NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: A foundation for the future: state breaks ground on affordable housing site in Stockton

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 26, 2025

    What you need to know: La Passeggiata on Lindsey Street in Stockton is the latest site to be transformed from excess, underutilized state land into affordable housing under Governor Newsom’s executive order.

    STOCKTON — Today, state leaders broke ground on a new affordable housing community in downtown Stockton. Through an executive order signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the former state-owned site will be turned into 94 homes for low-income households.

    “Once again, the Excess Sites program is helping transform state-owned land into something more: hope and stability for our state’s residents. California continues to lead by example in addressing the nation’s affordable housing crisis.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    The Excess Sites program is administered in partnership by the California Department of General Services (DGS) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The program identifies state-owned land available and suitable for housing and creates a digital inventory of those properties through the State Excess Sites – Affordable Housing Opportunities Map Viewer. The sites are awarded to developers via a long-term ground lease allowing for low-cost development of affordable housing. This community is being developed by Visionary Home Builders of California.

    “The State’s Excess Sites program continues to transform neighborhoods across California by turning underutilized state property into affordable housing and revitalizing communities,” Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Secretary Tomiquia Moss said. “This energy-efficient project will reduce the community’s carbon footprint and breathe new life into Downtown Stockton with housing and services for families and seniors.”

    “Having grown up in Stockton, I am honored to be a part of this transformation to provide safe and stable housing for members of the community who need it most,” said Government Operations Secretary Nick Maduros. “This marks another step on California’s journey toward addressing housing needs while staying committed to our sustainability goals.”  
     

    Project details

    The plans for La Passeggiata at 622 East Lindsey Street in Stockton include two buildings, five and six stories high, connected by a breezeway. The five-story building will have 39 one- and two-bedroom apartments, and the six-story building will have 55 two- and three-bedroom apartments. The units will have energy-efficient appliances, rooftop gardens, and will utilize solar energy for seniors and families.

    “The modern, energy-efficient units at La Passeggiata will provide homes for dozens of local families who need an affordable place to live,” DGS Director Ana M. Lasso said. “This project harnesses the best of state, local and nonprofit collaboration to deliver much needed sustainable, affordable housing across the state.”

    “Thanks to the Governor’s executive order, nearly an acre of land sitting unused in the heart of Stockton—blocks from the Civic Center and waterfront—will be transformed into critically needed affordable housing,” HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez said. “Through this ongoing partnership, we are connecting residents in need of housing stability to jobs, transit, amenities, and opportunity.”

    From state land to affordable housing

    In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order N-06-19, tasking HCD and DGS with tackling the state’s affordable housing crisis by identifying underutilized state-owned land that could be converted into affordable housing, considering factors such as proximity to job centers, amenities, and public transit. The order has since been utilized to create hundreds of affordable homes on nearly 50 state-owned sites, including:

    • 248 new homes at Sugar Pine Village for families and workers in the Tahoe region
    • 58 new homes for seniors under construction with an additional 150 new homes  starting construction within the year at Mulberry Gardens Senior Apartments in Riverside
    • 75 new homes at 750 Golden Gate Avenue with an additional 92 new homes at 850 Turk Street in San Francisco
    • 58 new homes at Sonrisa in Sacramento

    Recent news

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: There are many disingenuous claims swirling about California gas prices “set to soar” – the truth is that gas prices won’t come anywhere close to increasing by 65 cents, as many would have you believe.   SACRAMENTO – California gas prices…

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom announced $135 million is available for wildfire prevention grants – protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire at the same time as President Trump adds new strain to firefighting resources. SACRAMENTO – As President…

    Jun 25, 2025

    News What you need to know: As part of California Jobs First, the state is awarding $15 million through the Regional Investment Initiative to support California Native American tribal partners in creating jobs and developing high-paying and fulfilling careers….

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ranking Member Huffman Blasts Trump Administration’s Reckless Withdrawal from Historic Columbia Basin Agreement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Huffman Representing the 2nd District of California

    June 12, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) released the following statement:

    “Trump’s decision to abandon the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement is yet another reckless, shortsighted move that makes one thing clear: this administration has no respect for the trust and treaty rights of Tribal Nations. It’s a betrayal that erases decades of hard work to resolve long-standing conflicts in the region and blows up a historic agreement that supported salmon recovery, reliable clean energy, and water and food security across the Pacific Northwest.
     
    “This was a rare win forged between the federal government and Tribal Leaders from the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and the states of Washington and Oregon. It was grounded in science, built on consensus, and designed to protect salmon from extinction while preparing the region for a clean energy future. Trump threw all that away to score cheap political points – and it’s Tribes, working families, and our environment who will pay the price.
     
    “Let’s be clear: this fight isn’t over. Democrats will stand with Tribal leaders in the fight to honor treaty rights, restore fisheries, and build the resilient future this region deserves.”

    ###

    Next Article Previous Article

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Rep. García: Blasts Trump for Weaponizing Immigration Courts

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Jesús Chuy García (IL-04)

    Republicans know what they’re doing is illegal and unpopular, and they are doing everything they can do to hide it.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today Representative Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), member of the House Judiciary Committee and Congressional Progressive Caucus Whip, joined a virtual shadow hearing led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) to expose the Trump administration’s latest tactic: using immigration courts as traps to detain and disappear people.

     The hearing, “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Weaponization of Immigration Courts”, laid out how ICE is luring immigrants to appear at scheduled court dates or check-ins—then detaining them on the spot. According to news reports, at least 100 people were arrested in June alone during courthouse operations. 

     “Because Republicans know what they’re doing is illegal and unpopular, they’re doing everything they can to hide it, including by preventing Members of Congress from exercising their legal oversight authority to visit detention facilities,” said Congressman García during the hearing. 

     “All of these tactics have been used in Chicago. ICE agents showed up to our immigration court and detained at least four people who had shown up for their hearings. They also detained people at their check-ins, including a mother with no criminal record who had applied for asylum and complied with all requirements,” he continued.

     “So I’ve seen firsthand what’s happening to our immigrant communities like the one I represent, and how blatantly this Administration is violating the law to cover up their abuses. This is a moment of crisis in our country. We must double down on oversight, legislative proposals to fix our immigration system, and our commitment to the dignity and humanity of all immigrants and all people.”

     To watch the video of the hearing, click here. 

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: New Warren Report: “Bad Medicine: RFK Jr.’s Dirty Dozen Antivax Attacks”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 26, 2025

    As key vaccine panel meets, Sen. Warren highlights a dozen actions by RFK Jr. to undermine access to vaccines, endangering millions of Americans

    “By breaking promises, distorting facts, and pushing out mainstream vaccine experts and disregarding their views while installing anti-vaccination zealots, RFK Jr. has jeopardized the health of millions.”

    Report (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) published a new report entitled “Bad Medicine: RFK Jr.’s Dirty Dozen Antivax Attacks,” underscoring the key ways Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK Jr.) has undermined vaccine access and confidence in vaccines and jeopardized Americans’ health. The report was published during the first meeting of the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which RFK Jr. gutted and replaced with members who will advance his own anti-vaccine agenda.

    “Americans should watch carefully to ensure that RFK Jr. and his hand-picked committee do not further undermine public health,” wrote Senator Warren.

    Senator Warren’s “dirty dozen” list of anti-vaccine activities that occurred under RFK Jr.’s watch includes:

    1. “Burying” a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that “emphasized the importance of vaccinating people against the highly contagious and potentially deadly disease,” measles. The report, originally set to be released amidst a growing measles outbreak, found that the risk of contracting measles was high in communities near outbreaks with low vaccination rates.
    2. Promoting pseudoscience remedies and falsehoods while downplaying threats from measles as an outbreak swept across the country. Kennedy falsely claimed that the measles vaccine had not been “safely tested” and that its protection was short-lived. Kennedy pushed false information on X that “cod liver oil” and “Vitamin A” would be an effective treatment. As a result, some unvaccinated children who “were given so much Vitamin A…had signs of liver damage.” After the first death from the disease, he claimed that the outbreak was “not unusual” and failed to mention vaccination as a key to stopping the outbreak.
    3. Ending the “Let’s Get Real” vaccine campaign, which provided resources and information to health care providers for communicating and working with hesitant parents.
    4. Removing the COVID vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, without consulting CDC experts.
    5. Commissioning and publishing the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, advancing scientifically dubious assertions, filled with distorted research and inaccurate claims about vaccine safety. The MAHA report misleadingly claimed that vaccines are responsible for “many possible adverse events for which there is inadequate evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship.” The MAHA report also cited multiple studies that did not exist, and researchers whose papers were cited indicated that the report had misinterpreted their findings.
    6. Canceling a promising study to develop a Bird Flu vaccine, even as the newest strain of the disease spreads, infecting more than 70 people, and public health officials become increasingly concerned about a broader outbreak.
    7. Ending funding for a broad swath of HIV vaccine studies, potentially setting back US-led efforts to end the global AIDS pandemic by a decade.
    8. Reneging on his promise to “work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes,” on February 20th, Kennedy canceled ACIP’s first public meeting of 2025, before firing all the members of the panel on June 9th. ACIP is an independent panel of experts that makes recommendations to the CDC on vaccines. Kennedy also removed the staffers who oversaw ACIP and were responsible for vetting nominees for ACIP membership, effectively leaving the CDC’s chief of staff, a Trump Administration political appointee, in charge of the committee’s planning.
    9. Breaking his pledge not to appoint ideological anti-vaxxers to ACIP, Kennedy named eight new members to the panel, of which at least half are vaccine skeptics. According to various CDC officials, Kennedy circumvented the CDC’s process to select his new committee members.
    10. Announcing in his first address to agency staff as HHS secretary, Kennedy said he would use the Make America Healthy Again commission to investigate the childhood vaccination schedule, despite his baseless claims that it contributes to poor health outcomes.
    11. Hiring David Geier, a known vaccine skeptic who has promoted the debunked link between immunizations and autism, to study the theory. More than a decade ago, state regulators disciplined Grier for practicing medicine without a license.
    12. Forcing Dr. Peter Marks, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) top vaccine official and head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, to step down after Dr. Marks refused to comply with Secretary Kennedy’s wish for “subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.”

    “During his tenure as the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr. has systematically weakened the nation’s vaccine system, stoking parents’ fears and using his position to push his anti-vaccine agenda and limit access to vaccines,” wrote Senator Warren. “Vaccines are vital to protecting the lives of millions, and if Secretary Kennedy is successful in dismantling the nation’s vaccine system, the nation will face an extraordinary public health crisis.”

    This week, Senator Warren slammed RFK Jr. for his “reckless” and “shortsighted” decision to fire all 17 independent members of the ACIP and replace them with his own hand-picked nominees. Ahead of today’s meeting, Senator Warren pressed RFK Jr. on his conflicts of interest and those of his appointees, raising concerns about their ability to make public health decisions that benefit Americans rather than line their own pockets.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Secretary Noem Terminates Wasteful DHS Program that Encouraged DEI in K-12 Schools

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: Secretary Noem Terminates Wasteful DHS Program that Encouraged DEI in K-12 Schools

    lass=”text-align-center”>The “Invent2Prevent” program funneled millions of dollars to a highly politicized organization and targeted school children with radical ideology
    WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she terminated the DHS “Invent2Prevent” program – a wasteful and highly politicized initiative that cost the American taxpayer over $1

    5 million dollars

    Despite its high cost, the program accomplished very little towards its apparent mission: preventing terrorism

    Instead, it funneled taxpayer money into a highly politicized organization called “The Eradicate Hate Global Summit,” which promoted DEI and LGBTQ ideology at K-12 schools

    “President Trump was given a mandate by the American people to eliminate wasteful government spending, and that is exactly what we are doing,” said Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary

    “This program was not only wasteful, it was also using public money to support an openly partisan and political organization

    Politicized NGOs like Eradicate Hate have been siphoning away taxpayer dollars for far too long

    We are ending the grift

    ”
    Under the guise of counter terrorism, this program used tax money on initiatives to foster “inclusive environments in schools,” promote DEI, and expose grade school children to sexualized topics like LGBTQ issues

    By canceling Invent2Prevent, Secretary Noem is saving the taxpayer $1,523,146

    24

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Barry Moore votes to support President Trump’s Rescissions Package

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Barry Moore

    Washington D.C. – Today, Rep. Barry Moore (AL-01) issued the following statement in strong support of President Donald J. Trump’s rescissions package, which would cut $9.4 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, or unspent federal funding:

    “President Trump understands what too many in Washington have forgotten: this is the people’s money. The rescissions package that House Republicans just passed is a direct strike to the bloated bureaucracy and out-of-control spending habits that we have seen in our federal government for too long,” said Moore. “My constituents sent me here to be a responsible steward of their taxpayer dollars, not to rubber-stamp wasteful projects that do not help the American people. I thank President Trump for leading the charge to restore fiscal sanity and putting America first.”

    President Trump’s rescissions package includes targeted cuts to unobligated funds from duplicative programs, NPR, PBS, and foreign aid that fails to serve America’s interests.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: South and Central Asia Subcommittee Chairman Huizenga Delivers Opening Statement at Hearing on Terror Threat Landscape

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-321-9747

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga delivered opening remarks at a subcommittee hearing titled, “Assessing the Terror Threat Landscape in South and Central Asia and Examining Opportunities for Cooperation.”

    Watch Here

    -Remarks-

    Today we will discuss the current terror threats and the landscape throughout South and Central Asia and potential opportunities for the Trump administration to enhance our regional counterterrorism strategy.

    Since the Biden administration’s ill-conceived and executed and withdraw from Afghanistan, the subsequent Taliban takeover, the terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia has changed dramatically. Despite the Taliban’s Doha Agreement commitments, Afghanistan has once again become a hotbed for terrorists looking for safe harbor as they grow their ranks and abilities to project attacks across the region and frankly, the world.

    Threats from groups such as ISISK and the TTP, also known as the Pakistan Taliban, are higher than any time in recorded history, and internally, Pakistan has seen the highest rates of terror attacks in many years. And of course, the recent attack in Pahalgam reminded us all that the threat, the militant threat in Kashmir has not subsided.

    For decades, the United States has remained the global leader in the fight against terrorism. We’ve engaged our internal international partners through bilateral agreements and multilateral mechanisms that have supplied our allies with training and equipment to ensure that they are able to stop the spread of terrorism from further poisoning our world.

    However, the threat has persisted since the 2021 ISIS K bombing at Abbey Gate, which killed 13 American servicemen and 170 Afghan civilians and wounded many others, including one of my constituents from Southwest Michigan.

    The Taliban claims to be doing their best to eliminate the ISIS-K threat. However, while the Taliban claimed victory, ISIS-K continues to wreak havoc, conducting attacks that target everyone from innocent civilians to Taliban officials, all while continuing its effort to radicalize and recruit from diaspora communities across and even outside of Central Asia. Last year we saw the growing ISISK threat manifest as hundreds were killed in attacks in both Moscow and Tehran and through the foiled plot to attack the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris.

    Nevertheless, the United States continues to display strong leadership, working closely with our partners such as the Pakistanis who recently arrested a key planner in the Abbey Gate attacks. That individual has since been brought to the United States to stand trial for his crimes. The Pakistanis themselves are no strangers to the terrorist threat that festers within their own borders. 2024 was one of the most violent years in over a decade for Pakistan. Groups such as Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army threatened civilians and Pakistani security forces alike. Rising violence from such militant groups and others pose a significant threat to Pakistan’s internal security and has been the source of much friction between Pakistan and its neighbors in the region.

    Most recently, we saw the devastating attack on the Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir where the 2026 individuals, primarily tourists, were brutally and deliberately killed in cold blood by militants. The attack led to a military conflict between two major nuclear powers, the first of its kind in years.

    I want to be clear; I respect India’s sovereign right to defend itself against rogue actors seeking to sow instability in the volatile region. But I support and encourage both sides to work earnestly to resolve the areas of conflict.

    As we discussed the challenges emanating from the region, it’s essential to assess the tools that we have at our disposal to continue the fight against terrorism. The Trump administration is uniquely, has a unique opportunity to find new ways to engage our regional partners and find a new path to stability and security.

    So I want to say thank you to our witnesses, Ms. Curtis and Ms. Todd, for being here today and I look forward to a robust conversation.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Griffith Announces More Than $1 Million HHS Grant to Clinch Valley Community Action, Inc.

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded Clinch Valley Community Action, Inc., based in North Tazewell, Virginia, a $1,026,248 grant. The funding supports the organization’s Head Start program. U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement:

    “Southwest Virginia children and families receive access to Head Start through groups like Clinch Valley Community Action.

    “This grant for more than $1 million helps Clinch Valley Community Action tend to the Head Start needs of Southwest Virginia communities.”

    BACKGROUND

    According to its website, the Clinch Valley Community Action Head Start program operates eight classrooms in Tazewell County that serve 157 children. 

    Outside of Tazewell County, Clinch Valley Community Action offers Head Start programs to Bland, Smyth and Wythe Counties.

    In a recent Health Subcommittee hearing with Congressman Griffith present, HHS Secretary Kennedy noted President Trump’s Budget request recommends Head Start continue to receive funding equal to the FY 2025 enacted level.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Griffith Op-Ed: “Big, Beautiful Bill” Bolsters Electric Grid, Helps Protect Americans from Blackout Threats

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

    As the U.S. Congress continues to deliberate on a reconciliation package to deliver to President Trump’s desk ahead of July 4, Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) penned an op-ed on the package’s benefits for America’s electric grid. 

    Read his full op-ed in the Washington Examiner here or below.

    The intense heat wave battering the United States pushes America’s electric grid to the brink and threatens potential power outages. But House Republicans offer a policy change that bolsters our grid and helps protect Americans from blackout threats.

    Communities across much of the country face scorching temperatures, prompting power companies to take notice and act accordingly.

    In my part of Virginia, local power companies affiliated with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) are encouraging their customers to reduce electricity use. This request appears to be based on an announcement from the TVA.

    Alerts of potential breaking points in America’s electric grid are not unique to the TVA and are unfortunately becoming more and more frequent. 

    The Friday before Memorial Day, Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued an emergency order directing the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the Midwest grid operator, to keep a coal-fired power plant in Michigan in operation. These emergency actions are authorized for up to 90 days at a time under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act.

    Wright issued the order to minimize the risk of blackouts ahead of the high electricity demand expected this summer.

    MISO runs North to South from Manitoba and Michigan down to Louisiana and a portion of East Texas. 

    Notwithstanding keeping the plant in Michigan open, the New Orleans metro area suffered a large and unexpected power outage during Memorial Day weekend. At the blackout’s peak, more than 100,000 customers lost electricity.

    According to news website Axios, utilities knew high demand was likely that weekend. However, they had no extra power capacity. When one plant went down, their customers were plunged into darkness.

    Reports confirmed that two of the region’s nuclear power plants lost connection to the grid. One was due to expected maintenance, while the other was unexpected. Constrained by a lack of energy supply, grid operators cut power to customers in New Orleans.

    Entergy, an electric utility company in the region, said that the forced outages directed by MISO were done to prevent a larger scale and more prolonged power outage from impacting the electric grid.

    This blackout was not the only major power outage in recent memory.

    On April 28, Portugal and Spain witnessed the worst blackout in their history, affecting 55 million people, per British newspaper The Guardian.

    Airports shut down, cars drove on streets without traffic lights, hospitals resorted to backup generators and some people were stuck in elevators!

    The Iberian Peninsula blackout continues to be investigated. Lots of finger-pointing is going on between Spain’s grid operator, the government and plant operators. But it is interesting to note that on April 16, Spain reported its first weekday where its national power grid was 100% reliant on renewable power.

    A coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

    Coincidentally, in a recent Virginia Tech press release, professor and Power and Energy Center director Dr. Ali Mehrizi-Sani highlighted how the systems that control these clean energy sources are more susceptible to blackouts.

    As parts of the world transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, the lack of seamless grid adaptation to the use of these sources, as illustrated by the blackout in Spain and Portugal and by experts like Dr. Mehrizi-Sani, threatens destabilization of electric grids and more blackouts.

    Leftist policies that attempted to gut our grid’s reliance on fossil fuels and convert to renewables have pushed America’s electric grid to the brink.

    Federal policies, like the Obama-era “War on Coal” and the Biden Administration’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), shunning reliable baseload forms of energy like coal and natural gas have made our electric grid more vulnerable to failure.  

    But House Republicans offer a potential policy change that levels the playing field and openly welcomes baseload power.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act curtails some IRA tax credits which disincentivize coal and natural gas power plants. We maintain the incentives for nuclear because of its significant potential for baseload power.

    Republicans also create an energy project insurance pool to help protect energy investors from permits being revoked for coal, oil, critical minerals, natural gas or nuclear installations.

    This de-risking compensation fund will make it harder for federal policies to discourage and phase out these reliable energy sources.

    As extreme summer heat continues to threaten potential power outages, we must secure and equip our electric grid with reliable energy solutions.

    We do not need to follow in Spain’s footsteps and make Iberian Peninsula-style blackouts the norm.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act helps Americans avoid blackout threats by instituting reliable forms of baseload power. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Griffith Announces More Than $4 Million HHS Grant to People Incorporated of Virginia

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded People Incorporated of Virginia, based in Abingdon, Virginia, a $4,059,715 grant. The funding supports head start and early head start projects. U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement:

    “People Incorporated is a provider of head start services in Southwest Virginia.

    “This grant for more than $4 million helps People Incorporated administer head start and early head start services.”

    BACKGROUND

    According to its website, People Incorporated of Virginia offers early head start services to Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell and Washington Counties as well as the City of Bristol.

    People Incorporated lists five head start centers based in Southwest Virginia.

    Last year, Congressman Griffith entered formal remarks in the Congressional Record to celebrate the organization’s 60thanniversary.

    In a recent Health Subcommittee hearing with Congressman Griffith present, HHS Secretary Kennedy noted President Trump’s Budget request recommends Head Start continue to receive funding equal to the FY 2025 enacted level.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Morgan McGarvey Cosponsors War Powers Resolution

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan McGarvey (Kentucky-03)

    June 26, 2025

    Today, Congressman Morgan McGarvey cosponsored a Congressional War Powers Resolution directing Donald Trump “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.” Congressman McGarvey said earlier this week: “On behalf of all Louisvillians, I am fighting to ensure American safety and security and that our top priority is peace and not another endless war.”

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PDF

    Full text:

    Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. 

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

    That, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack provided that the President complies fully with the requirements of section 5(b) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)) with respect to any such use of the Armed Forces, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force against Iran.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman McGarvey Sends Letter to EPA Administrator About Concerning Spike in Forever Chemicals Detected in the Ohio River

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan McGarvey (Kentucky-03)

    June 26, 2025

    Today, Congressman Morgan McGarvey sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin raising the alarm about a sharp spike in forever chemicals detected in the Ohio River, which is downstream of notorious polluters like the Chemours Washington Works Plant.

    Data from Louisville Water shows that in November 2024, detected levels of the PFAS chemical GenX spiked dramatically, jumping from under 5 parts per trillion (ppt) to over 50 ppt. Studies have revealed that GenX consumption can have adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, immune system, offspring development, and an association with cancer.

    “Water safety impacts all Louisvillians, which is why I am deeply concerned by the significant spike in the detection of the forever chemical GenX in the Ohio River last November,” said Congressman McGarvey. “For weeks, my office has been in touch with relevant stakeholders who share my concerns which is why today, I am urging EPA Administrator Zeldin to consider the troubling health impacts that communities across the country will face in the event that Trump’s EPA takes the side of polluters.”

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD LETTER

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD GRAPH

    Full text:

    Dear Administrator Zeldin, 

    In light of your announced intention to revisit maximum contaminant levels for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and related chemicals, I am writing to express a significant concern for my district, Louisville, Kentucky, and the numerous communities that rely on the Ohio River for their drinking water. I urge you to carefully consider the concerning health impacts that these communities and others across the country will face if per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances continue to pollute our nation’s waters. 

    Further, if your review of the regulatory determinations made under the Safe Drinking Water Act does lead to reduced protections for Kentuckians with PFAS in their drinking water, I ask that you please provide your plan to prevent the continued release of PFAS pollutants into their waterways in the first place and how to hold polluters accountable for alarming spikes like the one seen in November 2024. The chart indicating this spike is included below. 

    While Louisville Water remains confident in its ability to treat the water from the Ohio River, the responsibility of preventing PFAS from entering the waterways ultimately lies with the polluters themselves. Data from Louisville Water, which provides drinking water to roughly one million customers in Jefferson, Shelby, Spencer, Bullitt, Hardin, and Nelson counties in Kentucky, shows that in November 2024, detected levels of the PFAS chemical GenX spiked dramatically, jumping from under 5 parts per trillion (ppt) to over 50 ppt. 

    Chemours, a spin-off of DuPont Chemicals, developed hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, or GenX) as a replacement for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in various industrial and consumer applications. GenX was designed to address concerns stemming from litigation related to PFOA’s toxicity. It is used in high-performance polymers for manufacturing cabling, cookware, non-stick coatings, laptops, cell phones, and other similar applications. GenX chemicals have been found in surface water, groundwater, drinking water, rainwater, and air emissions. Studies have revealed that GenX consumption can have adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, immune system, offspring development, and an association with cancer.   

    In 2024, EPA established the first-ever national drinking water standards to protect Americans from exposure to a wide range of PFAS, including GenX. Per your May announcement, EPA now intends to rescind regulations for GenX and some other PFAS chemicals while conducting a review of the legal process in making those regulatory determinations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As your agency conducts this review of the regulatory process, I urge you to consider the harm that rescinding GenX limits in drinking water will have on my constituents and other communities along the Ohio River downstream of notorious polluters like the Chemours Washington Works Plant.

    I appreciate your attention to this matter.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Markey, Leader Schumer, Wyden Urge Republicans to Halt Health Care Cuts, Spare Small Businesses from Skyrocketing Costs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Lawmakers raise concerns with Republican health care and food security cuts
    Letter Text (PDF)
    Washington (June 26, 2025) – Small Business Committee Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today wrote to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) with concerns that the proposed cuts in the Republican budget reconciliation bill to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or allowing the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits to expire for 3 million small businesses, including more than 34,000 Massachusetts small businesses, would be a disaster for families and small businesses across the country.
    More than 40 percent of small business owners surveyed by Small Business For America’s Future (SBAF) are concerned that health care cuts would make it harder to compete with large companies, hurt local economies, and result in higher employee turnover and lower productivity. Small business owners are working entrepreneurs who fuel local economies and create jobs. Gutting these lifelines to give more tax breaks to billionaires is an insult to the workers and business owners who keep our communities going.
    The lawmakers write, “It is no surprise that small business owners across the country do not support Republicans’ health care and nutrition cuts: 7 in 10 small business owners oppose cutting healthcare programs while extending tax breaks for the wealthy. As a small business owner in Pennsylvania stated, ‘These cuts don’t solve problems – they shift costs from government programs onto the businesses least able to absorb them, all while extending tax breaks for corporations that already pay lower effective rates than the corner store.’ Small businesses succeed when their owners and employees are healthy, secure, and financially stable. Policies that strip away basic support systems in favor of giveaways for the ultra-wealthy don’t just hurt families, they stifle entrepreneurship and economic growth. The Senate reconciliation bill should recognize this and support America’s small business owners and employees. If this bill is enacted, small businesses would lose while big corporations and the ultra-wealthy win.”
    “Small businesses cannot afford to be shut out of access to affordable healthcare. Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and enhanced ACA premium tax credits are lifelines for small business owners, their families, and their workers. If Republicans gut these programs or allow them to expire, health care costs for small businesses and their families will skyrocket, employees will lose coverage, and entrepreneurs will be stifled,” said Senator Markey. “We must expand access to health coverage for all, especially small businesses.”
    “The GOP plan will destroy Main Street just to give more tax cuts to Wall Street. Republicans’ healthcare cuts will cripple the ability of small businesses to provide affordable health insurance for their employees and raise costs to make it even harder for small businesses to stay afloat, especially when so many are already being crushed by the higher prices of Trump’s tariffs,” said Leader Schumer. “Small businesses are the lifeblood of this country and the staggering healthcare cuts could cause Main Street businesses to shutter in every corner of the country. Republicans are dead set on continuing their billionaire tax giveaway, but Senate Democrats will not stop fighting to expose the cruelty at the heart of this legislation.”
    “The Republican prescription to cut lifeline health care programs will clobber small businesses making every ounce of effort to keep their lights on,” said Senator Wyden. “I’ve heard firsthand from Oregonians in red and blue communities alike that losing health care coverage will mean one more extra cost that’s hard to afford. As ranking member of the Finance Committee, I am fighting tooth and nail so working families in Oregon and across our country have the coverage they need to put food on the table and care for their loved ones.”
    “We can’t compete with the benefits that large companies offer, and losing good employees because they need healthcare elsewhere would crush us. Small businesses are the heart of our communities—we deserve better than being forced to choose between our workers and our survival,” said Shaundell Newsome, Co-chair of Small Business for America’s Future and owner of Sumnu Marketing, Las Vegas, Nevada.
    “The only reason my three sons have healthcare is Medicaid. It’s literally our lifeline. Now Congress wants to gut these programs to pay for tax cuts for wealthy corporations. The proposed work requirements? They’re a disaster waiting to happen for businesses like mine,” said Dr. Alexia McClerkin, Owner of The Wellness Doc, Houston, Texas.
    “Instead of cutting programs that Main Street depends on, we need policies that help small businesses provide health plan options, support expanding the ACA premium tax credits or quite simply protect Medicaid. Taking away Medicaid will create a snowball effect of other resources such as affordable housing and most recently, the snatching of grant funding opportunities that supported my Tutoring School with a Clean ‘INNERGY’ Program,” said Dr. Latoya Parker, Owner of INNERGY Educational Consulting Company, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
    “What’s particularly frustrating is that we’re talking about cutting programs that work to fund tax breaks for large corporations that are already our competitors for talent and contracts. These big companies have advantages we simply can’t match. Cutting healthcare programs just widens that gap,” said Doug Scheffel, President of ETM Manufacturing, Littleton, Massachusetts.
    “The enhanced premium tax credits are an essential tool that helps my employees afford coverage. Without these credits, many of my 35 workers would face an impossible financial situation. But those enhanced premium tax credits expire this year, and HR 1 fails to extend them while cutting other healthcare programs to fund tax breaks for large corporations,” said Walt Rowen, Small Business for America’s Future Co-chair, President of Susquehanna Glass Company, Columbia, Pennsylvania.
    Small businesses owners surveyed by SBAF expressed fears that the Republican tax scam will impact their ability to compete and retain employees, squeeze their bottom lines, and ultimately threaten the survival of their businesses and their access to essential health care. The SBAF survey also found that:
    Over half of small businesses surveyed have owners, employees, or family members who rely on Medicaid, CHIP coverage, or use the ACA premium tax credits.
    A majority of those surveyed stated that small businesses would face financial pressure if health care program cuts were enacted.
    55 percent of surveyed businesses have owners, employees, or families who rely on premium tax credits offered on the ACA Marketplace to afford coverage
    70 percent oppose cutting vital health care programs to pay for tax breaks for wealthy

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Experts Agree: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated

    Source: US Whitehouse

    From nuclear regulators to foreign policy experts to members of the intelligence community, every knowledgeable person is in agreement that President Donald J. Trump obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi: “Given the power of these devices and the technical characteristics of a centrifuge, we already know that these centrifuges are no longer operational, because they are fairly precise machines: there are rotors, and the vibrations [from the bombs] have completely destroyed them.”

    CIA Director John Ratcliffe: “CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted strikes. This includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.”

    Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “New intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran’s nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do. The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with “low confidence”) to try to undermine President Trump’s decisive leadership and the brave servicemen and women who flawlessly executed a truly historic mission to keep the American people safe and secure.”

    Former ODNI National Intelligence Manager for Iran Norman Roule: “I am confident that Iran has suffered a catastrophic — catastrophic — blow … and that this has set them back for a very, very long time.”

    Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove (Ret.): “It went off magnificently … They did it perfectly, so we should have … an expectation that there was significant damage.”

    Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright: “Iran can’t make centrifuges and can’t produce, in a sense, the equivalent of the gas … so their program is severely damaged.”

    President Trump: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

    Israel Atomic Energy Commission: “The devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”

    IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir: “I can say here that the assessment is that we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.”

    Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei: “Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that’s for sure.”

    Vice President JD Vance: “I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordow nuclear site, and of course, do some damage to the other sites as well, but we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”

    Secretary Hegseth: “Given the 30,000 pounds of explosions and the capability of those munitions, it was DEVASTATION underneath Fordow … Any assessment that tells you otherwise is speculating with other motives.”

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan “Razin” Caine: “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “The Iranian program — the nuclear program — today looks nothing like it did just a week ago … That story is a false story and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening.”

    Secretary Rubio: “Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape … There’s no way Iran comes to the table if somehow nothing had happened. This was complete and total obliteration. They are in bad shape. They are way behind today compared to where they were just seven days ago because of what President Trump did.”

    Special Envoy Steve Witkoff: “We put 12 bunker buster bombs on Fordow. There’s no doubt that it breached the canopy, there’s no doubt that it was well within reach of the depth that these bunker buster bombs go to, and there’s no doubt that it was obliterated — so the reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous.”

    Director Gabbard: “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”

    Director General Grossi: “Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred. At the Esfahan nuclear site, additional buildings were hit, with the US confirming their use of cruise missiles. Affected buildings include some related to the uranium conversion process. Also at this site, entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit. At the Natanz enrichment site, the Fuel Enrichment Plant was hit, with the US confirming that it used ground-penetrating munitions.”

    Mr. Albright: “Overall, Israel’s and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”

    Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program Deputy Director Andrea Stricker: “I think that because of the massive damage and the shock wave that would have been sent by 12 Massive Ordnance Penetrators at the Fordow site, that it likely would render its centrifuges damaged or inoperable.”

    American Enterprise Institute Middle East Portfolio Manager Brian Carter: “There is no question that the bombing campaign ‘badly, badly damaged’ the three sites.”

    Institute for Science and International Security Senior Research Fellow Spencer Faragasso: “Overall, it may possibly take years for Iran to reconstitute the capabilities it lost at these facilities.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Secretary of Defense General Officer Announcements for June 26, 2025

    Source: United States Department of Defense

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that President Donald J. Trump has nominated Army Lt. Gen. Thomas M. Carden, Jr. for appointment to the grade of general, with assignment as vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, and Army Maj. Gen. Bobby L. Christine for appointment as judge advocate general.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News in Brief: Secretary of Defense General Officer Announcements for June 26, 2025

    Source: United States Department of Defense

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that President Donald J. Trump has nominated Army Lt. Gen. Thomas M. Carden, Jr. for appointment to the grade of general, with assignment as vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, and Army Maj. Gen. Bobby L. Christine for appointment as judge advocate general.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Torres Introduces The Taxpayer Protection Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

    June 26, 2025

    Legislation to Ensure Donor States Receive Fair Federal Funding and Ends Politically Motivated Budget Punishment

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Norma Torres (CA-35) unveiled The Taxpayer Protection Act, legislation that addresses politically motivated funding cuts, as well as the persistent imbalance between donor states’ federal tax contributions and the federal funding they receive.

    For months now, California has been subject to threats of across the board federal funding cuts because of the political whims of the Trump Administration.  This is particularly offensive given California’s role as the biggest donor state in the nation- California taxpayers contribute approximately $83 billion more annually to the federal government than the state receives back in federal funding, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government. The bill establishes  a transparent, accountable, and equitable framework ensuring that federal funds are allocated based on fairness — not political retribution.

    “California contributes more to our nation than any other state, yet Donald Trump wants to punish us for our values and political decisions. That stops now. This legislation ensures that federal funding decisions are based on need and equity—not political retribution from the Trump Administration. With the Taxpayer Protection Act, we will ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability from the federal government. This bill isn’t about special treatment—it’s about equal treatment. Our tax dollars should work for us, not be used against us,” said Congresswoman Norma Torres.

    The Act establishes the Donor State Protection Trust Fund, a special Treasury account designed to balance donor states federal tax contributions against the federal funding it receives. It requires independent verification and protects against politically motivated funding cuts. It also prohibits federal agencies from circumventing the law through reclassification or freezing funds.

    The bill would include:

    • A formula-based approach linking donor states federal tax contributions to federal funding received.

    • Protections against funding reductions motivated by political retaliation.

    • Oversight against waste, fraud, and abuse by the Government Accountability Office

    Full bill text

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: PDAAG Roger P. Alford Delivers Remarks to the International Association of Privacy Professionals

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here today. It is an honor to represent the United States and work with the Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater and the amazing attorneys, economists, and staff and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. I also want to thank the IAPP for inviting me to participate in this 2025 Digital Policy Leadership Retreat and Jonathan Zittrain and David Sanger for joining this discussion on such an important and timely topic.

    The world today has indeed become a digital world. Almost every company has some digital presence and almost every product sector is touched by digital platforms. Every day, platforms are connecting users and consumers in new and exciting ways. They are introducing novel commercial relationships with ever sophisticated algorithms. While we welcome these changes, we also recognize that these innovations introduce a range of competition issues. At the Department of Justice, we are watching these developments closely, scrutinizing the competitive implications of digital conduct.

    The topic for my speech today is where we go from here in applying antitrust law and policy in the digital world. I won’t bury the lede. We are heading towards a better future for the American people that maximizes their consumer welfare in digital markets through the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. In fact, thanks to recent enforcement efforts, we are already beginning to see that world unfold.

    Many doubted that would ever be possible. When digital markets first emerged, enforcers had for decades been accustomed mostly to smokestack industries. Products rolled off assembly lines with similar features and prices year after year. These things could be measured and scrutinized quantitatively. We came to think that’s all antitrust enforcers should do.

    In contrast, digital markets offered zero price goods, with consumers trading their time and data for services. They were often defined by innovation and dynamism. Those looked like square pegs that didn’t fit the round holes of traditional antitrust analysis.

    We had become so used to smokestack industries that many assumed consumer welfare should always be measured in the prices and outputs of the goods that rolled off the assembly line. Privacy, attention, choice, and innovation were afterthoughts. And so some suggested that there could be no antitrust enforcement in many digital markets because traditional measures of consumer welfare were difficult to apply.

    Others accepted that premise, but pushed for a divorce between antitrust enforcement and the consumer welfare standard. They thought that to adequately protect competition in digital markets, antitrust needed to abandon its core focus on consumer welfare and have an essentially unlimited lens on its mission to include citizen welfare or a nebulous public interest standard.

    We now know that there is a third way. Consumers’ welfare is not merely about the price they pay. Consumers benefit when their privacy is better protected. They pay for digital services in time, attention, and data. Consumer welfare rises when companies innovate, and new technologies disrupt incumbent technologies.

    The answer was not to abandon antitrust in digital markets, or to abandon consumer welfare. The answer was to recognize the many dimensions of the competitive process that maximizes consumer welfare online.

    I’d like to spend my time today talking about how that principle has played out in recent cases and will continue to inform our work in digital markets in the years to come.

    First, our recent successes in protecting consumers from monopoly abuse in digital markets unequivocally demonstrate the continued vitality of the consumer welfare frame in protecting the American people online.

    As many of you are aware, the Department of Justice has been vigorously enforcing the antitrust laws against the exclusionary and unlawful conduct of Big Tech for some time now, going back to the first Trump Administration. The DOJ currently has two large, ongoing litigations against Google in particular.

    These are historic monopolization cases in which the DOJ earned landmark wins in federal district courts in Washington D.C. and Virginia, finding that Google is a serial monopolist — in general search, in search text advertising, and in multiple segments of the ad-tech stack. These rulings recognize that Google has abused its monopoly status by controlling how digital advertisements are placed on the free and open internet.

    The DOJ has proven that Google repeatedly broke the law against monopolization. In response, we have proposed remedies tailored to restore competition and address the competitive harms of Google’s monopoly abuses.[1] In the Google Search case, a decision is expected by the end of the summer, following a three-week remedy hearing this spring. In Google Ad Tech, a remedies hearing is scheduled for early fall. We are hopeful that the federal courts in both cases will issue strong rulings that adopt structural and behavioral remedies to restore competition. Historic monopolization cases call for historic remedies, and our digital freedoms deserve nothing less.

    The Google cases represent a bipartisan consensus in favor of vigorous antitrust enforcement. Beginning in the first Trump Administration, these cases reflect an historic commitment by both Republican and Democratic Administrations and almost every State Attorney General to protect consumers from monopoly abuse.

    Both of these cases were won with evidence presented within a consumer welfare frame, expanded to account for the unique properties of digital markets. We defined consumer welfare broadly to include not only price, but also quality, output, innovation and anything else that impacts consumers. And we recognized that consumer welfare impacts do not always need to involve the kind of quantitative evidence available in a price-focused case, but that qualitative non-price evidence can be equally valuable.

    Judge Mehta’s opinion in Google Search is a great example of the modern approach to addressing all of the determinants of consumer welfare. It mentions privacy 55 times. For example, when assessing the relevant market, it notes how Google compares its privacy to Duck Duck Go.[2] And its overall market definition approach appropriately takes account for the full range of qualitative evidence that bears on defining competition in search. Meanwhile, the Google Ad Tech opinion reminds its readers that the antitrust laws are a “consumer welfare prescription,” and then goes on to examine the many unique attributes of consumer welfare, beyond price and output, in the ad tech markets Google monopolized there.[3]

    While we assess the full range of determinants of consumer welfare, that does not mean our analysis is unlimited. The ultimate question for antitrust law remains economic competition in a relevant market. The law does not permit an untethered overall public interest analysis that asks courts to weigh effects across markets or to include non-competition values.

    For that reason, we consistently reject arguments that we should excuse harm to competition in order to protect a national champion firm on the theory that this will somehow benefit national security. We don’t accept the premise that shielding our businesses from competition somehow makes us stronger. That’s the Chinese and Russian way. The American way of winning the global economic competition is with strong competition in our domestic firms that makes our companies stronger to compete abroad. That premise has served us well for centuries, and we do not intend to abandon it now.

    Let me offer a word of thanks to those who prosecuted these cases. The incredible attorneys, economists, and staff at the Antitrust Division that prosecuted the Google Search case deserve particular mention. Following a ten-week liability trial in 2023 and then a three-week remedies trial in 2025, they outlawyered the other side by presenting strong legal theories in support of critical remedies designed to ensure that our digital spaces will be free and open. No matter what the federal court orders in the remedies phase, the leadership at the Division is incredibly proud of the hard work and dedication of the public servants who have litigated that case.

    As Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater has said, “The Google Search case matters because nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake here. Are we going to give Americans choices and allow innovation and competition to thrive online? Or will we maintain the status quo that favors Big Tech monopolies? If Google’s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence.”[4]

    As for the Google Ad Tech case, the extraordinary attorneys have won a landmark liability ruling and we anticipate that they will present a strong case for robust remedies in the digital ad tech space. As Attorney General Pam Bondi has said, the ruling in the Antitrust Division’s favor in April in that case was “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square.”  I could not agree more. We are fortunate to have such quality attorneys working to protect the American public.

    Let me now turn to some of our thinking about how we will protect consumer welfare in digital markets in the future. Digital technologies have significant implications for virtually all the monopoly conduct and cartels that the DOJ analyzes today. The DOJ has an obligation to husband our resources to enforce the laws where it matters most, to protect markets that most directly impact the average American, markets such as healthcare, housing, agriculture, education, and insurance. Let me focus on just a few of those digital markets.

    In healthcare, in particular, we have a mandate to use our resources to ensure American markets in health sectors are more competitive, innovative, affordable, and provide higher quality to patients and consumers. For years, we have witnessed consolidation across healthcare leading to higher prices and lower wages for healthcare workers. We see pharmacy benefit managers and brand name monopolies driving up prescription drug prices. Consolidation and roll-ups of physician practices and hospitals often increase health care costs, raising prices for services, and deteriorating patient outcomes. And algorithms and data increase complexity by playing an ever-larger role in health care markets and practices. We are even seeing algorithmic management technologies gaining a foothold in the health care labor sector, one of the largest labor sectors in the country.[5]

    Our recent Las Vegas nursing case is an example of the Department of Justice protecting Americans’ pocketbooks in the health sector. In that case, the Division successfully prosecuted a three-year conspiracy to fix the wages of nurses — capping their wages. As AAG Slater has stated: “Wage-fixing agreements are nakedly unlawful attempts at unjustly profiting off American workers…. The nurses here deserved better, and under President Trump’s leadership, they will be protected.”[6]

    The DOJ is committed to combatting monopoly abuse and collusion in the health care sector. This includes collusion that is accomplished by digital algorithms. Our recent statement of interest in the In re Multiplan Health Insurance Provider Litigation is an example.[7] In that case, competitors used a common pricing algorithm to share confidential information to set prices. Such algorithmic sharing of confidential information on digital platforms should be challenged as a violation of the antitrust laws.

    The DOJ is focused on algorithmic collusion in housing markets as well. The Division is litigating an ongoing case against RealPage and large landlords for algorithmic collusion affecting the rental prices for millions of Americans.[8] In this case, RealPage has introduced a digital platform that made it easier for landlords to coordinate to dramatically increase rental prices for the average American. RealPage and large landlords actively participated in the illegal pricing scheme, setting their rents by using each other’s competitively sensitive information via common pricing algorithms.[9]

    These cases are examples of a growing trend. If we do not take a strong stand now against algorithmic collusion, we will see this new form of price fixing destroying effective competition across a whole range of digital markets.

    And still there is more. Algorithmic collusion is only a subset of the issues that algorithms raise for antitrust enforcement. We can see on the horizon new concerns that will be extremely difficult for enforcers to address using traditional antitrust law. Academic work is already exploring how artificial intelligence can be instructed to profit maximize and learn to set prices in a manner consistent with collusion. We are on the verge of autonomous algorithmic collusion.

    Regardless of the digital sector, we at the DOJ will follow the facts and apply the law in connection with algorithmic pricing and potential collusion. These issues provide an opportunity for our enforcers to engage critically with the practical realities of how complex technologies are affecting Americans’ lives today and in the future. Artificial intelligence holds so much promise, but it also presents unique challenges. Will these technologies empower anticompetitive behavior targeted at unsuspecting digital citizens?  The DOJ must meet this moment and fulfill its mandate to protect competition for the American people.

    Let me conclude with a few thoughts about the Antitrust Division’s agenda with respect to mergers in the digital space.

    When President Trump announced that Gail Slater would lead the Antitrust Division, he reiterated that Big Tech has stifled Little Tech innovation and competition. We are pro Little Tech and welcome Little Tech innovation. We will bring the antitrust laws to bear on Big Tech to answer for their abuses, but we are open and receptive to procompetitive mergers, especially in Little Tech. We want innovative start-ups to see exit opportunities other than acquisitions by the largest, most dominant players, whose acquisition strategies are often driven as much by their desire to entrench their existing power as they are to drive innovation. The enforcers at the DOJ work tirelessly to promote a competitive landscape to ensure that new ideas get funding, so that startups can compete on the merits and disrupt incumbents.

    An embrace of Little Tech recognizes the benefits of venture capital and digital mergers. We want to see venture capital funds flowing to support innovative companies. In healthy, competitive markets, venture capital funds should flow freely.

    During AAG Slater’s tenure at the Division, we will challenge anticompetitive mergers. That is already evident in these early months. But the vast majority of mergers do not raise competition concerns, and those that do often can be resolved through negotiation, settlements, and consent decrees. We are committed to providing clear guidance to merging parties on their proposed transactions, welcoming most mergers and only challenging the problematic ones.

    In conclusion, let me state what an honor it is for me to return to the Antitrust Division and serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General to AAG Slater. As part of the Republican realignment, President Trump and Assistant Attorney General Slater have a clear vision for robust antitrust enforcement over the next four years. Our paramount focus will be to put consumer welfare first, accounting for the wide range of harms and benefits to consumers and workers that can arise in modern markets.

    Yes, competition brings lower prices. But it also brings better quality, improved privacy options, lower advertising loads, greater data portability, more choice, and increased innovations. Competition maximizes consumer welfare by driving businesses to deliver everything consumers want. That makes it the critical tool to protect consumers in our free market system, even in a changing world.

    Thank you. 

    [2] See United States v. Google LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1, 54-55 (D.D.C. 2024).

    [3] See United States v. Google LLC, 23-cv-108, 2025 WL 1132012 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2025) (“Google AdTech”).

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Secretary Noem Terminates Wasteful DHS Program that Encouraged DEI in K-12 Schools

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    The “Invent2Prevent” program funneled millions of dollars to a highly politicized organization and targeted school children with radical ideology

    WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she terminated the DHS “Invent2Prevent” program – a wasteful and highly politicized initiative that cost the American taxpayer over $1.5 million dollars.

    Despite its high cost, the program accomplished very little towards its apparent mission: preventing terrorism. Instead, it funneled taxpayer money into a highly politicized organization called “The Eradicate Hate Global Summit,” which promoted DEI and LGBTQ ideology at K-12 schools.

    “President Trump was given a mandate by the American people to eliminate wasteful government spending, and that is exactly what we are doing,” said Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary. “This program was not only wasteful, it was also using public money to support an openly partisan and political organization. Politicized NGOs like Eradicate Hate have been siphoning away taxpayer dollars for far too long. We are ending the grift.”

    Under the guise of counter terrorism, this program used tax money on initiatives to foster “inclusive environments in schools,” promote DEI, and expose grade school children to sexualized topics like LGBTQ issues.

    By canceling Invent2Prevent, Secretary Noem is saving the taxpayer $1,523,146.24.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tonko Demands Trump Withdraw Executive Order Attacking Public Science

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Paul Tonko (Capital Region New York)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Paul D. Tonko led more than 20 members in the House in a letter today calling President Trump to withdraw his Executive Order, Restoring Gold Standard Science. The lawmakers call out the hypocrisy of Trump’s claim to boost scientific standards while slashing federal science programs, attacking scientists and experts, and eroding trust in public science.

    “Your administration has proposed slashing the National Institutes of Health budget by nearly 40%, removed and altered essential technical resources targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that strengthen the rigor and reach of American science, and cast entire disciplines including climate science, public health, and gender equity, as invalid,” the letter reads. “This order continues that pattern, masking efforts to assert political control over science under the guise of accountability.

     

    “If your administration were genuinely committed to trustworthy, reproducible science, you would begin by adequately funding it. This Executive Order is not a return to “gold standard” science. It is a hollow public relations stunt from an administration that has repeatedly weakened America’s scientific credibility and further eroded trust in evidence-based policymaking. We urge you to withdraw this order and instead support policies that meaningfully uphold the independence, integrity, and funding of American science — not just in rhetoric, but in practice.”

     

    Tonko has long been a champion and advocate for protecting scientific standards and protecting independent science. He is the author of the Scientific Integrity Act, bipartisan legislation that sets clear, enforceable standards for federal agencies and federally-funded research to prevent meddling in public science by political and special interests.
    A fact sheet of the Scientific Integrity Act can be found HERE.     
    The full letter can be read HERE and below:
    The Honorable Donald J. Trump 
    President
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500. 
    Dear President Trump:
    We write to express profound concern with your recent Executive Order, Restoring Gold Standard Science. While the principles of transparency, integrity, and reliability this order claims to champion are indeed crucial to good science, it is difficult to take a call for scientific integrity seriously from an administration that has consistently undermined the very foundations of the U.S. research enterprise. This Executive Order does not restore high scientific standards; it cloaks political interference in the language of pro-science reform.
    Your administration has proposed slashing the National Institutes of Health budget by nearly 40%, removed and altered essential technical resources, targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that strengthen the rigor and reach of American science, and cast entire disciplines including climate science, public health, and gender equity, as invalid. This order continues that pattern, masking efforts to assert political control over science under the guise of accountability.
    One of the most concerning elements of the order is the requirement that agencies publicly release all “data, analyses, and conclusions” underpinning major policies. While transparency is a fundamental scientific value, this language closely mirrors the flawed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule from your first term, a rule that sought to exclude essential studies from Environmental Protection Agency policymaking unless raw data, including sensitive medical information, was made public. Such an approach does not enhance scientific integrity; it undermines it, while also weakening public health protections.
    Even more alarming is the provision granting political appointees sweeping power over the interpretation, use, and communication of federal scientific research. By authorizing senior political staff to investigate alleged violations, impose disciplinary action, and unilaterally “correct” scientific outputs, the order invites ideological enforcement and suppresses dissent. That is not scientific integrity — it is its undoing.
    True scientific integrity means protecting the independence of science from external manipulation. That’s why the Biden administration required federal agencies to update and strengthen their scientific integrity policies, creating a government-wide framework to safeguard objectivity and shield science from undue influence. Your Executive Order seeks to dismantle that progress. By rolling back policies to 2021 standards, it strips scientists of strong institutional protections and leaves agencies without real accountability.
    If your administration were genuinely committed to trustworthy, reproducible science, you would begin by adequately funding it. The so-called replication crisis is not rooted in malicious intent, it is the result of systemic underinvestment and perverse incentives. Researchers, especially those early in their careers, face precarious employment, low pay, and pressure to prioritize novelty over rigor. Yet your Executive Order ignores these structural issues entirely. Instead, it doubles down on austerity, depriving scientists of the time, resources, and institutional support they need to do robust and verifiable research.
    You claim scientists are afraid to ask, “inconvenient questions.” But it is your administration’s policies, proposed funding and personnel cuts, and dismissal of widely accepted peer-reviewed science that have created a chilling effect. You are cultivating an environment where researchers fear professional retaliation or public vilification for producing evidence that challenges political narratives. That is the very definition of politicizing science.

    Moreover, if you were truly concerned about protecting science from corporate influence, you would be increasing public investment in research to guard against private sector capture. Pulling federal support doesn’t reduce the sway of Big Pharma or Big Ag, it strengthens their influence, allowing profit-driven interests to dictate research priorities at the expense of the public good.

    Buzzwords like “transparency” and “interdisciplinary research” cannot substitute for real commitment to the scientific enterprise. Genuine scientific progress demands sustained investment in people, infrastructure, and the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without censorship, coercion, or fear. Yet your administration has steadily dismantled the conditions necessary for such progress to flourish.
    This Executive Order is not a return to “gold standard” science. It is a hollow public relations stunt from an administration that has repeatedly weakened America’s scientific credibility and further eroded trust in evidence-based policymaking.

    I urge you to withdraw this order and instead support policies that meaningfully uphold the independence, integrity, and funding of American science — not just in rhetoric, but in practice.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Court Will Allow California to Obtain Evidence Regarding Deployment of Federalized National Guard and Marines in California

    Source: US State of California

    Thursday, June 26, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    Case challenging Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of federalized National Guard and Marines in California moves forward 

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today responded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order last night in California’s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of federalized National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles. The court’s order (1) grants the state’s request for expedited discovery as to potential Posse Comitatus Act violations; and (2) denies the federal government’s request to transfer the case to the Central District of California. 

    “President Trump continues to needlessly – and unlawfully – pull California National Guard servicemembers off of counterdrug taskforces and wildfire crews for the singular purpose of furthering his political agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As he has done time and again, President Trump is choosing the path that makes our communities less safe instead of more. We need to know more about what the troops’ orders are and how they are being deployed in Los Angeles communities. The court’s order allows us to gather those facts and continue to make our case in court. We will not let the President’s unprecedented overreach of executive authority go unchecked.”

    A copy of the court’s order is available here. 

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Second Owner of Fuel Truck Supply Company Incarcerated for Bid Rigging, Market Allocation, and Wire Fraud Conspiracies

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    The owner of a fuel truck supply company, Kris Bird, 62, was sentenced today in Boise, Idaho, to three months in prison and a $24,000 fine for his role in schemes to rig bids, allocate territories, and commit wire fraud over an eight-year period. Further, Bird was ordered to forfeit to the federal government $1,542,387 as proceeds of his wire fraud offenses. The conspiracies Bird participated in related to contracts to provide fuel trucks that assist the U.S. Forest Service’s efforts to battle wildfires in Idaho and the mountain west.

    Bird pleaded guilty in March 2025 — two weeks before his trial was set to begin — to the seven-count indictment. The plea followed an investigation that involved evidence from a judicially authorized wiretap and led to charges against two executives in December 2023. Earlier this month on June 5, Bird’s co-defendant, Ike Tomlinson, 61, was sentenced to 12 months in prison and a $20,000 fine for his leadership role in the criminal conduct.

    “Mr. Bird stole taxpayer funds allocated for critical wildfire-fighting efforts protecting the American people to line his own pockets,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Trump Antitrust Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force and its law enforcement partners will continue the fight to ensure that the fraudulent use of taxpayer money results in incarceration.”

    “Today’s sentencing underscores the FBI’s commitment to protecting the integrity of our markets,” said Assistant Director Jose A. Perez of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “Antitrust violations are not just corporate misconduct, they’re federal crimes that distort competition, drive up costs for consumers and erode public trust. We will continue to work with our law enforcement and regulatory partners to hold accountable those who rig the system for personal gain.”

    “Bid rigging is not a victimless crime. It cheats taxpayers and the honest contractors who play by the rules,” said Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Jason Suffredini of the General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). “GSA OIG and our partners remain committed to pursuing those who engage in procurement fraud.”

    According to court documents, the co-conspirators coordinated their bids to inflate prices and to determine who would have priority to receive business from the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies in the event of a wildfire in a specific geographic area. The co-conspirators further coordinated to exclude and punish potential competitors to further maintain the success of their conspiracy. During the conspiracies, from March 2015 to March 2023, Bird annually submitted false SAM certifications to the federal government covering up his bid-rigging conspiracy and committing wire fraud. 

    The Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho, FBI Salt Lake City Field Office, Boise Resident Agency, and General Services Administration Office of Inspector General investigated the case. Assistant Chief Christopher J. Carlberg and Trial Attorneys Elena A. Goldstein, Daniel B. Twomey, and Matthew Chou of the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean M. Mazorol for the District of Idaho have been prosecuting the case.

    In addition to today’s criminal sentence, in May 2025, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Small Business Administration, entered into a civil settlement with Kris Bird and other related entities and individuals who agreed to pay $781,186 to resolve civil claims after admitting to allegations that they obtained government contracts through bid-rigging and the submission of false SAM Certifications, as well as wrongly obtained a Paycheck Protection Program loan.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General investigated the civil case. Assistant United States Attorney Robert B. Firpo and Civil Chief James Schaefer are handling the case.

    In November 2019, the Justice Department created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant and program funding at all levels of government—federal, state and local. To learn more about the PCSF, or to report information on bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation and other anticompetitive conduct related to government spending, go to www.justice.gov/procurement-collusion-strike-force. Anyone with information in connection with this investigation can contact the PCSF at the link listed above. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Second Owner of Fuel Truck Supply Company Incarcerated for Bid Rigging, Market Allocation, and Wire Fraud Conspiracies

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    The owner of a fuel truck supply company, Kris Bird, 62, was sentenced today in Boise, Idaho, to three months in prison and a $24,000 fine for his role in schemes to rig bids, allocate territories, and commit wire fraud over an eight-year period. Further, Bird was ordered to forfeit to the federal government $1,542,387 as proceeds of his wire fraud offenses. The conspiracies Bird participated in related to contracts to provide fuel trucks that assist the U.S. Forest Service’s efforts to battle wildfires in Idaho and the mountain west.

    Bird pleaded guilty in March 2025 — two weeks before his trial was set to begin — to the seven-count indictment. The plea followed an investigation that involved evidence from a judicially authorized wiretap and led to charges against two executives in December 2023. Earlier this month on June 5, Bird’s co-defendant, Ike Tomlinson, 61, was sentenced to 12 months in prison and a $20,000 fine for his leadership role in the criminal conduct.

    “Mr. Bird stole taxpayer funds allocated for critical wildfire-fighting efforts protecting the American people to line his own pockets,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Trump Antitrust Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force and its law enforcement partners will continue the fight to ensure that the fraudulent use of taxpayer money results in incarceration.”

    “Today’s sentencing underscores the FBI’s commitment to protecting the integrity of our markets,” said Assistant Director Jose A. Perez of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “Antitrust violations are not just corporate misconduct, they’re federal crimes that distort competition, drive up costs for consumers and erode public trust. We will continue to work with our law enforcement and regulatory partners to hold accountable those who rig the system for personal gain.”

    “Bid rigging is not a victimless crime. It cheats taxpayers and the honest contractors who play by the rules,” said Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Jason Suffredini of the General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). “GSA OIG and our partners remain committed to pursuing those who engage in procurement fraud.”

    According to court documents, the co-conspirators coordinated their bids to inflate prices and to determine who would have priority to receive business from the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies in the event of a wildfire in a specific geographic area. The co-conspirators further coordinated to exclude and punish potential competitors to further maintain the success of their conspiracy. During the conspiracies, from March 2015 to March 2023, Bird annually submitted false SAM certifications to the federal government covering up his bid-rigging conspiracy and committing wire fraud. 

    The Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho, FBI Salt Lake City Field Office, Boise Resident Agency, and General Services Administration Office of Inspector General investigated the case. Assistant Chief Christopher J. Carlberg and Trial Attorneys Elena A. Goldstein, Daniel B. Twomey, and Matthew Chou of the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean M. Mazorol for the District of Idaho have been prosecuting the case.

    In addition to today’s criminal sentence, in May 2025, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Small Business Administration, entered into a civil settlement with Kris Bird and other related entities and individuals who agreed to pay $781,186 to resolve civil claims after admitting to allegations that they obtained government contracts through bid-rigging and the submission of false SAM Certifications, as well as wrongly obtained a Paycheck Protection Program loan.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General investigated the civil case. Assistant United States Attorney Robert B. Firpo and Civil Chief James Schaefer are handling the case.

    In November 2019, the Justice Department created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant and program funding at all levels of government—federal, state and local. To learn more about the PCSF, or to report information on bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation and other anticompetitive conduct related to government spending, go to www.justice.gov/procurement-collusion-strike-force. Anyone with information in connection with this investigation can contact the PCSF at the link listed above. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

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

    Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

    As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

    “Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

    The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.

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

    But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

    But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.



    Read more:
    Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

    We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

    Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.



    Read more:
    Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    And so to Nato

    What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

    Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

    Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

    So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.



    Read more:
    At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory

    The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

    The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

    The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

    So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.



    Read more:
    How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

    The trouble with Iran

    Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

    But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.



    Read more:
    Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation

    For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

    But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

    But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

    In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

    Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.



    Read more:
    Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

    And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

    So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.



    Read more:
    US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation

    Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

    After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

    Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

    But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.



    Read more:
    In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

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

    – ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

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

    Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

    As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

    “Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

    The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.

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

    But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

    But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.



    Read more:
    Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

    We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

    Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.



    Read more:
    Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    And so to Nato

    What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

    Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

    Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

    So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.



    Read more:
    At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory

    The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

    The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

    The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

    So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.



    Read more:
    How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

    The trouble with Iran

    Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

    But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.



    Read more:
    Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation

    For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

    But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

    But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

    In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

    Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.



    Read more:
    Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

    And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

    So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.



    Read more:
    US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation

    Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

    After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

    Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

    But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.



    Read more:
    In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

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

    – ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy Celebrates 3 Years of Gun Violence Reduction Under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    June 25, 2025

    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday celebrated the third anniversary of his landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the first comprehensive gun safety legislation passed in three decades. The bill made significant investments in our background check system, boosted prosecutors’ enforcement capabilities, supported domestic violence victims by preventing abusers from purchasing guns, and invested billions of dollars into schools, mental health, and community-based violence intervention programs. 

    “Three years ago, after the horrific tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo, Democrats and Republicans came together to address a gun violence epidemic that has devastated families and communities across the country. The gun violence prevention movement beat the gun lobby, and we found compromise on common sense solutions supported by the American people. And it worked. In the last two years, this country has seen significant drops in violent crime, gun deaths and injuries, and mass shootings. Now, President Trump is trying to gut the very mental health and violence prevention programs that have helped save countless lives. But our movement is stronger than this President and the congressional Republicans who enable him, and we will keep fighting to make all of our communities safer,” said Murphy.  

    Since BSCA’s passage, there has been a historic decrease in gun violence, including a 24% drop in mass shootings and a 12% reduction in gun violence-related deaths.

    BSCA’s accomplishments include:

    • Expanding background checks and cracking down on loopholes that allowed domestic abusers to buy guns.
    • Creating stiff penalties for “straw purchase” gunrunners that buy weapons on behalf of criminals.
    • Investing over half a billion dollars towards increasing the number of mental health personnel in schools.
    • Providing millions in grants to community-based nonprofits that directly provided counseling and support to at-risk youth and families traumatized by gun violence.
    • Expanding mental health service for thousands of students in rural communities.
    • Supporting implementation of the National Suicide Prevention Hotline.

    On day one of his presidency, President Trump shut down the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention responsible for coordinating efforts across the federal government and working with states and local governments to identify available resources for impacted communities. On April 30th, the Department of Education (ED) notified grant recipients of the School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional (MHSP) Grant Programs, which BSCA funded, that their funding would not be continued after this fiscal year.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal Hosts Immigration Shadow Hearing on Trump’s Efforts to Erode Due Process

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

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, today hosted a Shadow Hearing titled Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Weaponization of Immigration Courts. This hearing examined the disturbing trend of broad efforts to erode access to legal services and due process in immigration proceedings, especially as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been targeting immigrants showing up for legal proceedings – following the requirements set for them by courts. 

    “Republicans like to talk about how they support immigrants who quote ‘do things the right way,’” said Jayapal. “Now that they control Congress and the White House, they should be putting their money where their mouth is and ensuring that the legal immigration process remains open to those who pursue it—but that’s not what’s happening. They have arrested people at their citizenship interviews, their check-in appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increasingly, at immigration court. These actions are a direct attack on the legal immigration system and the people who are trying to follow all the legal steps. These actions only serve to make the immigration system even more chaotic and unjust than it already is. Just when you think this administration cannot sink any lower, they get out a shovel and keep digging.”

    The witnesses at this hearing included The Honorable A. Ashley Tabaddor, a retired Immigration Judge, Azadeh Erfani the Director of Policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel, Chief of Staff at the Acacia Center for Justice, and Gillian Rowland-Kain, Interim Director of Programs at Immigrant ARC. 

    The Honorable A. Ashley Tabaddor, Immigration Judge (ret.) said, “Due process in a courtroom means that every part of the system functions fairly and in concert. That requires an independent judge, a level playing field, and a safe, accessible forum for all participants. Yet noncitizens have no right to appointed counsel—even in life-or-death matters. Now, the Trump administration claims that immigration judges are effectively at-will employees, directly undermining their independence. At the same time, immigration courts are being transformed into enforcement zones, deterring participation and eroding public trust. As a former judge, I can tell you: when even one part of the machine breaks—when judges are undermined, when legal support disappears, or fear keeps people from appearing—the entire system collapses. And when that happens, it doesn’t just fail immigrants. It fails all of us.”

    Azadeh Erfani, Director of Policy, National Immigrant Justice Center, said, “Nothing is off the table for ICE to meet Trump’s arrest quotas and build the largest mass detention system in recorded history. First, they took away all legal services so no one could represent themselves. Next, they raided the courts and took away access to judges. And lately, they have set traps at ICE check-in appointments, where individuals with pending cases trying to comply with their proceedings are shackled and disappeared into remote jails. As ICE tramples all semblance of due process and the rule of law, they are terrorizing our communities.”

    Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel, Chief of Staff, Acacia Center for Justice, said, “The Trump administration’s attacks on due process have upended the lives and futures of our families, neighbors, and friends. In addition to the profound impact on our communities, ending legal access programs has further exacerbated the limited capacity of the immigrant legal services field. Alongside our inspiring network of legal service provider partners, we will continue to fight for these lifesaving programs to be restored so that families, children, and adults aren’t forced to navigate our country’s increasingly dehumanizing immigration system alone.”

    Gillian Rowland-Kain, Interim Director of Programs, Immigrant ARC, said, “This is more than a policy shift. It’s a coordinated effort to sideline due process and deport people without giving them the opportunity to present their case. What should have been a space for due process is instead a site of fear. Masked and armed federal agents are arresting and intimidating people who attend court. Volunteers and attorneys are being surveilled. Every day, our members are in those courtrooms—often the only ones there to stand beside immigrants facing an unjust system. We will continue to do our work and to push back.”

    The hearing was attended by Representatives Judy Chu (CA-28), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), and Rashida Tlaib (MI-12).

    Issues: Immigration

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Speaker Johnson Joins the Megyn Kelly Show

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

    WASHINGTON — Yesterday, Speaker Johnson sat for a wide-ranging interview on the Megyn Kelly Show – his first appearance on the show.

    Watch the full interview here

    On the One Big Beautiful Bill benefitting hardworking Americans:

    in that first Trump administration, we had the greatest economy in the history of the world. Job participation rate was an all-time high. Poverty hit an all-time low. Wages rising for every demographic in America. We’re going to do that again, but this time on steroids, because this is a larger bill with more of those pro-growth policies, and everyone will feel it. We’re excited. The proof will be in the pudding.

    This bill is written for and geared to lower-and middle-income families. It is the opposite of what the Democrats were saying. In fact, people who make more than a million dollars are going to benefit least from the tax policies here. It’s geared for hardworking Americans. We’re the party of hardworking Americans and we will demonstrate that in what we do in our legislation. 

    On President Trump’s strength on the world stage:

    I genuinely believe that this is going to solve the problem, at least for the foreseeable future. And as long as Donald J. Trump is in the White House. Why? Because he has sent a message. You see our allies at the NATO summit. I mean, it’s like the Lion King, right? Donald Trump walks in and they all sort of bow again, America’s back. And let me tell you something, a strong America is good for everyone around the world, and they all know it. And that is peace through strength. That is the policy that we have always believed in. And it’s a core principle of the Republican party. Donald J. Trump knows how to use it.

    They have to believe that you are capable. And we are. We are the most capable military in the world, the most capable military in the history of mankind. We don’t want to use it. President Trump wants to be a peacetime president. He believes that, he doesn’t want us to be involved and nation building and interventional and you know, having wars around the globe, he wants to stop them. And every now and then, you have to show that that force is real. We did that. Everybody’s on notice, and the terrorist and tyrants around the globe are terrified. That’s the position we need them to be in.

    On Congressional Democrats still lacking a message or leader:

    I would like Jasmine Crockett to have the platform everywhere to talk all the time. She’s the best gift to us possible. I want her to be the face of the Democratic Party. She and AOC can lead them into oblivion. That’s fantastic. More Jasmine, okay? Because it puts on display what these people actually believe, where their party is headed. They have no leader. They have no platform that they can run on. All of their policies have been repudiated. All they have, they’re a one trick pony. All they can do is criticize Trump and the Republicans. And that’s not going to sell. Right?

    The reason we’re going to make history and win the midterms and grow the majority in the House, so we can do more of this good work, is because we’re going to demonstrate for all these new demographics of voters that came into our camp in 2024, that they made the right decision. They didn’t come reluctantly, Megan. We had a record number of Hispanic and Latino voters, black and African American voters, Jewish voters, union workers. They did not come to us reluctantly. They came with hopeful anticipation. Why? Because the woke progressive, crazy left, left them behind. This is not your father’s Democratic party. And Jasmine Crockett is a perfect illustration of that. And I want to turn her microphone up, let her talk every day. I want to bring her to the floor and just share her heart, because that helps us.

    On New Yorkers electing a socialist as Mayor:

    The best commentary was I think Ron DeSantis and Florida leaders were trolling New Yorkers saying, this is the best thing for property buyers in Palm Beach, Florida in history. Because more New Yorkers are going to move to states that exercise common sense, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and I hope they come to my state of Louisiana because it’s madness in New York City. What’s the problem there? I think these guys and AOC and those types, they figured out how to trigger these young, uninformed people using social media and these other avenues. And I guess a lot of common-sense voters are not going to the polls. This is dangerous stuff. And so this guy’s now the nominee of the Democratic Party. He is an open antisemite socialist. They will destroy New York City. It is a nightmare. So, I mean, hey, go vote for Eric Adams. Like, he’s the best alternative now. He’s going to be saving New York from this madness. And I hope they don’t do it.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How Israeli and U.S. strikes against Iran were facilitated by the Russia-Ukraine war

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    The American intervention in Iran is being touted as an outstanding success by President Donald Trump. At the very least, Trump’s decision to attack Iran facilitated a ceasefire as it created angst in Gulf states about being caught in the crossfire after Iran symbolically attacked an American air base, Al Udeid, in Qatar.

    The long-term implications and viability of the ceasefire are open for debate.

    If Iran preserved its nuclear stockpile of fissile material, it has more incentive to develop a nuclear weapon, despite the damage Israel and the United States did to its production facilities. This is especially true if the damage to facilities like Fordow was less than Trump is proclaiming.

    Russian-Iranian relations

    While the future of Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity remains unknown, what is clear is that the U.S. and Israel were able to strike at Iran in large part due to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

    In the modern era, relations between Russia and Iran have frequently been tense. Russia and the Soviet Union’s interests in the region have provoked several conflicts, most notably during the 1940s when the Soviets encouraged the formation of the People’s Republic of Azerbaijan on Iranian soil.

    The shah of Iran’s close relationship with the U.S. further discouraged a strong relationship between Moscow and Tehran.

    The shah’s fall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, allowed for a working relationship to develop between Iran and Russia. They’re still rivals but nevertheless work together when it suits their best interests. Russian and Iranian co-operation on the Syrian civil war is an example.

    Furthermore, both Iran and Russia have provided diplomatic support for each other. Russia’s insertion into the Iran nuclear deal framework in 2015 benefited both parties. It provided economic benefits to Russia, and it also allowed Iran to develop its nuclear ambitions.

    When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Iran was one of the few countries that didn’t oppose the move. It abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution in March 2022 condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which amounted to tacit support.

    More importantly, Iran’s own success in evading oil sanctions helped Russia do the same, allowing the Russians to maintain their war effort in Ukraine.

    The connections between Russia and Iran, however, goes beyond the political and economic.

    Drones and other weapons

    Iran has played a pivotal role in Russia’s war in Ukraine. One of Ukraine’s initial advantages was in drone technology, including the drone expertise of its allies. The Russian military, which had not fully embraced the implications of drone technology, was at a severe disadvantage.

    Iran, however, had embraced the role of drones in warfare and both provided drones to Russia and helped the Russians develop their own domestic production.

    Iran, at an arms disadvantage against Israel and the U.S., sought to use drones to offset this weakness. The Iranians, in fact, pioneered the use of drones, most notably the Shahed 131 and 136.



    Read more:
    How Russian and Iranian drone strikes further dehumanize warfare

    Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, the flow of weapons between Russia and Iran was more one-sided. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran has been a vital market for Russian military technology. Russian leaders have viewed the sale of weapons to Iran as both a way of supporting the Russian economy and to counter American interests in the Middle East.

    So what’s all this have to do with Ukraine?

    Iran left open to bombardment

    The most crucial weapon provided by Russia to Iran is arguably the S-300, an advanced surface-to-air missile systems.

    Israel’s air dominance and its ability to overcome Iranian air defences in the past meant that the S-300 was a vital piece of technology for Iran. Israeli officials recognized the S-300’s importance to countering their operations when they, for several years, used political pressure to block S-300 sales to Iran.

    In October 2024, Israel likely breached the software that operates the S-300, disabling the system’s radar. This breach allowed Israel to eliminate Iran’s S-300s, and left Iran vulnerable to Israeli and American air attacks.

    Iran has been unable to acquire replacements for one simple reason: Russia needs the weapon systems in Ukraine. Ukraine has prioritized eliminating Russian air defences like the S-300.

    The enduring Ukraine-Russia conflict has served as a bleeding ulcer for the Russian armaments industry. Russian military hardware has been destroyed at such a rate that it’s delayed Russia’s sale of weapons to key markets, including Iran and India.

    The situation has caused Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to pivot away from Russian military technology — a key feature in Russian-Indian relations — for domestic arms backed by western technology.

    Iran, meantime, has been left open to aerial bombardment by Israel and the U.S.

    Although Iran reportedly possesses the even more advanced S-400, this hasn’t been confirmed and Iran has denied it.

    Ukraine advances U.S. interests

    Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. government identified bombing Iran alongside Israel as being in its national interest. But it’s unlikely American involvement would have been possible without Ukraine draining Russian resources.

    The problem is that the current U.S. administration views the world and its events in an isolated manner. But in a globalized world, few events remain in isolation.

    The U.S. government may argue that supporting Ukraine is not in American interests, but Ukraine’s ongoing fight against Russia is actually assisting Americans elsewhere — most notably, in Iran.

    James Horncastle 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. How Israeli and U.S. strikes against Iran were facilitated by the Russia-Ukraine war – https://theconversation.com/how-israeli-and-u-s-strikes-against-iran-were-facilitated-by-the-russia-ukraine-war-259845

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

    Donald Trump is a difficult figure to deal with, both for foreign leaders and figures closer to home who find themselves in his crosshairs. The US president is unpredictable, sensitive and willing to break the rules to get his way.

    But in Trump’s second term, a variety of different leaders and institutions seem to have settled on a way to handle him. The key, they seem to think, is flattery. The most obvious example came at the recently concluded Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands, where world leaders got together to discuss the future of the alliance.

    Previous summits with Trump have descended into recrimination and backbiting. The organisers were determined to avoid a repeat – and decided the best way to do it was to make Trump feel really, really good about himself.

    Even before the summit began, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte had texted Trump to thank him for his “decisive action” in bombing Iran. This, he said, was something “no one else dared to do”.

    Then, when discussing Trump’s role in ending the war between Israel and Iran, Rutte referred to Trump as “daddy” – a name the White House has already transformed into a meme.

    The summit itself was light on the sort of contentious and detailed policy discussions that have historically bored and angered Trump.

    Instead, it was reduced to a series of photo opportunities and speeches in which other leaders lavished praise on Trump. Lithuania’s president, Gitanas Nausėda, even suggested the alliance ought to copy Trump’s political movement by adopting the phrase “make Nato great again”.

    Nato leaders aren’t the only ones trying this trick. British prime minister Keir Starmer has had a go at it too. Starmer has made sure that Trump will be the first US president to make a second state visit to the UK. He described the honour in Trump-like terms: “This has never happened before. It’s so incredible. It will be historic.”

    After Trump announced global trade tariffs earlier in the year, Starmer was the first leader to give Trump a much-needed victory by reaching a framework trade agreement. But it worked both ways, with Starmer able to land a political victory too.

    In his first term, flattery was also seen as a tool to be used to get Trump onside. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky tried it in phone conversations with the US president, calling him a “great teacher” from whom he learned “skills and knowledge”.

    Flattery and compliance clearly have their uses. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism and susceptible to praise, however hyperbolic and transparent it might be. Buttering him up may be an effective way to get him to back off.

    But it doesn’t achieve much else. At the Nato summit, an opportunity was missed to make progress on issues of real importance, such as how to better support Ukraine in its war against Russia or to better coordinate European defence spending.

    A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day.

    A missed opportunity

    Individual decisions to bow down to Trump also mean missing the opportunity to mount collective resistance. One country might not be able to stand up to the president, but the odds of doing so would be greatly improved if leaders banded together.

    For example, Trump’s trade tariffs will damage the US economy as well as those of its trading partners. That is especially the case if those partners impose tariffs of their own on US goods.

    If each country instead follows Britain’s lead in the hope of getting the best deal for itself, they will have missed the opportunity to force the president to feel some discomfort of his own – and possibly change course.

    But perhaps the greatest danger of flattering Trump is that it teaches him that he can get away with doing pretty much whatever he likes. For a president who has threatened to annex the territory of Nato allies Denmark and Canada to nevertheless be feted at a Nato summit sends a message of impunity.

    That’s a dangerous lesson for Trump to learn. He has spent much of his second term undermining democratic and liberal norms at home and key tenets of US foreign policy abroad, such as hostility to Russia. He is attempting to undermine all traditional sources of authority and expertise and instead make the world dance to his own tune.

    Given the expansive scope of his aims, which many experts already think is leading to a constitutional crisis that threatens democracy, the willingness to suck up to Trump normalises him in a menacing way.

    When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from those he chooses to attack.

    Perhaps the best that can be said for this strategy is that maybe it will appease Trump enough to prevent him from doing too much actual harm. But when dealing with such an unpredictable and vindictive president, that is a thin reed of hope.

    It is much more likely to encourage him to press on – until the harm becomes too severe to ignore.

    Andrew Gawthorpe 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. Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy – https://theconversation.com/why-bending-over-backwards-to-agree-with-donald-trump-is-a-perilous-strategy-259936

    MIL OSI Analysis –