NewzIntel.com

Category: Trump

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Status of the Chagos Archipelago –  Part II: United Kingdom’s Agreement with Mauritius

    Source: US Global Legal Monitor

    The following is a guest post by Clare Feikert-Ahalt, a senior foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress covering the United Kingdom and several other jurisdictions. Clare has written numerous posts for In Custodia Legis, including Revealing the Presence of Ghosts; Weird Laws, or Urban Legends?; FALQs: Brexit Referendum; 100 Years of “Poppy Day” in the United Kingdom; and Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office Spurs Possible Law Change.

    Yesterday’s post described the historic status of the Chagos Archipelago and the United Kingdom’s (UK) power over the territory. Today’s post describes the new agreement, which returns sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and allows for the continued use of the UK-US military base.

    On May 22, 2025, the United Kingdom and Mauritius signed an agreement that “recognis[es] the wrongs of the past” with regards to the Chagos Archipelago. The agreement transfers sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) from the UK to Mauritius, while providing the UK with “rights and authorities [over Diego Garcia] that the United Kingdom requires for the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base.”

    The agreement, which took over two years and 13 rounds of negotiations to achieve, secures British interests in Diego Garcia, including an area of 12 nautical miles surrounding the island, for 99 years. The agreement provides the UK with the right to access, maintain, and invest in the base, along with the ability to use it for defense purposes. It places a binding obligation on both parties to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. The UK’s secretary of state for defence notes the agreement achieves the “secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems.”

    Any activities on the wider islands of the Chagos Archipelago, such as the construction of any structure, artificial island, sensor, or barrier within 24 nautical miles, must be approved through a joint decision process between the UK and Mauritius, which serves as an “effective veto” of development in the islands surrounding Diego Garcia as the UK does not want other countries, particularly those hostile to the UK, to have a presence near this facility.

    The 99 years can be extended for a further 40 years if both parties agree, and it may be extended again thereafter. The estimated cost to UK for 99 years “is £101 million [annually] and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion” (approximately US$136 million and US$4.6 billion respectively) accounting for approximately 0.2% of the defense budget. The government has stated this is less than the cost of running an aircraft carrier, without aircraft, for a year.

    The agreement provides for the resettlement of the residents of Diego Garcia, known as the Chagossians, on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, with the exception of Diego Garcia. It also provides for the establishment of a trust fund of £40 million (approximately US$54 million) to benefit Chagossians and an annual grant of £45 million (approximately US$61 million) for 25 years to fund projects that promote economic development and welfare in Mauritius. Article 11 of the agreement states that it “constitutes the full and final settlement of all claims by Mauritius in relation to the Chagos Archipelago.”

    The treaty was laid before both Houses of Parliament on May 22, 2025, and either of the Houses of Parliament may object to its ratification until July 3, 3035.

    The Defense Facility on Diego Garcia

    The secretary of state for defence for the UK stated “[t]he importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated” and a government press release announcing the agreement notes that the base is central to both the UK and US’s emergency planning and operations, with the base serving as:

    “a critical logistics hub at a strategic location, with a full range of facilities that acts as a key refueling and resupply station for naval and air operations. This enables power projection and global reach, allowing for rapid and flexible deployment of our forces across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia.”

    While most of the work on, and capabilities of, Diego Garcia are not disclosed, the secretary of state for defence and the UK prime minister have publicly acknowledged that the base supports operations, including those related to counter-terrorism, in the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia. Public statements detail that the base houses:

    • an airfield enabling strike operations and the rapid deployment of the military in this area, “… creat[ing] real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific;”
    • a deep-water port that, among other uses, “supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to [the UK’s] carrier strike group;”
    • advanced communications, which includes management of the electromagnetic spectrum satellite;
    • surveillance capabilities;
    • facilities that support the global operation of GPS, notably one monitoring station and one of four ground antennas;
    • Ground-Base Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System, which “provides situational awareness of objects in Earth’s orbit, helping to track space debris that pose a risk to space systems”; and
    • “three pieces of critical Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty monitoring equipment”, including seismic monitoring equipment that checks for indicators of nuclear testing, helping to secure compliance with the nuclear test ban treaty.

    The presence of the base in the center of the Indian Ocean also helps to safeguard an important trade route, through which “a third of the world’s bulk cargo and two-thirds of global oil shipments are transported.”

    The US Navy describes the facility on Diego Garcia as “the tip of the spear” and states that it “provides logistic support to operational forces forward deployed to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf areas of responsibility in support of national policy objectives.”

    The prime minister stated that the agreement is vital to the UK’s defence and intelligence, and for securing the safety and security of the British people at this time. He stated “… the base was under threat” from legal challenges by Mauritius, and the government believes there is no viable alternative to protect the base and secure the islands surrounding it.

    The prime minister further noted that if the UK disregarded any future legal judgements, “international organisations and other countries would act on them. And that would undermine the operation of the base.” The UK was particularly concerned at the prospect of other countries establishing a presence in the islands surrounding Diego Garcia, or conducting training exercises nearby, which could impact the operation of the base, and that it would be unable to prevent this without an agreement.

    The prime minister has described the base as “one of the most significant contributions we make to our security relationship with the United States.” The UK foreign secretary stated the US was unhappy with the uncertainty created by the situation and “strongly encouraged [the UK] to strike a deal.” It was against this background that negotiations were commenced and the treaty was made.

    Reaction to the Agreement

    The opposition conservative party has been critical of the agreement, stating that the government “prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice” concerning the potential of legal judgments. The opposition further stated that the agreement puts the defense facility at risk due to Mauritius’ ties to Russia and China. The UK shadow secretary of state said in parliament that “[t]he Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege”, noting further that the agreement does not offer any protection to the Chagossians.

    Internationally, the agreement has been backed by the UK’s “Five Eyes” partners, which include the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Japan, India, and the African Union have also welcomed the agreement. US President Donald Trump expressed his support for the agreement and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stated that while the administration is not a party to the agreement, it “remain[s] responsible for operating the U.S. Naval Support Facility on Diego Garcia, which continues to play a vital role in supporting forward-deployed operational forces and advancing security across the region.”

    The US secretary of state stated:

    “The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security.”

    While the agreement has been welcomed by the UK and several of its allies, the United Nations has condemned the agreement, issuing a press release stating:

    “By maintaining a foreign military presence of the United Kingdom and the United States on Diego Garcia and preventing the Chagossian people from returning to Diego Garcia, the agreement appears to be at variance with the Chagossians’ right to return, which also hinders their ability to exercise their cultural rights in accessing their ancestral lands from which they were expelled.”

    The UN has urged the UK to “apply a human rights-based approach in addressing historical injustices against the Chagossian people.”

    Additional Law Library of Congress Resources on the Laws of Mauritius and the UK

    Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mike Shriberg, Professor of Practice & Engagement, School for Environment & Sustainability, University of Michigan

    Invasive Asian carp are spreading up the Mississippi River system and already clog the Illinois River. AP Photo/John Flesher

    In his second term, President Donald Trump has not taken many actions that draw near-universal praise from across the political spectrum. But there is at least one of these political anomalies, and it illustrates the broad appeal of environmental protection and conservation projects – particularly when it concerns an ecosystem of vital importance to millions of Americans.

    In May 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum supporting the construction of a physical barrier that is key to keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. These fish have made their way up the Mississippi River system and could have dire ecological consequences if they enter the Great Lakes.

    It was not a given that Trump would back this project, which had long been supported by environmental and conservation organizations. But two very different strategies from two Democratic governors – both potential presidential candidates in 2028 – reflected the importance of the Great Lakes to America.

    As a water policy and politics scholar focused on the Great Lakes, I see this development not only as an environmental and conservation milestone, but also a potential pathway for more political unity in the U.S.

    A feared invasion

    Perhaps nothing alarms Great Lakes ecologists more than the potential for invasive carp from Asia to establish a breeding population in the Great Lakes. These fish were intentionally introduced in the U.S. Southeast by private fish farm and wastewater treatment operators as a means to control algae in aquaculture and sewage treatment ponds. Sometime in the 1990s, the fish escaped from those ponds and moved rapidly up the Mississippi River system, including into the Illinois River, which connects to the Great Lakes.

    Sometimes said to “breed like mosquitoes and eat like hogs,” these fish can consume up to 40% of their body weight each day, outcompeting many native species and literally sucking up other species and food sources.

    Studies of Lake Erie, for example, predict that if the carp enter and thrive, they could make up approximately one-third of the fish biomass of the entire lake within 20 years, replacing popular sportfishing species such as walleye and other ecologically and economically important species.

    Invasive carp are generally not eaten in the U.S. and are not desirable for sportfishing. In fact, silver carp have a propensity to jump up to 10 feet out of the water when startled by a boat motor. That can make parts of the Illinois River, which is packed with the invasive fish, almost impossible to fish or even maneuver a boat.

    Look out! Silver carp fly out of the water, obstructing boats and hitting people trying to enjoy a river in Indiana.

    The Brandon Road Lock and Dam solution

    Originally, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River were not connected to each other. But in 1900, the city of Chicago connected them to avoid sending its sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city draws its drinking water.

    The most complete way to block the carp from invading the Great Lakes would be to undo that connection – but that would recreate sewage and flooding issues for Chicago, or require other expensive infrastructure upgrades. The more practical, short-term alternative is to modify the historic Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois, by adding several obstacles that together would block the carp from swimming farther upriver toward the Great Lakes.

    The barrier, estimated to cost US$1.15 billion, was authorized by Congress in 2020 and 2022 after many years of intense planning and negotiations. For the first phase of construction, the project received $226 million in federal money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to complement $114 million in state funding – $64 million from Michigan and $50 million from Illinois.

    On the first day of Trump’s second term, however, he paused a wide swath of federal funding, including funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And that’s when two different political strategies emerged.

    A brief documentary explains the construction of a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

    Pritzker vs. Whitmer vs. Trump

    Illinois, a state that has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992, has the most financially at stake in the Brandon Road project because the project requires the state to acquire land and operate the barrier. When Trump issued his order, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, postponed the purchase of a key piece of land, blaming the “Trump Administration’s lack of clarity and commitment” to the project. Pritzker essentially dared Trump to be the reason for the collapse of the Great Lakes ecosystem and fisheries.

    Another Democrat, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a swing state with the most at stake economically and ecologically if these carp species enter the Great Lakes, took a very different approach. She went to the White House to talk with Trump about invasive carp and other issues. She defended her nonconfrontational approach to critics, though she also hid her face from cameras when Trump surprised her with an Oval Office press conference. When Trump visited Michigan, she stood beside him as they praised each other.

    When Trump released the federal funding in early May, Pritzker kept up his adversarial language, saying he was “glad that the Trump administration heard our calls … and decided to finally meet their obligation.” Whitmer stayed more conciliatory, calling the funding decision a “huge win that will protect our Great Lakes and secure our economy.” She said she was “grateful to the president for his commitment.”

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer greets President Donald Trump as he arrives in her state in late April 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    Why unity on carp?

    Whether coordinated or not, the net result of Pritzker’s and Whitmer’s actions drew praise from both sides of the aisle but was little noticed nationally.

    Trump’s support for the project was a rare moment of political unity and an extremely unusual example of leading Democrats being on the same page as Trump. I attribute this surprising outcome to two key factors.

    First, the Great Lakes region holds disproportionate power in presidential elections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backed the eventual winner in every presidential race for the past 20 years. This swing state power has been used by advocates and state political leaders to drive funding for Great Lakes protection for many years.

    Second, Great Lakes are the uniting force in the region. According to polling from the International Joint Commission, the binational body charged with overseeing waterways that cross the U.S.-Canada border, there is “nearly unanimous support (96%) for the importance of government investment in Great Lakes protections” from residents of the region.

    There aren’t any other issues with such high voter resonance, so politicians want to be sure Great Lakes voters are happy. For example, Vice President JD Vance has been particularly vocal about the Great Lakes. And Great Lakes restoration funding was one of the few things in the presidential budget that Democrats and Republicans agreed on.

    Both Pritzker and Whitmer likely had state-based and national motivations in mind and big aspirations at stake.

    Their combined effort has put the project back on track: As of May 12, 2025, Pritzker authorized Illinois to sign the land-purchase agreement he had paused back in February.

    And perhaps the governors have identified a new area for unity in a divided United States: Conservation and environmental issues have broad public support, particularly when they involve iconic natural resources, shared values and popular outdoor pursuits such as fishing and boating. Even when political strategies diverge, the results can bring bipartisan satisfaction.

    Mike Shriberg was previously the Great Lakes Regional Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which entailed being a co-chair (and, for part of the time, Director) of the Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition.

    – ref. Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics – https://theconversation.com/invasive-carp-threaten-the-great-lakes-and-reveal-a-surprising-twist-in-national-politics-257707

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mexican flags flown during immigration protests bother white people a lot more than other Americans

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Edward D. Vargas, Associate Professor, School of Transborder Studies, Arizona State University

    Protesters wave the Mexican flag in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a series of raids throughout Los Angeles and Southern California in early June 2025, sparking protests in downtown Los Angeles and other cities, including New York, Chicago and Austin, Texas.

    Some demonstrators expressed growing frustration with ICE by showcasing the Mexican flag, which has become the defining symbol of the protests in Los Angeles.

    The use of the flag has also become the subject of intense debate in the media.

    Some outlets have depicted the flag as symbolizing ethnic pride, solidarity with immigrants and opposition to the Trump administration.

    Others have called it the “perfect propaganda” tool for Republicans and conservatives, some of whom have referred to the Mexican flag as the “confederate banner of the L.A. riots.” They point to its use as evidence of anarchy and a city taken over by immigrants.

    But what do Americans think about protesters waving the Mexican flag, and why?

    Much of our knowledge surrounding this question is based on the 2006 immigrant rights protests across the United States, which occurred in a much less politically polarized era. Additionally, a vast majority of protesters then brought U.S. flags compared with other national flags, including the Mexican flag.

    Research published in 2010 found that even though the public was more likely to be bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag than the U.S. flag, that difference was largely absent once you divided the public into subgroups, including white people, Latinos and immigrants.

    To reexamine public attitudes toward protesters waving the Mexican flag, we conducted an online survey experiment among 10,145 U.S. adults in 2016.

    As political scientists who specialize in Latino politics and immigration-related issues, we tested how exposure to the Mexican flag versus the American flag shaped opinion about protests during Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016.

    We found that even though much of the public continued to be less bothered by the American flag than the Mexican flag, there were also important and perhaps surprising differences in protest attitudes between white Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.

    A demonstrator holds a Mexican flag in front of law enforcement during a protest on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles.
    AP Photo/Wally Skalij

    More or less bothered

    In the study, we randomly divided respondents into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Respondents in the treatment group were shown an image of protesters waving a Mexican flag. Respondents in the control group were shown an image of protesters waving the U.S. flag. After viewing the image, respondents were then asked about the extent to which they supported or were bothered by the protests.

    Overall, 41% of the respondents said they were bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag, and 28% said protesters waving the U.S. flag bothered them.

    Our results show important differences in opinion between racial and ethnic groups.

    White respondents were more likely than any other racial and ethnic group to say they were bothered by protesters waving Mexican flags. Sixty-nine percent of white respondents said they were bothered, 31 percentage points more than the average of nonwhite respondents.

    However, 51% of white respondents were also bothered by the image of protesters waving U.S. flags. By contrast, just 20% of Latinos, 33% of Black Americans and 34% of Asian Americans said they were bothered by protesters waving U.S. flags.

    Put differently, large majorities of nonwhite respondents were supportive of showing U.S. flags at protests despite their more positive views toward Mexican flags.

    What explains racial differences?

    When taking a deeper look at what causes Americans to feel bothered about protesters waving Mexican flags, some clear patterns emerge.

    On average, older Americans were more likely to be bothered relative to younger Americans. This was particularly true for Americans over 40 years of age compared with millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Gen Z respondents, born between 1997 and 2012.

    However, there are some nuances when examining age groups and whether they had attended a protest, march or rally in the previous year.

    Our findings suggest that older Americans who had not engaged in protests were most likely to be bothered when they saw images of protesters waving Mexican flags. Millennials and Gen Z respondents who participated in a protest were least likely to be bothered.

    Given that this issue intersects nationality, race, ethnicity, gender and citizenship status, it’s logical that these factors explained why Americans supported or opposed the use of Mexican flags at immigration protests.

    A woman carrying a flag with details of the United States and Mexican flags walks past members of the United States Marine Corps on June 14, 2025, in Los Angeles.
    Cristopher Rogel Blanquet/Getty Images

    For example, racial minorities who have a stronger sense of ethnic or racial identity were more likely to be supportive of protesters waving Mexican and U.S. flags. In other words, group identity is a strong predictor of support for protests in general, regardless of what flag is being flown.

    However, minorities who lack a sense of ethnic pride and identity were most likely to be upset when they saw others expressing their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

    The reality is that recent immigration protests across the country are the first time many of the Latino youth who are citizens have participated in these types of protests. Anyone under age 22 would not have memory of, or been alive during, the last large pro-immigrant protests in 2006.

    The Mexican flag represents more than nationalistic pride. It represents their parents’ heritage, hard work and their binational experience as Americans engaged in politics.

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

    – ref. Mexican flags flown during immigration protests bother white people a lot more than other Americans – https://theconversation.com/mexican-flags-flown-during-immigration-protests-bother-white-people-a-lot-more-than-other-americans-259004

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US Tightens Policy on Cuba

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    HOUSTON, July 1 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed a memorandum to tighten policies toward Cuba, including restrictions on some financial transactions and travel.

    According to a White House fact sheet, the memo prohibits tourist travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba, requires mandatory records of all travel-related transactions for at least five years and regular compliance audits.

    The Trump administration seeks to end economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government, military, intelligence, and security services.

    The memorandum prohibits direct or indirect financial transactions with entities controlled by the Cuban military, such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA /GAESA/ and its subsidiaries. A growing number of Cubans and entities are now prohibited from doing business with Americans as the decades-long U.S. economic embargo intensifies.

    D. Trump has always taken a tough stance on Cuba. On the first day of his second term, he returned the island nation to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, reversing the decision of his predecessor, Joseph Biden.

    In the final days of his first presidential term in 2021, D. Trump called Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla called the memorandum “criminal behavior that violates the human rights of the entire nation.”

    “The presidential memorandum against Cuba, released today by the US government, intensifies the aggression and economic blockade that punishes the entire Cuban people and is the main obstacle to our development,” Minister X wrote on social media. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: SA, US strengthen working relations

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    SA, US strengthen working relations

    The Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Zuko Godlimpi, has engaged with the Assistant United States Trade Representative responsible for Africa, Connie Hamilton, on the sidelines of the recently held United States of America-Africa Summit in Luanda, Angola.

    The meeting followed the submission by South Africa on a proposed Framework Deal with the US on 20 May 2025, which outlines measures to enhance mutually beneficial trade and investment relations with the US.

    The submission of the Framework Deal was immediately followed by an engagement between President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump in Washington on 21 May 2025.

    The Framework Deal addresses US concerns relating to, among others, non-tariff barriers, trade deficit, and commercial relations though two-way procurement or import of strategic goods. It aims to also resolve long-standing market access issues of interests to both sides, and to promote bilateral investments in a mutually beneficial manner.

    South Africa is also seeking, through the Framework Deal, to have some of the key export products exempted from the Sections 232 duties, including autos and auto parts, and steel and aluminium through tariff rate quotas.

    South Africa is also seeking the maximum tariff application of 10%, as a worst-case situation. The Framework also seeks exemption for small and medium enterprises, counter-seasonal products and products that the US does not have productive capacity for.

    South Africa used the meeting with the US to continue to raise its concerns with the impact of the reciprocal tariffs, especially on African countries. 

    In this regard, one of the key issues that emerged from the meeting is that the US is developing a trade-matters template that will be the basis for its engagements with countries in sub-Saharan Africa. 

    It was advised that the template will be shared as soon as it has gone through the internal approval processes within the US Administration. South Africa welcomed this indication and expressed preparedness to engage with the said template once finalised.

    In view of this development, including the limited time between now and the deadline for the expiry of the 90-day pause, scheduled for 9 July 2025, African countries, including South Africa, have advocated for the extension of the 90-day deadline to enable countries to prepare their proposed Deals in accordance with the new template. 

    “In this regard, we are of the view that South Africa may need to re-submit its Framework Deal in accordance with the new template. It is thus expected that the deadline may be shifted.

    “We urge South African industry to exercise strategic patience and not take decisions in haste, and that government will continue to use every avenue to engage the US government to find amicable solutions to safeguard South African interests in the US market,” said Trade, Industry and Competition Minister, Parks Tau. – SAnews.gov.za

    Edwin

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

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

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    – ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

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

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    – ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Forde, Assistant Professor – European Human Rights Law, Dublin City University

    A special tribunal has been established by the international human rights organisation the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Ukrainian government to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine which could be used to hold Vladimir Putin and others to account for the February 2022 invasion and war crimes committed since.

    The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, signed an agreement with CoE secretary general, Alain Berset, on June 25, setting up the special tribunal. Subject to it securing the necessary political backing and budget the tribunal will be established within the framework of the CoE (which is not part of the European Union.

    Work on the first phase of the court could progress in 2026. In his speech to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, Zelensky was cautious in his optimism but stressed that the agreement was “just the beginning”.

    “It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice – including Putin,” he said. He knows, through years of hard experience as he travelled the world seeking help from Ukraine’s allies, that political support can be fleeting.

    A new Nuremberg?

    Inspired by ad hoc courts established after major conflicts such as the Nuremberg tribunal after the second world war or, more recently the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
     in the 1990s, the Ukraine has been established with the aim of holding to account the perpetrators of the first full-scale armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century.

    The prohibition against the crime of aggression is a basic principle of international law, and a key part of the UN charter.

    In principle, the crime of aggression should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the court, that option was ruled out. Similarly, Russia’s veto on the UN security council meant that it would be impossible in practice to practically set up a court under the mandate of the UN – as the ICTY was in 1993.

    The Ukraine special tribunal, which was developed by a Core Group, made up of states plus the EU and the Council of Europe, seeks to fill an obvious accountability gap. If the illegal invasion is left unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent.

    Such impunity would embolden Russia and inspire others with revanchist ambitions, undermining an already shaky international order. The US, which was instrumental in setting up the Core Group under the presidency of Joe Biden, withdrew in March 2025 when Donald Trump took office.

    The statute of the special tribunal sets out that the court will be based on Ukrainian law and will have a strong link to the country’s legal system. Ukraine’s prosecutor-general will play a key role in the proceedings, referring evidence for further investigation by the tribunal. But it will be internationally funded with international judges and prosecutors, and strong cooperation with the International Criminal Court. It is likely to be based in the Hague – although this has yet to be confirmed.

    The need for accountability for the illegal invasion of Ukraine was stressed in a resolution of the UN general assembly in February 2023 as the war headed into its second year. The resolution, which calls for “appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level” to “ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes” was approved by an overwhelming majority of 141 states. Any country in the world can join this core group to support its establishment.

    Holding leaders accountable

    Unlike previous international courts, the caseload is likely to be extremely narrow. There are likely to be dozens of charges rather than hundreds or thousands, which is perhaps reassuring in terms of managing costs.

    The tribunal will focus on those “most responsible” including the so-called “troika”: the president Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin and the minister for foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov. Charges may also be levelled against the leadership of Belarus and North Korea for their role in aiding, abetting and actively participating in the war of aggression. But don’t expect Kim Jong-un or Alexander Lukashenko in the dock anytime soon.

    The Court has opted for a novel approach to a longstanding customary rule by noting that heads of state are not functionally immune from prosecution. But it adds that indictments won’t be confirmed until such time as the suspect is no longer in office.

    Trials can take place in absentia if the accused fails to attend and all reasonable steps taken to apprehend them have failed. But, like the ICC, the court will still rely on states to apprehend and physically transfer indicted individuals in due course. This will inevitably limit the chances of seeing any of the key individuals actually in a court, something that has also dogged the ICC.

    The fact that a tribunal has now been set up is a major development in international criminal justice. But it is now in a sort of purgatory, existing and not existing at the same time. To become operational, another treaty known as an enlarged partial agreement must be signed by interested states. This will have to be ratified by many national parliaments, depending on their constitutions. This process could take years.

    But simply by creating the framework for the tribunal, the Council of Europe has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring accountability. In a further development, the European Court of Human Rights delivers its long-awaited judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia on July 9.

    This concerns “complaints about the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022”. The judgement will add further momentum to these accountability efforts.

    Symbolic as it may seem, this week’s agreement creates a real opportunity for the international community to send a message that impunity for international aggression is intolerable – not just for the victims, but for all who believe in the rule of law.

    Andrew Forde is affiliated with Dublin City University (Assistant Professor, European Human Rights Law). He is also, separately, affiliated with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Commissioner).

    – ref. New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion – https://theconversation.com/new-special-tribunal-for-ukraine-will-pave-the-way-for-holding-russian-leaders-to-account-for-the-invasion-260022

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tony Robert Walker, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University

    Negotiations toward a global, legally binding plastics treaty are set to resume this summer, with the United Nations Environment Programme announcing that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastic pollution will reconvene in August.

    The committee was established to develop an international legally binding instrument — known as the plastics treaty — to end plastic pollution, one of the fastest-growing environmental threats.



    Read more:
    Here’s how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis

    Globally, 40 per cent of plastics production goes into the production of single-use plastic packaging, which is the single largest source of plastic waste and is a threat to wildlife and human health. Without meaningful action, global plastic waste is projected to nearly triple by 2060, reaching an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes.

    As the world prepares for another round of talks, Canada’s own plastic problem reveals what’s at stake, and what’s possible for the future.

    Canada’s plastic problem

    Canada is no exception to the global plastic crisis. Nearly half (47 per cent) of all plastic waste in Canada comes from the food and drink sector, contributing 3,268 million tonnes annually. Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve.

    Most of Canada’s plastic — except for plastic bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) — are uneconomical or difficult to recycle because of the complexity of mixed plastics used in our economy. As a result, 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste — equivalent to the weight of 24 CN Towers — end up in landfills every year.

    This is not a trivial problem, as Ontario is projected to run out of landfill space by 2035. Plastic pollution poses growing risks to both urban and rural infrastructure.

    In addition to landfill overflow, around one per cent of Canada’s plastic waste leaks into the environment. In 2016, this was 29,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. Once in the environment, plastics disintegrate into tiny particles, called microplastics (small pieces of plastic less than five millimetres long).

    We drink those tiny microplastic particles in our tap water, and eat them in our fish dinners. Some are even making their way into farmland.

    Plastics are everywhere, including inside us

    More than 93 per cent of Canadians have expressed concerns over single-use plastics used in food packaging and have supported government bans. There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in the environment, in our food and in us.

    Growing evidence indicates that plastics can cause harmful health effects in humans and animals. Microplastics and smaller nanoplastics (less than one micron in length) have been found in humans, including infants and breast milk. They can cause metabolic disorders, interfere with our immune and reproductive systems and cause behavioural problems.

    These health problems may be caused by chemicals added to plastics, including single-use plastics, of which 4,200 chemicals have been identified as posing a hazard to human and ecosystem health.

    It is for these reasons that the Canadian government introduced a ban on single-use plastics in 2022 as part of a plan to reach zero plastic waste in Canada by 2030.

    The decision was based extensive public and industry consultation, as well as decades of data on plastic pollution gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. This data shows the most common plastic litter items found in the environment across Canada, known as the “dirty dozen” list.

    Six of these items were included in the federal ban. Three eastern Canadian provinces had already implemented single-use plastic bag bans before the federal government, with little to no public or industry opposition. Prince Edward Island was the first Canadian province to implement a province-wide plastic bag ban in July 2019, closely followed by Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in October 2020.

    The politics of plastic

    Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, debates around plastic pollution are becoming increasingly politicized.

    In February in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to “stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within federal buildings.”

    Trump told reporters at the White House: “I don’t think plastic is going to affect a shark very much, as they’re munching their way through the ocean.” Almost 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have reported, however, that more than 4,000 species have ingested or been entangled by plastic litter.

    In Canada, plastic has also become a political flashpoint. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would scrap the federal government’s ban on single-use plastics and bring back plastic straws and grocery bags. He argued the government’s ban was about “symbolism” rather than “science,” saying, “the Liberals’ plastics ban is not about the environment, it’s about cost and control.”

    His promise would have harmed Canadians by dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that plastics in our bodies are linked to health impacts. Legislation to ban single-use plastics can be highly effective, ranging from 33 to 96 per cent reductions in plastic waste and pollution in the environment, depending on the policy and jurisdiction.

    Canada’s single-use plastics ban is a great example of evidence-based policymaking. The latest data from the conservation group Ocean Wise shows there was a 32 per cent drop in plastic straws found on Canadian shorelines in 2024 compared to the previous year.

    Science-based policies are needed

    It is indisputable that growing plastic production is directly related to plastic pollution in the environment and in human beings. Increasing plastic pollution is a global threat to human and ecosystem health, regardless of borders and political affiliation.

    As negotiators gear up for another round of talks to finalize a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution, the need for policies that are supported by scientific evidence is more urgent than ever.

    Future generations deserve a healthy and sustainable planet. The path towards a healthy and sustainable planet requires supporting action based on scientific evidence, not misinforming people with catchy phrases and political rhetoric.

    Tony Robert Walker receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Research Nova Scotia. He is also a non-remunerated member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

    Miriam L Diamond receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Future Earth, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. She is affiliated with the University of Toronto, serves as a paid expert for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, and has non-remunerated positions with the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (Vice-Chair), is a member of the Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and sits on the board of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

    – ref. Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire – https://theconversation.com/plastics-threaten-ecosystems-and-human-health-but-evidence-based-solutions-are-under-political-fire-256764

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Somaliland’s 30-year quest for recognition: could US interests make the difference?

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Aleksi Ylönen, Professor, United States International University

    More than three decades after unilaterally declaring independence from Somalia, Somaliland still seeks international recognition as a sovereign state. Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement, the breakaway state has built a relatively stable system of governance. This has drawn increasing interest from global powers, including the United States. As regional dynamics shift and great-power competition intensifies, Somaliland’s bid for recognition is gaining new currency. Aleksi Ylönen has studied politics in the Horn of Africa and Somaliland’s quest for recognition. He unpacks what’s at play.

    What legal and historical arguments does Somaliland use?

    The Somali National Movement is one of the main clan-based insurgent movements responsible for the collapse of the central government in Somalia. It claims the territory of the former British protectorate of Somaliland. The UK had granted Somaliland sovereign status on 26 June 1960.

    The Somali government tried to stomp out calls for secession. It orchestrated the brutal killing of hundreds of thousands of people in northern Somalia between 1987 and 1989.

    But the Somali National Movement declared unilateral independence on 18 May 1991 and separated from Somalia.

    With the collapse of the Somali regime in 1991, the movement’s main enemy was gone. This led to a violent power struggle between various militias.

    This subsided only after the politician Mohamed Egal consolidated power. He was elected president of Somaliland in May 1993.

    Egal made deals with merchants and businessmen, giving them tax and commercial incentives to accept his patronage. As a result, he obtained the economic means to consolidate political power and to pursue peace and state-building. It’s something his successors have kept up with since his death in 2002.

    What has Somaliland done to push for recognition?

    Successive Somaliland governments continue to engage in informal diplomacy. They have aligned with the west, particularly the US, which was the dominant power after the cold war, and the former colonial master, the UK. Both countries host significant Somaliland diaspora communities.

    The US and the UK have for decades flirted with the idea of recognising Somaliland, which they consider a strategic partner. However, they have been repeatedly thrown back by their respective Somalia policies. These have favoured empowering the widely supported Mogadishu government to reassert its authority and control over Somali territories.

    This Somalia policy has been increasingly questioned in recent years, in part due to Mogadishu’s security challenges. In contrast, the Hargeisa government of Somaliland has largely shown it can provide security and stability. It has held elections and survived as a state for the last three decades, though it has faced political resistance and armed opposition.



    Read more:
    Somaliland elections: what’s at stake for independence, stability and shifting power dynamics in the Horn of Africa

    As new global powers rise, Somaliland administrations have pursued an increasingly diverse foreign policy, with one goal: international recognition.

    Hargeisa hosts consulates and representative offices of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Taiwan, the UK and the European Union, among others.

    The government has also engaged in informal foreign relations with the United Arab Emirates. The Middle Eastern monarchy serves as a business hub and a destination of livestock exports. Many Somalilanders migrate there.

    Somaliland maintains representative offices in several countries. These include Canada, the US, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Taiwan. Hargeisa has alienated China because it has collaborated with Taiwan since 2020. Taiwan is a self-ruled island claimed by China.

    On 1 January 2024, Somaliland’s outgoing president Muse Bihi signed a memorandum of understanding with Ethiopian prime minister Abiy Ahmed for increased cooperation. Bihi implied that Ethiopia would be the first country to formally recognise Somaliland. The deal caused a sharp deterioration of relations between Addis Ababa and Mogadishu.

    Abiy later moderated his position and, with Turkish mediation, reconciled with his Somalia counterpart, President Hassan Mohamud.

    What’s behind US interest in Somaliland?

    The US, like other great powers, has been interested in Somaliland because of its strategic location. It is on the African shores of the Gulf of Aden, across from the Arabian Peninsula. Its geographical position has gained currency recently as Yemeni Houthi rebels strike maritime traffic in the busy shipping lanes. Somaliland is also well located to curb piracy and smuggling on this global trade route.

    The US Africa Command set up its main Horn of Africa base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti in 2002. This followed the 11 September 2001 attacks.



    Read more:
    Somaliland’s quest for recognition: UK debate offers hint of a sea change

    In 2017, China, which had become the main foreign economic power in the Horn of Africa, set up a navy support facility in Djibouti. This encouraged closer collaboration between American and Somaliland authorities. The US played with the idea of establishing a base in Berbera, which hosts Somaliland’s largest port.

    With Donald Trump winning the US presidential election in 2024, there were reports of an increased push for US recognition of Somaliland. This would allow the US to deepen its trade and security partnerships in the volatile Horn of Africa region.

    Since March 2025, representatives of the Trump administration have engaged in talks with Somaliland officials to establish a US military base near Berbera. This would be in exchange for a formal but partial recognition of Somaliland.

    What are the risks of US recognition of Somaliland?

    Stronger US engagement with Somaliland risks neglecting Somalia.

    Mogadishu depends on external military assistance in its battle against the advancing violent Islamist extremist group, Al-Shabaab. It also faces increasing defiance from two federal regions, Puntland and Jubaland.

    US recognition would reward Hargeisa for its persistent effort to maintain stability and promote democracy. However, it could encourage other nations to recognise Somaliland. This would deliver a blow to Somali nationalists who want one state for all Somalis.

    Aleksi Ylönen is affiliated with the Center for International Studies, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, and is an associate fellow at the HORN International Institute for Strategic Studies.

    – ref. Somaliland’s 30-year quest for recognition: could US interests make the difference? – https://theconversation.com/somalilands-30-year-quest-for-recognition-could-us-interests-make-the-difference-255399

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    – ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

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

    – ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Garamendi Statement on Israel-Iran Conflict

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

    WASHINGTON DC – Today, Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8) released the following statement regarding the Israel-Iran conflict.   

    “America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. We must not allow Prime Minister Netanyahu to sucker us into another endless Middle East war. We must de-escalate and return to the negotiating table to achieve what we all want: an Iran that never obtains a nuclear weapon.”

    “Israel’s attack was a dangerous escalation that has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians in both Iran and Israel. War with Iran is not in the interest of the United States, and robust diplomacy remains the best option for achieving long-term peace, regional stability and an Iran with no nuclear weapons. Further escalation is a threat to regional stability, risks drawing the U.S. into a wider conflict, and puts thousands of American servicemembers in harm’s way.

    “The JCPOA negotiated by President Obama was our best chance at ensuring that Iran could not build a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Donald Trump ripped up this critical treaty. Trump may have killed that signature deal that was negotiated by Russia, China, France, the U.K., Germany, the European Union and the United States. There is still room for the administration to negotiate a new deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We should be focused on reviving diplomatic efforts—not threatening military escalation or considering the use of bunker buster bombs. This is a dangerous path.”  

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Garamendi Statement on Trump’s Unilateral Military Action in Iran

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

    WASHINGTON, DC– Today, Senior Armed Services Committee Member Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8) released the following statement in response to President Trump’s unilateral military action against Iran:

    “President Trump’s unilateral and unauthorized decision to conduct military strikes against Iran demonstrates how he continues to put his own ego above the safety of our country. Without a clear and imminent threat, Trump has now dragged our country into a regional war and unnecessarily put thousands of service members at risk.  

    “The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Trump’s reckless action, taken without a vote of Congress or an imminent threat to U.S. forces, violates the clear intent of our founders – that Congress, not a king-like executive, should decide when the country goes to war.

    “Trump broke his promise to bring peace to the Middle East and to keep the United States out of another war in the region. In fact, he has done the opposite—dramatically increasing the risk of the U.S. being drawn into yet another conflict. He will bear full responsibility for every harmful consequence of this reckless action.

    “Trump once warned that President Obama would conduct military strikes due to an ‘inability to negotiate.’ He had it backwards: Obama had a deal—Trump started a war.”

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Garamendi Statement on Supreme Court Birthright Citizen Decision

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman John Garamendi (CA-08) issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to limit national injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship:

    “I am deeply concerned that today’s decision will limit future federal courts from protecting the rights of Americans for years to come. This reckless ruling limits the ability of federal courts to block presidential executive actions that are contrary to the Constitution and the law. As Justice Jackson wrote, ‘May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’ Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, conservative or progressive, the answer should be – yes, it must.

    “The Fourteenth Amendment is clear: If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. No ruling can change that, which is why the legal fight to protect birthright citizenship will prevail.

    “Every child born in the United States is an American citizen, and I will not rest until that constitutional right is fully and unequivocally protected.”

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Musk threatens to unseat Congressmen who vote for Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

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

    U.S. billionaire Elon Musk renewed his criticism of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on Monday, threatening that the lawmakers who support it risk losing their primaries next year.

    “Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!” he wrote on his social platform X.

    “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” he noted.

    In a separate post, Musk said he will support Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, whom Trump criticized for voting against the bill in the House.

    Trump vowed to campaign against Massie “really hard” in the GOP primary, promising “a wonderful American Patriot” would run against him.

    Musk has been attacking the bill on and off since stepping down from the Department of Government Efficiency in May.

    He warned that the legislation will hike the debt ceiling by 5 trillion U.S. dollars, “destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country.”

    The bill could also directly affect Musk’s electric carmaker, Tesla, by eliminating electric vehicle tax credits — up to 4,000 dollars for a used EV and 7,500 dollars for a new one.

    JPMorgan Chase estimates the move could cost Tesla 1.2 billion dollars.

    Musk broke his brief silence over the controversial spending bill on Saturday, calling it “utterly insane and destructive” as the package is working its way through the Senate.

    In response, Trump on Tuesday wrote on his social platform Truth Social that Musk knew he was “strongly against the EV Mandate” long before endorsing him for president.

    “It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign,” he said. “Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one.”

    “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!” he added.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Japan unwilling to sacrifice agriculture due to US pressure on rice imports

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    TOKYO, July 1 (Xinhua) — Japan has no intention of sacrificing its agricultural sector in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent demand to increase imports of American rice, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said on Tuesday.

    “We do not intend to make compromises that could harm Japanese agriculture in future negotiations,” Yoshimasa Hayashi said at a press conference, according to the Nikkei newspaper.

    He made the remarks after Trump said on social media that Japan was facing a serious rice shortage but was refusing to accept American rice. The US president’s post is seen as an attempt to pressure Japan to import more rice amid ongoing Japan-US tariff talks.

    Japan currently faces 25 percent tariffs on automobiles and auto parts, as well as 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, imposed by the United States. Despite previous rounds of ministerial-level talks, little progress has been made.

    Yoshimasa Hayashi stressed that Japan will continue “sincere and constructive talks” with the United States to reach an agreement that benefits both sides. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: I. Musk threatens to remove congressmen who support D. Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful” bill

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    WASHINGTON, July 1 (Xinhua) — U.S. billionaire Elon Musk on Monday again lashed out at U.S. President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful” bill, threatening that lawmakers who support it risk losing their primaries next year.

    “Every member of Congress who advocated for cutting government spending and then immediately voted for the largest increase in debt in history should hang their head in shame!” he wrote on his social network X.

    “And they will lose the primaries next year if it is the last thing I do on this earth,” he said.

    In another post, Musk said he would support Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, whom Trump criticized for voting against the bill in the House of Representatives and promised to campaign “very hard” against him in the Democratic primary, promising that a “great American patriot” would run against him.

    Musk has been attacking Trump’s bill since he stepped down as head of the Office of Government Effectiveness in May, warning that it would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, “destroy millions of American jobs, and cause massive strategic damage to our country.”

    The bill could also directly impact Musk’s electric car company Tesla, as it eliminates tax credits on electric vehicles — up to $4,000 for a used car and up to $7,500 for a new one. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. estimates that this would hit Tesla’s profits by $1.2 billion.

    On Saturday, E. Musk broke a brief silence on the controversial spending bill, calling it “completely insane and destructive” as the package moves through the Senate. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • EAM Jaishankar gives firsthand account on Trump’s claims on ceasefire

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Monday clarified India’s stand and response on U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that he used trade to force India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire during the escalation following India’s Operation Sindoor in May.

    Speaking at a fireside chat with Newsweek CEO Dev Pragad, Jaishankar recounted the sequence of events, asserting that there was no linkage between trade negotiations and ceasefire talks. “I can tell you that I was in the room when U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance spoke to Prime Minister Modi on the night of May 9, saying that the Pakistanis would launch a very massive assault on India,” he said.

    He emphasized that no trade-related leverage was discussed during that call. “We did not accept certain things, and the Prime Minister was impervious to what the Pakistanis were threatening to do,” Jaishankar noted. “On the contrary, he (PM Modi) indicated that there would be a response from us.”

    Jaishankar confirmed that Pakistan did indeed launch a massive attack that night, to which India responded swiftly. The following morning, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted him to inform that Pakistan was ready to talk. Later that day, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations, Major General Kashif Abdullah, directly contacted his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, to request a ceasefire.

    “I can only share what I personally experienced,” Jaishankar stated.

    (With inputs from IANS)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump demands an end to the war in Gaza – could a ceasefire be close?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

    Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock

    Hopes are rising that Israel and Hamas could be inching closer to a ceasefire in the 20-month war in Gaza.

    US President Donald Trump is urging progress, taking to social media to demand:

    MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!

    Trump further raised expectations, saying there could be an agreement between Israel and Hamas “within the next week”.

    But what are the prospects for a genuine, lasting ceasefire in Gaza?

    Ceasefires are generally complicated to negotiate because they need to take into account competing demands and pressures. They usually (but not always) require both sides to compromise.

    Gaza is no exception. In a conflict that has been going on for more than 70 years, compromise and concession have become a game of cat and mouse.

    Israel is the cat that holds the military strength and the majority of the political power. Hamas is the mouse that can dart and delay, but in the end has little choice but to accept the terms of a ceasefire if it wants to halt the violence currently being inflicted on Palestinians.

    Trump the peacemaker?

    Trump appears buoyed by what he perceives as the recent success of his efforts to broker a truce in the Israel–Iran war. He may think he can use similar tactics to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into making a ceasefire deal for Gaza.

    US President Donald Trump has posted on social media that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is negotiating a deal with Hamas ‘right now’.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    Netanyahu will return to Washington next week for talks at the White House. This is a good sign some US pressure is being brought to bear.

    Trump’s current push for a Gaza ceasefire may also signal he is keen for a return to the normalisation of economic ties previously delivered by the Abraham Accords between Israel and various Arab states. A ceasefire could unlock frozen regional relationships, potentially boosting the US economy (and Trump’s own personal wealth).

    Israeli opportunities

    Another positive sign a ceasefire may be on the cards is Netanyahu’s recent comments that the war with Iran had created opportunities for Israel in Gaza.

    During its 12-day war with Iran, Israel assassinated 30 Iranian security chiefs and 11 nuclear scientists. Iran’s weakened security apparatus might disrupt its support for Hamas and help advance Israeli objectives.

    Similar to what happened in Iran, this might enable Netanyahu to publicly declare Israeli victory in Gaza and agree to a ceasefire without losing face or political backing from his government’s right wing.

    Domestic Israeli politics have also played a role in the Gaza ceasefire negotiations. As part of the current round, Trump reportedly demanded the cancellation of Netanyahu’s ongoing trial on corruption charges. The idea is to enable Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire without the threat of criminal conviction, and potentially prison, awaiting him afterwards.

    Given there are no political or legal prescriptions or rules around what terms need to be included in a ceasefire, it is possible for such a demand to be made, although it is unclear how it would be accommodated by Israeli law.

    Difficult terms

    The current ceasefire deal, as proposed by Qatar and Egypt, seems to pick up where the deal negotiated in January fell apart – with a 60-day ceasefire.

    Reports suggest it requires Hamas’ leadership to go into exile and that four Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, would be tasked with jointly governing Gaza.

    Hamas has said for many months that it is open to a
    more permanent ceasefire deal that Israel has so far refused. However, the proposed terms appear too far-reaching to make it likely Hamas would accept them in their current form.

    The uptick in Israel’s military bombardment, as well as recent evacuation orders for parts of northern Gaza, suggest that even if there is a deal it may well mean Israel retains permanent territorial control of the northern Gaza Strip.

    As part of any ceasefire, it also seems likely Israel would retain control over all Gaza crossings.

    This, and the ongoing highly problematic promotion by Israel and the United States of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as the only organisation authorised to deliver and administer aid in Gaza, will be difficult for Hamas, and Palestinians, to accept.

    Displaced Palestinians carrying bags of flour distributed by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
    Haitham Imad/Shutterstock

    There have also been reports a deal would enable Gazans wishing to emigrate to be absorbed by several as-yet-unnamed countries. Such a term would continue the Trump administration’s earlier calls for the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, as well as Israel’s insistence such displacement would be a humanitarian initiative rather than a war crime.

    It would also not be the first time the terms of a ceasefire were used to forcibly displace civilian populations.

    Hope for the future?

    Many dynamics are wrapped up in getting to a ceasefire in Gaza.

    They include US allyship and pressure, domestic Israeli politics, and the recent war between Israel and Iran. There is also the international opprobrium of Israel’s actions in Gaza which, for public (if not legal) purposes, amount to a genocide.

    Ideally, any negotiated ceasefire would have detailed terms to ensure the parties know what they should do and when. Detailed terms would also enable international actors and other third parties to denounce any violations of the deal.

    However, a ceasefire would only ever be a short-term win. In the best case, it would enable a reduction in violence and an increase of aid into Gaza, and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners.

    However, amid the deep-seated sense of injustice and anxiety in the region, any ceasefire that does not address historic oppression and is forced on the parties would inevitably have deleterious consequences in the months and years to come.

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

    – ref. Trump demands an end to the war in Gaza – could a ceasefire be close? – https://theconversation.com/trump-demands-an-end-to-the-war-in-gaza-could-a-ceasefire-be-close-260185

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk’s companies to save money

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that his efficiency department should take a look at the subsidies that Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s companies have received in order to save the federal government “BIG” money.

    Trump’s comments come after billionaire Elon Musk renewed his criticism on Monday of Trump’s sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, vowing to unseat lawmakers who backed it after campaigning on limiting government spending.

    “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

    In response to Trump’s post, Musk, in his own social media platform X, said “I am literally saying CUT IT ALL. Now.”

    After weeks of relative silence following a feud with Trump over the legislation, Musk rejoined the debate on Saturday as the Senate took up the package, calling it “utterly insane and destructive” in a post on social media platform X.

    On Monday, he ramped up his criticism, saying lawmakers who had campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill “should hang their heads in shame!”

    “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk said.

    The Tesla and SpaceX CEO called again for a new political party, saying the bill’s massive spending indicated “that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”

    “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,” he wrote.

    Musk’s criticism of the bill has caused a rift in his relationship with Trump, marking a dramatic shift after the tech billionaire spent nearly $300 million on Trump’s re-election campaign and led the administration’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal cost-cutting initiative.

    Musk, the world’s richest man, has argued that the legislation would greatly increase the national debt and erase the savings he says he has achieved through DOGE.

    It remains unclear how much sway Musk has over Congress or what effect his opinions might have on the bill’s passage. But Republicans have expressed concern that his on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

    The rift has also led to volatility for Tesla, with shares of the company seeing wild price swings that erased approximately $150 billion of its market value, though it has since recovered.

    – Reuters

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I’m going to send letters’: the deadline for Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ trade tariffs is looming

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

    Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

    US President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on implementing so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on some 180 trading partners ends on July 8.

    How are countries responding to the threat, and will the tariffs be re-applied from July 9?

    What the US thinks ‘reciprocal’ means

    The United States is demanding four things from all trading partners, while offering little in return. So these negotiations are anything but “reciprocal”.

    The main demand is to rebalance bilateral goods trade between the US and other countries. Nations with trade surpluses – meaning they export a greater value of goods than they import from the US – will be encouraged to import more from the US and/or export less to it.

    The US is also pushing countries to eliminate a range of “non-tariff barriers” that may affect US export competitiveness. These barriers are drawn from the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) March 2025 report and include a variety of perceived “unfair” practices, from value-added taxes (such as the Goods and Services Tax) to biosecurity standards such as those Australia applies to agricultural imports.

    In a nod to the “tech bros”, (alleged) restrictions on digital trade services, such as Australia’s media bargaining code, and digital service taxes must be removed, along with taxes on the tech giants. On Monday, Canada dropped a new digital service tax on firms such as Google and Meta after Trump suspended trade talks.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Tesla CEO Elon Musk at President Trump’s inauguration ceremony.
    Saul Loeb/Pool/AFP via Getty Image

    Countries must also agree to reduce reliance on inputs from China in any exports to the United States. That means companies that moved manufacturing from China to countries such as Vietnam during President Trump’s first term trade wars will face challenges in sourcing input components from China.

    Put together, this is a difficult package for any government to accept without securing something in return.

    Who holds the cards?

    Trump has been fond of saying the United States holds “all the cards” in trade negotiations.

    It’s not known precisely how many countries are negotiating bilateral deals with Washington. Between 10 and 18 countries are priority “targets”, or to use an early, colourful phrase, were targeted as the “Dirty 15”.

    Category 1 likely comprises many more countries than those in the US’s naughty corner. These countries were saddled with large reciprocal tariffs despite the tariff formula’s evident shortcomings. To paraphrase Trump, these countries don’t hold the cards and have limited negotiating power.

    They have no choice but to make concessions. The smarter ones will take the opportunity to make reforms and blame the bully in Washington. Mostly these are developing countries, some with high dependency on the US market, including the poorest such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Lesotho.

    To make matters worse, they must keep one eye on China for fear of retribution in case Beijing perceives any promises to reduce dependence on Chinese inputs would compromise Chinese interests.

    Category 2 consists of countries that “hold cards”, or have some degree of leverage. Some, such as Canada, Japan, India and the EU, will secure limited US concessions although they may resort to retaliation to force this outcome. From discussions with our government and academic sources, Japan and India likely won’t retaliate, but Canada has previously and the EU likely will.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese initially said he would not negotiate and has repeated US reciprocal tariffs “are not the act of a friend”.

    However, the Australian government is wisely looking to bolster its negotiation cards, such as creating a critical minerals strategic reserve.



    Read more:
    Plans to stockpile critical minerals will help Australia weather global uncertainty – and encourage smaller miners

    No doubt policy makers are also reminding the US of their favourable access to Australia’s military infrastructure which could be essential to any US-China military confrontation.

    China is category 3.

    The Chinese government is determined not to kowtow to Washington as they did in Trump’s first term. The so-called “Phase 1 deal” was signed but instantly forgotten in Beijing.

    Beijing has several cards, notably dominance of processed critical minerals and their derivative products, particularly magnets, and the US’s lack of short-term alternative supply options.

    After China expanded export controls on rare earths and critical minerals, shortages hit the auto industry around the world and Ford was forced to idle plants.

    What happens next?

    Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, suggested on Friday more deals may be signed before July 8. But Trump is likely to undermine and/or negate them as his transactional whims change.

    The British, after announcing their US deal that included relatively favourable automotive and steel export market access, watched in horror as Trump doubled tariffs on steel imports to 50%, and reimposed the 25% tariff on the UK.

    The UK government was reminded this US administration cannot be trusted. That is why countries negotiate binding trade treaties governed by domestic and international laws.

    Many countries are waiting on the outcomes from various US court battles testing whether the president or Congress should have the power to impose unilateral tariffs. After all, if there is a chance the Supreme Court rules Trump cannot change tariffs by decree, then why negotiate with a serially untrustworthy partner?

    The Japanese government, for example, recently announced it is pausing negotiations after the US demanded increased defence spending.

    ‘I’m going to send letters’

    Trump on Sunday suggested he would simply send letters to foreign nations setting a tariff rate. “I’m going to send letters, that’s the end of the trade deal,” he said.

    That does not bode well for countries negotiating in good faith. It’s likely tariffs will be reimposed and bilateral negotiations will drag on to September or beyond as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said.

    After all, even the US government has limited bandwidth to process so many simultaneous negotiations. Category 2 trading partners will increasingly test their own political limits. And the rest of the world is hoping for a favourable Supreme Court ruling that may, like the character Godot in the play Waiting for Godot, never come.

    Nathan Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Kumuthini Sivathas and Peter Draper do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘I’m going to send letters’: the deadline for Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ trade tariffs is looming – https://theconversation.com/im-going-to-send-letters-the-deadline-for-trumps-reciprocal-trade-tariffs-is-looming-259983

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I’m going to send letters’: the deadline for Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ trade tariffs is looming

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

    Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

    US President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on implementing so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on some 180 trading partners ends on July 8.

    How are countries responding to the threat, and will the tariffs be re-applied from July 9?

    What the US thinks ‘reciprocal’ means

    The United States is demanding four things from all trading partners, while offering little in return. So these negotiations are anything but “reciprocal”.

    The main demand is to rebalance bilateral goods trade between the US and other countries. Nations with trade surpluses – meaning they export a greater value of goods than they import from the US – will be encouraged to import more from the US and/or export less to it.

    The US is also pushing countries to eliminate a range of “non-tariff barriers” that may affect US export competitiveness. These barriers are drawn from the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) March 2025 report and include a variety of perceived “unfair” practices, from value-added taxes (such as the Goods and Services Tax) to biosecurity standards such as those Australia applies to agricultural imports.

    In a nod to the “tech bros”, (alleged) restrictions on digital trade services, such as Australia’s media bargaining code, and digital service taxes must be removed, along with taxes on the tech giants. On Monday, Canada dropped a new digital service tax on firms such as Google and Meta after Trump suspended trade talks.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Tesla CEO Elon Musk at President Trump’s inauguration ceremony.
    Saul Loeb/Pool/AFP via Getty Image

    Countries must also agree to reduce reliance on inputs from China in any exports to the United States. That means companies that moved manufacturing from China to countries such as Vietnam during President Trump’s first term trade wars will face challenges in sourcing input components from China.

    Put together, this is a difficult package for any government to accept without securing something in return.

    Who holds the cards?

    Trump has been fond of saying the United States holds “all the cards” in trade negotiations.

    It’s not known precisely how many countries are negotiating bilateral deals with Washington. Between 10 and 18 countries are priority “targets”, or to use an early, colourful phrase, were targeted as the “Dirty 15”.

    Category 1 likely comprises many more countries than those in the US’s naughty corner. These countries were saddled with large reciprocal tariffs despite the tariff formula’s evident shortcomings. To paraphrase Trump, these countries don’t hold the cards and have limited negotiating power.

    They have no choice but to make concessions. The smarter ones will take the opportunity to make reforms and blame the bully in Washington. Mostly these are developing countries, some with high dependency on the US market, including the poorest such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Lesotho.

    To make matters worse, they must keep one eye on China for fear of retribution in case Beijing perceives any promises to reduce dependence on Chinese inputs would compromise Chinese interests.

    Category 2 consists of countries that “hold cards”, or have some degree of leverage. Some, such as Canada, Japan, India and the EU, will secure limited US concessions although they may resort to retaliation to force this outcome. From discussions with our government and academic sources, Japan and India likely won’t retaliate, but Canada has previously and the EU likely will.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese initially said he would not negotiate and has repeated US reciprocal tariffs “are not the act of a friend”.

    However, the Australian government is wisely looking to bolster its negotiation cards, such as creating a critical minerals strategic reserve.



    Read more:
    Plans to stockpile critical minerals will help Australia weather global uncertainty – and encourage smaller miners

    No doubt policy makers are also reminding the US of their favourable access to Australia’s military infrastructure which could be essential to any US-China military confrontation.

    China is category 3.

    The Chinese government is determined not to kowtow to Washington as they did in Trump’s first term. The so-called “Phase 1 deal” was signed but instantly forgotten in Beijing.

    Beijing has several cards, notably dominance of processed critical minerals and their derivative products, particularly magnets, and the US’s lack of short-term alternative supply options.

    After China expanded export controls on rare earths and critical minerals, shortages hit the auto industry around the world and Ford was forced to idle plants.

    What happens next?

    Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, suggested on Friday more deals may be signed before July 8. But Trump is likely to undermine and/or negate them as his transactional whims change.

    The British, after announcing their US deal that included relatively favourable automotive and steel export market access, watched in horror as Trump doubled tariffs on steel imports to 50%, and reimposed the 25% tariff on the UK.

    The UK government was reminded this US administration cannot be trusted. That is why countries negotiate binding trade treaties governed by domestic and international laws.

    Many countries are waiting on the outcomes from various US court battles testing whether the president or Congress should have the power to impose unilateral tariffs. After all, if there is a chance the Supreme Court rules Trump cannot change tariffs by decree, then why negotiate with a serially untrustworthy partner?

    The Japanese government, for example, recently announced it is pausing negotiations after the US demanded increased defence spending.

    ‘I’m going to send letters’

    Trump on Sunday suggested he would simply send letters to foreign nations setting a tariff rate. “I’m going to send letters, that’s the end of the trade deal,” he said.

    That does not bode well for countries negotiating in good faith. It’s likely tariffs will be reimposed and bilateral negotiations will drag on to September or beyond as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said.

    After all, even the US government has limited bandwidth to process so many simultaneous negotiations. Category 2 trading partners will increasingly test their own political limits. And the rest of the world is hoping for a favourable Supreme Court ruling that may, like the character Godot in the play Waiting for Godot, never come.

    Nathan Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Kumuthini Sivathas and Peter Draper do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘I’m going to send letters’: the deadline for Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ trade tariffs is looming – https://theconversation.com/im-going-to-send-letters-the-deadline-for-trumps-reciprocal-trade-tariffs-is-looming-259983

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump signs executive order to end sanctions on Syria — White House

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    WASHINGTON, June 30 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to end sanctions on Syria, the White House website reported.

    D. Trump “signed a historic executive order ending the sanctions program on Syria to support the country’s path to stability and peace,” the White House said in a statement.

    “The order lifts sanctions on Syria while leaving sanctions in place on Bashar al-Assad… The order authorizes the easing of export controls on certain items and lifts restrictions on certain foreign assistance to Syria,” the White House said.

    The order instructs US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “explore ways to ease sanctions at the UN to support stability in Syria.” –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump’s administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.

    During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.

    Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.

    Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.

    In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump’s executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday.

    The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue “universal” injunctions to block the Republican president’s policies nationwide.

    But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.

    William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

    “They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be,” Powell said.

    Trump’s executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.

    In Friday’s ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.

    Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

    Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump’s order.

    The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday’s ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then.

    “Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order,” Boardman said at the end of the hearing.

    Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.

    Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration’s view of the constitutionality of Trump’s order.

    “It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution,” he said.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump’s administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.

    During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.

    Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.

    Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.

    In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump’s executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday.

    The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue “universal” injunctions to block the Republican president’s policies nationwide.

    But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.

    William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

    “They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be,” Powell said.

    Trump’s executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.

    In Friday’s ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.

    Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

    Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump’s order.

    The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday’s ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then.

    “Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order,” Boardman said at the end of the hearing.

    Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.

    Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration’s view of the constitutionality of Trump’s order.

    “It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution,” he said.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump’s administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.

    During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.

    Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.

    Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.

    In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump’s executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday.

    The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue “universal” injunctions to block the Republican president’s policies nationwide.

    But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.

    William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

    “They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be,” Powell said.

    Trump’s executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.

    In Friday’s ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.

    Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

    Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump’s order.

    The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday’s ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then.

    “Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order,” Boardman said at the end of the hearing.

    Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.

    Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration’s view of the constitutionality of Trump’s order.

    “It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution,” he said.

    (Reuters)

  • G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

     Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran and urged for negotiations to resume for a deal to address Iran‘s nuclear program, according to a joint statement.

    Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran‘s nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Israel and its allies say they want to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon.

    “We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran‘s nuclear program,” the G7 foreign ministers said.

    Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

    Before the ceasefire was announced, Washington struck Iran‘s nuclear sites and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation.

    The G7 foreign ministers said they urged “all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region.”

    U.S. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff has said talks between Washington and Tehran were “promising” and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal.

    The G7 top diplomats denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent.

    On June 12, the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.

    Israel is the only Middle Eastern country believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.

    Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, says it has “no credible indication” of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran.

    (Reuters)

  • G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

     Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran and urged for negotiations to resume for a deal to address Iran‘s nuclear program, according to a joint statement.

    Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran‘s nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Israel and its allies say they want to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon.

    “We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran‘s nuclear program,” the G7 foreign ministers said.

    Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

    Before the ceasefire was announced, Washington struck Iran‘s nuclear sites and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation.

    The G7 foreign ministers said they urged “all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region.”

    U.S. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff has said talks between Washington and Tehran were “promising” and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal.

    The G7 top diplomats denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent.

    On June 12, the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.

    Israel is the only Middle Eastern country believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.

    Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, says it has “no credible indication” of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran.

    (Reuters)

  • G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

     Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran and urged for negotiations to resume for a deal to address Iran‘s nuclear program, according to a joint statement.

    Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran‘s nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Israel and its allies say they want to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon.

    “We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran‘s nuclear program,” the G7 foreign ministers said.

    Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

    Before the ceasefire was announced, Washington struck Iran‘s nuclear sites and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation.

    The G7 foreign ministers said they urged “all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region.”

    U.S. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff has said talks between Washington and Tehran were “promising” and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal.

    The G7 top diplomats denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent.

    On June 12, the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.

    Israel is the only Middle Eastern country believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.

    Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, says it has “no credible indication” of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran.

    (Reuters)