Category: Trump

  • Which countries are quitting a key landmine treaty and why?

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Ukraine has joined other countries bordering Russia in signalling that it will withdraw from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines, in the face of what they say are growing military threats from Russia.

    NATO members Finland, Poland and the three ex-Soviet Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have either withdrawn from the convention or indicated that they would do so, citing the increased military danger from their neighbour.

    The moves threaten to reverse decades of campaigning by activists who say there should be a global ban on a weapon that blights huge swathes of territory and maims and kills civilians long after conflicts have abated.

    Countries that quit the 1997 treaty – one of a series of international agreements concluded after the end of the Cold War to encourage global disarmament – will be able to start producing, using, stockpiling and transferring landmines once again.

    COUNTRIES EXITING

    All European countries bordering Russia have announced plans to quit the global treaty,apart from Norway which has only a 200 km (125 mile) border with Russia in its remote Arctic far north, andsaid it was important to maintain stigma around landmines.

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday that he had signed a decree to pull Ukraine out of the Convention because Russia has used anti-personnel mines extensively in parts of Ukraine during the 40-month-old war.

    Anti-personnel mines, Zelenskiy said, are “often the instrument for which nothing can be substituted for defence purposes”.

    Some European countries have said they fear that Russia could use any pause in fighting to re-arm and target them.

    Officials have suggested a withdrawal could put them on more of an equal footing with Russia which has not signed or ratified the treaty. Other major powers that have not signed include the United States and China.

    U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres in mid-June raised grave concerns about recent withdrawal announcements, and urged all states to adhere to existing treaties and immediately halt any steps towards their withdrawal.

    FUNDING CUTS

    As countries quit the convention, global demining efforts are also backsliding amid “crippling” U.S. funding cuts under President Donald Trump, according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Washington had provided more than $300 million a year, or 40% of total international support for removing mines, according to the Landmine Monitor report in 2024.

    A State Department official said in March it had restarted some global humanitarian demining programmes and activities, without giving details. It has previously run major programmes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Laos.

    Anti-personnel landmines are generally hidden in the ground and designed to detonate automatically when someone steps on them or passes nearby. More than 80% of mine victims are civilians, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    The convention includes provisions to assist victims, many of whom have lost limbs and suffer from other permanent disabilities.

    In June 2025 the U.N. reported that Ukraine had become the most mined country in the world. It said there had been around 800 civilian casualties due to unexploded ordnance.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom announces appointments 6.27.25

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 27, 2025

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:
     
    Neal Payton, of Santa Monica, has been appointed to the State Historical Resources Commission. Payton has been Senior Principal at Torti Gallas + Partners since 1996. He was Associate Professor of Architecture at The Catholic University of America from 1987 to 1996. He is a member of American Institute of Architects and the Congress for New Urbanism. He earned a Master of Architecture degree from Syracuse University and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Carnegie Mellon University. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Payton is a Democrat.

    Yong Ping Chen, of Camarillo, has been reappointed to the California Acupuncture Board, where she has served since 2020. Chen has been a Professor at Alhambra Medical University since 2020 and an Acupuncturist at Chen’s Chinese Medicine Clinic since 2002. She was Director of the Experimental Acupuncture Teaching Department and Laboratory at Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine from 2000 to 2002. Chen was Associate Professor and Deputy Chief Physician at Southern Medical University from 1989 to 1997. She was a Physician and Proctologist at Linhai Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from 1984 to 1986. Chen is a Member of the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association. She earned a Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Integrative Chinese and Western Medicine from Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, a Master of Science degree in Classical Chinese Medicine from Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Integrative Chinese and Western Medicine from Zhejiang Chinese Medical University. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Chen is a Democrat.

    Hyun “Francisco” Kim, of Fremont, has been reappointed to the California Acupuncture Board, where he has served since 2018. Kim has been an Acupuncture Practitioner at Harmony Holistic Wellness Center since 2019, Clinic Director and Acupuncturist at Healtones Medical Clinic since 2014, and Adjunct Clinical Instructor at Touro University California, College of Osteopathic Medicine since 2014. He was Partner at Eastridge Medical Group from 2012 to 2013. Kim was Owner of St. Francis Clinic from 2004 to 2012. Kim is a Member of the Association of Korean Asian Medicine and Acupuncture. He earned a Master of Science degree in Oriental Medicine and Acupuncture from South Baylo University. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Kim is registered without party preference.

    Gregory Leung, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the California Acupuncture Board, where he has served since 2024. Leung held several roles at the California Department of Public Health from 2001 to 2023, including Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse, Health Facilities Evaluator Supervisor, and Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse. He was a Medical Nurse at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center from 2000 to 2001. Leung was a Medical Charge Nurse at Willow Tree Convalescent Hospital from 2000 to 2001. He was a Home Visit Nurse at Corinthian Medical Services from 1990 to 2001. Leung was an Assistant to the Nurse Director at Parc Pacific Convalescent Hospital from 1998 to 1999. He was a Nurse Assistant at Chinese Hospital from 1997 to 1998. Leung was a Nurse Assistant at Jesuit Community Infirmary from 1993 to 1996. He is a member of the Chinese American Democratic Club and the Lions Club. Leung earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Accounting from California State University, San Francisco and a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing from the University of San Francisco. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Leung is a Democrat.

    Justin Huft, of Colton, has been reappointed to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences where he has served since 2021. Huft has been a Marriage and Family Therapist in Private Practice since 2023, an Adjunct Lecturer for the Psychology and Sociology Departments at El Camino Community College since 2018, and an Adjunct Lecturer in the Psychology Department at California State University, Fullerton since 2016. He was a Marriage and Family Therapist and Clinical Program Director at Creative Care Calabasas from 2016 to 2023. He is a Member of the California Marriage and Family Therapy Association, American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, American Sociological Association and Pacific Sociological Association. Huft earned a Master of Arts degree in Marriage and Family Therapy from Chapman University, a Master of Arts degree in Sociology from Arizona State University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and Social Behavior and Social Ecology from the University of California, Irvine. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Huft is a member of the Peace and Freedom Party.

    Kelly X. Ranasinghe, of El Centro, has been reappointed to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, where he has served since 2020. Ranasinghe has served as a Deputy County Counsel in the Imperial County Counsel’s Office since 2020. He was Managing Partner at Henderson and Ranasinghe LLP from 2017 to 2020. Ranasinghe was Senior Program Attorney at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges from 2014 to 2017. Ranasinghe served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Imperial County Public Defender’s Office from 2011 to 2014. He was a Deputy Public Defender at the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office from 2008 to 2010. He is a member of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Association of Counsel for Children. Ranasinghe earned a Juris Doctor degree in Criminal Justice from the California Western School of Law. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Ranasinghe is a Democrat.

    Annette Walker, of Corona, has been reappointed to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, where she has served since 2021. Walker has been the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of ReinventU! since 2024. She was a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Consultant at DEI Consulting from 2021 to 2024. Walker was Diversity and Inclusion Officer at Life Chiropractic College West from 2020 to 2021. She was Director of Graduate Admissions at California State University, East Bay from 2005 to 2019. Walker was a Personnel Commissioner at Hayward Unified School District from 2010 to 2011. She was a General Counselor and Instructor at Chabot-Las Positas Community College District from 1998 to 2004. Walker was a Bilingual Elementary School Teacher at Ravenswood City School District from 1993 to 1997. She earned a Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership from University of San Francisco, a Master of Science degree in Education and Psychological studies from California State University, East Bay, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology from California State University, Fullerton. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100 per diem. Walker is a Democrat. 

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: The federal Republicans’ “Big, Beautiful bill” would eliminate health coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians, cut at least $28.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, and put food assistance at risk for the hundreds of thousands of…

    News What you need to know: Continuing Governor Newsom’s build more, faster agenda, the state is awarding nearly $5 billion today to infrastructure projects that improve roads, expand transportation, bus and rail options while improving public health and safety….

    News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling on Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey: In a challenge to the Trump Administration’s blatantly…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom slams Trump over bill that would cut millions in health coverage, food assistance for California

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 27, 2025

    What you need to know: The federal Republicans’ “Big, Beautiful bill” would eliminate health coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians, cut at least $28.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, and put food assistance at risk for the hundreds of thousands of Californians who rely on it. 

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today slammed federal Republicans over their proposed cuts to the federal Medicaid program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in their “Big, Beautiful bill.” The proposed Medicaid changes and proposed federal rules regarding health care taxes would put an estimated over $28 billion dollars of federal funding at risk for California and could result in a loss of coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians. 

    Taken together, these changes will lead to hospital and clinic closures, increase uncompensated care costs, and roll back the progress California has made in reducing its uninsured rate to a recent historical low of 6.4%, threatening the state’s status as a national leader in expanding access to care.

    The bill would also cut federal funding for SNAP in California to $2.8 to $5.4 billion annually. Hundreds of thousands of Californians who need food assistance will be at risk of losing it, and it will punish working people by ending their eligibility.

    “The so-called ‘Big, Beautiful bill’ is not cost-saving. It is not smart. It is cruel, costly, and a significant encroachment on states’ rights – the opposite of what Republican leadership claims to stand for. Big government is getting bigger under Trump and Speaker Johnson, as they attempt to dictate every move states make and micromanage Americans through even greater bureaucracy. It’s dangerous, and anyone with common sense should oppose it.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Impact of Medicaid cuts on California 

    Beginning January 2027, states would be required to conduct eligibility determinations for Affordable Care Act expansion adults every six months instead of every twelve months, leading to an estimated loss of $2.4 Billion in federal funds and approximately 400,000 enrollees in California. The bill would also require states to implement work requirements beginning in 2027, which would result in an estimated loss of up to $22.3 billion in federal funds and up to 3 million California enrollees. Additional federal fund losses and health care safety net impacts would occur from restrictions on provider fees and local government payments that draw down federal funds to support local health systems.

    According to Planned Parenthood, provisions in the bill would also put nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers at risk of closing, block 1.1 million patients from essential care like birth control and cancer screenings, and decimate abortion care access in all 50 states. 
    Taken together, these changes will lead to hospital and clinic closures, increase uncompensated care costs, and roll back the progress California has made in reducing its uninsured rate to a recent historical low of 6.4%, threatening the state’s status as a national leader in expanding access to care.

    Risks to SNAP

    The billions of dollars in SNAP cuts in California are composed of a reduction of at least $1.25 billion in federal funds due to changes in eligibility rules and the loss of an additional at least $178 million in nutrition education grants. Cost shifts in the range of $1.35 billion to $4 billion annually to the State and counties. This cost shift is due to a mandatory shift of 5 percent of food benefits cost to the state, and a mandatory 25 percent shift in program administrative costs to the state and county effective immediately. At least 735,000 recipients would be at risk of losing their CalFresh — as SNAP is known in California — benefits.

    Footage of today’s press conference with California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Kim Johnson and California Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Baass can be found HERE. Slides from the presentation can be found HERE.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: Continuing Governor Newsom’s build more, faster agenda, the state is awarding nearly $5 billion today to infrastructure projects that improve roads, expand transportation, bus and rail options while improving public health and safety….

    News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling on Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey: In a challenge to the Trump Administration’s blatantly…

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Kira Younger, of Fair Oaks, has been appointed Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Finance and Accounting Division at the California Department of Social Services. Younger has…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom signs balanced state budget that cuts taxes for vets, fully funds free school meals, builds more housing, & creates jobs

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 27, 2025

    FUNDED: Tax cut for military retirees

    FUNDED: Universal pre-kindergarten for all 

    FUNDED: Expanded before school, after school, & summer school

    FUNDED: Free school meals for all kids 

    FUNDED: Game-changing literacy & reading investments

    FUNDED: Building more housing, ASAP

    FUNDED: Lowering drug costs

    FUNDED: Expanding medication abortion access with CalRx

    FUNDED: Historic firefighting & public safety investments

    FUNDED: Protecting California’s iconic film industry

    Signing of landmark package to cut red tape, fast-track housing, and infrastructure forthcoming  

    SACRAMENTO – Amid Donald Trump’s economic assault on California, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed the 2025 state budget bill advanced in partnership with Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire and Speaker Robert Rivas. Together, the Governor and Legislature are enacting a responsible, balanced spending plan that safeguards California’s values while maintaining long-term fiscal health. This budget and forthcoming trailer bills include new, landmark policies that will accelerate housing production and boost affordability in communities across the state — addressing California’s most urgent challenges.

    As we confront Donald Trump’s economic sabotage, this budget agreement proves California won’t just hold the line — we’ll go even further. It’s balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it’s focused on supporting Californians — slashing red tape and catapulting housing and infrastructure development, preserving essential healthcare services, funds universal pre-K, and cuts taxes for veterans.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Pro Tem Mike McGuire says: “The State is delivering a responsible on-time budget in a challenging year focused on fiscal restraint and investing in the people and programs that make this State great. This budget prioritizes record funding for our kids and public schools, protects access to health care for millions of the most vulnerable, and will create more housing at a scale not seen in years. Thanks to this budget agreement, the state will help get more folks off the streets and into permanent shelter, and we’ll expand the ranks of CalFire, deploying hundreds of additional full-time CalFire firefighters, which will save lives and make us all more wildfire safe. And this agreement helps prepare our state for the ongoing chaos and massive uncertainty caused by the Trump administration. Thank you to our Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener, Speaker Rivas and Governor Newsom and their staffs for their hard work for the people of California.”

    Speaker Robert Rivas says: “This is an incredibly difficult time for Californians. Trump is undermining our economy with reckless tariffs, harsh cuts, and ICE agents terrorizing our communities. At a moment when so many are already struggling, he’s adding fear and instability. In contrast, Democrats have delivered a budget that protects California. It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity. It preserves critical investments in health care, women’s health, education, and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers, or small businesses. In unprecedented times, under painful circumstances, Democrats are delivering for Californians.”

    Tax cuts for vets, smaller class sizes, free school meals

    The budget reflects a shared commitment to protect opportunity and improve affordability in California, in the face of targeted attacks by the Trump administration. The budget makes historic investments in public education — from universal transitional kindergarten and free school meals to expanded before and after-school programs, summer school, smaller class sizes, and strengthened career training and higher education. The budget demonstrates the state’s commitment to honoring veterans by creating tax cuts for military retirees, recognizing their service and supporting their financial security. 

    Lowering prescription drug costs, protecting reproductive care, and safety nets 

    The budget preserves key health care programs for Californians targeted by Republicans. It preserves vital safety net programs, including in-home supportive services and women’s reproductive health. As part of the budget, the Governor is also expected to sign legislation protecting access to health care, license and regulate Pharmacy Benefit Managers for the first time, increasing transparency and accountability in the pharmacy supply chain. The legislation also expands CalRx’s authority to procure brand-name drugs and respond to politically motivated supply disruptions, helping shield access to critical medications like mifepristone.

    Lights, camera, JOBS

    The budget protects California’s position as the 4th largest economy in the world – supporting business and continued economic growth, including California’s iconic film industry. Next week, the Governor is expected to sign additional legislation as part of the expansion of the film and TV tax credit program — further catapulting the program’s impact to $750 million a year.

    Trump’s economic assault

    The balanced budget comes as California continues to confront significant fiscal pressures fueled by the Trump administration’s reckless economic and immigration policies. According to the California Department of Finance, Trump’s tariff regime is projected to cost the state an estimated $16 billion in lost General Fund revenue through the next fiscal year. And a new study released June 17 by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, in collaboration with UC Merced, found that Trump’s mass deportations could slash $275 billion from California’s economy, eliminate $23 billion in annual tax revenue, and severely disrupt key industries such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. 

    In the face of these mounting challenges, the Governor issued a proclamation to access state reserves. This responsible and balanced budget protects Californians, creates more housing, preserves core programs, reinforces fiscal discipline, and invests in the state’s long-term economic strength.

    The Governor today announced signing the following bills:

    • AB 102 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Budget Act of 2025.
    • AB 118 by the Committee on Budget – Human services.
    • AB 121 by the Committee on Budget – Education finance: education omnibus budget trailer bill.
    • AB 123 by the Committee on Budget – Higher education budget trailer bill.
    • AB 134 by the Committee on Budget – Public Safety.
    • AB 136 by the Committee on Budget – Courts.
    • AB 143 by the Committee on Budget – Developmental services.
    • SB 101 by the Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Budget Act of 2025.
    • SB 103 by the Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Budget Acts of 2022, 2023, and 2024.
    • SB 120 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Early childhood education and childcare.
    • SB 124 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Public resources trailer bill.
    • SB 127 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Climate change.
    • SB 128 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Transportation.
    • SB 132 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Taxation.
    • SB 141 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – California Cannabis Tax Fund: Department of Cannabis Control: Board of State and Community Corrections grants.
    • SB 142 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program.

    The Governor’s signature on the state budget is contingent on the enactment of either AB 131 or SB 131 on Monday, June 30th.

    Para leer este comunicado en español, haga clic aquí.

    Recent news

    News ✅ CUMPLIDO: Reducción de impuestos para jubilados militares ✅ CUMPLIDO: Pre-kinder universal para todos ✅ CUMPLIDO: Ampliación de programas antes y después de clases y cursos de verano ✅ CUMPLIDO: Alimentación escolar gratuita para todos los niños ✅ CUMPLIDO:…

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments: Neal Payton, of Santa Monica, has been appointed to the State Historical Resources Commission. Payton has been Senior Principal at Torti Gallas + Partners since 1996. He was Associate…

    News What you need to know: The federal Republicans’ “Big, Beautiful bill” would eliminate health coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians, cut at least $28.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, and put food assistance at risk for the hundreds of thousands of…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom signs balanced state budget that cuts taxes for vets, fully funds free school meals, builds more housing, & creates jobs

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 27, 2025

    FUNDED: Tax cut for military retirees

    FUNDED: Universal pre-kindergarten for all 

    FUNDED: Expanded before school, after school, & summer school

    FUNDED: Free school meals for all kids 

    FUNDED: Game-changing literacy & reading investments

    FUNDED: Building more housing, ASAP

    FUNDED: Lowering drug costs

    FUNDED: Expanding medication abortion access with CalRx

    FUNDED: Historic firefighting & public safety investments

    FUNDED: Protecting California’s iconic film industry

    Signing of landmark package to cut red tape, fast-track housing, and infrastructure forthcoming  

    SACRAMENTO – Amid Donald Trump’s economic assault on California, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed the 2025 state budget bill advanced in partnership with Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire and Speaker Robert Rivas. Together, the Governor and Legislature are enacting a responsible, balanced spending plan that safeguards California’s values while maintaining long-term fiscal health. This budget and forthcoming trailer bills include new, landmark policies that will accelerate housing production and boost affordability in communities across the state — addressing California’s most urgent challenges.

    As we confront Donald Trump’s economic sabotage, this budget agreement proves California won’t just hold the line — we’ll go even further. It’s balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it’s focused on supporting Californians — slashing red tape and catapulting housing and infrastructure development, preserving essential healthcare services, funds universal pre-K, and cuts taxes for veterans.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Pro Tem Mike McGuire says: “The State is delivering a responsible on-time budget in a challenging year focused on fiscal restraint and investing in the people and programs that make this State great. This budget prioritizes record funding for our kids and public schools, protects access to health care for millions of the most vulnerable, and will create more housing at a scale not seen in years. Thanks to this budget agreement, the state will help get more folks off the streets and into permanent shelter, and we’ll expand the ranks of CalFire, deploying hundreds of additional full-time CalFire firefighters, which will save lives and make us all more wildfire safe. And this agreement helps prepare our state for the ongoing chaos and massive uncertainty caused by the Trump administration. Thank you to our Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener, Speaker Rivas and Governor Newsom and their staffs for their hard work for the people of California.”

    Speaker Robert Rivas says: “This is an incredibly difficult time for Californians. Trump is undermining our economy with reckless tariffs, harsh cuts, and ICE agents terrorizing our communities. At a moment when so many are already struggling, he’s adding fear and instability. In contrast, Democrats have delivered a budget that protects California. It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity. It preserves critical investments in health care, women’s health, education, and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers, or small businesses. In unprecedented times, under painful circumstances, Democrats are delivering for Californians.”

    Tax cuts for vets, smaller class sizes, free school meals

    The budget reflects a shared commitment to protect opportunity and improve affordability in California, in the face of targeted attacks by the Trump administration. The budget makes historic investments in public education — from universal transitional kindergarten and free school meals to expanded before and after-school programs, summer school, smaller class sizes, and strengthened career training and higher education. The budget demonstrates the state’s commitment to honoring veterans by creating tax cuts for military retirees, recognizing their service and supporting their financial security. 

    Lowering prescription drug costs, protecting reproductive care, and safety nets 

    The budget preserves key health care programs for Californians targeted by Republicans. It preserves vital safety net programs, including in-home supportive services and women’s reproductive health. As part of the budget, the Governor is also expected to sign legislation protecting access to health care, license and regulate Pharmacy Benefit Managers for the first time, increasing transparency and accountability in the pharmacy supply chain. The legislation also expands CalRx’s authority to procure brand-name drugs and respond to politically motivated supply disruptions, helping shield access to critical medications like mifepristone.

    Lights, camera, JOBS

    The budget protects California’s position as the 4th largest economy in the world – supporting business and continued economic growth, including California’s iconic film industry. Next week, the Governor is expected to sign additional legislation as part of the expansion of the film and TV tax credit program — further catapulting the program’s impact to $750 million a year.

    Trump’s economic assault

    The balanced budget comes as California continues to confront significant fiscal pressures fueled by the Trump administration’s reckless economic and immigration policies. According to the California Department of Finance, Trump’s tariff regime is projected to cost the state an estimated $16 billion in lost General Fund revenue through the next fiscal year. And a new study released June 17 by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, in collaboration with UC Merced, found that Trump’s mass deportations could slash $275 billion from California’s economy, eliminate $23 billion in annual tax revenue, and severely disrupt key industries such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. 

    In the face of these mounting challenges, the Governor issued a proclamation to access state reserves. This responsible and balanced budget protects Californians, creates more housing, preserves core programs, reinforces fiscal discipline, and invests in the state’s long-term economic strength.

    The Governor today announced signing the following bills:

    • AB 102 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Budget Act of 2025.
    • AB 118 by the Committee on Budget – Human services.
    • AB 121 by the Committee on Budget – Education finance: education omnibus budget trailer bill.
    • AB 123 by the Committee on Budget – Higher education budget trailer bill.
    • AB 134 by the Committee on Budget – Public Safety.
    • AB 136 by the Committee on Budget – Courts.
    • AB 143 by the Committee on Budget – Developmental services.
    • SB 101 by the Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Budget Act of 2025.
    • SB 103 by the Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Budget Acts of 2022, 2023, and 2024.
    • SB 120 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Early childhood education and childcare.
    • SB 124 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Public resources trailer bill.
    • SB 127 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Climate change.
    • SB 128 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Transportation.
    • SB 132 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Taxation.
    • SB 141 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – California Cannabis Tax Fund: Department of Cannabis Control: Board of State and Community Corrections grants.
    • SB 142 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program.

    The Governor’s signature on the state budget is contingent on the enactment of either AB 131 or SB 131 on Monday, June 30th.

    Para leer este comunicado en español, haga clic aquí.

    Recent news

    News ✅ CUMPLIDO: Reducción de impuestos para jubilados militares ✅ CUMPLIDO: Pre-kinder universal para todos ✅ CUMPLIDO: Ampliación de programas antes y después de clases y cursos de verano ✅ CUMPLIDO: Alimentación escolar gratuita para todos los niños ✅ CUMPLIDO:…

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments: Neal Payton, of Santa Monica, has been appointed to the State Historical Resources Commission. Payton has been Senior Principal at Torti Gallas + Partners since 1996. He was Associate…

    News What you need to know: The federal Republicans’ “Big, Beautiful bill” would eliminate health coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians, cut at least $28.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, and put food assistance at risk for the hundreds of thousands of…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: “The Character of the Country is on the Line” Warnock Calls for GOP to Protect 16 Million Americans Who Risk Losing Health Care

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia

    “The Character of the Country is on the Line” Warnock Calls for GOP to Protect 16 Million Americans Who Risk Losing Health Care

    Watch the full floor speech  HERE
     Senator Reverend Warnock: “Your health care is about to go up. Your hospital might close because they’re cutting these clean energy tax cuts, your utility bills are about to go up. And so I have a question tonight, who voted for that?”
    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) went to the floor of the United States Senate to call on his GOP colleagues to reject the GOP tax bill that will kick over 16 million Americans off their health care. Full video is available  HERE.
    “And in some ways, this is the same bill eight years later, just worse,” said Senator Reverend Warnock, comparing this moment to the 2017 tax bill. “Like most horror movies, the sequel tends to be worse. We were here eight years ago. Washington politicians were trying their best to gut the Affordable Care Act. Remember that? They were trying to gut Obamacare out of political motives. Millions of Americans were spared. But tonight is the sequel to that horror movie. They are back to their own political tricks, trying to dismantle the ACA again, with this legislation. It’s the same fight, just worse this time.”
    “If they enact these deep cuts to Medicaid, as they are positioned not to extend these tax credits, they are raising the cost of health care for all of us,” continued Senator Reverend Warnock. “Even if you are on private insurance, you are not safe. Your health care is about to go up. Your hospital might close because they’re cutting these clean energy tax cuts, your utility bills are about to go up. And so I have a question tonight, who voted for that?…Who voted for everybody’s health care premiums to go up and their hospitals to be closed? Here’s what I know. Folks back in Georgia didn’t vote for that. They voted for me, and they voted for Donald Trump, but they didn’t vote for that.”
    “This is symptomatic of the ways in which the people’s voices have been squeezed out of their democracy,” continued Senator Reverend Warnock. “This is not just a health care fight, it is that. It is not just a fight for food security, for SNAP, it is that. But in a real sense, it is a fight for our democracy. Whose voice gets to be heard in this chamber? That’s what this is about—the character of the country.”
    Now, let me be clear, I’m all for tax cuts. I believe working families deserve a tax cut, and I certainly don’t want to see them face a tax hike this year,” continued Senator Reverend Warnock. “That’s why I want to nearly double the child tax credit. I believe in tax cuts for hard-working families, for middle-class people, for working-class families. But instead of doing that, instead of helping working-class families who are struggling now against a 10% tax on everything, rising costs, we’re now burdening our children by adding $3 trillion to the debt. We’re taking away health care from kids and then burdening them with the debt.
    “When the people hear about what’s in this Big Ugly Bill, they don’t like it…” said Senator Reverend Warnock. “The American people do not want to rob our children of food and health care, and then burn them with trillions in debt to give billionaires and wealthy corporations another tax cut….And so if the people do not want this bill, if they are trying to pass it. Here’s the question you got to ask yourselves at home, you have to ask yourselves, well, who are they working for? Who are they fighting for? Who do they think matters? Do you think they are working for you?”
    The Senator’s speech comes a day after he held a vigil with a multi-faith coalition of clergy to pray that GOP lawmakers have the courage to stand up for their constituents and vote against the GOP tax bill. The Senator was arrested in 2017, before he was elected to the Senate, along with a coalition of multi-faith leaders, while protesting the GOP tax bill during the first Trump Administration. 
    A full and unofficial transcript is availabe below. Watch the full speech  HERE.
    Madam President, I rise tonight in a moral moment in our nation. As we debate this bill, so much is on the line. The health care of over 16 million Americans, 750,000 of them Georgians, is on the line. Food for hungry children in a wealthy nation where one in five children are already food insecure—they don’t know where the next meal is coming from—their livelihood, their welfare, is on the line. The well-being of seniors in nursing homes and the disabled who rely on Medicaid and those who care for them is on the line. The state of rural hospitals in Georgia, in Alaska, in Louisiana, in little towns all over this nation that are right now barely hanging on is on the line, and the scraps that they are throwing them while cutting them will not save them.
    My friends on the other side of the aisle know it. They know that these scraps that they’re throwing at rural hospitals will not save them. And so in a very real sense, lives are on the line.
    We are in a moral moment because something else is on the line. I submit that the character of the country is on the line.
    In a real sense, the question tonight is, who are we? Not who we tell ourselves we are, but who are we really? What and who do we care about? What kind of nation are we? What kind of people do we want to be? Who matters and who doesn’t? What do we think is dispensable?
    In no place is the answer to that question clearer than in a nation’s budget. I submit that a budget is not just a fiscal document, a budget is a moral document. Show me your budget, and I’ll show you who you think matters and who doesn’t.
    If this awful budget were an EKG, it would suggest that our nation has a heart problem and is in need of moral certainty.
    And so I’m clear tonight. I understand the nature of what we are engaged in. This is a political process, it is, but it is also a moral exercise, not only for the nation, but for each of us, individually, and especially for the mere 100 of us out of a nation of 300 million who get to vote, perhaps in a matter of hours.
    We have the rare privilege of standing up for the people who have entrusted with us the covenant of centering their families. It’s a real privilege for the people of your state to say that since we can’t all go to Washington, we’re going to trust you in rules of power to be thinking about our children, to be thinking about our parents as they deal with the blessings and the burdens of growing old.
    So the question for me tonight is, how will we show up in this moment?
    That’s why yesterday, I gathered in the Russell Rotunda with a multi-faith coalition of clergy to pray that lawmakers might have the courage to stand up to their party, stand up to the special interests and protect seniors in nursing homes and pregnant mothers on Medicaid and children who risk going to school hungry every single day in this country. One in five children in the wealthiest nation on the planet already food insecure, and with these SNAP cuts, this body is about to make it worse.
    And so, surrounded by clergy of many faith traditions, yesterday, I prayed that we would have the courage, prayed that we would have the grace to stand as voices for the voiceless. And as I stood there, I could not help but feel a sense of deja vu. This is not the first time I’ve been in our nation’s Capitol speaking out against these policies that betray hard-working families. It was eight years ago, almost to the day in 2017 when Washington Republicans were trying to pass a tax bill that favored wealthy Americans over working families, that I came to this building, not as a senator, but as a pastor. I had no idea that eight years later I would be serving in this body. I had no notion that I would even run for the Senate. I came as a citizen, standing with a multi-faith coalition. We were praying for our nation’s leaders. We were gathered in the rotunda of the Russell building, and as we were singing and praying, the Capitol Police said, “I’m sorry, pastors, you can’t sing and pray in the rotunda. If you do not disperse, we will have to arrest you.”
    And let me say that the Capitol Police did not mishandle us that day. They were first-rate professionals. They said that if you don’t disperse, we will have to arrest you. What they didn’t understand is that I had already been arrested. My conscience had been arrested, my heart and my imagination, my moral imagination, had been arrested by this idea that we as a country are better than this.
    I come from a tradition where you don’t just pray with your lips, you pray with your legs, put your body in the struggle for other struggling bodies. So here I am tonight, eight years later, having transformed my agitation into legislation, I was arrested that day, but I have transformed my protest into public policy.
    Eight years ago, I was on the outside. Tonight, I’m on the inside, but it’s the same fight. Some of us fight on the inside, some of us fight on the outside. Some of us get to serve in the Senate or in the House. Others are just watching at home tonight, but be really clear that we are in the same fight—whether we are on the streets or in the suites, same fight.
    And in some ways, this is the same bill eight years later, just worse. Like most horror movies, the sequel tends to be worse. We were here eight years ago. Washington politicians were trying their best to gut the Affordable Care Act. Remember that? They were trying to gut Obamacare out of political motives. Millions of Americans were spared. But tonight is the sequel to that horror movie. They are back to their own political tricks, trying to dismantle the ACA again, with this legislation. It’s the same fight, just worse this time.
    Instead of extending tax credits that would lower health insurance costs for the middle class, my friends on the other side are giving billionaires and the richest of the rich a tax cut. They are working real hard tonight to help billionaires, because God knows that they are having a hard time, apparently.
    What that means is that 1.2 million Georgians and nearly 20 million Americans are going to see their health care premiums rise. That’s what’s at stake tonight.
    If they enact these deep cuts to Medicaid, as they are positioned not to extend these tax credits, they are raising the cost of health care for all of us. Even if you are on private insurance, you are not safe. Your health care is about to go up. Your hospital might close because they’re cutting these clean energy tax cuts, your utility bills are about to go up. And so I have a question tonight, who voted for that?
    Some of us are Democrats, some of us are Republicans, some of us are independent. Some voted for one party, some voted for the other party. I get it, but who voted for that? Who voted for everybody’s health care premiums to go up and their hospitals to be closed?
    Here’s what I know. Folks back in Georgia didn’t vote for that. They voted for me, and they voted for Donald Trump, but they didn’t vote for that.
    Ordinary folks don’t want this. There’s ordinary, everyday people who who barely pay attention to politics. They don’t want this. Even a Fox News poll, and you won’t often hear me say that, but even a Fox News poll from this month found that Americans don’t support this Big Ugly Bill.
    This is symptomatic of the ways in which the people’s voices have been squeezed out of their democracy. This is not just a health care fight, it is that. It is not just a fight for food security, for SNAP, it is that. But in a real sense, it is a fight for our democracy. Whose voice gets to be heard in this chamber? That’s what this is about—the character of the country.
    Ordinary Americans don’t want to do this to our children. That’s why they need to know that 71% of all Medicaid enrollees in Georgia are children. 71%. Taking away health care from kids to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
    Now, let me be clear, I’m all for tax cuts. I believe working families deserve a tax cut, and I certainly don’t want to see them face a tax hike this year. That’s why I want to nearly double the child tax credit. I believe in tax cuts for hard-working families, for middle class people, for working-class families.
    But instead of doing that, instead of helping working class families who are struggling now against a 10% tax on everything, rising costs, we’re now burdening our children by adding $3 trillion to the debt. We’re taking away health care from kids and then burdening them with the debt. We are engaged in Robin Hood in reverse, this body, of stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. This massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the to the top. This is socialism for the rich.
    When the people hear about it, guess what? They don’t like it, Democrats and Republicans and Independents. When the people hear about what’s in this Big Ugly Bill, they don’t like it. That’s why the folks on the other side are trying their best to fast-track it. That’s why they’re trying to pass it and they haven’t even finished writing it—twisting themselves in knots, making their members walk the plank under the threat of a primary to pass this Big Ugly Bill.
    The American people do not want to rob our children of food and health care, and then burn them with trillions in debt to give billionaires and wealthy corporations another tax cut. The people do not want this bill.
    And so if the people do not want this bill, if they are trying to pass it. Here’s the question you got to ask yourselves at home, you have to ask yourselves, well, who are they working for? Who are they fighting for? Who do they think matters? Do you think they are working for you?
    This is a moral moment and a budget is a moral document. We have been summoned to this moment, people of faith and people of moral courage who claim no particular faith at all. Maybe because I was here yesterday and eight years ago for a similar fight with faith leaders. Maybe because I’m a preacher, and it’s Sunday, and I’ve been here instead of church, I have especially been thinking about those of us who are people of faith. People whose lives are informed by scripture, people of the book. And maybe those of us who have different politics but read from the same book ought to spend some time together reading the book, because I do sometimes wonder, and I say this with all humility, none of us owns the truth. But if I’m honest, there are days when I have to ask people of my faith tradition as a Christian, are we reading the same book?
    The book I know says, I was hungry and you fed me. I was sick, I was in prison, and you visited me. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me. In as much as you’ve done it to the least of these, you’ve done it also unto me. The book that I love says, learn to do good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow, speak out for those who cannot. Speak for the rights of the destitute. Speak out. Judge righteously. Defend the rights of the poor and the needy. My book says whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord and will be repaid in full. The prophet Amos condemns those who buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. They sell the poor out and working class people for cheap.
    For those of us who have a vote in this moment, my colleagues, who are swinging on a moral dilemma, I hear the prophet Micah say he has already told you what is good. What does the Lord require that you do justice, love, kindness, walk humbly with your God.
    May God be with our nation and grant us grace, wisdom and courage for this moment.
    Madam President, I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai meets Minister of State at UK Department for Business and Trade Douglas Alexander  

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Details
    2025-06-27
    President Lai confers decoration on former Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association Chairman Ohashi Mitsuo
    On the morning of June 27, President Lai Ching-te conferred the Order of Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon upon former Chairman of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association Ohashi Mitsuo in recognition of his firm convictions and tireless efforts in promoting Taiwan-Japan exchanges. In remarks, President Lai stated that Chairman Ohashi cares for Taiwan like a family member, and expressed hope that Taiwan and Japan continue to deepen their partnership, bring about the early signing of an economic partnership agreement (EPA), and jointly build secure and stable non-red supply chains as we boost the resilience and competitiveness of our economies and jointly safeguard the values of freedom and democracy. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Every meeting I have with Chairman Ohashi, with whom I have worked side by side for many years, is warm and friendly. I recall that when we met last year, Chairman Ohashi said that he often thinks about what Japan can do for Taiwan and what Taiwan can do for Japan, and that it is that mutual concern that makes us so close. This was a truly moving statement illustrating the relationship between Taiwan and Japan. Chairman Ohashi has also said numerous times that our bilateral relations may very well be the best in the entire world, and that in fact they may serve as a model to other countries. Indeed, Chairman Ohashi is himself an exemplary model for friendly relations between Taiwan and Japan. His spirit of always working tirelessly to promote Taiwan-Japan exchanges is truly admirable. Assuming the position of chairman of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in 2011, he served during the terms of former Presidents Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen, continuously making positive contributions to Taiwan-Japan relations. Over these past 14 years, Taiwan and Japan have signed over 50 major agreements, spanning the economy and trade, fisheries, and taxes, among other areas. In 2017, the Taiwan-Japan Relations Association and the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association underwent name changes, strengthening the essence and significance of Taiwan-Japan relations. These great achievements were all made possible thanks to the firm convictions and tireless efforts of Chairman Ohashi. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I am delighted to confer upon Chairman Ohashi the Order of Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon to express our deepest thanks for his outstanding contributions. Chairman Ohashi is not just a good friend of Taiwan, but someone who cares for Taiwan like a family member. When a major earthquake struck in 2016, he personally went to Tainan to assess the situation and meet with the city government. This outpouring of friendship and support across borders was deeply moving. As we look to the future, I hope that Taiwan and Japan can continue to deepen our partnership. In addition to bringing about the early signing of an EPA, I also hope that we can expand collaboration in key areas such as semiconductors, energy, and AI, continue building secure and stable non-red supply chains, and boost the resilience and competitiveness of our economies as well as peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. As Chairman Ohashi has said, the close bilateral relationship between Taiwan and Japan is one the world can be proud of. I would like to thank him once again for his contributions to deepening Taiwan-Japan ties. Taiwan will continue to forge ahead side by side with Japan, jointly safeguarding the values of freedom and democracy and mutually advancing prosperous development. I wish Chairman Ohashi good health, happiness, peace, and success in his future endeavors, and invite him to return to Taiwan often to visit old friends. Chairman Ohashi then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for his kind words. He stated that the Taiwan-Japan relationship is not only worthy of praise; it can also serve as a superb model in the world for bilateral relations that is worthy of study by other countries. He added that this is the result of the collective efforts of President Lai as well as many other individuals. Chairman Ohashi said that the current international situation is rather severe, with wars and conflicts occurring between many neighboring countries. He said that there is a growing trend of nuclear weapon proliferation, emphasizing that use of such weapons would cause significant harm between nations. He also pointed out that some countries even use nuclear weapons as a threat, leading to instability and impacting the global situation. Chairman Ohashi said that neither Taiwan nor Japan possesses nuclear weapons, which is something to be proud of. That is why, he said, we can declare that a world without nuclear weapons is a peaceful world. He also mentioned that during his tenure as chairman of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association, he consistently upheld this principle in his work. Chairman Ohashi said that the mission of the World Federalist Movement (WFM) is to promote world peace. He said that the WFM has branches in countries worldwide, with the WFM of Japan being one of the most prominent, and that it also aspires to achieve the goal of world peace. Having served as chairman of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association for 14 years, he said, he is now stepping down from this role and will serve as the chairman of the WFM of Japan, aiming to promote peace in countries around the world. Chairman Ohashi said that both Taiwan and Japan can take pride in our friendly bilateral relationship, emphasizing that if the good relationship between Japan and Taiwan could be offered as an example to countries around the world, there would be no more wars. He expressed his sincere hope that under President Lai’s leadership, Taiwan and Japan can work together to jointly promote world peace. Also in attendance at the ceremony was Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association Taipei Office Chief Representative Katayama Kazuyuki.

    Details
    2025-06-25
    President Lai meets Japan’s former Economic Security Minister Kobayashi Takayuki
    On the afternoon of June 25, President Lai Ching-te met with Kobayashi Takayuki, Japan’s former economic security minister and a current member of the House of Representatives. In remarks, President Lai expressed hope to combine the strengths of the democratic community to build resilient, reliable non-red supply chains, and ensure a resilient global economy and sustainable development. He also expressed hope that Taiwan and Japan can bring about the early signing of an economic partnership agreement (EPA), and that Japan will continue supporting Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), enhancing our own bilateral partnership, as doing so would create win-win situations and further contribute to regional economic security and stability. The following is a translation of President Lai’s remarks: I welcome Representative Kobayashi back to Taiwan for another visit after seven years. During his last visit, he was with a delegation from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Youth Division, and we met at the Executive Yuan. I am very happy to see him again today. Representative Kobayashi has long paid close attention to matters involving economic security, technological innovation, and aerospace policy. He also made a stunning debut in last year’s LDP presidential election, showing that he is truly a rising star and an influential figure in the political sphere. With this visit, Representative Kobayashi is demonstrating support for Taiwan with concrete action, which is very meaningful. Taiwan and Japan are both part of the first island chain’s key line of defense. We thank the many Japanese prime ministers, including former Prime Ministers Abe Shinzo, Suga Yoshihide, and Kishida Fumio, as well as current Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru, for the many times they have highlighted the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait at important international venues, and for expressing opposition to the use of force or coercion to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. I hope that Taiwan and Japan can engage in more cooperation and exchanges to promote peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region in all aspects. In particular, China in recent years has been actively expanding its red supply chains, which threaten the global free trade system and advanced technology markets. Taiwan hopes to combine the strengths of the democratic community to build resilient, reliable non-red supply chains. In the semiconductor industry, for example, Taiwan has excellent advanced manufacturing capabilities, while Japan plays an important role in materials, equipment, and key technologies. I am confident that, given the experience that Taiwan and Japan have in cooperating, we can build an industrial supply chain composed of democratic nations to ensure a resilient global economy and sustainable development. I hope that Taiwan and Japan can bring about the early signing of an EPA in order to deepen our bilateral trade and investment exchanges and cooperation. I also hope that Japan will continue supporting Taiwan’s bid to join the CPTPP, enhancing our own bilateral partnership, as doing so would create win-win situations and further contribute to regional economic security and stability. Taiwan and Japan are democratic partners that share the values of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. I firmly believe that so long as we work together, we can certainly address the challenges posed by authoritarianism, and bring prosperity and development to the Indo-Pacific region. In closing, I welcome Representative Kobayashi once again. I am certain that this visit will help enhance Taiwan-Japan exchanges and deepen our friendship. Representative Kobayashi then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for taking the time to meet with him, and noting that this was his second visit to Taiwan following a trip seven years prior, when he came with his good friend from college and then-Director of the LDP Youth Division Suzuki Keisuke, now Japan’s minister of justice. Representative Kobayashi mentioned a Japanese kanji that he is very fond of – 絆 (kizuna) – which means “deep ties of friendship.” He emphasized that a key purpose of this visit to Taiwan was to reiterate the deep ties of friendship between Taiwan and Japan. In addition to deep historical ties, he said, Taiwan and Japan also enjoy a like-minded partnership in terms of economic, personnel, and friendship-oriented exchanges. He went on to say that at the strategic level, Taiwan and Japan also have deep ties of friendship, and that for Japan, it is strategically important that Taiwan not be isolated under any circumstances. Representative Kobayashi emphasized that cooperation between Taiwan and Japan, and even cooperation among Taiwan, Japan, and the United States, are more important now than ever, and that another important focus of this visit is the non-red supply chains referred to earlier by President Lai. He said that as Japan’s first economic security minister and the person currently in charge of the LDP’s policy on economic security, he is acutely aware of the important impact of economic security on national interests, and therefore looks forward to further exchanging views regarding Taiwan’s concrete steps to build non-red supply chains. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association Deputy Representative Takaba Yo.

    Details
    2025-06-16
    President Lai meets delegation led by Representative Bera, co-chair of US Congressional Taiwan Caucus
    On the morning of June 16, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Representative Ami Bera, co-chair of the US Congressional Taiwan Caucus. In remarks, President Lai thanked the representatives in Congress for actively voicing support for Taiwan and proposing numerous Taiwan-friendly initiatives to strengthen Taiwan-US ties, helping expand Taiwan’s international space and continuing to place focus on peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. The president said that we will continue to strengthen bilateral investment and industrial cooperation and create a more comprehensive environment for economic and trade exchanges to jointly enhance economic and developmental resilience. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I am delighted to meet with the delegation and welcome Congressman Bera back to the Presidential Office. Last January, he visited after the presidential election, demonstrating the steadfast backing of the US Congress for democratic Taiwan. This time, as head of a delegation of new members of the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, he is continuing to foster US congressional support for Taiwan. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I extend a sincere welcome to Congressman Bera and all our esteemed guests. Over the years, staunch bipartisan US congressional backing of Taiwan has been a key force for steadily advancing our bilateral relations. I thank the representatives in Congress for actively voicing support for Taiwan and proposing numerous Taiwan-friendly initiatives, thereby strengthening Taiwan-US ties, helping expand Taiwan’s international space, and continuing to place focus on peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. I want to emphasize that Taiwan has an unwavering determination to safeguard peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Over the past year, the government and private sector have been working together to enhance Taiwan’s whole-of-society defense resilience and accelerate reform of national defense. The government is also prioritizing special budget allocations to ensure that our defense budget exceeds three percent of GDP this year. I hope that Taiwan-US security cooperation will evolve beyond military procurement to a partnership that encompasses joint research and development and joint production, further strengthening cooperation and exchange in the defense industry. Regarding industrial exchanges, last month, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) and Minister of Economic Affairs Kuo Jyh-huei (郭智輝) each visited Texas to see firsthand Taiwan-US collaboration in AI and semiconductors. And the delegation led by Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) sent by Taiwan to this year’s SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, DC, was again the largest of those attending. All of this demonstrates Taiwan’s commitment to working alongside the US to create mutual prosperity. In the future, we will continue to strengthen bilateral investment and industrial cooperation. And I hope that the legislation addressing the issue of Taiwan-US double taxation will become law this year. I want to thank Congressman Bera for co-leading a joint letter last November signed by over 100 members of Congress calling for such legislation. I believe that by creating a more comprehensive environment for economic and trade exchanges, Taiwan and the US can enhance economic and developmental resilience. In closing, I thank you all for making the long journey here to advance Taiwan-US relations. Let us continue working together to promote the prosperous development of this important partnership. Congressman Bera then delivered remarks, saying that on behalf of the delegation, it is an honor for him to be here once again, it being last January that he and Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart visited and congratulated President Lai on his election victory, noting that theirs was the first congressional delegation to do so. Congressman Bera said that this is an important time, not just for the US and Taiwan relationship, but for all relationships around the world. When we look at conflicts in Europe and in the Middle East, he said, it is incumbent upon democracies to hold the peace in Asia. He emphasized that is why it is important for them to bring a delegation of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee, adding that he believes for all of them it is their first trip to Taiwan.  Congressman Bera said that while this is a delegation of Democratic members of Congress, in a bipartisan way all of Congress continues to support the people of Taiwan. As such, in this visit he brings support from his co-chairs on the Taiwan caucus, Congressman Díaz-Balart and Congressman Andy Barr. He also took a moment to recognize the passing of Congressman Gerald Connolly, who was a longtime friend of Taiwan and one of their co-chairs on the caucus. Congressman Bera mentioned that there is always a special bond between himself and President Lai because they are both doctors, and as doctors, their profession is about healing, keeping the peace, and making sure everybody has a bright, prosperous future. In closing, he highlighted that it is in that spirit that their delegation visits with the president. The delegation also included members of the US Congress Gabe Amo, Wesley Bell, Julie Johnson, Sarah McBride, and Johnny Olszewski.

    Details
    2025-06-13
    President Lai meets delegation led by French National Assembly Taiwan Friendship Group Chair Marie-Noëlle Battistel
    On the morning of June 12, President Lai Ching-te met a delegation led by Marie-Noëlle Battistel, chair of the French National Assembly’s Taiwan Friendship Group. In remarks, President Lai thanked the National Assembly for its long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation and for upholding security in the Taiwan Strait, helping make France the first major country in the world to enact legislation to uphold freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait. The president also said that exchanges and cooperation between Taiwan and France are becoming more frequent, and that he hopes this visit by the Taiwan Friendship Group will inject new momentum into Taiwan-France relations and help build closer partnerships in the economy, trade, energy, and digital security.  A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: First, I would like to welcome Chair Battistel, who is once again leading a visiting delegation. Last year, Chair Battistel co-led a delegation to attend the inauguration ceremony for myself and Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao. This is her fourth visit, and first as chair of the Taiwan Friendship Group, which makes it especially meaningful. This delegation’s visit demonstrates strong support for Taiwan, and on behalf of the people of Taiwan, I want to express my sincerest welcome and thanks. France is a pioneer in promoting free and democratic values. These are values that Taiwan cherishes and is working hard to defend. I want to express gratitude to the French Parliament for their long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation, and for upholding security in the Taiwan Strait. The French Parliament’s two chambers have continued to strongly support Taiwan, with the passage of a resolution supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organizations in 2021, as well as the passage of the seven-year Military Programming Law in 2023. This has made France the first major country in the world to enact legislation to uphold freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait. Through it all, the Taiwan Friendship Group has played a key role, and I want to thank all of our distinguished guests for their efforts. Over the past few years, Taiwan and France have continued to deepen cooperation in areas including the economy, technology, culture, and sports. At the Choose France summit held in Paris last month, Taiwanese and French enterprises also announced they will launch cooperation in the semiconductor and satellite fields. The VivaTech startup exhibition, now being held in France, also has many Taiwanese vendors participating. Exchanges and cooperation between Taiwan and France, whether official or people-to-people, are becoming more and more frequent. I hope that this visit by the Taiwan Friendship Group will inject new momentum into Taiwan-France relations, building closer partnerships in the economy, trade, energy, and digital security.  To address current geopolitical and economic challenges, Taiwan will continue to join forces with France and other like-minded countries to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, and contribute our concerted efforts to global prosperity and development. Once again, I want to welcome our visitors to Taiwan. I hope to continue our joint efforts to create a more prosperous future for both Taiwan and France.   Chair Battistel then delivered remarks, thanking President Lai for extending this invitation. Last year on May 20, she said, she and her delegation attended the presidential inauguration ceremony, so she was delighted to visit Taiwan once again with the French National Assembly’s Taiwan Friendship Group and bear witness to their friendship with Taiwan. Chair Battistel noted that this visit has given them an opportunity to strengthen Taiwan-France relations in areas including the economy, culture, the humanities, and diplomacy, and conduct exchanges with numerous heads of government agencies and research institutes. It has also been an opportunity, she said, to witness the importance of exchanges and cooperation with Taiwan in areas including energy, semiconductors, youth, and culture, and the impact created by important issues of mutual concern, including AI and disinformation, on the security of many countries. Chair Battistel praised Taiwan for its youth development efforts, and said that under the Taiwan Global Pathfinders Initiative, 30 Taiwanese young people have embarked on a visit to France, with itineraries including the United Nations Ocean Conference and the VivaTech exhibition, as well as the city of Toulouse, which is strategically important for the aerospace industry. Members of the group are also conducting exchanges at the French National Assembly, she said.  Chair Battistel stated that the Taiwan-France partnership is growing closer, and that she hopes to continue to strengthen bilateral exchanges and cooperation, as supporting peace for Taiwan supports peace around the world.  The delegation also included Taiwan Friendship Group Vice Chair Éric Martineau, as well as National Assembly Committee on Foreign Affairs Vice Chair Laetitia Saint-Paul and Deputies Marie-José Allemand and Claudia Rouaux. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by French Office in Taipei Deputy Director Cléa Le Cardeur.

    Details
    2025-06-05
    President Lai hosts state banquet for President Bernardo Arévalo of Republic of Guatemala  
    At noon on June 5, President Lai Ching-te hosted a state banquet at the Presidential Office for President Bernardo Arévalo of the Republic of Guatemala and his wife. In his remarks, President Lai noted that Taiwan and Guatemala have both undergone an arduous democratization process, and therefore, in face of the continuous expansion of authoritarian influence, must join hands in brotherhood and come together in solidarity to safeguard our hard-earned freedom and democracy. President Lai also expressed hope that both countries will work together and continue to deepen various exchanges and cooperation, taking a friendship that has lasted over 90 years to new heights. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Once again, I would like to offer a warm welcome to President Arévalo and First Lady Lucrecia Peinado, who are leading this delegation to Taiwan. President Arévalo’s previous visit to Taiwan was 31 years ago. Back then, Taiwan did not have direct presidential elections, and the nation was continuing to make progress toward democratization. Today, 31 years later, Taiwan has conducted direct presidential elections eight times, with three transfers of power between political parties. On this visit, I am sure that President Arévalo will gain a deep appreciation for Taiwan’s free and democratic atmosphere.  Taiwan and Guatemala have both undergone an arduous democratization process. A little over 200 years ago, the people of Guatemala took a stand against colonial oppression, seeking national dignity and the freedom of its people. Eighty-one years ago, President Arévalo’s father, Juan José Arévalo, became Guatemala’s first democratically elected president, establishing an important foundation for subsequent democratic development.  Our two peoples have democracy in their blood. Both know the value of freedom and democracy and are willing to take a stand for those values. Therefore, in face of the continuous expansion of authoritarian influence, our two countries must join hands in brotherhood to respond to threats and challenges, and come together in solidarity to safeguard our hard-earned freedom and democracy. I hope that both countries will work together to continue to deepen various exchanges and cooperation, taking a friendship that has lasted over 90 years to new heights. I hope that on this visit, in addition to gaining a deeper understanding of Taiwan’s political, economic, and social development, President Arévalo can also reacquaint himself with the democratic vitality and cultural diversity of Taiwan by sampling various gourmet delicacies and once again experiencing the beauty of our scenery and warmth of our people. Guatemala is a very beautiful country. In the future, I hope to have a chance to personally experience that beauty, explore Mayan civilization, and savor local Guatemalan coffee. In closing, I wish the visiting delegation a smooth and successful trip, and beautiful, unforgettable memories. May President Arévalo enjoy the best of health, and may the diplomatic friendship between our two countries endure. President Arévalo then delivered remarks, stating that at different times and by different means, the people of Taiwan and Guatemala have relentlessly sought to defend freedom and democracy. We share the same expectations, he said, and are walking the right path amid today’s complex international circumstances.  President Arévalo stated that Taiwan and Guatemala are true democratic nations, where the government’s goal is to serve all the people. He noted that this is far from easy under current circumstances, as many authoritarian regimes use their long-term hold on power to safeguard the interests of select groups and neglect the wellbeing of the population as a whole. President Arévalo said that last week Guatemala commemorated the 40th anniversary of its constitution, which was enacted in 1985 and is Guatemala’s ultimate guide, setting the foundation for democracy and clearly outlining the path ahead. He said that over the past 40 years, Guatemala has continued to follow the democratic blueprint established by the constitution and end the civil war so that the nation could make the transition to real democracy. Although more than a few ambitious people have attempted to destroy that process from within, he noted, the people of Guatemala have never given up the pursuit of democracy as an ideal. President Arévalo stated that our two sides’ coming together here is due to such shared values as freedom and democracy as well as the idea of serving all the people. He underlined that the governments of both countries will continue to work hard and provide mutual support to smooth out each other’s path of democracy, freedom, and justice. President Arévalo emphasized that the government of Guatemala will always be Taiwan’s ally, and that he firmly believes Taiwan is Guatemala’s most reliable partner on the path of democracy and economic prosperity and development. The president said he hopes this visit will be the first step towards setting a new course for the governments and peoples of both countries. Also in attendance at the banquet were Guatemala Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Ramiro Martínez, Minister of the Economy Gabriela García, and Guatemala Ambassador Luis Raúl Estévez López.  

    Details
    2025-05-20
    President Lai interviewed by Nippon Television and Yomiuri TV
    In a recent interview on Nippon Television’s news zero program, President Lai Ching-te responded to questions from host Mr. Sakurai Sho and Yomiuri TV Shanghai Bureau Chief Watanabe Masayo on topics including reflections on his first year in office, cross-strait relations, China’s military threats, Taiwan-United States relations, and Taiwan-Japan relations. The interview was broadcast on the evening of May 19. During the interview, President Lai stated that China intends to change the world’s rules-based international order, and that if Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted. Therefore, he said, Taiwan will strengthen its national defense, prevent war by preparing for war, and achieve the goal of peace. The president also noted that Taiwan’s purpose for developing drones is based on national security and industrial needs, and that Taiwan hopes to collaborate with Japan. He then reiterated that China’s threats are an international problem, and expressed hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war. Following is the text of the questions and the president’s responses: Q: How do you feel as you are about to round out your first year in office? President Lai: When I was young, I was determined to practice medicine and save lives. When I left medicine to go into politics, I was determined to transform Taiwan. And when I was sworn in as president on May 20 last year, I was determined to strengthen the nation. Time flies, and it has already been a year. Although the process has been very challenging, I am deeply honored to be a part of it. I am also profoundly grateful to our citizens for allowing me the opportunity to give back to our country. The future will certainly be full of more challenges, but I will do everything I can to unite the people and continue strengthening the nation. That is how I am feeling now. Q: We are now coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and over this period, we have often heard that conflict between Taiwan and the mainland is imminent. Do you personally believe that a cross-strait conflict could happen? President Lai: The international community is very much aware that China intends to replace the US and change the world’s rules-based international order, and annexing Taiwan is just the first step. So, as China’s military power grows stronger, some members of the international community are naturally on edge about whether a cross-strait conflict will break out. The international community must certainly do everything in its power to avoid a conflict in the Taiwan Strait; there is too great a cost. Besides causing direct disasters to both Taiwan and China, the impact on the global economy would be even greater, with estimated losses of US$10 trillion from war alone – that is roughly 10 percent of the global GDP. Additionally, 20 percent of global shipping passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, so if a conflict breaks out in the strait, other countries including Japan and Korea would suffer a grave impact. For Japan and Korea, a quarter of external transit passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, and a third of the various energy resources and minerals shipped back from other countries pass through said areas. If Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted, and therefore conflict in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. Such a conflict is indeed avoidable. I am very thankful to Prime Minister of Japan Ishiba Shigeru and former Prime Ministers Abe Shinzo, Suga Yoshihide, and Kishida Fumio, as well as US President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden, and the other G7 leaders, for continuing to emphasize at international venues that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are essential components for global security and prosperity. When everyone in the global democratic community works together, stacking up enough strength to make China’s objectives unattainable or to make the cost of invading Taiwan too high for it to bear, a conflict in the strait can naturally be avoided. Q: As you said, President Lai, maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is also very important for other countries. How can war be avoided? What sort of countermeasures is Taiwan prepared to take to prevent war? President Lai: As Mr. Sakurai mentioned earlier, we are coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. There are many lessons we can take from that war. First is that peace is priceless, and war has no winners. From the tragedies of WWII, there are lessons that humanity should learn. We must pursue peace, and not start wars blindly, as that would be a major disaster for humanity. In other words, we must be determined to safeguard peace. The second lesson is that we cannot be complacent toward authoritarian powers. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They will keep growing, and eventually, not only will peace be unattainable, but war will be inevitable. The third lesson is why WWII ended: It ended because different groups joined together in solidarity. Taiwan, Japan, and the Indo-Pacific region are all directly subjected to China’s threats, so we hope to be able to join together in cooperation. This is why we proposed the Four Pillars of Peace action plan. First, we will strengthen our national defense. Second, we will strengthen economic resilience. Third is standing shoulder to shoulder with the democratic community to demonstrate the strength of deterrence. Fourth is that as long as China treats Taiwan with parity and dignity, Taiwan is willing to conduct exchanges and cooperate with China, and seek peace and mutual prosperity. These four pillars can help us avoid war and achieve peace. That is to say, Taiwan hopes to achieve peace through strength, prevent war by preparing for war, keeping war from happening and pursuing the goal of peace. Q: Regarding drones, everyone knows that recently, Taiwan has been actively researching, developing, and introducing drones. Why do you need to actively research, develop, and introduce new drones at this time? President Lai: This is for two purposes. The first is to meet national security needs. The second is to meet industrial development needs. Because Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines are all part of the first island chain, and we are all democratic nations, we cannot be like an authoritarian country like China, which has an unlimited national defense budget. In this kind of situation, island nations such as Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines should leverage their own technologies to develop national defense methods that are asymmetric and utilize unmanned vehicles. In particular, from the Russo-Ukrainian War, we see that Ukraine has successfully utilized unmanned vehicles to protect itself and prevent Russia from unlimited invasion. In other words, the Russo-Ukrainian War has already proven the importance of drones. Therefore, the first purpose of developing drones is based on national security needs. Second, the world has already entered the era of smart technology. Whether generative, agentic, or physical, AI will continue to develop. In the future, cars and ships will also evolve into unmanned vehicles and unmanned boats, and there will be unmanned factories. Drones will even be able to assist with postal deliveries, or services like Uber, Uber Eats, and foodpanda, or agricultural irrigation and pesticide spraying. Therefore, in the future era of comprehensive smart technology, developing unmanned vehicles is a necessity. Taiwan, based on industrial needs, is actively planning the development of drones and unmanned vehicles. I would like to take this opportunity to express Taiwan’s hope to collaborate with Japan in the unmanned vehicle industry. Just as we do in the semiconductor industry, where Japan has raw materials, equipment, and technology, and Taiwan has wafer manufacturing, our two countries can cooperate. Japan is a technological power, and Taiwan also has significant technological strengths. If Taiwan and Japan work together, we will not only be able to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and security in the Indo-Pacific region, but it will also be very helpful for the industrial development of both countries. Q: The drones you just described probably include examples from the Russo-Ukrainian War. Taiwan and China are separated by the Taiwan Strait. Do our drones need to have cross-sea flight capabilities? President Lai: Taiwan does not intend to counterattack the mainland, and does not intend to invade any country. Taiwan’s drones are meant to protect our own nation and territory. Q: Former President Biden previously stated that US forces would assist Taiwan’s defense in the event of an attack. President Trump, however, has yet to clearly state that the US would help defend Taiwan. Do you think that in such an event, the US would help defend Taiwan? Or is Taiwan now trying to persuade the US? President Lai: Former President Biden and President Trump have answered questions from reporters. Although their responses were different, strong cooperation with Taiwan under the Biden administration has continued under the Trump administration; there has been no change. During President Trump’s first term, cooperation with Taiwan was broader and deeper compared to former President Barack Obama’s terms. After former President Biden took office, cooperation with Taiwan increased compared to President Trump’s first term. Now, during President Trump’s second term, cooperation with Taiwan is even greater than under former President Biden. Taiwan-US cooperation continues to grow stronger, and has not changed just because President Trump and former President Biden gave different responses to reporters. Furthermore, the Trump administration publicly stated that in the future, the US will shift its strategic focus from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The US secretary of defense even publicly stated that the primary mission of the US is to prevent China from invading Taiwan, maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific, and thus maintain world peace. There is a saying in Taiwan that goes, “Help comes most to those who help themselves.” Before asking friends and allies for assistance in facing threats from China, Taiwan must first be determined and prepared to defend itself. This is Taiwan’s principle, and we are working in this direction, making all the necessary preparations to safeguard the nation. Q: I would like to ask you a question about Taiwan-Japan relations. After the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, you made an appeal to give Japan a great deal of assistance and care. In particular, you visited Sendai to offer condolences. Later, you also expressed condolences and concern after the earthquakes in Aomori and Kumamoto. What are your expectations for future Taiwan-Japan exchanges and development? President Lai: I come from Tainan, and my constituency is in Tainan. Tainan has very deep ties with Japan, and of course, Taiwan also has deep ties with Japan. However, among Taiwan’s 22 counties and cities, Tainan has the deepest relationship with Japan. I sincerely hope that both of you and your teams will have an opportunity to visit Tainan. I will introduce Tainan’s scenery, including architecture from the era of Japanese rule, Tainan’s cuisine, and unique aspects of Tainan society, and you can also see lifestyles and culture from the Showa era.  The Wushantou Reservoir in Tainan was completed by engineer Mr. Hatta Yoichi from Kanazawa, Japan and the team he led to Tainan after he graduated from then-Tokyo Imperial University. It has nearly a century of history and is still in use today. This reservoir, along with the 16,000-km-long Chianan Canal, transformed the 150,000-hectare Chianan Plain into Taiwan’s premier rice-growing area. It was that foundation in agriculture that enabled Taiwan to develop industry and the technology sector of today. The reservoir continues to supply water to Tainan Science Park. It is used by residents of Tainan, the agricultural sector, and industry, and even the technology sector in Xinshi Industrial Park, as well as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Because of this, the people of Tainan are deeply grateful for Mr. Hatta and very friendly toward the people of Japan. A major earthquake, the largest in 50 years, struck Tainan on February 6, 2016, resulting in significant casualties. As mayor of Tainan at the time, I was extremely grateful to then-Prime Minister Abe, who sent five Japanese officials to the disaster site in Tainan the day after the earthquake. They were very thoughtful and asked what kind of assistance we needed from the Japanese government. They offered to provide help based on what we needed. I was deeply moved, as former Prime Minister Abe showed such care, going beyond the formality of just sending supplies that we may or may not have actually needed. Instead, the officials asked what we needed and then provided assistance based on those needs, which really moved me. Similarly, when the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 or the later Kumamoto earthquakes struck, the people of Tainan, under my leadership, naturally and dutifully expressed their support. Even earlier, when central Taiwan was hit by a major earthquake in 1999, Japan was the first country to deploy a rescue team to the disaster area. On February 6, 2018, after a major earthquake in Hualien, former Prime Minister Abe appeared in a video holding up a message of encouragement he had written in calligraphy saying “Remain strong, Taiwan.” All of Taiwan was deeply moved. Over the years, Taiwan and Japan have supported each other when earthquakes struck, and have forged bonds that are family-like, not just neighborly. This is truly valuable. In the future, I hope Taiwan and Japan can be like brothers, and that the peoples of Taiwan and Japan can treat one another like family. If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem; if Japan has a problem, then Taiwan has a problem. By caring for and helping each other, we can face various challenges and difficulties, and pursue a brighter future. Q: President Lai, you just used the phrase “If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem.” In the event that China attempts to invade Taiwan by force, what kind of response measures would you hope the US military and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces take? President Lai: As I just mentioned, annexing Taiwan is only China’s first step. Its ultimate objective is to change the rules-based international order. That being the case, China’s threats are an international problem. So, I would very much hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war – prevention, after all, is more important than cure.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • Israel interested in ties with Syria and Lebanon, foreign minister says

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Israel interested in ties with Syria and Lebanon, foreign minister says

    Israel is interested in establishing official diplomatic ties with old foes Syria and Lebanon, but will not negotiate the fate of the Golan Heights in any peace agreement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said in a press conference on Monday.

    Relations in the region were thrown into uncertainty by more than a year of fighting between Israel and Lebanon from late 2023, in parallel to the war in Gaza, and by the overthrow of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.

    Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing most of the area from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.

    According to a Reuters report published in May, Israel and Syria’s new Islamist rulers were in direct contact and had held face-to-face meetings aimed at calming tensions and preventing conflict in the border region between the enemies.

    U.S. President Donald Trump met Syria’s president in Saudi Arabia in the same month and urged him to normalise ties with Israel, making a surprise announcement that the U.S. would lift all sanctions on the Islamist-led government.

    Soon after Syria’s Assad was toppled, Israeli troops moved into a demilitarised zone inside Syria, including the Syrian side of strategic Mount Hermon, which overlooks Damascus.

    (Reuters)

  • Israel steps up Gaza bombardment ahead of White House talks on ceasefire

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Palestinians in northern Gaza reported one of the worst nights of Israeli bombardment in weeks after the military issued mass evacuation orders on Monday, while Israeli officials were due in Washington for a new ceasefire push by the Trump administration.

    A day after U.S. President Donald Trump urged an end to the 20-month-old war, a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected at the White House for talks on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran, and possible wider regional diplomatic deals.

    But on the ground in the Palestinian enclave there was no sign of fighting letting up.

    “Explosions never stopped; they bombed schools and homes. It felt like earthquakes,” said Salah, 60, a father of five children, from Gaza City. “In the news we hear a ceasefire is near, on the ground we see death and we hear explosions.”

    Israeli tanks pushed into the eastern areas of Zeitoun suburb in Gaza City and shelled several areas in the north, while aircraft bombed at least four schools after ordering hundreds of families sheltering inside to leave, residents said.

    At least 25 people were killed in Israeli strikes on Monday, health authorities said, including 10 people killed in Zeitoun.

    There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military, which says Palestinian militants embed among civilians. The militant groups deny this.

    The heavy bombardment followed new evacuation orders to vast areas in the north, where Israeli forces had operated before and left behind wide-scale destruction. The military ordered people there to head south, saying that it planned to fight Hamas militants operating in northern Gaza, including in the heart of Gaza City.

    NEXT STEPS

    A day after Trump called to “Make the deal in Gaza, get the hostages back”, Israel’s strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer, a confidant of Netanyahu’s, was expected on Monday at the White House for talks on Iran and Gaza, an Israeli official said.

    In Israel, Netanyahu’s security cabinet was expected to convene to discuss the next steps in Gaza.

    On Friday, Israel’s military chief said the present ground operation was close to having achieved its goals, and on Sunday, Netanyahu said new opportunities had opened up for recovering the hostages, 20 of whom are believed to still be alive.

    Palestinian and Egyptian sources with knowledge of the latest ceasefire efforts said that mediators Qatar and Egypt have stepped up their contacts with the two warring sides, but that no date has been set yet for a new round of truce talks.

    A Hamas official said that progress depends on Israel changing its position and agreeing to end the war and withdraw from Gaza. Israel says it can end the war only when Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms.

    The war began when Hamas fighters stormed in to Israel on October 7 2023, killed 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took 251 hostages back to Gaza in a surprise attack that led to Israel’s single deadliest day.

    Israel’s subsequent military assault has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to the Gaza health ministry, has displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population and plunged the enclave into a humanitarian crisis.

    More than 80% of the territory is now an Israeli-militarized zone or under displacement orders, according to the United Nations.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: AI tools collect and store data about you from all your devices – here’s how to be aware of what you’re revealing

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christopher Ramezan, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity, West Virginia University

    AI tools gather information about you from many types of devices, including smartphones. Prostock-Studio/Getty Images

    Like it or not, artificial intelligence has become part of daily life. Many devices – including electric razors and toothbrushes – have become “AI-powered,” using machine learning algorithms to track how a person uses the device, how the device is working in real time, and provide feedback. From asking questions to an AI assistant like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to monitoring a daily fitness routine with a smartwatch, many people use an AI system or tool every day.

    While AI tools and technologies can make life easier, they also raise important questions about data privacy. These systems often collect large amounts of data, sometimes without people even realizing their data is being collected. The information can then be used to identify personal habits and preferences, and even predict future behaviors by drawing inferences from the aggregated data.

    As an assistant professor of cybersecurity at West Virginia University, I study how emerging technologies and various types of AI systems manage personal data and how we can build more secure, privacy-preserving systems for the future.

    Generative AI software uses large amounts of training data to create new content such as text or images. Predictive AI uses data to forecast outcomes based on past behavior, such as how likely you are to hit your daily step goal, or what movies you may want to watch. Both types can be used to gather information about you.




    Read more:
    How illicit markets fueled by data breaches sell your personal information to criminals


    How AI tools collect data

    Generative AI assistants such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini collect all the information users type into a chat box. Every question, response and prompt that users enter is recorded, stored and analyzed to improve the AI model.

    OpenAI’s privacy policy informs users that “we may use content you provide us to improve our Services, for example to train the models that power ChatGPT.” Even though OpenAI allows you to opt out of content use for model training, it still collects and retains your personal data. Although some companies promise that they anonymize this data, meaning they store it without naming the person who provided it, there is always a risk of data being reidentified.

    ChatGPT stores and analyzes everything you type into a prompt screen.
    Screenshot by Christopher Ramezan, CC BY-ND

    Predictive AI

    Beyond generative AI assistants, social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok continuously gather data on their users to train predictive AI models. Every post, photo, video, like, share and comment, including the amount of time people spend looking at each of these, is collected as data points that are used to build digital data profiles for each person who uses the service.

    The profiles can be used to refine the social media platform’s AI recommender systems. They can also be sold to data brokers, who sell a person’s data to other companies to, for instance, help develop targeted advertisements that align with that person’s interests.

    Many social media companies also track users across websites and applications by putting cookies and embedded tracking pixels on their computers. Cookies are small files that store information about who you are and what you clicked on while browsing a website.

    One of the most common uses of cookies is in digital shopping carts: When you place an item in your cart, leave the website and return later, the item will still be in your cart because the cookie stored that information. Tracking pixels are invisible images or snippets of code embedded in websites that notify companies of your activity when you visit their page. This helps them track your behavior across the internet.

    This is why users often see or hear advertisements that are related to their browsing and shopping habits on many of the unrelated websites they browse, and even when they are using different devices, including computers, phones and smart speakers. One study found that some websites can store over 300 tracking cookies on your computer or mobile phone.

    Here’s how websites you browse can track you using cookies or tracking pixels.

    Data privacy controls – and limitations

    Like generative AI platforms, social media platforms offer privacy settings and opt-outs, but these give people limited control over how their personal data is aggregated and monetized. As media theorist Douglas Rushkoff argued in 2011, if the service is free, you are the product.

    Many tools that include AI don’t require a person to take any direct action for the tool to collect data about that person. Smart devices such as home speakers, fitness trackers and watches continually gather information through biometric sensors, voice recognition and location tracking. Smart home speakers continually listen for the command to activate or “wake up” the device. As the device is listening for this word, it picks up all the conversations happening around it, even though it does not seem to be active.

    Some companies claim that voice data is only stored when the wake word – what you say to wake up the device – is detected. However, people have raised concerns about accidental recordings, especially because these devices are often connected to cloud services, which allow voice data to be stored, synced and shared across multiple devices such as your phone, smart speaker and tablet.

    If the company allows, it’s also possible for this data to be accessed by third parties, such as advertisers, data analytics firms or a law enforcement agency with a warrant.

    Privacy rollbacks

    This potential for third-party access also applies to smartwatches and fitness trackers, which monitor health metrics and user activity patterns. Companies that produce wearable fitness devices are not considered “covered entities” and so are not bound by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act. This means that they are legally allowed to sell health- and location-related data collected from their users.

    Concerns about HIPAA data arose in 2018, when Strava, a fitness company released a global heat map of user’s exercise routes. In doing so, it accidentally revealed sensitive military locations across the globe through highlighting the exercise routes of military personnel.

    Smart speakers can collect information even when they’re sleeping.
    recep-bg/Getty Images

    The Trump administration has tapped Palantir, a company that specializes in using AI for data analytics, to collate and analyze data about Americans. Meanwhile, Palantir has announced a partnership with a company that runs self-checkout systems.

    Such partnerships can expand corporate and government reach into everyday consumer behavior. This one could be used to create detailed personal profiles on Americans by linking their consumer habits with other personal data. This raises concerns about increased surveillance and loss of anonymity. It could allow citizens to be tracked and analyzed across multiple aspects of their lives without their knowledge or consent.

    Some smart device companies are also rolling back privacy protections instead of strengthening them. Amazon recently announced that starting on March 28, 2025, all voice recordings from Amazon Echo devices would be sent to Amazon’s cloud by default, and users will no longer have the option to turn this function off. This is different from previous settings, which allowed users to limit private data collection.

    Changes like these raise concerns about how much control consumers have over their own data when using smart devices. Many privacy experts consider cloud storage of voice recordings a form of data collection, especially when used to improve algorithms or build user profiles, which has implications for data privacy laws designed to protect online privacy.

    Implications for data privacy

    All of this brings up serious privacy concerns for people and governments on how AI tools collect, store, use and transmit data. The biggest concern is transparency. People don’t know what data is being collected, how the data is being used, and who has access to that data.

    Companies tend to use complicated privacy policies filled with technical jargon to make it difficult for people to understand the terms of a service that they agree to. People also tend not to read terms of service documents. One study found that people averaged 73 seconds reading a terms of service document that had an average read time of 29-32 minutes.

    Data collected by AI tools may initially reside with a company that you trust, but can easily be sold and given to a company that you don’t trust.

    AI tools, the companies in charge of them and the companies that have access to the data they collect can also be subject to cyberattacks and data breaches that can reveal sensitive personal information. These attacks can by carried out by cybercriminals who are in it for the money, or by so-called advanced persistent threats, which are typically nation/state- sponsored attackers who gain access to networks and systems and remain there undetected, collecting information and personal data to eventually cause disruption or harm.

    While laws and regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union and the California Consumer Privacy Act aim to safeguard user data, AI development and use have often outpaced the legislative process. The laws are still catching up on AI and data privacy. For now, you should assume any AI-powered device or platform is collecting data on your inputs, behaviors and patterns.

    Using AI tools

    Although AI tools collect people’s data, and the way this accumulation of data affects people’s data privacy is concerning, the tools can also be useful. AI-powered applications can streamline workflows, automate repetitive tasks and provide valuable insights.

    But it’s crucial to approach these tools with awareness and caution.

    When using a generative AI platform that gives you answers to questions you type in a prompt, don’t include any personally identifiable information, including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers or home addresses. At the workplace, don’t include trade secrets or classified information. In general, don’t put anything into a prompt that you wouldn’t feel comfortable revealing to the public or seeing on a billboard. Remember, once you hit enter on the prompt, you’ve lost control of that information.

    Remember that devices which are turned on are always listening – even if they’re asleep. If you use smart home or embedded devices, turn them off when you need to have a private conversation. A device that’s asleep looks inactive, but it is still powered on and listening for a wake word or signal. Unplugging a device or removing its batteries is a good way of making sure the device is truly off.

    Finally, be aware of the terms of service and data collection policies of the devices and platforms that you are using. You might be surprised by what you’ve already agreed to.

    This article is part of a series on data privacy that explores who collects your data, what and how they collect, who sells and buys your data, what they all do with it, and what you can do about it.

    The Conversation will be hosting a free webinar on practical and safe use of AI with our tech editor and an AI expert on June 24 at 2pm ET/11am PT. Sign up to get your questions answered.

    Christopher Ramezan receives funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission.

    ref. AI tools collect and store data about you from all your devices – here’s how to be aware of what you’re revealing – https://theconversation.com/ai-tools-collect-and-store-data-about-you-from-all-your-devices-heres-how-to-be-aware-of-what-youre-revealing-251693

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The US’s asbestos U-turn: why the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering its ban

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Allen Haddrell, Research Fellow, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol

    Once asbestos enters the lungs, it doesn’t leave. Its sharp, microscopic fibres scar tissues, trigger inflammation and can cause deadly diseases like mesothelioma, lung cancer and laryngeal cancer. That’s why over 60 countries have banned it – and why the US mostly phased it out.

    In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to ban all industrial uses. But on June 17, the agency said it would revisit the Biden‑era ban.

    Asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral made of thin, fibrous crystals. It is fire-resistant, durable, lightweight, flexible and insulating. This unique blend of properties resulted in its widespread use over millennia. Indeed, asbestos fibres have been found woven into pottery and textiles from 2500BC.

    Its resistance to friction and electricity made it desirable during the Industrial Revolution for use in boilers and steam engines. In the 20th century, the useful mix of physical properties resulted in asbestos becoming ubiquitous in the construction and automotive industries, peaking in the 1970s.

    Although the properties of asbestos at the macroscopic level are beneficial, at the microscopic level it’s anything but. When dust from asbestos (0.1 to tens of microns) is inhaled, it deposits throughout the respiratory system, causing inflammation and scarring of lung tissue.

    While the adverse health effects associated with asbestos exposure were observed in ancient Rome, it wasn’t until the 20th century that the full extent of harm was realised. Specifically, asbestos exposure is linked to numerous respiratory diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

    It took a long time for people to understand how dangerous asbestos really is. The main reason is that the illnesses it causes often don’t show up for decades. This long delay makes it very hard to link exposure to the disease it causes.

    Making this connection is also made more difficult when those most familiar with it, including manufacturers such as Johns-Manville and industry groups such as the Asbestos Information Association (AIA) were actively denying the connection, and suppressing reports demonstrating the link.

    By the 1970s, the volume of evidence showing the harms of asbestos had become overwhelming. The AIA evolved its argument, claiming that the practices in the industry had changed and that the risks were from a bygone era “when the dust control equipment in use was not as efficient or as sophisticated”. Although the association never explicitly admitted that asbestos caused harm.

    Since it can take decades for the health effects of asbestos exposure to fully manifest, the full extent of the damage caused by asbestos exposure from the 1970s and onward, an era where the dust control equipment was claimed to be “efficient and sophisticated”.

    The Asbestos Information Association, once a key industry group promoting the safe use of asbestos, quietly disbanded in the early 2000s as litigation and public health evidence mounted.

    History of asbestos.

    What type of asbestos is the US considering unbanning?

    The EPA is considering unbanning chrysotile asbestos, also called white asbestos. This type of asbestos is often used in things like brake pads, gaskets and industrial equipment. In March 2024 the EPA banned it, stopping new uses and imports. The ban also included a gradual phase-out plan.

    Who is pushing for the unbanning and why now?

    From the outset, industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) raised concerns about the EPA’s ban, warning that “a prohibition of an estimated 52% of annual production volume … that rapidly, could have substantial supply chain impacts”, particularly if manufacturers were bound by existing contracts or chose to cease production entirely.

    As for why now, one factor is the re-election of Donald Trump, who put his views on record some time ago downplaying the dangers of asbestos. In 1997, he wrote in his book Trump: The Art of the Comeback that asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied”. A point not supported by the best available science.

    Why is the EPA considering unbanning it?

    According to former ACC employee and current senior official in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Lynn Ann Dekleva, they want to consider if the ban “went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures — such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures – would eliminate the unreasonable risk”.

    What industries still want to use this type of asbestos?

    The largest push appears to be coming from the chlor-alkali industry where they use it to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide.

    Is this type of asbestos dangerous?

    Yes. There is no safe level of exposure.

    How many people could this affect?

    Each year, around 40,000 deaths in the US and about 5,000 in the UK are attributed to asbestos exposure. If lifted, it’s possible that the number in the US could increase over the coming decades while those in the UK will continue to fall.

    Does this mean asbestos could make a comeback elsewhere too?

    Unlikely. While global consensus moves toward stricter regulation, the US now finds itself at a crossroads, between scientific evidence and pressure from industry.

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

    ref. The US’s asbestos U-turn: why the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering its ban – https://theconversation.com/the-uss-asbestos-u-turn-why-the-environmental-protection-agency-is-reconsidering-its-ban-259597

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Nato leaders pledge increased defence spending – is this really the price for peace and prosperity?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damian Tobin, Lecturer in International Business, University College Cork

    Kev Gregory / Shutterstock

    Nato leaders agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries’ economic output by 2035 at a summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25. US president Donald Trump, who has spent months saying Europe should take more responsibility for its own security, described the pledge as “a monumental win for the US” and a “big win” for western civilisation.

    A few months earlier, in March, the EU also launched its long-awaited white paper on defence. This provides a blueprint for improving Europe’s readiness to respond to military threats by 2030. On top of the fact that global military spending has surged in the past ten years, these developments indicate that the world’s largest nations now prioritise military over economic diplomacy.

    One of the main ideas behind military diplomacy is that increased defence spending acts as a deterrent to future conflicts. The nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union during the cold war provides some support for this argument. The prospect of mutual destruction was so great that it acted as a deterrent to nuclear war.

    But is increased defence spending really the necessary price for greater peace and prosperity? My research on interactions between firms, geopolitics and the political economy of defence indicates that this is no “big win” for society or economic productivity.

    A convoy of naval ships in the Pacific Ocean.
    Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

    Deterrence requires a level of brinkmanship if it is to work. But as American economist Thomas Schelling pointed out in his 1960 book, The Strategy of Conflict, the problem with brinkmanship is that it relies on deliberately allowing a situation to get somewhat out of hand, with the intention of forcing the other party to back down.

    This can result in strategic blunders. Efforts by the former US president, Richard Nixon, to engineer such a situation in 1969 by threatening to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam failed to gain credibility with the Soviets and North Vietnamese. This undoubtedly helped convince North Vietnam that it could survive the war and locked the US into a much longer conflict.

    The recent confrontation between Israel and Iran also showed that brinkmanship can produce situations where there are significant casualties and no clear long-term resolution. Iran has long recognised that keeping itself near the threshold of nuclear weapons capability would offer a deterrent against external threats.

    But this strategy created many opportunities for error. Israel claimed that Iran was too close to building a nuclear weapon and, alongside the US, launched strikes that they say inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear enrichment capabilities and military leadership.




    Read more:
    Israeli aggression and Iranian nuclear brinkmanship made this confrontation all but inevitable


    Beyond this, it is unclear just how much military spending is needed to deter aggression. Nato allies have now committed to a big increase in defence spending – thanks largely to pressure from Trump.

    However, even Nato’s previous objective that countries commit 2% of their national income to defence has proved unattractive for many governments. This has even been the case in post-conflict areas such as the Balkans, where Nato has had a heavy involvement.

    A costly alternative

    Boosting defence spending falls short on delivering economic prosperity, too. Analysing US military spending in the Vietnam war, economist Les Fishman noted in 1967 that military diplomacy was far more costly than its economic equivalent.

    Military production requires continuously high levels of investment to maintain technological progress. This sucks public investment from other parts of the economy.

    That’s not to say defence spending has an entirely negative effect on the economy. Studies have found evidence that US federal funding of military research and development results in significant increases in private business research in sectors such as chemicals and aerospace.

    And, over the past decade, the value of venture capital deals in the US defence industry has grown 18-fold. This far outstrips sectors such as energy and healthcare. But such investment in military-related research and development is also often acknowledged as inefficient and not necessarily the best way to boost productivity.

    Fishman pointed out that the Marshall Plan, which provided substantial economic aid to western Europe after the second world war, had a far higher return for the US.

    Economic stabilisation kept the Soviet Union at bay for relatively small outlay compared to the Vietnam war, where casualties were of such a magnitude that it made any cost-benefit analysis meaningless.

    The Vietnam war proved extremely costly for the US.
    Department of the Army Special Photo Office / Wikimedia Commons

    Boosting defence spending also represents a lost opportunity to invest in more socially beneficial projects. This will worsen the climate crisis.

    According to a study shared with the Guardian in May, the initial rearmament planned by Nato alone could have increased greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 million tonnes a year. The expanded defence commitment will only increase this further.

    Unlike defence, where the repurposing of civilian technologies for military uses carries a cost to society, many green investments involve beneficial substitutions that reduce the cost of a green transition.

    The substitution of conventional fossil fuel heating and transport systems with heat pumps and electric vehicles, for example, is far more socially beneficial than repurposing civilian satellites for missile systems.

    A final point is that military diplomacy is itself geopolitically destabilising. US efforts to contain communism in Asia during the 1950s and 1960s are a good example. Not only did such efforts see China align its trade with other communist states, it also ensured that self-reliance became a cornerstone of China’s economic strategy.

    This all suggests that the current drive for deterrence-based military spending carries with it a huge cost for society that could ultimately prove economically wasteful and geopolitically destabilising.

    Damian Tobin 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. Nato leaders pledge increased defence spending – is this really the price for peace and prosperity? – https://theconversation.com/nato-leaders-pledge-increased-defence-spending-is-this-really-the-price-for-peace-and-prosperity-255989

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Nato leaders pledge increased defence spending – is this really the price for peace and prosperity?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damian Tobin, Lecturer in International Business, University College Cork

    Kev Gregory / Shutterstock

    Nato leaders agreed to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their countries’ economic output by 2035 at a summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25. US president Donald Trump, who has spent months saying Europe should take more responsibility for its own security, described the pledge as “a monumental win for the US” and a “big win” for western civilisation.

    A few months earlier, in March, the EU also launched its long-awaited white paper on defence. This provides a blueprint for improving Europe’s readiness to respond to military threats by 2030. On top of the fact that global military spending has surged in the past ten years, these developments indicate that the world’s largest nations now prioritise military over economic diplomacy.

    One of the main ideas behind military diplomacy is that increased defence spending acts as a deterrent to future conflicts. The nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union during the cold war provides some support for this argument. The prospect of mutual destruction was so great that it acted as a deterrent to nuclear war.

    But is increased defence spending really the necessary price for greater peace and prosperity? My research on interactions between firms, geopolitics and the political economy of defence indicates that this is no “big win” for society or economic productivity.

    A convoy of naval ships in the Pacific Ocean.
    Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

    Deterrence requires a level of brinkmanship if it is to work. But as American economist Thomas Schelling pointed out in his 1960 book, The Strategy of Conflict, the problem with brinkmanship is that it relies on deliberately allowing a situation to get somewhat out of hand, with the intention of forcing the other party to back down.

    This can result in strategic blunders. Efforts by the former US president, Richard Nixon, to engineer such a situation in 1969 by threatening to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam failed to gain credibility with the Soviets and North Vietnamese. This undoubtedly helped convince North Vietnam that it could survive the war and locked the US into a much longer conflict.

    The recent confrontation between Israel and Iran also showed that brinkmanship can produce situations where there are significant casualties and no clear long-term resolution. Iran has long recognised that keeping itself near the threshold of nuclear weapons capability would offer a deterrent against external threats.

    But this strategy created many opportunities for error. Israel claimed that Iran was too close to building a nuclear weapon and, alongside the US, launched strikes that they say inflicted significant damage on Iranian nuclear enrichment capabilities and military leadership.




    Read more:
    Israeli aggression and Iranian nuclear brinkmanship made this confrontation all but inevitable


    Beyond this, it is unclear just how much military spending is needed to deter aggression. Nato allies have now committed to a big increase in defence spending – thanks largely to pressure from Trump.

    However, even Nato’s previous objective that countries commit 2% of their national income to defence has proved unattractive for many governments. This has even been the case in post-conflict areas such as the Balkans, where Nato has had a heavy involvement.

    A costly alternative

    Boosting defence spending falls short on delivering economic prosperity, too. Analysing US military spending in the Vietnam war, economist Les Fishman noted in 1967 that military diplomacy was far more costly than its economic equivalent.

    Military production requires continuously high levels of investment to maintain technological progress. This sucks public investment from other parts of the economy.

    That’s not to say defence spending has an entirely negative effect on the economy. Studies have found evidence that US federal funding of military research and development results in significant increases in private business research in sectors such as chemicals and aerospace.

    And, over the past decade, the value of venture capital deals in the US defence industry has grown 18-fold. This far outstrips sectors such as energy and healthcare. But such investment in military-related research and development is also often acknowledged as inefficient and not necessarily the best way to boost productivity.

    Fishman pointed out that the Marshall Plan, which provided substantial economic aid to western Europe after the second world war, had a far higher return for the US.

    Economic stabilisation kept the Soviet Union at bay for relatively small outlay compared to the Vietnam war, where casualties were of such a magnitude that it made any cost-benefit analysis meaningless.

    The Vietnam war proved extremely costly for the US.
    Department of the Army Special Photo Office / Wikimedia Commons

    Boosting defence spending also represents a lost opportunity to invest in more socially beneficial projects. This will worsen the climate crisis.

    According to a study shared with the Guardian in May, the initial rearmament planned by Nato alone could have increased greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 million tonnes a year. The expanded defence commitment will only increase this further.

    Unlike defence, where the repurposing of civilian technologies for military uses carries a cost to society, many green investments involve beneficial substitutions that reduce the cost of a green transition.

    The substitution of conventional fossil fuel heating and transport systems with heat pumps and electric vehicles, for example, is far more socially beneficial than repurposing civilian satellites for missile systems.

    A final point is that military diplomacy is itself geopolitically destabilising. US efforts to contain communism in Asia during the 1950s and 1960s are a good example. Not only did such efforts see China align its trade with other communist states, it also ensured that self-reliance became a cornerstone of China’s economic strategy.

    This all suggests that the current drive for deterrence-based military spending carries with it a huge cost for society that could ultimately prove economically wasteful and geopolitically destabilising.

    Damian Tobin 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. Nato leaders pledge increased defence spending – is this really the price for peace and prosperity? – https://theconversation.com/nato-leaders-pledge-increased-defence-spending-is-this-really-the-price-for-peace-and-prosperity-255989

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By John R. Blosnich, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Southern California

    As part of the Trump administration’s efforts aimed at stopping diversity, equity and inclusion, the government has been restricting how it monitors public health. Along with cuts to federally funded research, the administration has targeted public health efforts to gather information about sexual orientation and gender identity.

    In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world’s largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths.

    For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health?

    Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole.

    Clinicians are concerned about the purging of health data that is essential to patient care.

    Alarms and benchmarks

    Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person’s genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people’s everyday lives are critical to understanding their health.

    Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel.

    Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed.

    Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention.

    My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim.

    Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren’t LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding.

    Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased.

    Lost data costs everyone

    Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase.

    There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger.

    President Donald Trump’s targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s more than the entire population of Florida.

    LGBTQ+ people live in every state in the country, where they work as teachers, executives, janitors, nurses, mechanics, artists and every other profession or role that help sustain American communities. LGBTQ+ people are someone’s family members, and they are raising families of their own. LGBTQ+ people also pay taxes to the government, which are partly spent on monitoring the nation’s health.

    Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help.

    John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.

    ref. Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed – https://theconversation.com/data-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-is-critical-to-public-health-without-it-health-crises-continue-unnoticed-255380

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Work requirements are better at blocking benefits for low-income people than they are at helping those folks find jobs

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Anne Whitesell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Miami University

    Meeting work requirements to get government benefits can lead to burdensome paperwork. JackF/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Republican lawmakers have been battling over a bill that includes massive tax and spending cuts. Much of their disagreement has been over provisions intended to reduce the cost of Medicaid.

    The popular health insurance program, which is funded by both the federal and state governments, covers about 78.5 million low-income and disabled people – more than 1 in 5 Americans.

    On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly approved the tax, spending and immigration bill. The legislation, which passed without any support from Democrats, is designed to reduce federal Medicaid spending by requiring anyone enrolled in the program who appears to be able to get a job to either satisfy work requirements or lose their coverage. It’s still unclear, however, whether Senate Republicans would support that provision.

    Although there are few precedents for such a mandate for Medicaid, other safety net programs have been enforcing similar rules for nearly three decades. I’m a political scientist who has extensively studied the work requirements of another safety net program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

    As I explain in my book, “Living Off the Government? Race, Gender, and the Politics of Welfare,” work requirements place extra burdens on low-income families but do little to lift them out of poverty.

    Work requirements for TANF

    TANF gives families with very low incomes some cash they can spend on housing, food, clothing or whatever they need most. The Clinton administration launched it as a replacement for a similar program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in 1996. At the time, both political parties were eager to end a welfare system they believed was riddled with abuse. A big goal with TANF was ending the dependence of people getting cash benefits on the government by moving them from welfare to work.

    Many people were removed from the welfare rolls, but not because work requirements led to economic prosperity. Instead, they had trouble navigating the bureaucratic demands.

    TANF is administered by the states. They can set many rules of their own, but they must comply with an important federal requirement: Adult recipients have to work or engage in an authorized alternative activity for at least 30 hours per week. The number of weekly hours is only 20 if the recipient is caring for a child under the age of 6.

    The dozen activities or so that can count toward this quota range from participating in job training programs to engaging in community service.

    Some adults enrolled in TANF are exempt from work requirements, depending on their state’s own policies. The most common exemptions are for people who are ill, have a disability or are over age 60.

    To qualify for TANF, families must have dependent children; in some states pregnant women also qualify. Income limits are set by the state and range from US$307 a month for a family of three in Alabama to $2,935 a month for a family of three in Minnesota.

    Adult TANF recipients face a federal five-year lifetime limit on benefits. States can adopt shorter time limits; Arizona’s is 12 months.

    An administrative burden

    Complying with these work requirements generally means proving that you’re working or making the case that you should be exempt from this mandate. This places what’s known as an “administrative burden” on the people who get cash assistance. It often requires lots of documentation and time. If you have an unpredictable work schedule, inconsistent access to child care or obligations to care for an older relative, this paperwork is hard to deal with.

    What counts as work, how many hours must be completed and who is exempt from these requirements often comes down to a caseworker’s discretion. Social science research shows that this discretion is not equally applied and is often informed by stereotypes.

    The number of people getting cash assistance has fallen sharply since TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In some states caseloads have dropped by more than 50% despite significant population growth.

    Some of this decline happened because recipients got jobs that paid them too much to qualify. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office that provides economic research to Congress, attributes, at least in part, an increase in employment among less-educated single mothers in the 1990s to work requirements.

    Not everyone who stopped getting cash benefits through TANF wound up employed, however. Other recipients who did not meet requirements fell into deep poverty.

    Regardless of why people leave the program, when fewer low-income Americans get TANF benefits, the government spends less money on cash assistance. Federal funding has remained flat at $16.5 billion since 1996. Taking inflation into account, the program receives half as much funding as when it was created. In addition, states have used the flexibility granted them to direct most of their TANF funds to priorities other than cash benefits, such as pre-K education.

    Many Americans who get help paying for groceries through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are also subject to work requirements. People the government calls “able-bodied adults without dependents” can only receive SNAP benefits for three months within a three-year period if they are not employed.

    A failed experiment in Arkansas

    Lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses have debated whether to add work requirements for Medicaid before. More than a dozen states have applied for waivers that would let them give it a try.

    When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, during the first Trump administration, it was largely seen as a failure. Some 18,000 people lost their health care coverage, but employment rates did not increase.

    After a court order stopped the policy in 2019, most people regained their coverage.

    Georgia is currently the only state with Medicaid work requirements in effect, after implementing a waiver in July 2023. The program has experienced technical difficulties and has had trouble verifying work activities.

    Other states, including Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky, are already asking the federal government to let them enforce Medicaid work requirements.

    Then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks during a news conference in 2017, in Little Rock, Arkansas, calling for Medicaid work requirements.
    AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo

    What this may mean for Medicaid

    The multitrillion-dollar bill the House passed 215-214 would introduce Medicaid work requirements nationwide by late 2026 for childless adults age 19 to 64, with some exemptions.

    But most people covered by Medicaid in that age range are already working, and those who are not would likely be eligible for work requirement waivers. An analysis by KFF – a nonprofit that informs the public about health issues – shows that in 2023, 44% of Medicaid recipients were working full time and another 20% were working part time. In 2023, that was more than 16 million Americans.

    About 20% of the American adults under 65 who are covered by Medicaid are not working due to illness or disability, or because of caregiving responsibilities, according to KFF. This includes both people caring for young children and those taking care of relatives with an illness or disability. In my own research, I read testimony from families seeking work exemptions because caregiving, including for children with disabilities, was a full-time job.

    The rest of the adults under 65 with Medicaid coverage are not working because they are in school, are retired, cannot find work or have some other reason. It’s approximately 3.9 million Americans. Depending on what counts as “work,” they may be meeting any requirements that could be added to the program.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that introducing Medicaid work requirements would save around $300 billion over a decade. Given past experience with work requirements, it is unlikely those savings would come from Americans finding jobs.

    My research suggests it’s more likely that the government would trim spending by taking away the health insurance of people eligible for Medicaid coverage who get tangled up in red tape.

    This article was updated on May 22, 2025, with details about the House of Representatives’ passage of the budget bill.

    Anne Whitesell is a 2024-2025 PRRI Public Fellow.

    ref. Work requirements are better at blocking benefits for low-income people than they are at helping those folks find jobs – https://theconversation.com/work-requirements-are-better-at-blocking-benefits-for-low-income-people-than-they-are-at-helping-those-folks-find-jobs-256839

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Smartphones are once again setting the agenda for justice as the Latino community documents ICE actions

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Allissa V. Richardson, Associate Professor of Journalism, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

    Smartphone witnessing helped spur the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. AP Photo/Ethan Swope

    It has been five years since May 25, 2020, when George Floyd gasped for air beneath the knee of a Minneapolis police officer at the corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue. Five years since 17-year-old Darnella Frazier stood outside Cup Foods, raised her phone and bore witness to nine minutes and 29 seconds that would galvanize a global movement against racial injustice.

    Frazier’s video didn’t just show what happened. It insisted the world stop and see.

    Today, that legacy continues in the hands of a different community, facing different threats but wielding the same tools. Across the United States, Latino organizers are raising their phones, not to go viral but to go on record. They livestream Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, film family separations and document protests outside detention centers. Their footage is not merely content. It is evidence, warning – and resistance.

    Here in Los Angeles where I teach journalism, for example, several images have seared themselves into public memory. One viral video shows a shackled father stepping into a white, unmarked van as his daughter sobs behind the camera, pleading with him not to sign any official documents. He turns, gestures for her to calm down, and blows her a kiss. In another video, filmed across town, Los Angeles Police Department officers on horseback charge into crowds of peaceful protesters, swinging wooden batons with chilling precision.

    In Spokane, Washington, residents form a spontaneous human chain around their neighbors mid-raid, their bodies and cameras erecting a barricade of defiance. In San Diego, a video shows white allies yelling “Shame!” as they chase a car full of National Guard troops from their neighborhood.

    The impact of smartphone witnessing has been immediate and unmistakable – visceral at street level, seismic in statehouses. On the ground, the videos helped inspire a “No Kings” movement, which organized protests in all 50 states on June 14, 2025.

    Lawmakers are intensifying their focus on immigration policy as well. As the Trump administration escalates enforcement, Democratic-led states are expanding laws that limit cooperation with federal agents. On June 12, the House Oversight Committee questioned Democratic governors about these measures, with Republican lawmakers citing public safety concerns. The hearing underscored deep divisions between federal and state approaches to immigration enforcement.

    The legacy of Black witnessing

    What’s unfolding now is not new – it is newly visible. As my research shows, Latino organizers are drawing from a playbook that was sharpened in 2020 and rooted in a much older lineage of Black media survival strategies that were forged under extreme oppression.

    In my 2020 book “Bearing Witness While Black: African Americans, Smartphones and the New Protest Journalism,” I document how Black Americans have used media – slave narratives, pamphlets, newspapers, radio and now smartphones – to fight for justice. From Frederick Douglass to Ida B. Wells to Darnella Frazier, Black witnesses have long used journalism as a tool for survival and transformation.

    Latino mobile journalists are building on that blueprint in 2025, filming state power in moments of overreach, archiving injustice in real time, and expanding the impact of this radical tradition.

    Their work also echoes the spatial tactics of Black resistance. Just as enslaved Black people once mapped escape routes during slavery and Jim Crow, Latino communities today are engaging in digital cartography to chart ICE-free zones, mutual aid hubs and sanctuary spaces. The People Over Papers map channels the logic of the Black maroons – communities of self-liberated Africans who escaped plantations to track patrols, share intelligence and build networks of survival. Now, the hideouts are digital. The maps are crowdsourced. The danger remains.

    Likewise, the Stop ICE Raids Alerts Network revives a civil rights-era tactic. In the 1960s, organizers used wide area telephone service lines and radio to circulate safety updates. Black DJs cloaked dispatches in traffic and weather reports – “congestion on the south side” signaled police blockades; “storm warnings” meant violence ahead. Today, the medium is WhatsApp. The signal is encrypted. But the message – protect each other – has not changed.

    Layered across both systems is the DNA of the “Negro Motorist Green Book,” the guide that once helped Black travelers navigate Jim Crow America by identifying safe towns, gas stations and lodging. People Over Papers and Stop ICE Raids are digital descendants of that legacy. Where the Green Book used printed pages, today’s tools use digital pins. But the mission remains: survival through shared knowledge, protection through mapped resistance.

    The People Over Papers map is a crowdsourced collection of reports of ICE activity across the U.S.
    Screenshot by The Conversation U.S.

    Dangerous necessity

    Five years after George Floyd’s death, the power of visual evidence remains undeniable. Black witnessing laid the groundwork. In 2025, that tradition continues through the lens of Latino mobile journalists, who draw clear parallels between their own community’s experiences and those of Black Americans. Their footage exposes powerful echoes: ICE raids and overpolicing, border cages and city jails, a door kicked in at dawn and a knee on a neck.

    Like Black Americans before them, Latino communities are using smartphones to protect, to document and to respond. In cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and El Paso, whispers of “ICE is in the neighborhood” now flash across Telegram, WhatsApp and Instagram. For undocumented families, pressing record can mean risking retaliation or arrest. But many keep filming – because what goes unrecorded can be erased.

    What they capture are not isolated incidents. They are part of a broader, shared struggle against state violence. And as long as the cameras keep rolling, the stories keep surfacing – illuminated by the glow of smartphone screens that refuse to look away.

    Allissa V. Richardson receives funding from the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

    ref. Smartphones are once again setting the agenda for justice as the Latino community documents ICE actions – https://theconversation.com/smartphones-are-once-again-setting-the-agenda-for-justice-as-the-latino-community-documents-ice-actions-258980

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: US bombs Iran’s nuclear sites: What led to Trump pulling the trigger – and what happens next?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice of Public Policy, University of Michigan

    US President Donald Trump addresses the nation on Iran strikes on June 21, 2025 Carlos Barria/AFP via Getty Images

    In the early hours of June 22, 2025, local time, the United States attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran with “bunker buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles.

    Following more than a week of Israeli strikes on various targets in Iran – which had prompted retaliatory strikes from Tehran – the U.S. move marks a possible inflection point in the conflict. In initial comments on the strikes at the Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz facilities, President Donald Trump said that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and fully obliterated.” In response, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had “crossed a very big red line.”

    The Conversation U.S. turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Trump chose now to act and what the potential repercussions could be.

    What do we know about the nature and timing of US involvement?

    President Trump has been forcefully hinting for days days that such a strike could happen, while at the same time opening up a window of negotiation by suggesting as late as June 20 that he would make a decision “within the next two weeks.” We know Trump can be very unpredictable, but he must have assessed that the current conditions presented an opportunity for U.S. action.

    Trump met with the National Security Council twice in the days leading up to the strike. Typically at such meetings the president is presented with a menu of military options, which usually boil down to three: a narrow option, a middle ground and a “if you really want to go big” strike.

    The one he picked, I would argue, is somewhere between the narrow option and the middle ground one.

    The “go big” options would have been an attack on nuclear sites and Iranian leadership – be that senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, or possibly the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The more narrow approach would have been just one facility, likely to have been Fordo – a deeply fortified uranium enrichment site buried within a mountain.

    What did occur was a strike there, but also at two other sites – Isfahan and Natanz.

    U.S. military chiefs confirmed that that 12 GBU-57s – the so-called 30,000-pound bunker busters – were dropped by B-2 bombers on Fordo, and two on Isfahan.

    That suggests to me that the military goal of the operation was to destroy Iran’s ability to produce and or store highly enriched uranium in a one-time strike rather than drag the U.S. into a more prolonged conflict.

    Has the strike achieved Trump’s objectives?

    It will take some time to properly assess the extent to which Iran’s ability to produce or store highly enriched uranium has been damaged.

    Certainly we know that the bombs hit their targets, and they have been damaged – but to what extent is not immediately clear. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that all three target sites had suffered “extremely severe damage and destruction” – possibly rolling back from Trump’s “fully obliterated” assessment. Perhaps most tellingly, Iran has not commented yet on the extent of the damage.

    But to Trump, the objective was not just military but political, too. Trump has long said “no” to a nuclear Iran while at the same time has expressed that he has no desire to drag the U.S. into another war.

    And this strike may allow Trump to achieve those seemingly contradictory goals. If U.S. initial assessments are correct, Iran’s nuclear program will have been severely compromised. But the strikes won’t necessarily pull U.S. into the conflict fully – unless Iran retaliates in such a way that necessitates further U.S. action.

    And that is what Iran’s supreme leader and his military generals will need to work out: Should Iran retaliate and, if so, is it prepared to deal with a heavier U.S. military response – especially when there is no end in sight to its current conflict with Israel.

    An operational timeline of a strike on Iran is displayed during a news conference with U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 22, 2025.
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    What options does Iran have to retaliate against US?

    Iran has in the past tried to respond proportionately to any attack. But here is the problem for Iran’s leaders: There is no feasible proportionate response to the United States. Iran has no capability to hit nuclear plants in the U.S. – either conventionally or through unconventional warfare.

    But there are tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region, stationed in Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Jordan. All are in range of Iran’s ballistic, drones or cruise missiles.

    But that military inventory has been depleted – both by using ballistic missiles in waves of attacks against Israel and by Israel hitting missile launch and storage sites in Iran.

    Similarly, Tehran’s capacity to respond through one of its proxy or aligned groups in the region has been degraded. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Gaza’s Hamas – both of whom have ties to Iran – are in survival mode following damaging attacks from Israel over the past 18 months.

    The Houthis in Yemen are in many ways the “last man standing” in Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance.” But the Houthis have limited capability and know that if they do attack U.S. assets, they will likely get hit hard. During Operation Rough Rider from March to May this year, the Trump administration launched over 1,000 strikes against the Houthis.

    Meanwhile Shia militias in Iraq and Syria that could be encouraged to attack U.S. bases haven’t been active in months.

    Of course, Iran could look outside the region. In the past the country has been involved in assassinations, kidnappings and terror attacks abroad that were organized through its Quds Force or via operatives of MOIS, its intelligence service.

    But for Iran’s leaders, it is increasingly looking like a lose-lose proposition. If they don’t respond in a meaningful way, they look weak and more vulnerable. But if they do hit U.S. targets in any meaningful way, they will invite a stronger U.S. involvement in the conflict, as Trump has warned.

    The parallel I see here is with the killing of Iranian general and commander of the Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020 by a U.S. drone strike.

    On that occasion, Iran promised a strong retaliation. Its retaliatory attack against the U.S. Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq involved 27 ballistic missiles and caused the physical destruction of some of the facilities on base as well as traumatic brain injury-type symptoms to dozens of troops and personnel, but no deaths. Nevertheless, after this both the U.S. and Iran then backed off from deepening the conflict.

    The circumstances now are very different. Iran is already at war with Israel. Moreover, the U.S. went after Iran’s crown jewels – its nuclear program – and it was on Iranian territory. Nonetheless, Khameini knows that if he retaliates, he risks provoking a larger response.

    Trump suggested ‘further attacks’ could occur. What could that entail?

    The U.S. has suggested that it has the intelligence and ability to hit senior leadership in Iran. And any “go big option” would have likely involved strikes on key personnel. Similarly there could be plans to hit the Iranian economy by attacking oil and gas targets.

    A satellite image of the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran prior to the U.S. strike on June 22, 2025.
    Maxar/Getty

    But such actions risk either damaging the global economy or drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict – it would evolve from a “one and done” strike to a cycle of attacks and responses. And that could widen political cracks between hawks in the administration and parts of Trump’s MAGA faithful who are against the U.S. being involved in overseas wars.

    Is there any opportunity of a return to diplomacy?

    Trump has not closed his “two weeks” window for talks – theoretically it is still open.

    But will Iran come to table? Leaders there had already said they were not willing to entertain any deal while under attack from Israel. Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said after the U.S. strikes that the time for diplomacy had now passed.

    In any event, you have to ask, what can Iran come to the table with? Do they have much of a nuclear program anymore? And if not, what would they try to negotiate? It would seem, using one of Trump’s phrases, they “don’t have the cards” to make much of a deal.

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

    ref. US bombs Iran’s nuclear sites: What led to Trump pulling the trigger – and what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/us-bombs-irans-nuclear-sites-what-led-to-trump-pulling-the-trigger-and-what-happens-next-259519

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: The sleeper Supreme Court decision that could have profound impacts on the Trump administration agenda – and restore faith in the high court

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Albany Law School

    The Trump administration has tried to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policies. Baac3nes/Getty Images

    The American public’s trust in the Supreme Court has fallen precipitously over the past decade. Many across the political spectrum see the court as too political.

    This view is only strengthened when Americans see most of the justices of the court dividing along ideological lines on decisions related to some of the most hot-button issues the court handles. Those include reproductive rights, voting rights, corporate power, environmental protection, student loan policy, worker rights and LGBTQ+ rights.

    But there is one recent decision where the court was unanimous in its ruling, perhaps because its holding should not be controversial: National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that 2024 case, the court said that it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech provisions for government to force people to speak and act in ways that are aligned with its policies.

    The second Trump administration has tried to wield executive branch power in ways that appear to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policy priorities. Many of those attempts have been legally challenged and will likely make their way to the Supreme Court.

    The somewhat under-the-radar – yet incredibly important – decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo is likely to figure prominently in Supreme Court rulings in a slew of those cases in the coming months and years, including those involving law firms, universities and the Public Broadcasting Service.

    That’s because, in my view as a legal scholar, they are all First Amendment cases.

    Will the Supreme Court continue to protect free speech rights, as it did unanimously in 2024?
    Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

    Why the NRA sued a New York state official

    In May 2024, in an opinion written by reliably liberal Sonia Sotomayor, a unanimous court ruled that the efforts of New York state government officials to punish companies doing business with the NRA constituted clear violations of the First Amendment.

    Following its own precedent from the 1960s, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that government officials “cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

    Many of the current targets of the Trump administration’s actions have claimed similar suppression of their First Amendment rights by the government. They have fought back, filing lawsuits that often cite the National Rifle Association v. Vullo decision in their efforts.

    To date, the most egregious examples of actions that violate the principles announced by the court – the executive orders against law firms – have largely been halted in the lower courts, with those decisions often citing what’s now known as the Vullo decision.

    While these cases may still be working their way through the lower courts, it is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately consider legal challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts in a range of areas.

    These would include the executive orders against law firms, attempts to cut government grants and research funding from universities, potential moves to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status, and regulatory actions punishing media companies for what the White House believes to be unfavorable coverage.

    The court could also hear disputes over the government terminating contracts with a family of companies that provides satellite and communications support to the U.S. government generally and the military in particular.

    Despite the variety of organizations and government actions involved in these lawsuits, they all can be seen as struggles over free speech and expression, like Vullo.

    Whether it is private law firms, multinational corporations, universities or members of the media, all have one thing in common: They have all been targeted by the Trump administration for the same reason – they are engaged in actions or speech that is disfavored by President Donald Trump.

    Protecting speech, regardless of politics

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, front, took leave to help prosecute war criminals at the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II.
    Bettman/Getty Images

    The NRA, an often-controversial gun-rights advocacy organization, was the plaintiff in the Vullo decision.

    But just because the groups that have been targeted by the Trump administration are across the political divide from the NRA does not mean the outcome in decisions relying on the court’s opinion will be different. In fact, these groups can rely on the same arguments advanced by the NRA, and are, I believe, likely to win.

    Vullo isn’t the only decision on which the court can rely when considering challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts targeting these groups.

    In 1943, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the court found that students who refused to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school could not be expelled.

    Jackson’s opinion is a forceful rejection of government attempts to control what people say: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

    In the wake of World War II, Jackson took a leave from the court and served as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. Prosecuting them for their atrocities, Jackson saw how the Nuremberg defendants wielded government authority to punish enemies who resisted their rise and later opposed their rule.

    If some of the cases testing the state’s power to force fidelity to the executive branch reach the Supreme Court, the cases could offer the justices the opportunity to, once again, speak with one voice as they did in NRA v. Vullo, to demonstrate it can be evenhanded and will not play politics with the First Amendment.

    This story has been updated with the correct year for the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

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

    ref. The sleeper Supreme Court decision that could have profound impacts on the Trump administration agenda – and restore faith in the high court – https://theconversation.com/the-sleeper-supreme-court-decision-that-could-have-profound-impacts-on-the-trump-administration-agenda-and-restore-faith-in-the-high-court-258216

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Presidents of both parties have launched military action without Congress declaring war − Trump’s bombing of Iran is just the latest

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology

    President Donald Trump is seen on a monitor in the White House press briefing room on June 21, 2025, after the U.S. military strike on three sites in Iran. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    In the wake of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, many congressional Democrats and a few Republicans have objected to President Donald Trump’s failure to seek congressional approval before conducting military operations.

    They note that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and say that section required Trump to seek prior authorization for military action.

    The Trump administration disagrees. “This is not a war against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, implying that the action did not require approval by Congress. That’s the same view held by most modern presidents and their lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel: Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior approval from Congress.

    By this reading of the text, presidents, as commander in chief, claim the power to unilaterally order the military to initiate small-scale operations for a short duration. Members of Congress may object to that claim, but they have done little to limit presidents’ unilateralism. What little they have done has not been effective.

    As I’ve demonstrated in my research, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to constrain presidential power after the disasters of the Vietnam War, it contains many loopholes that presidents have exploited to act unilaterally. For example, it allows presidents to engage in military operations without congressional approval for up to 90 days. And more recent congressional resolutions have broadened executive control even further.

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the U.S. declaration of war against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941.
    U.S. National Archives

    A long tradition of executive authority

    Presidents can even overcome the loopholes in the War Powers Resolution if the operation lasts longer than 90 days. In 2011, a State Department lawyer argued that airstrikes in Libya could continue beyond the War Powers Resolution’s 90-day time limit because there were no ground troops involved. By that logic, any future president could carry out an indefinite bombing campaign with no congressional oversight.

    While every president has bristled at congressional restraints on their actions, presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have successfully circumvented them by citing vague concerns like “national security,” “regional security” or the need to “prevent a humanitarian disaster” when launching military operations. While members of Congress always take issue with these actions, they never hold presidents accountable by passing legislation restraining him.

    President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites without consulting Congress falls in line with precedent from both Democratic and Republican leaders for decades.

    Much like his predecessors, Trump did not, and likely will not, provide Congress with more concrete information about the legality of his actions. Nor are congressional lawmakers effectively holding him accountable.

    The push-and-pull between Congress and the president over military operations dates back to the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, which led Congress to declare war on Japan. Before then, Congress had prevented the U.S. from joining World War II by enforcing an arms embargo and refusing to help the Allies prior to the attack on Hawaii. But afterward, Congress began allowing the president to take more control over the military.

    During the Cold War, rather than returning to a balanced debate between the branches, Congress continued to relinquish those powers.

    Congress never authorized the war in Korea; Harry Truman used a U.N. Security Council resolution as legal justification. Congress’ vote explicitly opposing the invasion of Cambodia didn’t stop Richard Nixon from doing it anyway. Even after the Cold War, Bill Clinton regularly acted unilaterally to address humanitarian crises or the continued threat from leaders like Saddam Hussein. He sent the military to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, among other places.

    After 9/11, Congress quickly gave up more of its power. A week after those attacks, Congress passed a sweeping Authorization for Use of Military Force, giving the president permission to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

    In a follow-up 2002 authorization, Congress went even further, allowing the president to “use the Armed Forces … as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend national security … against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” This approach provides few, if any, congressional checks on the control of military affairs exercised by the president.

    In the two decades since those authorizations, four presidents have used them to justify all manner of military action, from targeted killings of terrorists to the years long fight against the Islamic State group.

    Congress regularly discusses terminating those authorizations, but has yet to do so. If Congress did, the loopholes in the original War Powers Resolution would still exist.

    While President Biden claimed he supported the repeal of the authorizations, and supported more congressional oversight of military actions, Trump has made no such claims. Instead, he has claimed even more sweeping authority to act without any permission from Congress.

    As recently as 2024, Biden used the 2002 authorization as a legal rationale for the targeted killing of Iranian-backed militiamen in Iraq, a strike condemned by Iraqi leaders.

    Those actions may have ruffled congressional feathers, but they were in keeping with a long U.S. tradition of targeting members of terrorist groups and protecting members of the military serving in a conflict zone.

    Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol in January 2020 call on Congress to limit the president’s powers to use the military.
    AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

    Threats of war

    During his first presidential term in 2020, Trump ordered a lethal drone strike against a respected member of the Iranian government, Major General Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran’s equivalent of the CIA, without consulting Congress or publicly providing proof of why the attack was necessary, even to this day.

    Tensions – and fears of war – spiked but then slowly faded when Iran responded with missile attacks on two U.S. bases in Iraq.

    Now, the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites have revived both fears of war and renewed questions about the president’s authority to unilaterally engage in military action. Presidents since the 1970s, however, have effectively managed to dodge definitive answers to those questions – demonstrating both the power inherent in their position and the unwillingness among members of the legislative branch to reclaim their coequal status.

    This article is an updated version of a story published on Jan. 24, 2024.

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

    ref. Presidents of both parties have launched military action without Congress declaring war − Trump’s bombing of Iran is just the latest – https://theconversation.com/presidents-of-both-parties-have-launched-military-action-without-congress-declaring-war-trumps-bombing-of-iran-is-just-the-latest-259636

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Harvard fights to keep enrolling international students – 4 essential reads about their broader impact

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Corey Mitchell, Education Editor

    Graduates of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government celebrate during commencement exercises in Cambridge, Mass. AP Photo/Steven Senne, File

    A federal judge in Boston on May 23, 2025, temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have revoked Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students.

    The directive from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resulting lawsuit from Harvard have escalated the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution.

    It’s also the latest step in a White House campaign to ramp up vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including students.

    Homeland Security officials accused Harvard of creating a hostile campus climate by accommodating “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist agitators.” The accusation stems from the university’s alleged support for certain political groups and their activities on campus.

    In early April, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. The database includes country of citizenship, which U.S. school they attend and what they study.

    Barring Harvard from enrolling international students could have significant implications for the campus’s climate and the local economy. International students account for 27% of the university’s enrollment.

    Here are four stories from The Conversation’s archive about the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard and the economic impact of international students.

    1. A target on Harvard

    This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the university.

    The White House has threatened to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and some media outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is taking steps in that direction.

    But it is illegal to revoke an entity’s tax-emempt status “on a whim,” according to Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, and Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at Ohio State University.

    “Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity,” they wrote. “And it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun.”

    Several U.S. senators, all Democrats, have urged the IRS inspector general to see whether the IRS has begun auditing Harvard or any nonprofits in response to the administration’s requests or whether Trump has violated any laws with his pressure campaign.

    Hackney and Mittendorf wrote that the Trump administration’s moves are part of a larger push to exert control over Harvard, including its efforts to increase its diversity and its response to claims of discrimination on campus.




    Read more:
    Can Trump strip Harvard of its charitable status? Scholars of nonprofit law and accounting describe the obstacles in his way


    University of Michigan students on campus on April 3, 2025, in Ann Arbor, Mich.
    Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    2. International students help keep ‘America First’

    The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries vie to attract the scholars.

    In a recent story for The Conversation, David L. Di Maria, vice provost for global engagement at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, wrote that stepped-up screening and vetting of students could make the U.S. a less attractive study destination.

    Di Maria wrote that such efforts could hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.

    Trump administration officials have emphasized the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.

    Research shows that international students launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their U.S.-born peers. Roughly 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by former international students, Di Maria noted.




    Read more:
    Deporting international students risks making the US a less attractive destination, putting its economic engine at risk


    3. A boost to local economies

    Indeed, international students have a tremendous economic impact on local communities.

    If these global scholars stay home or go elsewhere, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States, wrote Barnet Sherman, a professor of multinational finance and trade at Boston University.

    With the money they spend on tuition, food, housing and other other items, international students pump money into the local economy, but there are additional benefits.

    On average, a new job is created for every three international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created, Sherman wrote.

    In Greater Boston, where Harvard is located, there are about 63,000 international students who contribute to the economy. The gains are huge – about US$3 billion.




    Read more:
    International students infuse tens of millions of dollars into local economies across the US. What happens if they stay home?


    4. Rising number of international students

    The rising number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has long led to concerns about U.S. students being displaced by international peers.

    The unease is often fueled by the assumption that financial interests are driving the trend, Cynthia Miller-Idriss of American University and Bernhard Streitwieser of George Washington University wrote in a 2015 story for The Conversation.

    A common claim, they wrote, is the flawed assumption that “cash-strapped public universities” aggressively recruit more affluent students from abroad who can afford to pay rising tuition costs. The pair wrote that, historically, shifting demographics on college campuses result from social and economic changes.

    In today’s context, Miller-Idriss and Streitwieser maintain that the argument that colleges prioritize international students fails to account for the global role of U.S. universities, which help support national security, foster international development projects and accelerate the pace of globalization.




    Read more:
    Foreign students not a threat, but an advantage


    This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

    ref. Harvard fights to keep enrolling international students – 4 essential reads about their broader impact – https://theconversation.com/harvard-fights-to-keep-enrolling-international-students-4-essential-reads-about-their-broader-impact-257506

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Our trans health study was terminated by the government – the effects of abrupt NIH grant cuts ripple across science and society

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jae A. Puckett, Associate Professor of Psychology, Michigan State University

    Funding cuts to trans health research are part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to medically and legally restrict trans rights. AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson

    Given the Trump administration’s systematic attempts to medically and legally disenfranchise trans people, and its abrupt termination of grants focused on LGBTQ+ health, we can’t say that the notice of termination we received regarding our federally funded research on transgender and nonbinary people’s health was unexpected.

    As researchers who study the experiences of trans and nonbinary people, we have collectively dedicated nearly 50 years of our scientific careers to developing ways to address the health disparities negatively affecting these communities. The National Institutes of Health had placed a call for projects on this topic, and we had successfully applied for their support for our four-year study on resilience in trans communities.

    However, our project on trans health became one of the hundreds of grants that have been terminated on ideological grounds. The termination notice stated that the grant no longer fit agency priorities and claimed that this work was not based on scientific research.

    Termination notice sent to the authors from the National Institutes of Health.
    Jae A. Puckett and Paz Galupo, CC BY-ND

    These grant terminations undermine decades of science on gender diversity by dismissing research findings and purging data. During Trump’s current term, the NIH’s Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office was dismantled, references to LGBTQ+ people were removed from health-related websites, and datasets were removed from public access.

    The effects of ending research on trans health ripple throughout the scientific community, the communities served by this work and the U.S. economy.

    Studying resilience

    Research focused on the mental health of trans and nonbinary people has grown substantially in recent years. Over time, this work has expanded beyond understanding the hardships these communities face to also study their resilience and positive life experiences.

    Resilience is often understood as an ability to bounce back from challenges. For trans and nonbinary people experiencing gender-based stigma and discrimination, resilience can take several forms. This might look like simply continuing to survive in a transphobic climate, or it might take the form of being a role model for other trans and nonbinary people.

    As a result of gender-based stigma and discrimination, trans and nonbinary people experience a range of health disparities, from elevated rates of psychological distress to heightened risk for chronic health conditions and poor physical health. In the face of these challenges and growing anti-trans legislation in the U.S., we believe that studying resilience in these communities can provide insights into how to offset the harms of these stresses.

    Studies show anti-trans legislation is harming the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth.

    With the support of the NIH, we began our work in earnest in 2022. The project was built on many years of research from our teams preceding the grant. From the beginning, we collaborated with trans and nonbinary community members to ensure our research would be attuned to the needs of the community.

    At the time our grant was terminated, we were nearing completion of Year 3 of our four-year project. We had collected data from over 600 trans and nonbinary participants across the U.S. and started to follow their progress over time. We had developed a new way to measure resilience among trans and nonbinary people and were about to publish a second measure specifically tailored to people of color.

    The termination of our grant and others like it harms our immediate research team, the communities we worked with and the field more broadly.

    Loss of scientific workforce

    For many researchers in trans health, the losses from these cuts go beyond employment.

    Our project had served as a training opportunity for the students and early career professionals involved in the study, providing them with the research experience and mentorship necessary to advance their careers. But with the termination of our funding, two full-time researchers and at least three students will lose their positions. The three lead scientists have lost parts of their salaries and dedicated research time.

    These NIH cuts will likely result in the loss of much of the next generation of trans researchers and the contributions they would have made to science and society. Our team and other labs in similar situations will be less likely to work with graduate students due to a lack of available funding to pay and support them. This changes the landscape for future scientists, as it means there will be fewer opportunities for individuals interested in these areas of research to enter graduate training programs.

    The Trump administration has directly penalized universities across the country for ‘ideological overreach.’
    Zhu Ziyu/VCG via Getty Images

    As universities struggle to address federal funding cuts, junior academics will be less likely to gain tenure, and faculty in grant-funded positions may lose their jobs. Universities may also become hesitant to hire people who work in these areas because their research has essentially been banned from federal funding options.

    Loss of community trust

    Trans and nonbinary people have often been studied under opportunistic and demeaning circumstances. This includes when researchers collect data for their own gains but return little to the communities they work with, or when they do research that perpetuates theories that pathologize those communities. As a result, many are often reluctant to participate in research.

    To overcome this reluctance, we grounded our study on community input. We involved an advisory board composed of local trans and nonbinary community members who helped to inform how we conducted our study and measured our findings.

    Our work on resilience has been inspired by feedback we received from previous research participants who said that “[trans people] matter even when not in pain.”

    Abruptly terminating projects like these can break down trust between researchers and the populations they study.

    Loss of scientific knowledge

    Research that focuses on the strengths of trans and nonbinary communities is in its infancy. The termination of our grant has led to the loss of the insights our study would have provided on ways to improve health among trans and nonbinary people and future work that would have built off our findings. Resilience is a process that takes time to unfold, and we had not finished the longitudinal data collection in our study – nor will we have the protected time to publish and share other findings from this work.

    Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services released a May 2025 report stating that there is not enough evidence to support gender-affirming care for young people, contradicting decades of scientific research. Scientists, researchers and medical professional organizations have widely criticized the report as misrepresenting study findings, dismissing research showing benefits to gender-affirming care, and promoting misinformation rejected by major medical associations. Instead, the report recommends “exploratory therapy,” which experts have likened to discredited conversion therapy.

    Transgender and nonbinary people continue to exist, regardless of legislation.
    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    Despite claims that there is insufficient research on gender-affirming care and more data is needed on the health of trans and nonbinary people, the government has chosen to divest from actual scientific research about trans and nonbinary people’s lives.

    Loss of taxpayer dollars

    The termination of our grant means we are no longer able to achieve the aims of the project, which depended on the collection and analysis of data over time. This wastes the three years of NIH funding already spent on the project.

    Scientists and experts who participated in the review of our NIH grant proposal rated our project more highly than 96% of the projects we competed against. Even so, the government made the unscientific choice to override these decisions and terminate our work.

    Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been invested in these grants to improve the health of not only trans and nonbinary people, but also American society as a whole. With the termination of these grants, few will get to see the benefits of this investment.

    Jae A. Puckett has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    Paz Galupo has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    ref. Our trans health study was terminated by the government – the effects of abrupt NIH grant cuts ripple across science and society – https://theconversation.com/our-trans-health-study-was-terminated-by-the-government-the-effects-of-abrupt-nih-grant-cuts-ripple-across-science-and-society-254021

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Canada to scrap digital services tax to advance broader US trade talks

    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

    OTTAWA, June 29 (Xinhua) — Canada will scrap its digital services tax pending a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade deal with the United States, Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said Sunday.

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump have agreed to resume talks with the goal of completing a deal by July 21, according to the Treasury Department.

    F-F. Champagne will soon introduce a bill to repeal the Digital Services Tax Act, the department said in a statement.

    M. Carney called the negotiations “difficult,” commenting on D. Trump’s statement about ending all trade negotiations with Canada and considering the possibility of introducing new tariffs.

    “We will continue to engage in these difficult negotiations in the best interests of Canadians,” Mr. Carney told local media.

    D. Trump said the United States is ending negotiations in response to Canada’s planned digital services tax on American tech companies.

    The American leader called the tax a “direct and blatant attack” on the United States.

    The tax, which was set to go into effect Monday, would have levied three percent of revenue from Canadian users on U.S. companies such as Amazon, Google and Meta. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump’s tax and spending bill faces Democratic resistance, GOP divisions

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

    A U.S. Senate debate has stretched into midnight Sunday over President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending package, as Republicans push to meet Trump’s self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.

    Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the legislation cleared a 51-49 procedural vote in the Senate late Saturday night, setting the stage for the debate. Even after clearing the initial hurdle, GOP leaders face an uphill battle with unified Democratic opposition and divisions within their own ranks.

    Key provisions of bill

    The Senate bill features approximately 4 trillion U.S. dollars in tax cuts, including the permanent extension of Trump’s 2017 tax rates, which are currently set to expire at year’s end if Congress fails to intervene, and the introduction of new cuts he promoted on the campaign trail, such as eliminating taxes on tips.

    The legislation also allocates 350 billion dollars for border and national security efforts, including money for deportations.

    To offset these tax breaks and new spending, the bill proposes sweeping cuts to Medicaid and food stamps by tightening eligibility standards and enforcing stricter work requirements. It also calls for the repeal of billions of dollars in green energy tax credits.

    Republicans struggle to secure votes

    With a 53-47 edge in the Senate, Republicans need nearly unanimous support from their ranks to pass the sprawling 940-page legislation.

    Two Republican senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, defected in the procedural vote on Saturday, despite GOP leaders and Vice President JD Vance making efforts to broker last-minute compromises.

    Tillis’s opposition, driven by concerns about Medicaid cuts harming his home state, led to intense pressure from Trump, who publicly threatened to campaign against him in the next primary.

    On Sunday, Tillis announced that he would not seek reelection. “In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” he said in a statement.

    Paul, for his part, criticized the bill’s provision to raise the national debt ceiling by an additional 5 trillion dollars.

    Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin reversed his initial opposition and voted in favor of the bill following private discussions.

    Several Republican senators who voted to advance the bill on Saturday said Sunday that they are still weighing how they will vote on final passage.

    Democrats mount united front

    Senate Democrats are employing every tool to slow the bill’s progress and expose its impacts. They forced a full 16-hour reading of the entire bill text, a symbolic move aimed at highlighting the legislation’s complexity and sweeping changes.

    After debate began Sunday afternoon, Democrats delivered impassioned speeches condemning the bill for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy while placing greater burdens on low-income Americans.

    Senators like Bernie Sanders and Gary Peters criticized the package for cutting health care and food assistance while preserving massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

    “Reckless and irresponsible,” said Peters, while Sanders described the bill as “a gift to the billionaire class.”

    According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034, and the deficit would rise by up to 3.3 trillion dollars over a decade if the bill becomes law.

    Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Republicans are about to pass “the single most expensive bill in U.S. history.”

    “Republicans are doing something the Senate has never, never done before, deploying fake math and accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill,” he said.

    Road ahead

    GOP leaders are determined to advance Trump’s signature agenda. “We’re going to pass the ‘Big, beautiful bill,’” said Senator Lindsey Graham, the Budget Committee chairman.

    But the bill’s complexity, internal party fractures and Democratic resistance make passage a daunting challenge.

    Following as many as 20 hours of debate, the Senate is expected to proceed to an amendment session ahead of a final vote.

    If the bill ultimately clears the Senate, it must return to the House for a final vote before heading to the White House. The House passed its version of the bill last month.

    Elon Musk, former head of the Department of Government Efficiency and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, reiterated his opposition to the bill on Saturday, writing on X that it would “destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country.”

    “It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future,” he added.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI: Bitcoin Alpha Launches on Bitcoin Thunderbolt to Highlight Nubit and Brewing Big Bitcoin Ecosystem Bang

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Thunderbolt, the recently launched upgrade of Bitcoin supported by Satoshi-era miners and early contributors, including Nubit. As the only native boosting solution and stablecoin settlement layer on Bitcoin, earlier this month, the Trump family–backed crypto project WLFI integrated its stablecoin USD1 into Bitcoin Thunderbolt.

    On June 25th, Bitcoin Thunderbolt unveils Bitcoin Alpha, a new initiative aimed at accelerating the growth of Bitcoin by encouraging meaningful participation in network activity, where contributions are recognized through the Alpha Points system. Bitcoin Alpha is built on a simple belief: that the future of Bitcoin belongs to those who build it. As the most widely adopted upgrade and soft fork on Bitcoin in the past decade, Thunderbolt has already facilitated over 4 million transactions and 267,000 unique users, making it the natural foundation for Bitcoin Alpha’s launch.

    Bitcoin Alpha offers a rare opportunity for early participants to help shape the next wave of innovation on Bitcoin. Open to all Bitcoin users, it encourages meaningful contributions across the ecosystem. Depending on when and how they engage, early contributors may receive up to 10× Alpha Point multipliers. As part of its evolving roadmap, Bitcoin Alpha will also introduce Thunderbolt Station, decentralized payment nodes designed to support the long-term utility and liquidity of Bitcoin Thunderbolt. Station operators may unlock access to incentives like Boosting Codes and other forms of economic alignment. These mechanics are designed to reward meaningful contributions while ensuring the long-term sustainability of Bitcoin.

    The first phase of Bitcoin Alpha has already attracted over 50 project submissions, including teams backed by academic institutions and investors such as Polychain. All selected projects share defining traits: they are shipping real products and making meaningful contributions to Bitcoin’s long-term resilience and growth. With Bitcoin Thunderbolt offering faster payment rails, Bitcoin is now poised for what may be its most significant wave of growth in over a decade.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Bitcoin Alpha Launches on Bitcoin Thunderbolt to Highlight Nubit and Brewing Big Bitcoin Ecosystem Bang

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Thunderbolt, the recently launched upgrade of Bitcoin supported by Satoshi-era miners and early contributors, including Nubit. As the only native boosting solution and stablecoin settlement layer on Bitcoin, earlier this month, the Trump family–backed crypto project WLFI integrated its stablecoin USD1 into Bitcoin Thunderbolt.

    On June 25th, Bitcoin Thunderbolt unveils Bitcoin Alpha, a new initiative aimed at accelerating the growth of Bitcoin by encouraging meaningful participation in network activity, where contributions are recognized through the Alpha Points system. Bitcoin Alpha is built on a simple belief: that the future of Bitcoin belongs to those who build it. As the most widely adopted upgrade and soft fork on Bitcoin in the past decade, Thunderbolt has already facilitated over 4 million transactions and 267,000 unique users, making it the natural foundation for Bitcoin Alpha’s launch.

    Bitcoin Alpha offers a rare opportunity for early participants to help shape the next wave of innovation on Bitcoin. Open to all Bitcoin users, it encourages meaningful contributions across the ecosystem. Depending on when and how they engage, early contributors may receive up to 10× Alpha Point multipliers. As part of its evolving roadmap, Bitcoin Alpha will also introduce Thunderbolt Station, decentralized payment nodes designed to support the long-term utility and liquidity of Bitcoin Thunderbolt. Station operators may unlock access to incentives like Boosting Codes and other forms of economic alignment. These mechanics are designed to reward meaningful contributions while ensuring the long-term sustainability of Bitcoin.

    The first phase of Bitcoin Alpha has already attracted over 50 project submissions, including teams backed by academic institutions and investors such as Polychain. All selected projects share defining traits: they are shipping real products and making meaningful contributions to Bitcoin’s long-term resilience and growth. With Bitcoin Thunderbolt offering faster payment rails, Bitcoin is now poised for what may be its most significant wave of growth in over a decade.

    The MIL Network

  • New York mayoral candidate Mamdani defends campaign despite Democratic unease

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani defended his democratic socialism on Sunday and argued that his focus on economic issues should serve as a model for the party, even though some top Democrats have been reluctant to embrace him.

    In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mamdani said his agenda of raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers and on corporations to pay for ambitious policies such as free buses, a $30 minimum hourly wage and a rent freeze was not only realistic but tailored to meet the needs of the city’s working residents.

    “It’s the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and yet one in four New Yorkers are living in poverty, and the rest are seemingly trapped in a state of anxiety,” he told NBC’s Kristen Welker.

    Mamdani’s stunning victory over former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in Tuesday’s primary election has some party figures worried that his democratic socialism could feed Republican attacks on Democrats as too far left ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Business leaders have also expressed concern about his policies.

    Democrats have struggled to find a coherent message after their resounding loss in the November elections that saw President Donald Trump return to the White House and his Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress. A Reuters/Ipsos poll earlier this month showed that a majority of American Democrats believed their party needs new leadership and to be more focused on economic issues.

    Earlier on Sunday, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who represents part of the city, told ABC’s “This Week” that he wasn’t ready to endorse Mamdani yet, saying that he needed to hear more about Mamdani’s vision.

    Other prominent New York Democrats, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have also thus far declined to endorse Mamdani.

    Trump, himself a native New Yorker, told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo” that if Mamdani wins the mayoral race, “he’d better do the right thing” or Trump would withhold federal funds from the city.

    “He’s a communist. I think it’s very bad for New York,” Trump said.

    Asked about Trump’s claim that he is a communist, Mamdani told NBC it was not true and accused the president of attempting to distract from the fact that “I’m fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower that he has since then betrayed.”

    He also voiced no concern that Jeffries and other Democrats have not yet endorsed his candidacy.

    “I think that people are catching up to this election,” he said. “What we’re showing is that by putting working people first, by returning to the roots of the Democratic Party, we actually have a path out of this moment where we’re facing authoritarianism in Washington, D.C.”

    Mamdani’s criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza has set him apart from many mainstream Democrats and prompted allegations of antisemitism, which he has fiercely denied. Earlier this month, during an appearance on the political podcast The Bulwark, Mamdani declined to condemn the pro-Palestinian phrase “globalize the intifada,” which some Jews view as antisemitic and a call to violence.

    Jeffries told ABC that Mamdani needed to “clarify his position” on the phrase to reassure Jewish New Yorkers.

    Pressed again on Sunday, Mamdani said it was “not language that I use” but again did not condemn it. He said he did not want to determine for others what words are permissible or impermissible, arguing that Trump has done that by targeting pro-Palestinian activists for their speech.

    “We have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately we do that through the actions,” he said.

    Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, elected as a Democrat, is running as an independent in November’s election after Trump’s Justice Department dropped corruption charges against him, fueling accusations of a quid pro quo that he has denied. The Republican nominee is Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and lawyer Jim Walden is also running as an independent.

    Cuomo has not yet decided whether to remain in the race as an independent.

    (Reuters)

  • New York mayoral candidate Mamdani defends campaign despite Democratic unease

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani defended his democratic socialism on Sunday and argued that his focus on economic issues should serve as a model for the party, even though some top Democrats have been reluctant to embrace him.

    In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mamdani said his agenda of raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers and on corporations to pay for ambitious policies such as free buses, a $30 minimum hourly wage and a rent freeze was not only realistic but tailored to meet the needs of the city’s working residents.

    “It’s the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and yet one in four New Yorkers are living in poverty, and the rest are seemingly trapped in a state of anxiety,” he told NBC’s Kristen Welker.

    Mamdani’s stunning victory over former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in Tuesday’s primary election has some party figures worried that his democratic socialism could feed Republican attacks on Democrats as too far left ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Business leaders have also expressed concern about his policies.

    Democrats have struggled to find a coherent message after their resounding loss in the November elections that saw President Donald Trump return to the White House and his Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress. A Reuters/Ipsos poll earlier this month showed that a majority of American Democrats believed their party needs new leadership and to be more focused on economic issues.

    Earlier on Sunday, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who represents part of the city, told ABC’s “This Week” that he wasn’t ready to endorse Mamdani yet, saying that he needed to hear more about Mamdani’s vision.

    Other prominent New York Democrats, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have also thus far declined to endorse Mamdani.

    Trump, himself a native New Yorker, told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo” that if Mamdani wins the mayoral race, “he’d better do the right thing” or Trump would withhold federal funds from the city.

    “He’s a communist. I think it’s very bad for New York,” Trump said.

    Asked about Trump’s claim that he is a communist, Mamdani told NBC it was not true and accused the president of attempting to distract from the fact that “I’m fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower that he has since then betrayed.”

    He also voiced no concern that Jeffries and other Democrats have not yet endorsed his candidacy.

    “I think that people are catching up to this election,” he said. “What we’re showing is that by putting working people first, by returning to the roots of the Democratic Party, we actually have a path out of this moment where we’re facing authoritarianism in Washington, D.C.”

    Mamdani’s criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza has set him apart from many mainstream Democrats and prompted allegations of antisemitism, which he has fiercely denied. Earlier this month, during an appearance on the political podcast The Bulwark, Mamdani declined to condemn the pro-Palestinian phrase “globalize the intifada,” which some Jews view as antisemitic and a call to violence.

    Jeffries told ABC that Mamdani needed to “clarify his position” on the phrase to reassure Jewish New Yorkers.

    Pressed again on Sunday, Mamdani said it was “not language that I use” but again did not condemn it. He said he did not want to determine for others what words are permissible or impermissible, arguing that Trump has done that by targeting pro-Palestinian activists for their speech.

    “We have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately we do that through the actions,” he said.

    Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, elected as a Democrat, is running as an independent in November’s election after Trump’s Justice Department dropped corruption charges against him, fueling accusations of a quid pro quo that he has denied. The Republican nominee is Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and lawyer Jim Walden is also running as an independent.

    Cuomo has not yet decided whether to remain in the race as an independent.

    (Reuters)

  • Pace of Ukraine talks hinges on efforts of Kyiv, Washington, Kremlin says

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The pace of talks to resolve the war in Ukraine depends on Kyiv’s position, the effectiveness of U.S. mediation, and the situation on the ground, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in remarks televised on Sunday.

    Five months into U.S. President Donald Trump’s term, there is no clear end to the war Russia launched in February 2022 against its smaller neighbour, despite his 2024 campaign vow to end it in one day.

    Trump, who has pushed both sides towards ceasefire talks since his January inauguration, said on Friday he thinks “something will happen” about a settlement of the war.

    “A lot depends, naturally, on the position of the Kyiv regime,” Peskov told Belarus 1 TV, the main state television channel in Russia’s neighbour.

    “It depends on how effectively Washington’s mediating efforts continue,” he said, adding that the situation on the ground was another factor that could not be ignored.

    Peskov did not elaborate on what Moscow expects from Washington or Kyiv. Moscow has been demanding that Ukraine cede more land and abandon Western military support, conditions Kyiv calls unacceptable.

    While no date has been set for the next round of talks, Peskov said Russia hoped dates would become clear “in the near future.”

    After a gap of more than three years, Russia and Ukraine held face-to-face talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2 that led to a series of prisoner exchanges and the return of their dead soldiers.

    They have made no progress towards a ceasefire, however. Their blueprints for a peace deal shared at the June 2 talks were “absolutely contradictory memorandums”, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

    Russia, which already controls about a fifth of Ukraine, continues to advance gradually, gaining ground in recent weeks in Ukraine’s southeastern regions of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk, and ramping up air attacks nationwide.

    Turkey, which hosted the previous round of talks, is ready to host them again, it said on Friday.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall: This is $1,000 a Month for Hard-Working Kansans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Senator Marshall Joins NewsNation to Discuss The Republican Reconciliation Bill
    Washington – On Sunday morning, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined Chris Stirewalt on NewsNation’s The Hill Sunday to discuss the current state of the Republican reconciliation bill as the Senate seeks to hold a vote early tomorrow morning and specifically address the rumors circulating from the fake news media.
    Click HERE or on the image above to watch Senator Marshall’s full remarks.
    On the home stretch of the reconciliation bill and getting it across the finish line:
    “Well, I think if it weren’t for President Trump and John Thune and John Barrasso, [it] would be next to impossible. Vice President also came in and got involved as well, JD Vance. So, I think it’s constantly listening, it’s pushing, it’s the art of the deal. Both sides are saying they’re unhappy – we’re probably right over the target.”
    On the need for more cuts down the road:
    “Look, I think we have significant commitments from the White House and from leadership to continue to address this. Look, I actually think this bill will help shrink the debt. I think it’s going to grow the economy so much, just like it did under President Kennedy, President Reagan, President Clinton, and then again, under President Trump 45. I think it’ll grow the economy, shrink the debt. This is phase one. It’s not the end-all; we have a lot of work to do.
    “I think what your listeners need to understand … is we’re extending this debt limit. If we don’t do that, it could help, it would hurt us, or on our debt, our bond rating. And number three is the Democrats will extract a pound of flesh to give that to us, because whoever’s in power gets blamed for it, right?”
    On whether or not ‘unpopular’ cuts will get removed:
    “I don’t. I think that’s only affecting one person. There are too many great things in this bill to vote for. We’re going to prevent the largest tax increase in history – this is the extension of President Trump’s legacy. If you supported President Trump, you should support this bill. We voted for him to secure the border. He’s going to run out of money soon. This bill is going to fund border security for four years, 2000 miles of barriers along with it, and tax cuts for everybody. This will mean $1,000 a month to hard-working Kansans back home.”
    On how Medicaid is actually being strengthened and preserved:
    “I’m not sure there’s ever a good time to cut anything up here. But I want to emphasize, we’re not cutting spending. We are actually increasing spending on Medicaid over the next years, at a rate higher than inflation. We’re gonna end up spending $200 billion more per year than what we are right now. We’re going to protect and preserve it for those who need it the most, for seniors in nursing homes, for people with disabilities, pregnant women, and children. So we need to protect and preserve it – make it financially solvent.
    “But I’m so proud of what we did on this bill, $25 billion for rural hospitals and community health centers. Look, only 5% of Medicaid dollars end up in rural hospitals – the urban hospitals take 95% of that money. So we have $25 billion to help make those rule hospitals solvent. I think it’s an incredible solution. I compliment Susan Collins and Rick Scott on their work on that as well. They’ve done a great job helping get that across the finish line.”
    On the major wins for Kansans:
    “Look, you need to laser focus the message here. What you didn’t show is that if you address these one title at a time, it actually polls positively. So you need to go back home – I’m talking to union workers in Wichita, I talk about no tax on overtime. If I’m talking to farmers, there’s this 199A pass-through, crop insurance, 45Z. So you have to tailor your message if you do them one at a time.
    “Talking to hardcore conservatives like me, we talk about President Trump’s legacy, that we’re securing the border. The left media has done an incredible job of labeling this bill bad, Trump bad, bill bad, but what we have to do is focus on the real message here: how much this is going to help Americans. This is the start of a new golden era for the Americans.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • China’s weak factory activity maintains pressure for more stimulus as tariff risks weigh

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    China’s manufacturing activity shrank for a third straight month in June, though at a slower pace, as increases in new orders, purchasing volumes and supplier delivery times signalled that policy support rolled out since late last year is taking effect.

    But business sentiment remains subdued, Monday’s survey showed, with employment, factory gate prices and new export orders still languishing, and keeping alive calls for even more stimulus as authorities deal with U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff onslaught and chronic weakness in the property sector.

    The National Bureau of Statistics purchasing managers’ index (PMI) rose to 49.7 in June from 49.5 in May, matching the median forecast in a Reuters poll but remaining below the 50-mark that separates growth from contraction.

    “Two months of successive improvement, that’s a decent reading given June was the first full month without Trump’s prohibitive 100%-plus tariffs,” said Xu Tianchen, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

    “There is still evidence of frontloading in trade, but the tariffs are lower now and manufacturers are preparing to ship holiday season goods,” he added.

    The new export orders sub-index remained in contraction for a 14th straight month in June, inching up to 47.7 from 47.5 in May, while employment diverged from other indicators by deteriorating further. However, new domestic orders rose to 50.2 from 49.8, and purchasing volumes jumped from 47.6 to 50.2 — offering policymakers some hope that domestic demand may be starting to recover.

    Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the PMIs suggested the world’s second-largest economy had regained some momentum over the past month, but warned tensions with the West would continue to squeeze its exports and there were still signs of deflationary pressures.

    The non-manufacturing PMI, which includes services and construction, grew to 50.5 from 50.3.

    Activity in the food and beverages, travel, hospitality and logistics sectors fell this month, NBS senior statistician Zhao Qinghe said in a statement. However, this drag was offset by a pickup in the construction PMI, which rose to a 3-month high of 52.8, Capital Economics’ Huang said.

    “Fiscal support looks to have continued to support infrastructure spending,” Huang added, but cautioned that “a fading fiscal tailwind is likely to slow activity in the second half of the year.”

    MORE STIMULUS

    Uncertainty also lingers among factory owners, as the business outlook index – which normally moves in line with the headline PMI – dropped in June and suggested producers were waiting on a more durable trade deal to a fragile framework agreed between Beijing and Washington earlier this month.

    That puts pressure on policymakers to roll out more support measures, as the government cannot afford for China’s vast manufacturing sector to stagnate or shrink, if its ambitious 2025 growth target of “around 5%” is to be met.

    Profits at China’s industrial firms swung sharply back into decline in May, which officials attributed to weak demand and falling industrial product prices.

    Policymakers are confident they can push ahead with reforms launched late last year to transition China’s economy from a manufacturing-led model to a consumer-driven one, Premier Li Qiang told delegates at World Economic Forum and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank meetings last week.

    Such a shift in the engines of growth, which economists say is crucial to securing China’s future, could be progressed while maintaining strong growth, Li said.

    But economists say the transition could take years, and that reform typically comes at the cost of a more subdued economy in the short term.

    “Exports are expected to decelerate in the second half of the year, and domestic deflationary pressures will intensify,” said Dan Wang, China director at Eurasia Group, who expects more stimulus in coming months.

    “Household consumption cannot be a real short-term driver, but fiscal spending in things like infrastructure can deliver the kind of growth required to hit this year’s target.”

    (Reuters)