NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-Evening Report: ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

    Will settlements by news companies with President Donald Trump turn journalists into puppets? MARHARYTA MARKO/iStock Getty Images Plus

    It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.

    On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.

    Redstone had been trying to sell Paramount to Skydance Media since July 2024, but the transaction was delayed by issues involving government approval.

    Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.

    The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.

    Until it wasn’t.

    At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.

    Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.

    GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said the CBS interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was ‘fraudulent interference with an election.’

    It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.

    Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.

    Presidential pressure

    From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.

    But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.

    Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.

    President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”

    Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.

    Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”

    “The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”

    During the Iran hostage crisis, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast with the number of days the hostages had been held captive.

    Holding power to account

    There’s an adage in TV news: “You’re only as good as your last show.”

    Soon, Skydance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.

    When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.

    As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.

    A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.

    If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.

    The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.

    I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.

    Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.

    – ref. ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief – https://theconversation.com/abcs-and-cbss-settlements-with-trump-are-a-dangerous-step-toward-the-commander-in-chief-becoming-the-editor-in-chief-261006

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Republican Energy and Water Development Funding Bill Increases Energy Costs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

    Despite Heightened Risks, Bill Makes Americans More Vulnerable to Nuclear Threats

    **STATE-BY-STATE FACT SHEET** Republicans Slash Vital Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Funding for States

    Washington, DC — House Appropriations Committee Republicans today released the draft fiscal year 2026 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies funding bill, which will be considered in subcommittee tomorrow. The bill raises costs for American households, undermines infrastructure investments, and weakens our national security.

    For 2026, the Energy and Water bill provides $57.3 Billion in discretionary funding. Within that amount, the bill provides $24.1 Billion for nondefense programs, a cut of over $675 Million, or 2.7 percent, below the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, and $33.2 Billion for defense programs, a cut of $91 Million, or 0.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2025 enacted level.

    The legislation:

    • Increases energy costs, jeopardizes energy independence, and hurts United States’ competitiveness by slashing the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs nearly in half, revoking more than $5 Billion from the Department of Energy’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources, and eliminating funding for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
    • Weakens national security and leaves Americans more vulnerable to nuclear threats by cutting the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account by 17 percent.
    • Abandons commitments to communities to clean up radioactive waste by eliminating funding for the Corps of Engineers’ Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program and cutting the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management by 9 percent.

    “House Republicans have once again produced a reckless and short-sighted proposal that betrays working families and undermines America’s future. Their FY26 Energy and Water bill would gut the Department of Energy’s clean energy and efficiency programs — slashing investments that lower costs, create good-paying jobs, and protect our national security,” Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09) said. “This bill cedes American leadership in the global energy race to our adversaries like Communist China. It also weakens vital nuclear nonproliferation programs that help keep our country and allies safe. By turning their backs on communities still suffering from the legacy of our early atomic weapons programs, Republicans show how little regard they have for America’s promises. We must invest in our energy independence in perpetuity — not abandon it. I strongly oppose this bill and will continue fighting for policies that uplift our communities and secure our energy future for all the generations to come.”

    “Once again, instead of working to find ways to address the cost-of-living crisis, House Republicans introduced a bill that would make the problem worse,” Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) said. “Middle class, working class, and vulnerable Americans continue to struggle to pay their bills, but House Republicans’ 2026 Energy and Water funding proposal slashes resources for programs that lower energy costs for families and businesses and eliminates resources that provide clean, affordable, secure energy to households. While President Trump continues to inflame tensions with our adversaries, House Republicans’ bill would leave our country more vulnerable to nuclear threats and yield American leadership of the world’s energy future to China. With this bill, Republicans are failing to confront the climate crisis and putting tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs at risk. This legislation is an attack on the country’s energy future. Democrats are at the table and ready to pass legislation that actually lowers energy costs for the American people and ensures America leads the global transition to a clean energy economy.”

    A summary of House Republicans’ 2026 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies funding bill is here. A fact sheet is here. The text of the bill is here. The subcommittee markup will be webcast live and linked on the House Committee on Appropriations website.

    A state-by-state breakdown of the amount of funding House Republicans are trying to slash from the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs is here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.

    The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

    A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).

    The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.

    With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.

    If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.

    It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.

    Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.

    Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.

    Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed

    Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.

    Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.

    This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.

    Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.

    The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.

    US and UK politics

    I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.

    In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.

    Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads

    A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.

    Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

    A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).

    Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll – https://theconversation.com/hung-parliament-still-likely-outcome-of-tasmanian-election-with-liberals-well-ahead-of-labor-in-new-poll-261073

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.

    The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

    A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).

    The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.

    With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.

    If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.

    It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.

    Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.

    Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.

    Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed

    Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.

    Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.

    This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.

    Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.

    The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.

    US and UK politics

    I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.

    In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.

    Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads

    A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.

    Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

    A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).

    Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll – https://theconversation.com/hung-parliament-still-likely-outcome-of-tasmanian-election-with-liberals-well-ahead-of-labor-in-new-poll-261073

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Booker, SFRC Colleagues Demand Answers Regarding State Department Layoffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 14, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and their fellow members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) in writing a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing deep concerns with imminent Reductions in Force (RIFs) at the State Department and requested answers on the Trump Administration’s process for carrying out these layoffs. 

    The Senators wrote: “RIFs should remain a tool of last resort, and if implemented must be conducted according to long-standing procedures that prioritize transparency and a merit-based process for both career civil service employees and Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). During a time of increasingly complex and wide-spread challenges to U.S. national security, this administration should be strengthening our diplomatic corps—an irreplaceable instrument of U.S. power and leadership—not weakening it. However, RIFs would severely undermine the Department’s ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy interests, putting our nation’s security, strength, and prosperity at risk.”

    Since January, the Foreign Service has shrunk by nearly 25 percent and the number of civil service employees has also decreased due to agency closures, early retirement and buyouts. 

    The Senators requested a response to the following questions by no later than July 18, 2025: 

    RIF Criteria:

    1. When were RIF lists created, by whom, and against what criteria?
    2. Is the Department choosing to RIF based on current office assignment rather than globally ranking FSOs and civil servants based on grade and skillsets?  If so, why?
    3. Are the lists being updated to reflect Permanent Changes in Station (PCS) or curtailments?
    4. How many veterans and consular coned generalists are included on the list?
    5. It can take years of training for an FSO or civil servant to master diplomatic and negotiation skills, including obtaining fluency in critical languages. Why are skilled officers, including those with specialized language skills not being reassigned? How will the Department fill these specialized skill and experience gaps?

    Foreign Service Officers:

    1. Why is the administration preventing FSOs from transferring into critical vacancies?
    2. Why is the administration preventing candidates who accepted a “handshake” from being paneled to a position they were chosen for based on merit?
    3. What is the rationale for conducting RIFs before the reorganization takes effect?
    4. How many vacant FSO positions will there be worldwide after RIFs are processed? How does the Department plan to fill mission critical posts?
    5. Why is the Department processing RIFs prior to determining the number of vacant positions remaining following your reorganization efforts?
    6. How is the Department protecting the pipeline of FSOs to ensure no critical skill gaps in the future?

    Civil Service:

    1. Civil service employees often come to the Department with specialized experience.  How is the Department working to retain critical, hard to replace employees in the civil service?
    2. How is the Department working to ensure key specialties, knowledge, and personnel are retained and transferred during the reorganization?
    3. Why is the Department refusing to process any lateral moves by civil service employees who have been offered other civil service positions within the Department?
    4. If reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is the goal of the reorganization, why is the Department not efficiently allowing these experienced civil service employees to laterally move into vacant positions they were chosen for based on merit?
    5. If remaining officers are going to be asked to take on additional work, how will they be remunerated for their time and effort? 
    6. Will the hiring and lateral transition freezes be lifted once RIFs are complete?

    Reassignment Process:

    1. Will there be a competitive reassignment for high-performing, mission-critical personnel following the RIFs?  If so, what is the timeline and criteria for this reassignment process?  How will the Department communicate these details with its employees?

    The letter is cosigned by SFRC Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV).

    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website. 

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump threatens Russia with tariffs while unveiling new Ukraine weapons plan

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States will send weapons to Ukraine through NATO, and threatened “severe tariffs” targeting Russia if a ceasefire deal is not reached in 50 days.

    Trump announced an agreement with NATO regarding weapons to assist Ukraine while meeting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office.

    “We are going to be sending them weapons and they’re going to be paying for them,” said Trump, adding that the United States will manufacture those weapons.

    “We’re going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don’t have a deal in 50 days,” Trump said of Russia.

    Trump noted there would be “secondary tariffs” of about 100 percent, multiple news outlets reported.

    U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick clarified later that Trump meant “economic sanction” when he threatened “secondary tariffs” against Russia if it did not reach a deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days, The Washington Times reported.

    Speaking to reporters after the Oval Office meeting, Trump said that the deal with the NATO allies was done and fully approved, The New York Times reported.

    “We’ll send them a lot of weapons of all kinds,” Trump said. “And they’re going to deliver those weapons immediately to the site, to the site of the war, different sites of the war, and they’re going to pay for 100 percent of them.”

    Trump also told reporters that some Patriot systems will arrive in Ukraine within days, according to ABC News.

    Trump said European countries that have Patriots will transfer them to Ukraine and “they’re going to start arriving very soon,” ABC News added. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LEADER JEFFRIES: “REPUBLICANS HAVEN’T DONE A DAMN THING TO MAKE LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

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

    Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries held a press conference where he emphasized that House Democrats will continue pushing back against Republicans’ One Big Ugly Law which rewards billionaires while stripping food and healthcare from the American people.

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Good afternoon, everyone. Donald Trump and House Republicans have repeatedly betrayed the American people. Donald Trump and House Republicans promised to lower the high cost of living here in the United States of America. In fact, Donald Trump and House Republicans promised to lower costs on day one. Costs aren’t going down in the United States of America. Costs are going up. Life is becoming more expensive under Donald Trump and Republican control of Congress. There is nothing in the One Big Ugly Bill that will meaningfully make life more affordable for the American people. In fact, the One Big Ugly Bill will make life more expensive for everyday Americans, particularly as it relates to utility costs. Utility costs are going to go up in the United States of America as a result of Donald Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill. Costs aren’t going down. Republicans haven’t done a damn thing to make life more affordable for the American people.

    Costs are too high in this country. That’s why Democrats are going to continue to focus our efforts on building an economy that actually is affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. We need to lower housing costs, lower grocery costs, lower utility costs, lower childcare costs and lower insurance costs. America is too expensive, and things aren’t getting better under Donald Trump and House Republican rule, they’re getting worse. On top of that, Donald Trump and House Republicans jammed this extreme budget bill down the throats of the American people. They will hurt millions of Americans who are going to lose their healthcare as a result of the One Big Ugly Bill. Hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, community-based health clinics will not be able to operate and everyday Americans in every state in this country are going to die as a result of having healthcare ripped away from them by Republicans in this town. The One Big Ugly Bill rips food out of the mouths of hungry children.

    Who are these people on the other side of the aisle? Who are they? And on top of it all, ripping healthcare away from the American people. The largest cut to Medicaid in American history. Ripping food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans, who are going to go hungry as a result of this One Big Ugly Bill. All of this is being done to reward their billionaire donors with massive tax breaks, the largest transfer of wealth from everyday Americans to billionaires in American history. And these so-called fiscal conservatives are going to explode the debt by more than $3 trillion and set this country on a path toward possible bankruptcy. Every single House Republican who voted against the best interests of their constituents and voted to reward billionaires with massive tax breaks will be held accountable.

    Full press conference can be watched here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Speaker Johnson Joins New “Scott Jennings Show” As Inaugural Guest

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

    WASHINGTON — This afternoon, Speaker Johnson appeared as the inaugural guest of first episode of The Scott Jennings Show on Salem Radio Network. They discussed how Republicans were able to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill and how Republicans will counter endless Democrat falsehoods about the legislation.

    Watch the full interview here

    On passing the One Big Beautiful Bill:

    I told my colleagues back in February or March of 2024, I said, ‘guys, this is what’s going to happen this fall. We’re going to have unified government. We got to plan accordingly. We’re going to do reconciliation, but let’s do it in a bigger way than has ever been done before.’ We usually use two committees of jurisdiction to draft the bill, but let’s go with 11. Let’s do 11 committees. Let’s go big, you know, let’s really make a landmark piece of legislation and have a big beautiful bill. And that’s how it all began. So, all the work and all the months and all the deliberation, countless hours of work, discussion, and debate internally. Working with the president when he was a candidate, and after he was reelected, to fashion this bill and prepare it for prime time and get it over the line. We just implemented the playbook that we designed. So, there was a lot of work that went into achieving that. 

    On countering Democrat lies about Medicaid:

    What’s unpopular is the false narrative that has been said and written about the bill. If everything they said was true , it would be unpopular, but it’s not true. Their whole premise is built upon this idea that we are ‘ripping healthcare away from people. We’re gonna slash Medicaid’ and all this other nonsense. None of it is true. The people that are saying it didn’t read the bill. They’re parroting false messages. Here’s the thing, we didn’t cut Medicaid. There are no cuts to Medicaid in the bill. In fact, Medicaid spending goes up on a trajectory over the next 10 years. What we did is strengthen the program for the American citizens who desperately need and deserve it.

    How do we do that? By eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse by reintroducing work requirements for Medicaid. See, the problem is the resources have been drained in the program. It has an outrageous amount of fraud and abuse in the program. Every year, tens of billions of dollars are just wasted because after they expanded Obamacare, they basically allowed everybody who wanted to be on Medicaid in so many states. But you have young able-bodied men, for example, with no dependents who were literally at home playing video games instead of working, right? There are actual studies on this.

    On the Republican agenda after One Big Beautiful Bill being signed into law:

    We got this landmark achievement done with a big, beautiful bill, but we cannot rest on our laurels because the job is still ahead. We’re going to continue the process of what we’ve begun here. We have appropriations bills that are now forthcoming. We’re going to write the legislation at lower numbers and spend less and less of the people’s treasury because we have to be good stewards of that. We have additional rescissions bills coming forward, that’s clawing back fraud, waste, and abuse that was misspent for money that was already previously appropriated by Congress in conjunction with the White House. We’re doing that.

    We have additional reconciliation bills, Scott, we have one planned for this fall, one hopefully for next spring. So we can attach one to each upcoming fiscal year. We can do three of those bills in a one, two year cycle of Congress. We’re going to do that and we’re codifying all the Trump executive orders and actions, continuing to roll back Biden regulations. Just a lot of things to do. We codified, by the way, 28 executive orders in the One Big Beautiful Bill. That’s now law. That’s a big thing, you know, this, can’t be changed by the next administration. Heaven forbid if we get another Democrat president sometime in the near future, they won’t be able to revert to the old policies because now it’s in the law. So these are very deliberate actions. It takes a lot of planning and implementation, but we’re getting it done and we’ll continue to get it done for the people. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Joins Durbin, Colleagues in Pressing Trump Administration on Weaponizing Immigration Court Hearings to Trap, Arrest, Deport Immigrants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 11, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), U.S. Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Alex Padilla (D-CA) and 20 Senate Democrats in pressing the Trump Administration on its recent initiatives to weaponize immigration court hearings as an inhumane trap to arrest immigrants who are just trying to follow the law by terminating their immigration court cases and deporting them without adequate due process. In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, the Senators condemned these actions as an affront to due process.

    “We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them,” wrote the Senators. “These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.”

    Slamming the Administration for endangering due process and putting immigrants into a horrible situation with no benefit to our country, the Senators continued, “These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.”

    Along with Duckworth, Durbin, Kelly and Padilla, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    Full text of the letter is available below and on Senator Duckworth’s website.

    Dear Secretary Noem, Attorney General Bondi, and Acting Director Lyons:

    We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them. Some reports indicated that plain-clothed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel stationed outside of immigration courtrooms had lists of cases marked for dismissal and even photos of the individuals they intended to arrest. Upon the granting of this request by an immigration judge, ICE officers have reportedly arrested individuals or families outside the courtrooms and placed them in a fast-track removal process known as expedited removal (ER). These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.

    ER historically has applied only to a noncitizen who “is arriving in the United States” and certain other noncitizens apprehended close to the border less than days after arrival in the United States. Individuals subject to ER are mandatorily detained and can be summarily deported without a hearing before a judge, administrative appeal or federal court review, unlike regular removal proceedings. The ER process offers very limited administrative review and no meaningful opportunity for a noncitizen to challenge whether they can legally be placed in ER. There is no real opportunity to provide documentation, for example, that would demonstrate they have continuously resided in the United States for more than two years, or that they were, in fact, admitted or paroled into the United States and therefore not subject to ER. ICE is now expanding the application of ER to noncitizens in the interior of the United States who have developed significant ties to the United States, including by lawfully working and attending school. Arresting law-abiding individuals and placing them in ER deprives them of the opportunity to have their fair day in court with the due process protections in immigration court proceedings.

    Nevertheless, we understand that ICE attorneys have been instructed to look for immigration court cases that can be dismissed and then orally request, without prior notice, that removal proceedings be dismissed or the Notice to Appear be withdrawn. ICE often did not inform immigration judges or the noncitizens that the purpose of their request was not relief from removal, but instead that ICE intended to arrest and place the individual in fast-track removal without a hearing. It has been a longstanding practice to dismiss cases that are not a priority for enforcement or that ICE chooses not to prosecute, allowing noncitizens to instead pursue immigration applications affirmatively through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Here, however, many noncitizens were not notified that their cases were being dismissed for a different purpose—to place them in ER—and effectively deny them access to a decision from an immigration judge as well as affirmative applications through USCIS. Because noncitizens did not understand the purpose of their dismissal, they did not, through counsel or otherwise, have an opportunity to take steps to oppose the ICE attorneys’ motions to terminate or withdraw.

    Immigration judges—who are not part of an independent judiciary but housed under the Executive Office of Immigration Review within the Department of Justice—have also received guidance encouraging immigration judges to grant the ICE attorneys’ motion to dismiss “with no additional documentation or briefing” or opportunity for a noncitizen to respond. In some cases, immigration judges were not made aware of the purpose of the dismissal. As a result, immigration judges could not take into account in their dismissal determination that the noncitizen will immediately be placed in ER. In some cases, the immigration judge did not give noncitizens adequate time to respond to ICE motions to dismiss, or ensure those appearing pro se were informed of the consequences of their cases being dismissed. And in some cases, the immigration judge dismissed the case over the strong objections from the noncitizen who wished for their immigration case to continue with the court.

    Noncitizens whose removal proceedings are abruptly dismissed in this manner lose the ability to request relief in immigration court for which they are otherwise eligible, such as asylum or adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, or to request that an immigration judge hold their case while they pursue an immigration status with USCIS, such as classification as a Special Immigrant Juvenile. Many of these noncitizens who had their cases dismissed had reportedly already submitted an asylum application or other forms of relief to the immigration court, raising serious concerns that their applications were wrongfully denied any consideration.  For example, a Mexican transgender woman with no criminal history who came to the United States in 2023 after being subject to abduction and rape by members of the Knights Templar drug cartel in Mexico, had applied for asylum; upon her appearance for her court hearing in Portland, Oregon, ICE moved to dismiss her case, the court granted the request, and she was subsequently arrested by ICE agents in the lobby. In another case, ICE requested the dismissal of a case of a Cuban man who entered the United States in 2021 and had an asylum application pending; an immigration judge in the Miami Immigration Court told the asylum seeker he could seek asylum affirmatively from USCIS after the dismissal; instead, ICE arrested and detained him.

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, “[w]e have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard. Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties and that affords[s] a reasonable time…to make an appearance.” Here, it appears that the ICE attorneys are being told to dismiss immigration cases and place noncitizens in expedited removal.  At the same time, immigration judges are being told that they may dismiss such cases without any briefing or opportunity to respond.  In addition, often noncitizens have not been notified of the purpose of their dismissal, in order to respond or contest the dismissal of their immigration cases, or the placement of their case into expedited removal.  Taken together, these actions raise serious due process concerns.

    These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.

    We request responses to the following questions by July 25, 2025:

    1. What specific guidance has DHS or DOJ/EOIR issued regarding the dismissal of standard 240 removal proceedings and the facilitation of enforcement actions in and around immigration courtrooms? Please provide a copy of the relevant guidance, email, memorandum, or other directives associated with this policy.
    1. How many individuals have been detained and placed in ER following dismissal of their cases from January 20th to May 19th, 2025? How many have been detained and placed in ER following dismissal since May 20, 2025?  Provide the total number of individuals arrested and detained by week, and disaggregate by country of origin, gender, and age.
      1. What number of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following the dismissal of their removal proceedings have been referred for a credible fear interview (CFI)?  How many have passed that interview with the asylum officer and how many did not? Of the total negative CFIs by an asylum officer, how many were reviewed by an Immigration Judge and reversed?
      2. Of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following dismissal of their cases, how many had applications pending with the immigration court in INA 240 proceedings at the time that the ICE attorney moved for dismissal?   How many had applications pending with USCIS (e.g. adjustment of status, SIJ classification, T or U visa)?  Of those with applications pending in immigration court, how many were asylum applications and how many were for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
      3. Of those individuals who had asylum applications pending in immigration court when the ICE attorney requested the dismissal of proceedings, how many were subsequently given a CFI after dismissal and their placement in ER?  Of those, how many passed that interview with the Asylum Officer and were placed back into proceedings to again pursue their asylum claim?  Of those with an asylum application pending who were subsequently given a CFI after dismissal and their placement in ER, how many had a negative CFI with an asylum officer which was subsequently reversed by an IJ and were placed back into proceedings?
      4. What number of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following the dismissal of their removal proceedings have been placed back into INA 240 proceedings for any reason?
    1. Are immigration judges being monitored or tracked on how they respond to ICE motions to dismiss the cases or to withdraw the NTA? If so, how is that information being utilized?
    2. There are reports of cases where the immigration judge did not immediately grant ICE’s motion to dismiss and did give the noncitizen additional time to respond, but ICE detained the noncitizen anyway.
      1. Since May 20th, in how many cases has an ICE attorney orally requested a dismissal, and the IJ has either denied such a motion or granted additional time for the noncitizen to respond?
      2. In how many of those cases did ICE arrest and detain the noncitizen despite the removal proceedings not being dismissed?
      3. In how many of those cases did ICE request a Change of Venue to a detained docket?
      4. For the subset of cases moved to the detained docket, in how many cases has ICE moved to dismiss again before a different immigration judge in order to place the noncitizen in ER?
    1. Of the total detained and placed in ER after the dismissal of their court cases, how many had a criminal conviction?
    1. Of the total detained and placed in ER after dismissal of their court cases, how many were continuously present in the United States for more than two years?  Provide an explanation of the legal basis for their placement in ER.
    1. Of the total detained and placed in ER after dismissal of their court cases, how many were in removal proceedings after having been initially paroled into the United States at a port of entry?  Provide the total number and disaggregate by country of origin, gender and age.  Also, provide the total number of individuals who were initially paroled more than two years prior to the issuance of the I-860 ER order.
    1. Provide a complete list of all the immigration courts where ICE courthouse arrests and placements into ER have occurred since May 20, 2025. At each of these immigration courts, disaggregated by each individual court, have in abstentia removal orders increased and if so, by what percentage of the total scheduled court hearings? Provide a daily accounting of the number of in absentia removal orders issued in each immigration court since January 1, 2025, disaggregated by court.

    Sincerely,

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Secures Provisions to Strengthen Public Trust in the Military and Enhance Civil Rights in Committee-Passed NDAA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 14, 2025

    The Senator also secures provision to require servicemembers be trained on rules regarding use of force on U.S. soil

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] — Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)—successfully secured a provision in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that SASC approved last week and the full Senate will now consider that would strengthen public trust of the military, enhance civil rights and curb misuse of our military for civilian law enforcement. As the Trump Administration continues to send federal agents and our nation’s military into our communities to intimidate their fellow Americans, the Senator’s provision—which is a modified version of her Military in Law Enforcement Accountability (MiLEA) Act—would ensure that servicemembers identify themselves properly to avoid public misunderstanding about who is providing logistical support versus conducting arrests or law enforcement duties.?

    “In my own experience serving in the National Guard, I saw firsthand the difference drawing a bright line between the roles of our military and law enforcement can make in terms of maintaining public trust in our military,” said Duckworth. “I’m proud my colleagues agreed that this is a necessary requirement to provide accountability to the public during tense moments when troops might be interacting with citizens, from protests to natural disasters to humanitarian crises, and I hope the rest of my colleagues in the Senate do too.”?

    In addition to this provision, Senator Duckworth also secured a provision that would require the Department of Defense to provide legal training to all servicemembers, including a refresher within 90 days of any mobilization or deployment, on their responsibilities under the law of armed conflict, rules of engagement, defense support for civil authorities and standing rules for the use of force within the United States. This provision would ensure all servicemembers know their legal obligations during deployments both at home as well as abroad and protect American civil rights especially in light of the Trump Administration’s increasing misuse of troops to support law enforcement within the United States.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

    Source: US State of New York

    Official websites use ny.gov

    A ny.gov website belongs to an official New York State government organization.

    Secure ny.gov websites use HTTPS

    A lock icon or https:// means you’ve safely connected to a ny.gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

    July 14, 2025

    Albany, NY

    “The Supreme Court just greenlit Trump’s continued assault on the Department of Education and every student, teacher and parent across the country.

    “As Governor, I’m determined to ensure every New Yorker can access a quality, affordable education — and that every teacher has the support they need to help students succeed.

    “Today’s ruling pushes that promise further out of reach by opening the door to devastating layoffs, deeper funding cuts and worse outcomes for our kids.”

    You are leaving the official State of New York website.

    The State of New York does not imply approval of the listed destinations, warrant the accuracy of any information set out in those destinations, or endorse any opinions expressed therein. External web sites operate at the direction of their respective owners who should be contacted directly with questions regarding the content of these sites.

    Visit Site

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

    Source: US State of New York

    Official websites use ny.gov

    A ny.gov website belongs to an official New York State government organization.

    Secure ny.gov websites use HTTPS

    A lock icon or https:// means you’ve safely connected to a ny.gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

    July 14, 2025

    Albany, NY

    “The Supreme Court just greenlit Trump’s continued assault on the Department of Education and every student, teacher and parent across the country.

    “As Governor, I’m determined to ensure every New Yorker can access a quality, affordable education — and that every teacher has the support they need to help students succeed.

    “Today’s ruling pushes that promise further out of reach by opening the door to devastating layoffs, deeper funding cuts and worse outcomes for our kids.”

    You are leaving the official State of New York website.

    The State of New York does not imply approval of the listed destinations, warrant the accuracy of any information set out in those destinations, or endorse any opinions expressed therein. External web sites operate at the direction of their respective owners who should be contacted directly with questions regarding the content of these sites.

    Visit Site

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hickenlooper, Bennet, Colleagues Press Trump Admin on Weaponizing Immigration Court Hearings to Arrest Immigrants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado
    According to recent reports, the administration has targeted noncriminal immigrants who show up for their court hearings
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet joined 22 of their Senate colleagues to call out the Trump administration’s recent efforts to arrest noncriminal immigrants at their immigration court hearings and deport them without adequate due process.
    “This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer…” wrote the senators. “They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.”
    The senators sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons. They condemned the admin’s efforts that undermine due process and intimidate and discourage people from attending their immigration court hearings.
    This February, Hickenlooper and Bennet helped introduce the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would limit immigration arrests at sensitive locations like courthouses, schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
    Full text of the letter available HERE and below.
    Dear Secretary Noem, Attorney General Bondi, and Acting Director Lyons:
    We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them. Some reports indicated that plain-clothed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel stationed outside of immigration courtrooms had lists of cases marked for dismissal and even photos of the individuals they intended to arrest. Upon the granting of this request by an immigration judge, ICE officers have reportedly arrested individuals or families outside the courtrooms and placed them in a fast-track removal process known as expedited removal (ER). These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.
    ER historically has applied only to a noncitizen who “is arriving in the United States” and certain other noncitizens apprehended close to the border less than 14 days after arrival in the United States. Individuals subject to ER are mandatorily detained and can be summarily deported without a hearing before a judge, administrative appeal or federal court review, unlike regular removal proceedings. The ER process offers very limited administrative review and no
    meaningful opportunity for a noncitizen to challenge whether they can legally be placed in ER. There is no real opportunity to provide documentation, for example, that would demonstrate they have continuously resided in the United States for more than two years, or that they were, in fact, admitted or paroled into the United States and therefore not subject to ER. ICE is now expanding the application of ER to noncitizens in the interior of the United States who have developed significant ties to the United States, including by lawfully working and attending school. Arresting law-abiding individuals and placing them in ER deprives them of the opportunity to have their fair day in court with the due process protections in immigration court proceedings.
    Nevertheless, we understand that ICE attorneys have been instructed to look for immigration court cases that can be dismissed11 and then orally request, without prior notice, that removal proceedings be dismissed or the Notice to Appear be withdrawn. ICE often did not inform immigration judges or the noncitizens that the purpose of their request was not relief from removal, but instead that ICE intended to arrest and place the individual in fast-track removal without a hearing. It has been a longstanding practice to dismiss cases that are not a priority for enforcement or that ICE chooses not to prosecute, allowing noncitizens to instead pursue immigration applications affirmatively through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Here, however, many noncitizens were not notified that their cases were being dismissed for a different purpose—to place them in ER—and effectively deny them access to a
    decision from an immigration judge as well as affirmative applications through USCIS. Because noncitizens did not understand the purpose of their dismissal, they did not, through counsel or otherwise, have an opportunity to take steps to oppose the ICE attorneys’ motions to terminate or withdraw.
    Immigration judges—who are not part of an independent judiciary but housed under the Executive Office of Immigration Review within the Department of Justice—have also received guidance encouraging immigration judges to grant the ICE attorneys’ motion to dismiss “with no additional documentation or briefing” or opportunity for a noncitizen to respond. In some cases, immigration judges were not made aware of the purpose of the dismissal. As a result, immigration judges could not take into account in their dismissal determination that the noncitizen will immediately be placed in ER. In some cases, the immigration judge did not give noncitizens adequate time to respond to ICE motions to dismiss, or ensure those appearing pro se were informed of the consequences of their cases being dismissed. And in some cases, the immigration judge dismissed the case over the strong objections from the noncitizen who wished for their immigration case to continue with the court.
    Noncitizens whose removal proceedings are abruptly dismissed in this manner lose the ability to request relief in immigration court for which they are otherwise eligible, such as asylum or adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, or to request that an immigration judge hold their case while they pursue an immigration status with USCIS, such as classification as a Special Immigrant Juvenile. Many of these noncitizens who had their cases dismissed had
    reportedly already submitted an asylum application or other forms of relief to the immigration court, raising serious concerns that their applications were wrongfully denied any consideration. For example, a Mexican transgender woman with no criminal history who came to the United States in 2023 after being subject to abduction and rape by members of the Knights Templar drug cartel in Mexico, had applied for asylum; upon her appearance for her court hearing in Portland, Oregon, ICE moved to dismiss her case, the court granted the request, and she was subsequently arrested by ICE agents in the lobby. In another case, ICE requested the dismissal of a case of a Cuban man who entered the United States in 2021 and had an asylum application pending; an immigration judge in the Miami Immigration Court told the asylum seeker he could seek asylum affirmatively from USCIS after the dismissal; instead, ICE arrested and detained him.
    The U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, “[w]e have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard. Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties and that affords[s] a reasonable time …to make an appearance.” Here, it appears that the ICE attorneys are being told to dismiss immigration cases and place noncitizens in expedited removal. At the same time, immigration judges are being told that they may dismiss such cases
    without any briefing or opportunity to respond. In addition, often noncitizens have not been notified of the purpose of their dismissal, in order to respond or contest the dismissal of their immigration cases, or the placement of their case into expedited removal. Taken together, these actions raise serious due process concerns.
    These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.
    We request responses to the following questions by July 25, 2025:
    What specific guidance has DHS or DOJ/EOIR issued regarding the dismissal of standard 240 removal proceedings and the facilitation of enforcement actions in and around immigration courtrooms? Please provide a copy of the relevant guidance, email, memorandum, or other directives associated with this policy.
    How many individuals have been detained and placed in ER following dismissal of their cases from January 20th to May 19th, 2025? How many have been detained and placed in ER following dismissal since May 20, 2025? Provide the total number of individuals arrested and detained by week, and disaggregate by country of origin, gender, and age.
    What number of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following the dismissal of their removal proceedings have been referred for a credible fear interview (CFI)? How many have passed that interview with the asylum officer and how many did not? Of the total negative CFIs by an asylum officer, how many were reviewed by an Immigration Judge and reversed?
    Of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following dismissal of their cases, how many had applications pending with the immigration court in INA 240 proceedings at the time that the ICE attorney moved for dismissal? How many had applications pending with USCIS (e.g. adjustment of status, SIJ classification, T or U visa)? Of those with applications pending in immigration court, how many were asylum applications and how many were for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
    Of those individuals who had asylum applications pending in immigration court when the ICE attorney requested the dismissal of proceedings, how many were subsequently given a CFI after dismissal and their placement in ER? Of those, how many passed that interview with the Asylum Officer and were placed back into proceedings to again pursue their asylum claim? Of those with an asylum application pending who were subsequently given a CFI after dismissal and their placement in ER, how many had a negative CFI with an asylum officer which was subsequently reversed by an IJ and were placed back into proceedings?
    What number of the total individuals detained and placed in ER following the dismissal of their removal proceedings have been placed back into INA 240 proceedings for any reason?
    Are immigration judges being monitored or tracked on how they respond to ICE motions to dismiss the cases or to withdraw the NTA? If so, how is that information being utilized?
    There are reports of cases where the immigration judge did not immediately grant ICE’s motion to dismiss and did give the noncitizen additional time to respond, but ICE detained the noncitizen anyway.
    Since May 20th, in how many cases has an ICE attorney orally requested a dismissal, and the IJ has either denied such a motion or granted additional time for the noncitizen to respond?

    In how many of those cases did ICE arrest and detain the noncitizen despite the removal proceedings not being dismissed?
    In how many of those cases did ICE request a Change of Venue to a detained docket?
    For the subset of cases moved to the detained docket, in how many cases has ICE moved to dismiss again before a different immigration judge in order to place the noncitizen in ER?
    Of the total detained and placed in ER after the dismissal of their court cases, how many had a criminal conviction?
    Of the total detained and placed in ER after dismissal of their court cases, how many were continuously present in the United States for more than two years? Provide an explanation of the legal basis for their placement in ER.
    Of the total detained and placed in ER after dismissal of their court cases, how many were in removal proceedings after having been initially paroled into the United States at a port of entry? Provide the total number and disaggregate by country of origin, gender and age. Also, provide the total number of individuals who were initially paroled more than two years prior to the issuance of the I-860 ER order.
    Provide a complete list of all the immigration courts where ICE courthouse arrests and placements into ER have occurred since May 20, 2025. At each of these immigration courts, disaggregated by each individual court, have in absentia removal orders increased and if so, by what percentage of the total scheduled court hearings? Provide a daily accounting of the number of in absentia removal orders issued in each immigration court since January 1, 2025, disaggregated by court.
    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Joint Statement from Senators Graham and Blumenthal

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) today made this joint statement after President Trump made a series of announcements regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, including his intention to impose secondary tariffs on Russia if they do not agree to a ceasefire in the next 50 days.

    Graham and Blumenthal have introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, which would impose secondary tariffs and sanctions on countries that continue to fund Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine. Their legislation has 85 cosponsors in the Senate.

    “President Trump and his team have made a powerful move, implementing a new approach to end this bloodbath between Russia and Ukraine.

    “Selling American-manufactured weapons to NATO – that will be used by Ukraine to defend themselves – is smart military policy and will enormously benefit the U.S. economy. Not only will these weapons be made in America, creating jobs for Americans, but they also will be purchased by the Europeans. This is a win-win scenario.

    “However, the ultimate hammer to bring about the end of this war will be tariffs against countries, like China, India and Brazil, that prop up Putin’s war machine by purchasing cheap Russian oil and gas. President Trump’s decision to announce the implementation of 100 percent secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas if a peace agreement is not reached in the next 50 days is a real executive hammer to drive the parties to the negotiating table. The goal is not more tariffs and sanctions – the goal is to entice Putin to come to the peace table. 

    “It is long overdue for the financial backers of Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine to pay a price for buying cheap energy products and marking it up in order to benefit their economies. The days of doing this without consequences are coming to an end.

    “Finally, as President Trump indicated, we will join our colleagues in continuing to work with the White House on our bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, and do not help Ukraine. The congressional legislation authorizing tariffs and sanctions would truly be a sledgehammer for President Trump to end this war, and it will allow for maximum flexibility to achieve that end. The benefit of our approach is that it blends congressional authorization of tariffs and sanctions with flexibility for presidential implementation, making it rock solid legally and politically.

    “This bill has 85 cosponsors in the Senate and it would pass incredibly quickly. We will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate, and with the Trump team to have this legislation ready to go at a moment’s notice.

    “The combination of more American-made, European-purchased weapons for Ukraine and tariffs on the financial backers of Putin’s brutal war has changed the game. We sincerely believe President Trump has set in motion a new approach that has the highest likelihood yet of ending this bloodbath in the right way.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Blasts Republicans for Cutting Funding to Combat HIV/AIDS 

    US Senate News:

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

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) will submit a Statement for the Congressional Record blasting Senate Republicans for attempting to advance President Trump’s rescission request, which claws back congressionally-appropriated funding, and his FY26 budget, which also threatens funding for HIV/AIDS and other life-saving global health programs.  
    In his statement, Senator Welch warns that the White House’s drastic cuts in funding to sustain the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and fulfill the United States’ pledges to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria will hurt the world’s most vulnerable. Senator Welch says that if Congress advances these cuts, the legislative body will share responsibility for sabotaging one of the great, bipartisan public health achievements of this century. 
    “I can’t help but wonder why? Why is the White House walking away from these life-saving programs that everyone agrees have been a huge success story? It would be one thing if HIV/AIDS had been eradicated. But we are a very long way from that. There are an estimated 1.3 million new HIV infections every year,” said Senator Welch. “We cannot let down our guard. We cannot be so shortsighted to think that we would save money by cutting funding for PEPFAR and the Global Fund. Prevention is far less expensive than treatment. If Congress does not reject these funding cuts there will almost immediately be more infections, not fewer. More Americans will get sick. Mother to child transmission will exponentially increase. Many more people will die needlessly.” 
    Welch concluded: “A drug developed by an American biopharmaceutical company that can prevent HIV/AIDS finally exists. Let’s do again what President Bush did nearly a quarter century ago and show the world that the United States can be the world’s leader in saving lives from a deadly disease.” 
    Read the full Statement for the Record here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Carter Celebrates House Passage of Bill to Make Permanent the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Earl L Buddy Carter (GA-01)

    Headline: Carter Celebrates House Passage of Bill to Make Permanent the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) today celebrated unanimous House passage of his bipartisan bill with Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) Codification Act. The bill strengthens the statutory authority of the ITS testing center, which is essential for informing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) spectrum policy decisions. 

    The bill also directs ITS to establish an important and potentially life-saving initiative to develop emergency communication and tracking technologies for use in locating people trapped in areas where mobile connectivity may not be available due to natural disasters and other devastating events.

    “The ITS is critical to achieving our goal of beating China by having effective, workable, and innovative spectrum policies and practices. I’m proud to co-lead this effort with Rep. Pettersen and am thrilled that the House unanimously voted to send this important, life-saving bill to the Senate. I’m calling on my Senate colleagues to quickly get this bill to President Trump’s desk, so we can ensure mobile connectivity during natural disasters and other devastating events,” said Rep. Carter.

    “The incident at the Mollie Kathleen Gold Mine in my District last October was a devastating cautionary tale about what can happen in an emergency situation when people end up trapped where cell service isn’t available,” said Rep. Pettersen. “This bipartisan bill will enhance emergency communications for critical moments like the Gold Mine accident. Ensuring rescuers can effectively communicate can make all the difference in successfully saving lives.”

    Read the full bill text here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEA reacts to Supreme Court as Trump continues taking a wrecking ball to public schools

    Source: US National Education Union

    WASHINGTON – National Education Association President Becky Pringle released the following statement reacting to the Supreme Court’s action today: 

    “Nothing is more important than the success of students. America’s educators and parents won’t be silent as Donald Trump, with the support of the MAGA Supreme Court, strips our students, our families, and our communities of protections and funding that Congress has mandated. Gutting the Department of Education has already harmed students and communities. Today’s ruling withholding relief that the lower courts ordered will only compound the harm.  

    “NEA will continue our efforts in and outside of court to protect students, school districts, parents, and educators from Trump’s illegal and destructive dismantling of the Department of Education, which will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training and career and technical education programs, making higher education further out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections.  

    “Everyone who cares about America’s students and public schools should be appalled by the Supreme Court’s premature intervention in this case today, which stays preliminary relief ordered by the lower courts. Today’s decision does not resolve the underlying merits of Trump’s unlawful plan to eliminate the Department of Education.  

    “Parents, educators, and community leaders won’t be silent as Trump and his allies take a wrecking ball to public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America. We will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize until all students have the opportunity to attend the well-resourced public schools where they can thrive.” 

    -###- 

     Follow us on Bluesky at https://bsky.app/profile/neapresident.bsky.social and https://bsky.app/profile/neatoday.bsky.social   

    The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization, representing more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators, students preparing to become teachers, healthcare workers, and public employees. Learn more at www.nea.org 

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEA reacts to Supreme Court as Trump continues taking a wrecking ball to public schools

    Source: US National Education Union

    WASHINGTON – National Education Association President Becky Pringle released the following statement reacting to the Supreme Court’s action today: 

    “Nothing is more important than the success of students. America’s educators and parents won’t be silent as Donald Trump, with the support of the MAGA Supreme Court, strips our students, our families, and our communities of protections and funding that Congress has mandated. Gutting the Department of Education has already harmed students and communities. Today’s ruling withholding relief that the lower courts ordered will only compound the harm.  

    “NEA will continue our efforts in and outside of court to protect students, school districts, parents, and educators from Trump’s illegal and destructive dismantling of the Department of Education, which will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training and career and technical education programs, making higher education further out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections.  

    “Everyone who cares about America’s students and public schools should be appalled by the Supreme Court’s premature intervention in this case today, which stays preliminary relief ordered by the lower courts. Today’s decision does not resolve the underlying merits of Trump’s unlawful plan to eliminate the Department of Education.  

    “Parents, educators, and community leaders won’t be silent as Trump and his allies take a wrecking ball to public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America. We will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize until all students have the opportunity to attend the well-resourced public schools where they can thrive.” 

    -###- 

     Follow us on Bluesky at https://bsky.app/profile/neapresident.bsky.social and https://bsky.app/profile/neatoday.bsky.social   

    The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization, representing more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators, students preparing to become teachers, healthcare workers, and public employees. Learn more at www.nea.org 

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Energy Secretary: The World Needs More Reliable American Energy

    Source: US Department of Energy

    The Economist

    July 14, 2025

    “Climate change is a by-product of progress, not an existential crisis, says Trump’s energy czar”

    By Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy

    Nearly every aspect of modern life depends upon energy. It fuels opportunity, lifts people out of poverty and saves lives. That is why, as a lifelong energy entrepreneur and as US Secretary of Energy, I am honoured to advance President Donald Trump’s policy of bettering lives through unleashing a golden age of energy dominance—both at home and around the world.

    Over the past two centuries, two forces dramatically transformed the human condition: the rise of bottom-up social organisation—human liberty—and the explosion in the supply of affordable energy. The result has been a doubling in life expectancy. In the same period, extreme poverty has plummeted from affecting 90% of the world’s population to under 10%. Energy and human liberty matter.

    The world needs more energy—in particular, more American energy. The growth of American energy production is a win for our citizens, for our geopolitical standing and for our allies. We need energy that is affordable, reliable and secure.
    This administration is focused on energy addition, not subtraction—a complete reversal from the previous four years. By the time President Trump took office, American energy had become more uncertain, more expensive and less reliable. One in five American households were struggling to pay their energy bills. Half of the electric grid faced the risk of blackouts.

    In the name of a single risk—climate change—the Biden administration launched a regulatory assault aimed at eliminating hydrocarbons in favour of so-called renewables.
    . . .
    Was this damage at least offset by progress with Joe Biden’s promise to green the economy? In short, no. Hydrocarbons made up 82% of American primary energy consumption in 2024, nearly the same as in 2019. Hydrocarbons are proving extremely difficult to replace.

    Urgent, politically charged proclamations to alter national energy systems have consistently proven disastrous. In Europe, as well as in America under President Biden, climate zealotry has overtaken energy reality. The result is crushingly high energy prices, deindustrialisation and diminished life opportunities for citizens.

    . . .

    America is taking a different path—one focused on growth. We are expanding our supply of reliable energy, delivering more secure energy to Americans more cheaply. This approach enables the reshoring and domestic expansion of energy-intensive manufacturing: steel, semiconductors, fertiliser, cement and more. And it is positioning America to lead the next major energy-intensive frontier: artificial intelligence (AI).

    AI transforms electricity into the most valuable output imaginable: intelligence. The country that wins the global race for AI leadership will shape the future of innovation, economic productivity and national defence. Dominating AI will require not only world-class scientific expertise, but enormous, continuous amounts of power.
    . . .
    We are accelerating the production of all baseload resources—coal, nuclear, geothermal and, of course, natural gas. Natural gas alone supplies over 40% of American electricity and 25% of global primary energy. It heats more American homes than any other fuel, anchors the booming petrochemical industry and remains the dominant source of industrial heat for manufacturing.

    We will treat climate change as what it is: not an existential crisis but a real, physical phenomenon that is a byproduct of progress. Yes, atmospheric CO2 has increased over time—but so has life expectancy. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Modern medicine, telecommunications and global transportation became possible. I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement.

    The world stands at an energy crossroads and it is time to choose. Do we want an energy policy of exclusion and scarcity that shackles humanity and limits economic potential? Or do we want a policy of inclusion and abundance, bursting all limits to growth and opportunity?

    America has made its choice in favour of more energy, more manufacturing and more economic activity. We invite others to do the same.

    Read the full article here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: 2025 House Transportation Joint Trades Maritime Workforce Letter

    Source: Independent Petroleum Association of America

    Headline: 2025 House Transportation Joint Trades Maritime Workforce Letter

    Jul 11, 2025 2025 House Transportation Joint Trades Maritime Workforce Letter

    Dear Chair Graves and Ranking Member Larsen:

    President Trump’s directive that the U.S. government “unleash American energy” (Executive Order 14154) has helped set the country on a course of global energy dominance. Congress plays a significant role in advancing this important agenda, and the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is a critical component in this energy dominance strategy. Approximately 1 of every 6 barrels produced domestically comes from the OCS, along with more than 300,000 jobs for American workers, and billions of dollars in state and federal taxes and royalty revenues. Offshore energy development is an irreplaceable strategic asset for America’s national security, which is why it is so important that U.S. policy supports growing access to, and production of, oil and natural gas in the Gulf of America.

    As the Committee prepares to consider the HR 4275, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025, we want to caution against the inclusion of language that could hinder the goal of energy dominance, specifically in the Gulf of America. In the last several Coast Guard reauthorization bills, the House of Representatives has included language from a bill introduced in past Congresses called The American Offshore Worker Fairness Act, which would place stifling and unreasonable restrictions on the limited number of highly specialized vessels needed for exploration, to construct new and expanding Gulf of America oil and natural gas projects and to effectively maintain existing production. The language would effectively eliminate the ability to use these vessels and the well-trained and highly experienced crew that accompany them because they are foreign-owned and foreign-flagged. …

    Continue Reading

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Malliotakis, Suozzi Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Expand Housing Opportunities

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)

    (WASHINGTON, DC) – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11) and Congressman Tom Suozzi (NY-03) introduced bipartisan legislation that would direct the eventual proceeds from the release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a housing revolving loan fund aimed at expanding homeownership and rental opportunities for middle-class and working families.

     

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been under federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis. President Trump has proposed releasing both entities from conservatorship to return them to the private market, allowing shareholders to regain the value of their investments.

     

    The legislation introduced by Representatives Malliotakis and Suozzi would build on this proposal by creating a housing revolving loan fund. Proceeds from the release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be directed to this fund, which would provide states with resources to issue loans for the construction of new owner-occupied or rental housing, or to rehabilitate existing housing. The goal is to expand homeownership and rental opportunities for middle-class and working families while allowing them to benefit from the value generated by the sale of shares. Estimates of the projected federal proceeds would be $250 billion according to Housing for US. 

     

    “I join Rep. Suozzi in introducing bipartisan legislation that, should Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be released from conservatorship, would assign the proceeds toward a new housing revolving loan fund to expand homeownership and rental opportunities for working- and middle-class Americans including police officers, firefighters, teachers, carpenters, and tilers who often earn too much to qualify for affordable housing but not enough to afford market rates. This is a chance to deliver critical assistance to hardworking Americans,” said Rep. Malliotakis.

     

    “We have a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle America’s housing crisis while creating good-paying, union jobs for working families,” Rep. Suozzi said. “The housing crisis is crushing the American Dream — young people, carpenters, cops, teachers, nurses, first responders, and middle-class families are being priced out of homeownership. This isn’t a red state or blue state issue — every community is feeling it. And that’s why I’m proud to introduce this legislation with my fellow New Yorker from across the aisle. When we work together, we can get things done.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden Introduces Legislation to Require ICE Officers to Display Clear Identification

    US Senate News:

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

    July 14, 2025

    Oregon senator also joins 13 Democrats in a letter to DHS requesting information about ICE’s use of unidentified plainclothes agents

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said today he has introduced new legislation prohibiting immigration enforcement officers from concealing their identity during enforcement actions in public.  

    Under the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, Department of Homeland Security officers have engaged in public enforcement operations while concealing their identities with unmarked tactical gear and face coverings. Without visible badges, names, or insignia, the public often can’t confirm whether the federal officers are interacting with legitimate government officials. This lack of transparency endangers public safety by causing widespread confusion and fear, especially in communities already subject to heightened immigration scrutiny. It also creates an opportunity for people to impersonate immigration enforcement that can make high-stress situations worse.

    “Trump letting masked immigration agents in plain clothes abduct people from public spaces is straight out of an authoritarian playbook,” Wyden said. “These public abductions are sowing fear and distrust into the hearts of our communities. We must ensure federal agents have visible identification on display to bring back transparency, maintain public trust, and start repairing America’s broken immigration system.” 

    The Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025 would strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability for the Trump administration’s reign of terror on immigrant communities across Oregon and the nation.

    Specifically, the VISIBLE Act would:

    • Require immigration enforcement officers — including DHS personnel such as Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, federal agents detailed to immigration operations, and deputized state or local officers — to display clearly legible identification, including their agency name or initials and either their name or badge number, in a manner that remains visible and unobscured by tactical gear or clothing.
    • Prohibits non-medical face coverings, such as masks or balaclavas, which obscure identity or facial visibility, with exceptions for environmental hazards or covert operations. 
    • Requires Homeland Security to establish disciplinary procedures for violations, report annually to Congress on compliance, and investigate complaints through its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

    The bill does not apply to covert or non-public operations, nor does it prohibit face coverings when necessary for officer safety. It also does not apply to enforcement actions conducted solely under criminal authority.

    Along with Wyden, the legislation is led by Senators Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawai’i, Patty Murray, D-Wash., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Gary Peters, D-Mich., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Peter Welch, D-Vt.

    The bill is endorsed by the ACLU and Public Counsel.

    A one-page summary of the bill is here.

    Full text of the bill is here.

    Wyden also joined 13 Democratic senators in a letter criticizing ICE for engaging in unnecessary, cruel enforcement activities — including raids on courthouses and restaurants. In the letter, the senators requested information from the agency on its mask and uniform policies and tactics designed to sow fear and chaos. Allowing masked, plainclothes officers to engage in public raids creates situations where bad actors can commit crimes while claiming to be ICE agents.

    In addition to Wyden and Padilla, the letter was signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawai’i, Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Patty Murray, D-Wash., Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Peter Welch, D-Vt.

    A full text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden Presses Trump Administration Over Misleading Statements on Wildland Firefighting Preparedness and Capability

    US Senate News:

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

    July 14, 2025

    Senator’s letter follows U.S. Forest Service Chief Schultz’s misleading testimony in a Senate hearing about Trump’s proposed Forest Service budget

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today demanded answers from the Trump administration following multiple misleading statements at a recent Senate committee hearing from U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz about how the Trump administration’s staffing and spending cuts are weakening wildland firefighting preparedness and resources this fire season.

    “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has apparently not only failed to increase the overall resources available, it has failed to maintain the inadequate resources it previously had,” Wyden wrote in his letter to Schultz. “This overall lack of transparency through obfuscation and omission inhibits the Senate’s responsibility and congressional authority to conduct oversight of federal agencies, and protect our constituents.”

    Following Wyden’s questioning during the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Chief Schultz implied there had been no reduction in Forest Service employees available to respond to wildfire. This response conveniently ignored employees holding Incident Qualification Cards, or “red cards.” Only later after being pressed did Chief Schultz admit that staffing and budget cuts have resulted in the loss of 1400 red card holders. Any Forest Service employee holding a red card is trained and qualified to support firefighting operations during a wildfire.

    Wyden also asked Chief Schultz to confirm in writing how the Trump administration’s planned reorganization of federal firefighting capabilities within the Department of the Interior will affect its ability to get Western states the personnel and resources they need to prepare for and battle blazes this fire season.

    Additionally, Wyden pressed Chief Schultz on his misleading claim that there has been no decline in hazardous fuel reduction efforts under the Trump administration. The most recent number shared by other administration officials showed that only 1.7 million acres of hazardous fuels reduction treatment have occurred so far this fiscal year, less than half of the 4.29 million acres treated during the last year of the Biden administration in Fiscal Year 2024.

    Wyden has been a longtime champion of sustainable forestry and common-sense policies to reduce the risk of wildfire, introducing the bipartisan National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025 that would invest in hazardous fuels management to reduce the risk of blistering infernos by increasing the pace and scale of prescribed burns during cooler, wetter months. 

    Video of the exchange at last week’s committee hearing between Wyden and Schultz can be found here.

    A copy of the entire letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Senate Democrats Press Trump Administration on Weaponizing Immigration Court Hearings to Deport Immigrants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) joined a group of 22 Senate Democrats led by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pressing the Trump administration on its recent initiatives to weaponize immigration court hearings to arrest and deport immigrants who are trying to follow the law and showing up for their legitimate court cases. 

    In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, the Senators condemned these actions as an affront to due process and a distraction from going after violent criminals.

    The senators began by expressing concern over recent reporting of the Trump administration’s inhumane initiatives, writing: “We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them […] These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.”

    The Senators concluded by articulating the horrible situation this puts hardworking immigrants who are trying to follow the law in, before making a series of information requests, writing: “These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.”

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    The first and only Latina senator, Senator Cortez Masto has consistently supported immigrant communities in Nevada, calling on both administrations to protect TPS holders and other immigrants, as well as leading commonsense legislation to fix our broken immigration system. She has worked to pass meaningful immigration reform that balances critical border security measures with a path to citizenship for Dreamers, TPS holders, and essential workers.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney

    The antisemitism strategy presented to the Albanese government has attracted considerable – and wholly justifed – criticism.

    Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy. This is due to its biased arguments, weak evidence and recommendation overreach.

    There is also the adoption of a contentious definition of antisemitism which has been criticised for conflating disapproval of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.

    Alternative definition

    The strategy uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, manifestations of which could include criticising the state of Israel.

    However, this definition is contentious – so much so that its original author, Kenneth Stern, has rejected it as a tool for regulating antisemitism due its potential to be weaponised to silence free speech.

    Other widely used definitions are unacknowledged in the report. These include the Jerusalem Declaration, which attempts to strike a better balance between antisemitism and freedom of speech, including criticism of Israel and Zionism.

    As the declaration notes:

    hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the state.

    Biased Argument

    The report presents a clear and consistent argument: antisemitism has been on the rise in Australia, especially since the Hamas attacks in October 2023. It is particularly obvious in universities and cultural institutions.

    Antisemitism is an insidious form of prejudice and hatred which is destructive not only to the Jewish community, but to the very fabric of Australian society. It requires a community-wide response to stamp it out.

    The report is underpinned by Segal’s principled aspiration to ensure “all Australians, including Jewish Australians, can live with dignity, fairness, safety and mutual respect”.

    But there are multiple problems with how this argument is presented.

    First, it is sweeping in its application. A good example is the claim antisemitism “has become ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space”.

    No explanation is given to what these terms mean, or what these practices entail. Without such qualifiers, readers could easily be misguided in thinking the problem is more pronounced than it actually is.

    Weak evidence

    The report provides alarming statistics about the rise in reported cases of antisemitism in Australia, including a claimed 316% spike in the 12 months to October 2024.

    It pays particular attention to antisemitism in the university sector, quoting a survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which noted more than 60% of Jewish students who experienced antisemitism felt unsupported by their institutions.

    No doubt there has been a surge in antisemitic hatred, but there are significant problems with how evidence for it is presented in the report. Segal fails to
    produce a single citation, which makes it impossible to access the data and assess its veracity.

    Baseline figures, details about who collated the data, the investigation of incidents and their resolution, are all missing.

    The report also misquotes an important source.

    It states “in February 2025, ASIO Director General Mike Burgess declared antisemitism is Australia’s leading threat to life”.

    In fact, what Burgess actually said was:

    In terms of threats to life, it’s my agency’s number one priority because of the weight of incidents we’re seeing play out in this country.

    There are subtle yet important differences in these two statements, which need to be carefully parsed when dealing with such a serious issue.

    Gaza ignored

    Also problematic is the singular focus on extremist ideologies as the reason for the rise in antisemitism.

    In doing so, the strategy omits a compelling fact: the recent upsurge is likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza which has resulted in mass Palestinian civilian casualties over the past 20 months.

    As international law expert Ben Saul argues:

    People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period. [It was fuelled by] fury at Israel’s profound violations of international law in Gaza.

    Furthermore, while Segal claims to be focused on mutual respect, she fails to acknowledge other groups that face similar forms of racism and discrimination, including Australia’s Indigenous peoples and Islamic communities.

    In doing so, the report appears to be seeking special treatment for the Australian Jewish community.

    Recommendation overreach

    Much of the negative reaction to the report has rightly been focused on its far-reaching punitive recommendations, which have been described as Trumpian.

    Many are directed towards the education sector, including threatened cuts to school and university funding, and extending the capacity to terminate staff who engage in “antisemitic” behaviours.

    Segal envisages creating a “university report card” to adjudicate on universities that are failing the standard, presumably set against her preferred antisemitism definition.

    The media and the cultural sector more broadly are also in Segal’s headlights, with recommendations to establish herself as a media monitor to ensure “fair and balanced reporting”. Charitable institutions deemed to be supporting antisemitism would lose their tax-deduction status.

    These highly controversial measures are an overreach of the envoy’s terms of reference.

    Segal’s mandate specifies her role is as an advisor to government, not a regulator. By taking such a drastic approach, the antisemitism strategy risks stoking further social division.

    The government, which is considering the recommendations, must proceed very cautiously.

    Louise Chappell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start – https://theconversation.com/antisemitism-plan-fails-on-a-number-of-fronts-a-contentious-definition-of-hate-is-just-the-start-261082

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Simpson Cosponsors Resolution to Solemnly Mark the One-Year Anniversary of the Attempted Assassination of President Trump

    Source: US State of Idaho

    Rep. Simpson Cosponsors Resolution to Solemnly Mark the One-Year Anniversary of the Attempted Assassination of President Trump

    Washington, July 14, 2025

    WASHINGTON—Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson cosponsored a resolution solemnly marking the one-year anniversary of the attempted assassination of President Donald J. Trump, condemning the multiple attempts against the President’s life, condemning those who incite violence against political officials, and honoring the victims of the shooting. This resolution is sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX).
    “Last year—July 13th, 2024—was a tragic day for our nation,” said Rep. Simpson. “It was a day that we thought would unify us Americans and stand together to condemn political violence. Unfortunately, from that day forward, we have continued to see hateful and evil rhetoric that has further incited political violence. There is no room for this violence in our country, and we must condemn it in all forms, regardless of political affiliation. President Trump demonstrated leadership and heroism on that solemn day. God bless him, God bless Corey Comperatore’s family, and God bless the Secret Service and law enforcement who selflessly threw themselves in harm’s way to protect the President.” 
    Rep. Simpson is an original cosponsor of this important resolution. The full text is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

    Will settlements by news companies with President Donald Trump turn journalists into puppets? MARHARYTA MARKO/iStock Getty Images Plus

    It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.

    On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.

    Redstone had been trying to sell Paramount to Skydance Media since July 2024, but the transaction was delayed by issues involving government approval.

    Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.

    The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.

    Until it wasn’t.

    At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.

    Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.

    GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said the CBS interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was ‘fraudulent interference with an election.’

    It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.

    Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.

    Presidential pressure

    From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.

    But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.

    Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.

    President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”

    Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.

    Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”

    “The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”

    During the Iran hostage crisis, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast with the number of days the hostages had been held captive.

    Holding power to account

    There’s an adage in TV news: “You’re only as good as your last show.”

    Soon, SkyDance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.

    When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.

    As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.

    A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.

    If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.

    The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.

    I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.

    Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.

    – ref. ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief – https://theconversation.com/abcs-and-cbss-settlements-with-trump-are-a-dangerous-step-toward-the-commander-in-chief-becoming-the-editor-in-chief-261006

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: July 14th, 2025 Heinrich Announces Committee Passage of Over $12.5 Million for New Mexico

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    Investments Heinrich championed fully fund SNAP & WIC, increase funding for the Southwest Border Commission, support Tribes & farmers, provide rental assistance, & more

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) announced the bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee passage of the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Bill. With Committee approval of this bill, Heinrich secured support for over $12.5 million for New Mexico, including over $7.73 million in Congressionally Directed Spending for eight local projects between this bill and its House-companion bill.

    “This Appropriations bill isn’t perfect but after tough negotiations and bipartisan compromise, I was able to get the best deal for New Mexico and advocate for federal resources that deliver for working families,” said Heinrich, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “This legislation will provide rental assistance for working families, expand economic opportunities in Tribal and border communities, assist American farmers produce healthy food, and fully fund SNAP, WIC, and the School Lunch program to keep healthy food on the table and push back against Trump’s cuts to these vital nutrition programs. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will always fight for investments that put New Mexico families first, strengthen our middle class, and grow our economy.”

    As Ranking Member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Heinrich also announced the bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee passage of the Legislative Branch FY26 Appropriations Bill.

    Next, the two bills passed out of the Appropriations Committee will be considered by the full United States Senate.

    Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Key Points and Highlights

    Congressionally Directed Spending

    Heinrich successfully included $3.63 million in investments for the following 6 local projects in the bill:

    • $1,575,000 for HELP New Mexico, Inc. to renovate classroom spaces to expand early childhood services in Luna County.
    • $750,000 for the Truchas Volunteer Fire Department to purchase and equip a new fire pump apparatus.
    • $467,000 for the New Mexico State University to conduct research using low power electricity to manage weeds in perennial crops.
    • $375,000 for the Village of Questa to purchase and fully equip a wildland fire engine.
    • $275,000 for Conservation Legacy to renovate and repair a Zuni Pueblo building for the Ancestral Lands Conservation Corps’ permanent location and as a community resource.
    • $193,000 for the Gila Regional Medical Center to upgrade and replace aging and failing hospital utility systems.

    Heinrich and U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) successfully included $2.1 million for the following 2 projects:

    • $1,100,000 for Rio Arriba County to purchase radios and repeater towers for Rio Arriba County Volunteer Fire Departments to facilitate communications when firefighters are on duty.
    • $1,000,000 for the Pueblo of Isleta Department of Education to construct the Isleta Learning Center.

    Heinrich also successfully worked with his colleagues in the N.M. Delegation to include $2 million for the following 2 projects in the House-companion bill:

    • $1,000,000 for the Town of Mesilla to plan, design, and construct phase 3 of a town hall complex, which will include public safety facilities, a board room, and the historic Mesilla Museum.
    • $1,000,000 for San Juan County to purchase a new ladder truck.

    Nutrition Assistance

    • WIC: The bill fully funds the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which serves nearly 7 million women and children nationwide, including nearly 45,000 in New Mexico — by providing $8.2 billion for the program, a $603 million increase over Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25). This increase will ensure that all eligible participants can continue to rely on the essential nutrition assistance and support provided by WIC. The bill also continues full funding for additional fruit and vegetable benefits.  
    • SNAP: The bill fully funds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to serve an estimated 42 million people per month, including nearly 500,000 New Mexicans — and does not include restrictive new policy riders. While fully funding SNAP is critically important, this does not reverse the cuts to SNAP included in Trump and Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill that will result in thousands of New Mexicans losing critical food assistance and put hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new unfunded mandates on the state of New Mexico.
    • Child Nutrition: The bill fully funds Child Nutrition Programs — like the School Lunch program, school breakfast program, and Summer EBT program — to ensure schools can continue to serve healthy meals to all eligible children. In 2026, this funding will help serve an estimated 5 billion lunches and 2.7 billion breakfasts to kids across the country.
    • Commodity Supplemental Food Program – The bill rejects the Trump Administration’s budget proposal to eliminate this program’s funding and provides $425 million so that the program can continue to provide supplemental food to low-income Senior citizens.

    Rental Assistance: The bill provides $1.715 billion for rental assistance — an increase of $73 million over FY25 — to help ensure Americans living in rural areas have access to safe and affordable housing. The bill also includes $1 billion in Single Family Direct Loans to help more low-income families and first-time home buyers get mortgages. 

    Economic Development: The bill includes a $2.5 million investment in the Southwest Border Commission (SBRC), a $500,000 increase over FY25, which supports economic and community development in southern New Mexico. Heinrich successfully secured the first-ever congressional investments to finally allow the SBRC to jump-start and expand its operations. The SBRC is one of eight authorized federal regional commissions and authorities.

    Tribal Communities: The bill provides $235 million for the Food Distribution on Indian Reservation Program (FDPIR) and $3 million for a FDPIR pilot program that allows Tribes participating in FDPIR to purchase traditional food from small Tribal producers.

    The bill also provides $700,000 for processing and federal inspection of Tribal bison, which will help support Tribal food sovereignty by enabling Tribes to include bison raised on their own lands to be included in federal nutrition programs like school meals.

    Additionally, bill provides $5.1 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations, which is responsible for government-to-government relations between USDA and Tribal governments.

    Conservation and Wildlife: Heinrich successfully fought for the inclusion of a modified version of his USDA Staff and Field Offices Preservation amendment. This amendment would require the USDA to notify and seek approval from the Senate and House Appropriations Committee to close Natural Resources Conservation Service or Rural Development field offices or to permanently relocate any field-based employees of those agencies that would result in an office with 2 or fewer employees.

    The bill rejects the Administration’s senseless proposal to eliminate all discretionary funding for Conservation Technical Assistance, which is the bedrock of Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) mission and a vital tool for farmers and ranchers. Instead, the bill provides $949 million, a $37.7 million increase over FY25, for conservation programs, including $52 million for NRCS Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations and$10 million for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.

    The bill further provides $5 million to support non-lethal strategies to reduce wildlife-livestock conflict and includes direction to expand the Migratory Big Game and Working Lands for Wildlife Initiatives, a long-time Heinrich priority. Finally, the bill includes $22.5 million in funding for research and management of Chronic Wasting Disease, which funds the program created by Heinrich’s Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Management Act, passed into law in 2023.

    Agriculture Research: This bill fully funds agriculture research and provides a $81 million increase over FY25 for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Additionally, the bill continues to support Climate Hubs and the Long-term Agroecosystems Research (LTAR) Network, including the Climate Hub and LTAR collaboration between the New Mexico State University (NMSU) and the ARS Experimental Station in Las Cruces. This bill also includes funding for important research in Agrivoltaics being conducted by ARS in collaboration with NMSU.

    Small Farms and Local Food Systems: The bill includes $6 million for the Office of Urban Agriculture, which is focused on providing technical assistance and risk management tools to urban and innovative forms of food production in New Mexico. Albuquerque is home to one of the USDA’s Urban Service Centers. The bill also includes $20 million for the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), which supports the development, coordination, and expansion of direct producer-to-consumer marketing; local and regional food markets and enterprises; and value-added agricultural products.

    Food Safety: The bill provides $1.226 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an increase of $12 million over FY25. This funding will help ensure FSIS can continue its vital work protecting America’s food supply without being forced to reduce its staffing levels, which would jeopardize food safety and exacerbate supply chain delays. The bill includes $399 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, including $65 million for addressing the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreak.

    Promoting Competition: The bill provides nearly $33 million for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act to promote competition and prevent unfair or deceptive practices and monopolies. The bill further provides an additional $2 million in funding for a pilot Bison Production and Marketing Grant Program within the Agriculture Marketing Service to expand markets for private and Tribal bison producers, following Heinrich’s creation of this program in the FY24 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.

    International Food Aid: The bill provides $1.5 billion for the Food for Peace Program and $240 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. This funding is necessary to save lives around the world and reduce conflict.

    Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The bill provides $7.015 billion in total funding for the FDA, which includes $3.535 billion in discretionary funding — a $10 million increase over FY25 — rejecting the president’s budget request, which sought to slash the FDA’s discretionary funding by over $400 million in FY26. The bill provides $2.4 billion for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, $625 million for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and $77 million for the National Center for Toxicological Research. The bill also provides $689 million for the Center for Tobacco Products for activities — including inspections, investigations, and federal task force coordination — related to the presence of unauthorized, illicit e-cigarettes.

    Additionally, Heinrich filed the following amendments to amend the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill:

    1. USDA Staff and Field Offices Preservation: This amendment would prohibit the closing of the Natural Resource Conservation, Farm Service Agency, and Rural Development field offices and relocation of staff. This amendment was adopted as part of the Manager’s Package.
    1. Local Food and School Food Purchasing Assistance: This amendment would reestablish the Local Food for Schools and Child Care Cooperative Agreement (LFSCC) and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement program (LFPA), which were created in 2022 to supply local and regionally produced foods to schools, childcare facilities, and food banks with a priority for working with underserved producers and small farms. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted.
    1. Funding All Obligated and Awarded Projects: This amendment would prevent the USDA Secretary from spending any appropriated funding until the Secretary unfreezes funding for all previous awards and contracts for farmers and organizations assisting farmers. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted.
    1. Re-affirming science-based medical product approvals: This amendment re-affirms the FDA’s authority to approve drugs based solely on its safety and efficacy through scientific evaluation of the medical product and not on political bases. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted.

    Legislative Branch Key Points and Highlights

    As Ranking Member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Heinrich successfully negotiated the bipartisan FY26 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which provides $7,125,000,000 to support essential legislative operations and oversight activities, including the U.S. Senate, Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, Architect of the Capitol, and other key legislative agencies. It preserves robust funding for the Government Accountability Office, which is crucial for protecting taxpayer dollars, promoting government efficiency, and providing rigorous, nonpartisan oversight that builds public trust.

    Additionally, the bill strengthens Congress’s capacity to serve constituents, supports the recruitment and retention of Capitol Police officers, and invests in the nonpartisan institutions that deliver critical analysis, transparency, and accountability. Finally, in this polarized environment, the bill provides funding to bolster the safety of Senators, Representatives, staff, and visitors to the Capitol Complex.

    “While the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is the smallest in terms of overall funding, it is one of the most important, because it upholds Congress’s role as a coequal branch of government. At a time when maintaining checks and balances is more important than ever, this bill ensures that Congress can effectively serve the American people and hold the executive branch accountable,”said Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Durbin, Kelly, Padilla, Senate Democrats Press Trump Administration on Weaponizing Immigrant Court Hearings to Trap, Arrest, Deport Migrants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    KUOW: ICE agents at Seattle courthouse arrest people whose deportation hearings are dismissed

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and a group of 20 Senate Democrats in pressing the Trump administration on its recent initiatives to weaponize immigration court hearings as an inhumane trap to arrest immigrants who are just trying to follow the law by terminating their immigration court cases and deporting them without adequate due process.

    In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, the senators condemned these actions as an affront to due process.

    The senators began by expressing concern over recent reporting of the Trump administration’s inhumane initiatives, writing: “We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them … These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.”

    The senators then admonished the misuse of expedited removal (ER) as part of the Trump administration’s efforts, writing: “ER historically has applied only to a noncitizen who ‘is arriving in the United States’ and certain other noncitizens apprehended close to the border less than 14 days after arrival in the United States … ICE is now expanding the application of ER to noncitizens in the interior of the United States  who have developed significant ties to the United States, including by lawfully working and attending school. Arresting law-abiding individuals and placing them in ER deprives them of the opportunity to have their fair day in court with the due process protections in immigration court proceedings.”

    The senators then underscored the insincerity and misleading nature of ICE’s intentions outside these hearings, writing: “Nevertheless, we understand that ICE attorneys have been instructed to look for immigration court cases that can be dismissed and then orally request, without prior notice, that removal proceedings be dismissed or the Notice to Appear be withdrawn. ICE often did not inform immigration judges or the noncitizens that the purpose of their request was not relief from removal, but instead that ICE intended to arrest and place the individual in fast-track removal without a hearing … Because noncitizens did not understand the purpose of their dismissal, they did not, through counsel or otherwise, have an opportunity to take steps to oppose the ICE attorneys’ motions to terminate or withdraw.”

    The senators then raised serious due process concerns, citing recent Supreme Court arguments, writing: “The U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, ‘[w]e have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard. Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties and that affords[s] a reasonable time …to make an appearance.’ Here, it appears that the ICE attorneys are being told to dismiss immigration cases and place noncitizens in expedited removal. At the same time, immigration judges are being told that they may dismiss such cases without any briefing or opportunity to respond. In addition, often noncitizens have not been notified of the purpose of their dismissal, in order to respond or contest the dismissal of their immigration cases, or the placement of their case into expedited removal. Taken together, these actions raise serious due process concerns.”

    The senators concluded by articulating the horrible situation this puts immigrants in with no benefit to our country, before making a series of information requests, writing: “These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.”

    In addition to Murray, Durbin, Kelly, and Padilla, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    For a PDF version of the letter, click HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin, Kelly, Padilla, Senate Democrats Press Trump Administration on Weaponizing Immigration Court Hearings to Trap, Arrest, Deport Immigrants

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    July 11, 2025

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) led a group of 21 Senate Democrats in pressing the Trump Administration on its recent initiatives to weaponize immigration court hearings as an inhumane trap to arrest immigrants who are just trying to follow the law by terminating their immigration court cases and deporting them without adequate due process.

    In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, the Senators condemned these actions as an affront to due process.

    The Senators began by expressing concern over recent reporting of the Trump Administration’s inhumane initiatives, writing: “We are extremely concerned by reports of a recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the government’s intent to arrest them … These actions prevent noncitizens from having their fair day in court and raise serious legal and due process concerns. They also make clear that this Administration is not targeting the worst criminals and threats to public safety, instead redirecting staff and resources away from drug trafficking and human trafficking and towards these operations targeting noncriminal immigrants who are following the law and showing up for their day in court.”

    The Senators then admonished the misuse of expedited removal (ER) as part of the Trump Administration’s efforts, writing: “ER historically has applied only to a noncitizen who ‘is arriving in the United States’ and certain other noncitizens apprehended close to the border less than 14 days after arrival in the United States … ICE is now expanding the application of ER to noncitizens in the interior of the United States  who have developed significant ties to the United States, including by lawfully working and attending school. Arresting law-abiding individuals and placing them in ER deprives them of the opportunity to have their fair day in court with the due process protections in immigration court proceedings.”

    The Senators then underscored the insincerity and misleading nature of ICE’s intentions outside these hearings, writing: “Nevertheless, we understand that ICE attorneys have been instructed to look for immigration court cases that can be dismissed and then orally request, without prior notice, that removal proceedings be dismissed or the Notice to Appear be withdrawn. ICE often did not inform immigration judges or the noncitizens that the purpose of their request was not relief from removal, but instead that ICE intended to arrest and place the individual in fast-track removal without a hearing … Because noncitizens did not understand the purpose of their dismissal, they did not, through counsel or otherwise, have an opportunity to take steps to oppose the ICE attorneys’ motions to terminate or withdraw.”

    The Senators then raised serious due process concerns, citing recent Supreme Court arguments, writing: “The U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, ‘[w]e have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard. Due process requires notice that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties and that affords[s] a reasonable time …to make an appearance.’ Here, it appears that the ICE attorneys are being told to dismiss immigration cases and place noncitizens in expedited removal. At the same time, immigration judges are being told that they may dismiss such cases without any briefing or opportunity to respond. In addition, often noncitizens have not been notified of the purpose of their dismissal, in order to respond or contest the dismissal of their immigration cases, or the placement of their case into expedited removal. Taken together, these actions raise serious due process concerns.”

    The Senators concluded by articulating the horrible situation this puts immigrants in with no benefit to our country, before making a series of information requests, writing: “These actions also place noncitizens in an impossible position. If noncitizens who fear arrest do not attend their immigration court hearing, they may receive an in absentia removal order that will newly subject them to swift detention and removal. If they do attend, they risk arrest, detention, and a swift deportation, possibly to South Sudan, Libya, or El Salvador—countries they may have no connection to. This manipulation of existing laws to enact this Administration’s mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system while doing nothing to make our communities safer.”

    In addition to Durbin, Kelly, and Padilla, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    For a PDF version of the letter, click here.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –