financial security, dignity, and opportunity,” said DWC Chief Whip Nikema Williams (GA-05). “That means lowering everyday costs, ensuring fair taxes, and protecting the basic programs women rely on. It means addressing workplace inequities like wage gaps and the lack of paid leave. It means expanding access to affordable childcare and long-term care, improving conditions for domestic and care workers, and supporting women small business owners.”

    “As a member of DWC’s Executive Steering Committee, I stand united with our 96 members to demand a future where women and families are valued, protected, and empowered. We do not accept the recent attacks on healthcare and food assistance and remain focused on building towards an America that works for everyone, not just the few. Our fight is for fair wages, accessible healthcare, and affordable childcare and long-term care. A country where those who work their entire lives can retire with dignity, where parents feel safe to send their kids to school, and care workers feel valued. I’m proud to join my DWC family in this fight,” said DWC Senate Liaison Debbie Dingell (MI-06).

    “At a time when women’s rights and freedoms are under unprecedented attack, I am proud to stand with the Democratic Women’s Caucus to say loud and clear: we will not go back. Our agenda is a bold commitment to securing economic justice, protecting access to health care and reproductive freedom, and ensuring that every woman can live in safety and dignity regardless of her income or zip code. While Trump and MAGA Republicans work to rip away reproductive health care, gut women’s health research, and more, we are fighting back. And we won’t stop until every woman has the freedoms and resources to thrive,” said DWC Reproductive Health Care Task Force Co-Chair and Liaison Judy Chu (CA-28).

    “Since I was a kid, I’ve watched the women in my life fight every day to be seen, heard, and valued—for their work, their caregiving, their ideas, and their leadership. I’ve seen moms doing everything they can to provide for their families while being overwhelmed and under-supported. I’ve seen women on job sites doing the same work as men but paid less. Women have been clear about what they need: affordable childcare, access to health care, equal pay, and a cost of living that doesn’t force impossible choices. These aren’t new tasks, they’re long-overdue promises. That’s why I’m proud to stand with the Democratic Women’s Caucus to build a safer, more affordable, and equitable future for every woman and girl,” said DWC Whip Emily Randall (WA-06).

    “As an OBGYN who has spent my career caring for women, I’m horrified by how women’s health is under attack in every direction from President Trump and his Republican majority in Congress. With attacks on everything from access to reproductive health care, to contraception, to perpetuating our maternal health care crisis, President Trump and Congressional Republicans are rolling back women’s ability to get the basic, essential care they need. I am proud to stand with the Democratic Women’s Caucus as we not only fight to defend women’s health – but put forward our vision for how we will ensure every woman can get the care she needs to be healthy and thrive,” said DWC Reproductive Health Care Task Force Co-Chair and Liaison Kelly Morrison (MN-03).

    Advocate and ally support for the agenda:

    “Women – and especially women of color – are under attack,” said Jocelyn C. Frye, President of the National Partnership for Women & Families Action Fund. “Women working full-time, year-round are still paid just 83 cents for every dollar paid to men; millions of workers lack access to paid family and medical leave and other caregiving supports; Black women face a maternal mortality crisis; and people across the country confront threats of criminalization for seeking abortion and reproductive health care. But instead of working on solutions to improve women’s health and economic security, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have attacked diversity, equity and inclusion programs, gutted federal agencies charged with protecting women and people of color and passed a tax bill that will threaten the physical health and financial security of millions of people. The National Partnership for Women & Families Action Fund is thrilled to endorse an alternative and affirmative agenda from the Democratic Women’s Caucus that centers women and women of color and champions the policies needed to advance women’s economic security, health and safety.”

    “GIFFORDS is glad to see public safety as a top priority for the Democratic Women’s Caucus. Under the Trump Administration, women are being put at greater risk every day for gun violence. This dangerous administration has rearmed domestic abusers, made it easier for bad gun dealers to stay in business, and loosened restrictions on weapons like gun silencers and short-barreled rifles. Already, we know that abusive partner’s access to a firearm is a serious threat to victims of domestic violence, making it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. We must put a stop to this epidemic and I look forward to working with the DWC to advance their public safety agenda,” said Emma Brown, GIFFORDS Executive Director.

    “Gen Z needs our elected leaders to step up and fight for our futures. The Democratic Women’s Caucus is showing us how they plan to fight for us with their Policy Agenda, and Voters of Tomorrow is proud to endorse this platform. We look forward to working with the Democratic Women’s Caucus, their members, and our allies on and off Capitol Hill to advocate for an Agenda that protects and empowers women and girls amidst ongoing attacks on our freedoms,” Grace Friedman, Policy Director at Voters of Tomorrow.

    “As an organization focused on advancing public policies that address gender, racial, economic, and social justice, CLASP strongly endorses the Democratic Women’s Caucus Executive Action Agenda. To our collective detriment, our nation’s policies have neglected—and often ignored—the needs of women and their families. The Caucus’s agenda boldly promotes what women need to thrive in today’s unpredictable economy— child care, long-term care, paid leave, just wages, workplace protections, health care, retirement security, and more. CLASP supports this ambitious and necessary set of policies. The success of our nation and economy depends on it,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, President and Executive Director, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

    The agenda is endorsed by:

    • Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    • National Partnership for Women & Families
    • National Women’s Law Center
    • Family Values @ Work
    • The Black Maternal Health Federal Policy Collective
    • National Health Law Program
    • National Council of Jewish Women
    • Equal Rights Advocates
    • GIFFORDS
    • Reproductive Freedom for All
    • MomsRising
    • Sexual Violence Prevention Organization
    • Voters of Tomorrow
    • Center for Law and Social Policy
    • Sexual Violence Prevention Association
    • Justice in Aging
    • Paid Leave for All

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representatives Ruiz and Torres Condemn DHS for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Raul Ruiz (36th District of California)

    Congressional Lawmakers Demand End to Illegal Obstruction and Partisan Discrimination at DHS Facilities

    Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Representatives Dr. Raul Ruiz (CA-25) and Norma J. Torres (CA-35) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem condemning DHS for unlawfully obstructing and delaying Members of Congress seeking to conduct oversight visits to immigration detention facilities operated by DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    In a letter sent to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the lawmakers highlighted repeated violations of federal law, specifically Section 527(a) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which clearly prohibits DHS from denying Members of Congress unimpeded access to detention facilities or making changes that alter what is observed during visits.

    “As Members of Congress, we visited the Adelanto ICE facility to ensure residents in our districts are not being subjected to inhumane conditions. The Department of Homeland Security’s sudden policy change requiring advance notice is unacceptable, unlawful, and clearly designed to block transparency and accountability,” said Congressman Dr. Raul Ruiz (CA-25). “Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight. We don’t need permission from DHS to lawfully do our jobs, and we won’t allow the Trump administration to keep moving the goalposts to avoid scrutiny.”

    “For weeks, my office has been emailing DHS to schedule a visit, only to be met with shifting policies and ever-changing excuses for why Democratic Members of Congress can’t enter facilities,” said Congresswoman Norma Torres. “DHS is not above the law. Denying access to Democratic Members while granting Republican Members a free pass is not only illegal—it’s a dangerous abuse of power. Congressional oversight isn’t optional; it’s a constitutional duty. If DHS continues to obstruct and discriminate, then Congress must respond—through investigations, funding restrictions, or whatever tools are necessary to restore accountability and uphold the rule of law.”

    The lawmakers are demanding written assurances by Friday, July 18, 2025, that DHS will:

    • Cease all unlawful restrictions and partisan discrimination;
    • Fully comply with federal law regarding congressional access to facilities; and
    • Provide equal and prompt access to all Members of Congress regardless of party affiliation.

    Full letter text

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Brownley Introduces Bill to Ensure Federal Employees Access to Personnel Records

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sens. Johnson, Baldwin Recommend Judges for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson

    WASHINGTON – Yesterday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) sent a letter to President Trump to recommend five individuals to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The recommendations came as part of their bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission to provide recommendations for nominations during the 119th Congress for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    “I want to thank those on the Commission for the considerable time and effort they volunteer to ensure the Wisconsin federal courts and chambers do not become attractive forum shopping venues for partisan activists seeking a judicial bench open to constitutional overreach. I look forward to the President nominating one of these candidates to the Seventh Circuit,” said Sen. Johnson.

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News