NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEWS: Sanders, Klobuchar Call on Defense Department to Fund Lifesaving Programs for Service Members and Families 

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders

    WASHINGTON, June 26 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) led a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calling on the Department of Defense to fully fund lifesaving programs for U.S. service members and their families. In the most recent government funding bill, Congressional Republicans failed to fund Beyond the Yellow Ribbon (BYR) programs, which have helped thousands of service members, veterans and their families effectively manage the challenges associated with deployments and military service.

    Joining Sanders and Klobuchar on the letter are Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).

    “As a nation, when someone makes a promise to defend our country, we make a promise in return that we will be there to support them when they come home. For nearly two decades, [Beyond the Yellow Ribbon] programs have helped thousands of service members, veterans, and their families effectively manage the challenges associated with deployments and military service. Let’s be clear: these programs save lives,” Sanders, Klobuchar and the senators wrote.

    Programs funded by BYR have helped connect thousands of service members and their families with essential services, including suicide prevention, counseling, substance use disorder treatment, and housing and employment assistance, among many others. These outreach programs are especially valuable in rural areas and in states without active component military installations.

    Many of the programs now supported by BYR funding began as congressionally directed spending requests and were the result of members of Congress working with National Guard leadership to address the needs of service members and constituents in their states. Congress has funded these programs directly since fiscal year (FY) 2013, including $25 million in FY 2024. However, while the Senate intended to fund BYR at $22 million for FY 2025, the final continuing resolution crafted by the Republican majority and signed by President Trump failed to include this line-item, leaving the decision to the Department of Defense.

    In Vermont, the lack of BYR funding will force the Vermont Veterans and Family Outreach Program to shut down at the end of this month. The program was established in 2007 with funding Sanders secured to help veterans and their families obtain the benefits they’ve earned through their service. The outreach team works closely with local community officials, business leaders, clergy, health care providers and other community-based social organizations and the program has grown to 12 physical locations across Vermont and operates a 24-hour resource line for crisis situations. Vermont’s success has drawn national attention and been used as a model by other states to create similar outreach programs.

    Ending funding for BYR also leaves programs in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin without the expected funding to keep their programs running — effectively shuttering crucial support for military service members and their families while they are asked to sacrifice so much.

    “The decision by the Department of Defense not to fund BYR leaves 24 states across the country without the resources needed to serve those men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our country,” the senators wrote. “Given the success of these programs across the country, the value they bring to participants and taxpayers, and the clear Senate intent, we urge you to use your authority as Secretary to provide the funding necessary to continue operations of Beyond the Yellow Ribbon programs for the remainder of the 2025 Fiscal Year and work with us to fully fund these programs in the FY 2026 budget.”

    Read the letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Goldman, Espaillat Introduce Legislation Banning ICE From Wearing Face Masks During Immigration Arrests

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    ‘No Secret Police Act’ Would End Trump Administration’s Use of Masked Immigration Enforcement Meant to Terrorize Immigrant Communities 

     

    Goldman Previously Questioned Masked ICE Officers in his 290 Broadway District Office Who Denied His Legal Right to Inspect Immigration Detention Facilities 

     

    Read the Bill Here 

    New York, NY – Congressmen Dan Goldman (NY-10) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) today led 37 of their House Democratic colleagues in introducing the ‘No Secret Police Act,’ which would require law enforcement officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) engaged in border security and civil immigration enforcement to clearly display identification and insignia when detaining or arresting individuals and to ban them from using home-made, non-tactical masks.   

    “As a former federal prosecutor for ten years, I have worked alongside ICE and DHS agents to get violent criminals off our streets – and none of them ever wore masks,” Congressman Dan Goldman said. “Across the country, plain-clothed federal agents in homemade face coverings are lying in wait outside immigration courts to snatch law-abiding, non-violent immigrants going through our legal system the right way. This isn’t about protecting law enforcement, it’s about terrorizing immigrant communities. The United States is not a dictatorship, and I’m proud to introduce this commonsense legislation ensuring that our federal government’s laws are enforced by identifiable human beings, not anonymous, secret agents of the state.” 

    Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair, Congressman Adriano Espaillat, said, “If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous. DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes – and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities. Many immigrants come to America seeking opportunities, hope, and freedom to escape draconian practices, and under no circumstance should they, or anyone, fear being disappeared by masked and armed individuals in unmarked vehicles. If you are upholding the law, you should not be anonymous, and our bill aims to safeguard from tyranny while upholding the values of our nation.” 

    Murad Awawdeh, President and CEO, New York Immigration Coalition, said, “Armed, unmarked federal agents are stalking immigrants outside courtrooms and targeting people who are following the rules and fighting for their lives. These tactics are ripped straight from an authoritarian playbook. Let’s call it what it is: a war on immigrant communities carried out in the shadows  — it’s an unconstitutional campaign of terror. We will not be silenced nor intimidated by these actions. We are on the right side of the law and we will fight tooth and nail to end this assault on our people and our democracy. We call for the swift passage of the No Secret Police Act.” 

    Natalia Aristizabal, Deputy Director of Make the Road New York, said, “ICE, and the hodgepodge of federal agencies Trump is getting to execute his war on immigrants, are terrorizing immigrant communities. They blatantly disregard people’s rights and take people from their jobs, homes and streets, all while masked and unidentified. This must stop. ICE must answer to the people, and must identify themselves and the agencies they work for. This bill would be a step towards reigning in their out of control and rogue behavior, and Congress should swiftly pass it into law.” 

    The No Secret Police Act would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require law enforcement officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clearly display identification and insignia when detaining or arresting individuals. Specifically, the bill would require that DHS officers:  

    • Are prohibited from wearing face coverings or any item that conceals their face during detentions or arrests.   

    • Identify the specific component of DHS (e.g., ICE, CBP) they work for.  

    • Wear or display official insignia or uniforms in a manner clearly visible to others.  

    • The bill also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and in coordination with relevant departmental components, to conduct research and development to enhance the visibility of law enforcement officers’ official insignia or uniforms. This includes developing technologies that ensure these identifiers remain clearly visible during detentions or arrests, particularly under varying conditions such as different locations, times of day, and weather circumstances. 

    Congressman Goldman has been leading the charge to combat and confront the Trump administration’s authoritarian immigration enforcement tactics.  

    Earlier this month, Congressman Goldman and House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02) led 84 House Democrats in an oversight letter of inquiry to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem seeking answers regarding the rise in ICE employing its masked, plainclothes officers to detain non-violent, law-abiding immigrants immediately following and in coordination with the dismissal of their existing deportation cases by DHS attorneys.    
    Last week, Goldman conducted an oversight visit to the ICE Field Office at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, where Deputy Field Director Bill Joyce confirmed that immigrants housed on the 10th floor were being forced to sleep on benches, floors, and in bathrooms for multiple days. Despite admitting that the facility was being used to detain migrants for several days at a time, Joyce barred the lawmakers from accessing the area, citing administration guidance. That same week, Goldman led 8 of his New York City House Democratic colleagues in sending an oversight letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons demanding ICE comply with Section 527(a) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 and stop denying members of Congress access to facilities that ICE is using to house immigrants. 
    Last month, Congressman Goldman held an emergency press conference after witnessing and questioning masked ICE agents detaining immigrants attending routine immigration court appearances in the lobby of his 290 Broadway Manhattan district office. The press conference followed Congressman Goldman attending an immigration court proceeding this morning at the Executive Office for Immigration Review New York – Broadway Immigration Court in Manhattan, where ICE agents had been detaining both immigrants and observers, including a pastor from Queens. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Tenney Reintroduces Legislation to Celebrate National Women’s Sports Week

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22)

    Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) and Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) today reintroduced a bicameral resolution designating the week of June 23, 2025, as National Women’s Sports Week. The resolution marks the anniversary of the passage of Title IX on June 23, 1972, and celebrates the growth and continued success of female athletics.

    Additional co-sponsors of the legislation include Representatives Randy Weber (TX-14), Nancy Mace (SC-1), and Ralph Norman (SC-5).

    National Women’s Sports Week celebrates the achievements of female athletes and the coaches and parents who support them. It recognizes the impact of Title IX, which since 1972 has guaranteed equal access to athletic opportunities for women and girls. Since its passage, female participation in high school sports has increased by 990%, and by 545% in college athletics. This resolution reaffirms Congress’s commitment to protecting these opportunities for future generations.

    “Women’s sports have empowered generations of female athletes to compete, lead, and break barriers. National Women’s Sports Week is an opportunity to honor that legacy and recommit to protecting equal opportunities for women and girls under Title IX. I am honored to introduce this legislation and to celebrate the progress female athletes have made and reiterate our continued advocacy to ensure that every young woman in America has the chance to compete on a level playing field,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

    “Whether it’s growing as a leader, winning a championship, or securing a scholarship to college, sports open doors for young girls,” said Senator Ernst. “I’m proud to lead this resolution to celebrate National Women’s Sports Week. Every girl deserves a level playing field — one based on biology, not ideology — where she has every opportunity to compete and win.”

    “I’m so thankful to Senator Ernst and Representative Tenney for leading this important resolution. Women’s Sports Week is a powerful reminder of what we’ve gained and what we must continue to protect. I’m proud to stand with leaders who are boldly defending fairness, safety, and opportunity for every female athlete,” said Payton McNabb, Independent Women’s Voice ambassador.

    “President Trump has taken strong action to defend female athletes. But the fight isn’t over. Too many women and girls are still seeing fair competition ripped away as men are allowed to enter and dominate women’s sports. This has to stop. Women’s sports week is a time to recommit to standing up for fairness and common sense in sports. Thank you Senator Ernst and Congresswoman Tenney, for marking this week as the time to celebrate women and girls in sports,” said Carrie Lukas, Vice President of Independent Women’s Voice.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: King, Colleagues Demand Answers on Potential Political, Personal Discrimination at VA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

    WASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) and several of his colleagues are calling on the administration to explain secret hospital guideline changes. In a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Doug Collins, the Senators request an explanation of why certain VA Medical Center bylaws were changed in a way that could invite discrimination against veteran patients and health care providers.

    Recent reporting has uncovered how the Trump Administration is secretly changing guidelines in a way that leaves VA providers and patients with ambiguity regarding whether certain protected traits, including their political affiliation or sexual orientation, can serve as reasons for denial of health care for veterans or the hiring of medical professionals.

    “We write today to request information regarding recent changes to patient and staff policies governing medical facilities within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),” wrote the Senators in a letter to VA Secretary Doug Collins. “Having reviewed past and current versions of bylaws for multiple medical facilities within the Department, we have confirmed the Department made changes, in secret and without notification to the veterans you serve or to Congress, that could allow for discrimination in treating patients and hiring medical professionals.”

    The Senators explicitly detailed the difference between the previous version of the bylaws and the new version. Language that previously required VA providers to care for veterans regardless of politics, marital status, age, national origin, and disability has been removed from certain VA health care facilities’ medical bylaws. Language that also previously ensured decisions for who was able to be a part of VA’s medical staff were made without regard to political affiliation, marital status, age, national origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and union membership have been removed from certain VA facilities’ medical bylaws.

    While the Department has cited President Trump’s discriminatory “Defending Women” Executive Order (EO) as rationale for making these changes, the Senators asserted that as “a grossly overzealous interpretation of this EO and egregious misuse of power.”

    “While many of the previously specified traits that have been removed from VA facilities’ bylaws potentially remain protected under existing statutes, the message VA is sending by stripping explicit references to these criteria is still deeply disturbing. Allowing, let alone encouraging, this ambiguity opens the door for widespread discrimination. These changes invite uncertainty as to whether a patient can be denied access to their earned health care or whether a provider is considered unfit to serve veterans based on anything other than their expertise and credentials. Even the appearance of allowing discrimination directly violates VA’s own mission…” the Senators continued.

    The Senators concluded, “It is your duty to answer to veterans, the public, and Congress as to why VA is sowing confusion and potentially putting veterans at risk and jeopardizing the Department’s medical workforce, clinicians’ licensure, and accreditation of its medical facilities nationwide. We insist you publish proper justification and clarification of these changes so as to leave no uncertainty as to the Department’s protections for patients and employees against unlawful and unethical discrimination.”

    In addition to King, the letter was also signed by Democratic leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), John Fetterman (D-PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

    The full text of the Senators’ letter is available here and below.

    +++

    Dear Secretary Collins: 

    We write today to request information regarding recent changes to patient and staff policies governing medical facilities within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Having reviewed past and current versions of bylaws for multiple medical facilities within the Department, we have confirmed the Department made changes, in secret and without notification to the veterans you serve or to Congress, that could allow for discrimination in treating patients and hiring medical professionals.

    Previous versions of the bylaws outlined specific prohibitions on discrimination against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status, or disability” (Article III, Section 3.03, paragraph 1). The new version prohibits discrimination only “on the basis of any legally protected status, including legally protected status such as race, color, religion, sex, or prior protected activity.” Additionally, whereas prior versions of bylaws prohibited medical staff hiring decisions based on, among other criteria, national origin, gender, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status, disability, age, and membership or non-membership in a labor organization (Article III, Section 3.01, paragraph 3), all of these specific criteria have been cut from the new version of the text. The Department, under your leadership, cites only Executive Order (EO) 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” as reasoning for implementing these bylaw changes. This is a grossly overzealous interpretation of this EO and egregious misuse of power.

    While many of the previously specified traits that have been removed from VA facilities’ bylaws potentially remain protected under existing statutes, the message VA is sending by stripping explicit references to these criteria is still deeply disturbing. Allowing, let alone encouraging, this ambiguity opens the door for widespread discrimination. These changes invite uncertainty as to whether a patient can be denied access to their earned health care or whether a provider is considered unfit to serve veterans based on anything other than their expertise and credentials. Even the appearance of allowing discrimination directly violates VA’s own mission: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise to care for those who have served in our nation’s military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.”

    These new guidelines are deeply dangerous and pernicious in practice and principle. It is your duty to answer to veterans, the public, and Congress as to why VA is sowing confusion and potentially putting veterans at risk and jeopardizing the Department’s medical workforce, clinicians’ licensure, and accreditation of its medical facilities nationwide. We insist you publish proper justification and clarification of these changes so as to leave no uncertainty as to the Department’s protections for patients and employees against unlawful and unethical discrimination.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Warns Against Rescinding Foreign Assistance Funding, Ceding Appropriations Authority To Trump Administration

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – Today, during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on President Trump’s proposed rescission request to Congress, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) warned colleagues against rescinding foreign assistance funding for programs that have long had bipartisan support. Schatz, who is a senior member of the committee and ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee which oversees much of the funding being cut in the package, questioned White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought about the lack of clarity from the administration about which specific programs will get cut should the package pass.

    “We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled,” said Senator Schatz.

    Senator Schatz added, “What’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority?”

    The text of Senator Schatz’s testimony, as delivered, is below. Video of the testimony and his exchange with Director Vought is available here.

    Thank you, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Committee. This is the first time I’ve been on this side of the dais. I have to say that the altitude difference is affecting me a little bit. It really is an honor to be here to argue against this rescissions package on behalf of all of you. On behalf of all of you as appropriators.

    Now, I want to be abundantly clear—I like Eric Schmitt a lot, but this is a very important point, and it’s actually fatal to the rescissions package—every single program that Senator Schmitt just mentioned has already been canceled. Every single program. And there’s a longer list that was on a Fox News chyron and Senator Graham and I have kind of gone over all of this. There are a bunch of different examples of terrible sounding things. They are all done, and they all belong in the previous federal fiscal year.

    So, now that it’s Marco Rubio’s State Department, and Marco Rubio’s USAID agency, and now that it is Donald Trump’s White House, none of these things are happening. This is a rescission of Trump’s CR in the current federal fiscal year. And so, if you have a problem with any of those programs, let Lindsey and I write a bill that prohibits the use of funds for any of those seemingly improper uses of funds. That’s the way to do this.

    Colleagues are being asked on this Committee to cut programs that I know each one of you have personally prioritized, because we get the letters. Whether you’re the Chair or the Rank[ing Member] of a subcommittee, you get a letter from your colleagues saying, could you please prioritize XYZ program. And many of the programs—I mean I’m talking about right now. In the same time period, we are receiving letters. Please save this. Please save that. Please, plus up that. That’s what we’re cutting right now in this rescissions package.

    We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. You’re pushing on an open door. And in fact, the administration has until the end of next year. This is two-year money. There is no rush on this. This is two-year money to align this funding with its new priorities. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled.

    Just so you understand how this legislation works; it’s big baskets of money. So, you have no idea whether the program that you are prioritizing is going to be cut or not. And they are not providing any clarity about that. You would think that if you’re asking the Congress to use this extraordinary authority under statutory law, that you would have a line by line—here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping, here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping. The answer that we are going to receive is, let me take that under advisement and get back to you. Or—I don’t know—that it’s none of your business. Or, I’m not sure what it is. There is no reason not to have specificity other than, the math doesn’t add up. The things that you care about are being cut in here, and they don’t want to specify it.

    And that brings me to what it is definitely in this package:

    • $900 million in cuts from global health programs including PEPFAR and efforts to combat diseases like malaria, TB and polio.
    • $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian assistance, which save lives, provide food, and shelter, and water, and support victims of sexual assault.
    • And $4.6 billion in cuts to economic development assistance to key partners. Whether it’s Jordan with increasing regional tension, the Philippines as it counters Chinese aggression, the Burmese opposition, or Ukraine.
    • And gone is a billion dollars in support for organizations like UNICEF.

    Everybody that was opposed to those things that were on that Fox chyron—everybody that found some of the things that Senator Schmitt talked about as objectionable—also hastened to say I don’t want to cut UNICEF, I don’t want to cut PEPFAR, I don’t want to cut the World Food Programme.

    Guess what is in this rescissions package? All of those things are being cut, and none of the things that you object to. They’ve already been eliminated. This is not just a question of policy. This is also a question of what this committee is even for. Being a Senate appropriator is an honor. It means something. It means that the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes. It means that we, as the article one branch, hold the purse strings. That, that is subject to cloture.

    So, what’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority? Because it is SFOPS today, but it’s going to be THUD, it’s going to be Ag, it’s going to be Labor-H, it’s going to be MilCon-VA, it’s going to be CJS tomorrow.

    So, I encourage all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to think hard about the precedent that we would be setting if we voted yes on this package.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Delivers Floor Speech On President Trump’s Decision To Bomb Iranian Nuclear Sites Without Congressional Authority

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    June 26, 2025

    Durbin also highlighted his support for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding President Trump’s decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran without Congressional authority. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that the power to declare war is an explicit power of Congress and Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed this constitutional provision when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.

    “We are here today to ensure the Senate fulfills its constitutional duties regarding the sole power to involve our nation in war,” said Durbin. “Under the [War Powers Act], the President has the authority to approve military attacks as a response to an imminent threat or with the expressed authorization of Congress. Neither of these was the case with President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran over the weekend.”

    “The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, wants to destroy Israel and undermine U.S. interests, and represses its own people. And it is interested in building a nuclear weapon. But those are not justifications to ignore the Constitution. If the U.S. is to start a war with Iran over these or any other issues—the Constitution itself requires it must be with the consent of Congress,” said Durbin.

    During his first term, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal which required mandatory inspections that were working at the time. The rash decision ultimately contributed to the dangerous situation with Iran today in which its leadership was moving closer to nuclear weapon capability. 

    During his speech, Durbin expressed his support for Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution, which would require a prompt debate and vote prior to using additional U.S. military force against Iran.

    “When I reflect on the time that I’ve served in the Senate, one of the most memorable votes was on the question of the invasion of Iraq… There were 23 who voted against the war in Iraq. I believe it was the best vote I ever cast as a Senator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were invading a country under a false premise, we were going to wage a war there and unfortunately did at the expense of American lives for a long period of time,” said Durbin.

    “The Senate should not be led into another war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people through Congress. Our founders knew this point. One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the American people—an argument I’ve made regardless of who the president is of either party… We’ve already ceded too much [congressional] power on appropriations and other key items—let’s not do that when it comes to war.” 

    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Carter’s Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act Passes House

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative John R Carter (R-TX-31)

    Representative John Carter’s (TX-31) Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act passed the House this afternoon, 218-206.

    “I’m proud that the House has passed the first FY26 appropriations bill—my Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill—which reflects House Republicans’ commitment to taking care of our servicemembers, veterans, and their families,” said Subcommittee Chairman John Carter. “This legislation invests in critical infrastructure, such as barracks and child development centers, and fully funds veterans’ healthcare, with a significant focus on mental health services and housing programs that our veterans have earned. As Chairman of the subcommittee, I will continue fighting to ensure those who serve our nation have the support they deserve, and I know my colleagues who voted in favor today share that same commitment. I want to sincerely thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and focus on getting solid bills across the finish line.”

    Key Takeaways

    Champions our veterans by:

    • Fully funding veterans’ health care programs.
    • Fully funding veterans’ benefits and VA programs.
    • Supporting President Trump’s efforts to combat veteran homelessness by investing in the new Bridging Rental Assistance for Veteran Empowerment program.
    • Maintaining funding levels for research, mental health programs, and other programs relied upon by veterans.

    Supports the Trump Administration and the mandate of the American people by: 

    • Protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans, preventing the VA from sending information to the FBI about veterans without a judge’s consent.
    • Syncing up with President Trump’s Executive Orders on no funds for DEI, gender affirming care, and protecting Hyde-like language at the VA.
    • Prohibiting the VA from processing medical care claims for illegal aliens.

    Bolsters U.S. national security and border protections by: 

    • Providing robust funding for military construction, enabling continued investment in the Indo-Pacific region, and infrastructure necessary to support the United States’ advanced weapons systems.
    • Maintaining the prohibitions on the closure of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use of military construction funds to build facilities for detainees on U.S. soil.
    • Prohibiting the VA from purchasing resources directly or indirectly from the People’s Republic of China.

    A summary of the bill, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    Bill text, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    Bill report, before adoption of amendments, is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joscha Abels, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen

    It was the briefest of messages, but the potential consequences could have been significant. Elon Musk posted a four-word tweet on June 14: “The beams are on”. The message prefigured a consequential intervention – not only in Iranian domestic affairs but potentially in the geopolitics of the Middle East. The US billionaire was responding to a request on his online platform X, asking him to activate the Starlink satellite system over Iran in support of anti-government protests.

    Following Israel’s military strikes on critical sites in Iran, the Islamic Republic imposed a large-scale internet shutdown that saw a drastic drop in connectivity throughout the county. Nationwide restrictions were placed on access to websites, social media platforms and mobile networks.

    This has effectively limited the inflow of media reports to the Iranian public. It has also made it more difficult for Iranians to organise amid violent crackdowns by the regime’s security forces. The activation of Starlink could allow them to bypass government censorship and restore contact with the outside world – and each other.

    It is not the first time Iran’s government has restricted internet access to stifle unrest – nor is it the first time that Musk got involved. In 2022, amid nationwide protests following the death of a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, at the hands of the security forces, ostensibly for wearing her hijab incorrectly, Musk activated Starlink over Iran for the first time.

    This triggered the smuggling of thousands of Starlink terminals into the country from neighbouring states. These terminals are flat rectangular devices, no larger than a baking tray. It is estimated that around 20,000 of them have found their way into Iran, giving Musk’s latest move a more immediate impact.

    Still, reestablishing internet coverage remains difficult. The few available Starlink terminals are traded on the black market at exorbitant prices, and Starlink services in Iran still require payments of a monthly subscription fee. Iran’s government has also issued threats against citizens who use the system.

    A new kind of warfare

    Starlink is the most advanced communication satellite system in the world. Orbiting Earth at an altitude of about 550kms, its satellites deliver high-speed internet to customers around the globe. Out of more than 12,000 active satellites in orbit, around 7,600 belong to Starlink.

    The system is operated by SpaceX, a space tech firm headquartered in Texas. SpaceX has recently become the world’s most valuable privately held company according to Bloomberg, surpassing even ByteDance (TikTok) and OpenAI.

    Musk continues to act as the company’s largest stakeholder and chief executive, even while wielding huge political influence (following his recent rift with the US president, there is evidence he still wields considerable political clout in the US).

    Starlink owes much of its geopolitical relevance to modern warfare. Secure communications have become essential on today’s data-driven battlefields. The mass availability of drones has fundamentally changed how wars are fought. High-bandwidth connections are needed for drones to transmit live video and receive targeting data.

    As land-based connections are vulnerable to sabotage and outright attacks, mega-constellations such as Starlink provide a robust alternative. Comprising thousands of units, several hundreds of kilometres above ground, their services are difficult to disrupt.

    Ukraine: a cautionary tale

    Nowhere has the importance of satellite communications for geopolitics been more evident than in Ukraine. Russia prepared its invasion by conducting cyberattacks on Ukraine’s Viasat system. Musk responded by activating Starlink, announcing the move in the same casual style that he used for Iran.

    The effect was immediate. Starlink quickly became indispensable for Ukraine’s counter-offensive efforts. Amid the Russian onslaught, it provided the nation’s military with secure communications to push back against the invasion. For SpaceX, this yielded not just hugely positive publicity but also substantial financial injections from investors.

    Just months into Starlink’s activation, SpaceX initiated a strategic shift. Ukrainian forces reported outages along the front lines, especially when pushing into Russian-occupied territory. In October 2022, Musk floated the idea that SpaceX might withdraw support altogether, citing high operational costs.

    By February 2023, the company had begun limiting Starlink’s use for the operation of Ukrainian drones. SpaceX’s chief operating office, Gwynne Shotwell stated that the system was “never intended to be weaponized”.

    Power in private hands

    Starlink’s role in Ukraine offers a striking example of how modern communications can change the course of conflicts, as I argued in a recent article in the European Journal of International Relations. At the same time, it serves as a cautionary tale about the reliability of critical systems in the hands of private corporations and powerful individuals.

    In Ukraine, Musk held the power to effectively veto military operations. No democratic body provided oversight – the signal could be switched off with a tweet. Starlink’s role in Iran raises similarly uncomfortable questions: who decides when – or whether – citizens get to communicate?

    While the region is struggling to establish a fragile ceasefire, political unrest in Iran is unlikely to subside soon. The deeper truth remains that communications within Iran’s civil society currently depend on the world’s wealthiest person – and no alternatives are in sight.

    Joscha Abels receives funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant 526359979.

    – ref. In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time – https://theconversation.com/in-the-sky-over-iran-elon-musk-and-starlink-step-into-geopolitics-not-for-the-first-time-259833

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Reps. Barragán and Lofgren Lead Democrats’ Response to Rep. Kim’s Distorted, Partisan Resolution Regarding Trump’s Authoritarian Response to the LA Protests

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    June 25, 2025

    Contact: Jin.Choi@mail.house.gov

    Reps. Barragán and Lofgren Lead Democrats’ Response to Rep. Kim’s Distorted, Partisan Resolution Regarding Trump’s Authoritarian Response to the LA Protests 

    Washington, D.C. —  Today, Representatives Nanette Barragán (CA-44) and Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, led Democrats in introducing a resolution to condemn Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines during the LA protests, while reaffirming support for state and local law enforcement and the people’s First Amendment right to peacefully protest. This resolution provides a fact-based response to Representative Young Kim’s distorted, partisan, and misleading resolution that House Republican leadership will have the House vote on later this week. 

    Rather than working on a bipartisan basis to condemn violence, defend the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights, and thank members of law enforcement, Rep. Kim’s resolution instead falsely claims that violence was widespread across LA and that California’s leadership has “prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens” among other highly partisan claims. 

    In contrast, the Barragán-Lofgren resolution accurately notes that violence in LA was limited and under control by local and state law enforcement. When communities exercised their First Amendment right to assemble and protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, President Trump wrongfully deployed the National Guard and active-duty members of the U.S. Marine Corps in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom or local officials. Democrats’ resolution commends the state and local law enforcement officers who have worked to protect public safety and maintain peace, supports Americans’ right to protest peacefully, condemns acts of violence, and supports the military servicemembers in the Marines and National Guard while objecting to their current deployment to Los Angeles County. 

    “Our communities have been terrorized by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller’s indiscriminate mass deportation ICE operations — in response, people spoke up and protested to express their fear, anger, and anxiety,” said Rep. Nanette Barragán. “State and local law enforcement had the situation under control and the Trump Administration intentionally escalated the situation when they deployed troops into Los Angeles. Our resolution makes clear that we will not stand by while the federal government tries to intimidate Californians into silence through a show of military force. We must protect the right to protest, condemn violence, and reject authoritarian tactics that have no place in America.”

    “Rep. Kim’s resolution regarding the L.A. protests is not just misguided, inaccurate, and disingenuous: it’s dangerous,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation. “President Trump’s deployment of Marines and the National Guard in response to largely peaceful protests was unprecedented and wrong. Trump’s refusal to coordinate with state and local officials in deploying active-duty troops also put both protestors and state and local law enforcement officers at risk. House Republicans should be conducting vigorous oversight of the shocking deployment of servicemembers – a blatant attempt to take over states’ law enforcement responsibility – not reflexively jumping to providing justification for Trump to send troops into other communities or defending his dangerous attempt to squash constitutionally-protected dissent.”

    “Communities throughout California have been upended by ICE raids where masked ICE agents are using excessive force to go after people without probable cause. People want safer communities, not to see elementary school students and sick people at hospitals deported without due process. Instead of deescalating violence, Trump has fomented it. By deploying Marines and the National Guard against protestors in LA, Trump exacerbated a situation that local officials had under control. The resolution introduced by Rep. Kim does not accurately state the facts of the situation and instead falsely lays blame on Californians for Trump’s escalatory actions. By introducing a resolution with the correct facts, Democrats are standing up for Californians, including our law enforcement officials, who have been repeatedly demonized by partisan hacks looking to score cheap political points,” said Rep. Lieu. 

     “There was only one reason Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles: to launch his pathetic, made-for-TV reality show to justify his authoritarian crackdowns and cruel ICE raids,” said Rep. Kamalger-Dove. “But Angelenos know our city is not on fire.  We see right through the reality TV president’s theatrics that are meant to distract from this Administration’s tanking of our economy, devastating cuts to Medicaid, and the brutality and inhumanity of its mass deportations. If you pan away from the set, you won’t see Trump’s toy soldiers or violence, but real people hurting from his policies. Let’s focus the camera back on that.”

    “The Trump Administration is using our military service members as political pawns to create a false narrative of uncontrolled violence, trample on legal precedent, and perpetuate fear and hate in our communities,” said Rep. Cisneros. “Last week, I led a letter with over 34 of my colleagues demanding that the President withdraw troops from L.A. and allow our local officials and law enforcement to do their jobs.  I’m proud to join California Democrats in demanding answers from the Administration.”

    “As a proud born-and-raised Angeleno, Los Angeles will always be home. The Republican resolution we are voting on this week is a distorted and inaccurate attack on Los Angeles and our great state,” said Congresswoman Luz Rivas. “I thank Representatives Barragan and Lofgren for leading our California colleagues in introducing this resolution that reaffirms our support for peaceful protest and condemns President Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard and Marines on American soil. The President’s unprovoked and politically-motivated escalation of our military sowed more chaos and harm across our communities. My California House Democratic Caucus colleagues will continue to support the Constitutional right to peacefully protest the Trump Administration’s heartless immigration agenda while also swiftly condemning any acts of violence. Our Republican colleagues – especially our California Republican colleagues – need to do the same.”

    “Trump’s deployment of Marines to Los Angeles was a dangerous overreach that bypassed both state and local authority. We all condemn violence. Californians have a right to protest peacefully — and the Governor’s office assured me that local law enforcement had the capacity to get the situation under control,” said Congresswoman Laura Friedman (CA-30). “The Republican resolution isn’t about safety — it’s political theater aimed at stripping Americans of their rights. Instead of targeting violent criminals, Trump is going after hardworking community members and using military force to intimidate dissent. Our resolution makes clear: we won’t let fear or federal overreach silence Californians exercising their constitutional rights.”

    “This week, Republicans are forcing a vote on a partisan resolution to legitimize Trump’s unacceptable attacks on our community in Los Angeles and to excuse his warrantless mass ICE raids, his takeover of our National Guard, and his deployment of U.S. Marines on the streets of Southern California. This is just wrong. I’m proud to instead join my California Democratic colleagues in introducing this resolution to stand up to Trump’s attacks on California, defend our constitutional rights to due process and free expression, and thank the state and local law enforcement officers who have worked to protect public safety and prosecute those committing acts of violence and vandalism,” said Rep. Chu.

    The resolution is cosponsored by: Reps. Aguilar, Bera, Brownley, Bynum, Carbajal, T. Carter, Chu, Cisneros, Correa, Costa, Dean, DelBene, DeSaulnier, Doggett, Espaillat, Friedman, Garamendi, R. Garcia, S. Garcia, J. Gomez, Gray, J. Hayes, Huffman, Ivey, Jacobs, Hank Johnson, Kamlager-Dove, T. Kennedy, Khanna, Landsman, Larsen, Latimer, Leger Fernandez, Levin, Liccardo, Lieu, Lofgren, Matsui, McCollum, Min, Morelle, Mullin, Panetta, Pelosi, Peters, Pettersen, Rivas, Ross, Ruiz, Salinas, L. Sanchez, Sherman, Simon, Swalwell, Takano, Thanedar, Thompson, N. Torres, Tran, Vargas, Waters, Whitesides. 

    The text of the resolution can be found HERE. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Joins Hirono, Wyden, Colleagues in Demanding Answers on Trump’s Rescission of EMTALA Abortion Care Guidance, Urging HHS to Reverse Decision

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 25, 2025
    The Trump Administration’s rescission of EMTALA guidance that reaffirmed nationwide access to emergency abortion care puts patients’ lives in jeopardy and sows chaos for hospitals and providers across the country
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – On the three-year anniversary this week of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and their colleagues in condemning the Trump Administration’s recent rescission of guidance that reaffirmed hospitals and providers’ obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide medically necessary emergency abortion care, regardless of where the patient lives. The letter, sent to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, urges HHS to immediately reverse its decision to rescind this lifesaving guidance.
    “While EMTALA remains binding federal law, the rescission will create further confusion for hospitals and providers, especially in states with abortion bans, and will result in medically-necessary care being withheld from pregnant patients in crisis,” wrote the Senators. “When doctors are forced to navigate the complex legal interplay of state abortion bans and federal EMTALA protections, pregnant people experience care delays and may receive substandard care.”
    In 1986, Congress enacted EMTALA to require Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing treatment for any individuals—including pregnant women—experiencing emergency medical conditions. The federal law clearly requires hospitals to offer abortion care in cases where it was deemed medically necessary to prevent serious harm to patients’ health and life. However, since the conservative majority on the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, more than twenty states have passed laws to ban or severely restrict access to abortion, disrupting decades of certainty for hospitals regarding their legal obligation to provide necessary emergency abortion care under federal law.
    In their letter, the Senators assert that by rescinding this guidance—accompanied by the ensuing fear and confusion for hospitals and providers—HHS has needlessly put pregnant patients at severe risk of harm, medical complications, lasting health consequences and preventable death.  
    “This abrupt decision will further the chaos and confusion that hospitals, physicians, and patients have experienced since the Dobbs decision and will result in negative and deadly consequences for women and families across the United States,” the Senators concluded.
    In addition to Duckworth, Hirono and Wyden, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV).
    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below.
    Dear Secretary Kennedy and Administrator Oz:
    We write to express our strong disapproval of your recent rescission of guidance that reaffirmed hospitals and providers’ obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide life-saving abortion care to patients experiencing medical crises. On June 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “the Department”) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS” or “the Agency”) rescinded July 2022 guidance that reminds hospitals of their longstanding obligation under EMTALA and that protects pregnant women’s access to emergency abortion care, regardless of where they live. While EMTALA remains binding federal law, the rescission will create further confusion for hospitals and providers, especially in states with abortion bans, and will result in medically-necessary care being withheld from pregnant patients in crisis.
    In 1986, Congress enacted EMTALA to require Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing screening and treatment for any individuals—including pregnant women—experiencing emergency medical conditions. Under the law, hospitals are required to treat conditions determined by health care providers that, absent immediate medical attention, could reasonably result in placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ. EMTALA clearly requires hospitals to offer abortion care for cases in which their health care providers determine it medically necessary to prevent serious harm to their patients’ health and life, including in, but not limited to, cases of ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features. Since enacting EMTALA, Congress and administrations of both parties have consistently recognized that stabilizing care under the statute includes abortion. As a result, up until a few years ago, medical providers have not had to worry about the government interfering with their clinical judgement to provide necessary stabilizing medical care to pregnant women in emergencies.
    Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (Dobbs) in June 2022, 22 states passed laws to ban or severely restrict access to abortion, including 6 states with no exception for the health of the pregnant person. This has disrupted decades of certainty that hospitals are required to provide access to emergency abortion care under federal law, sowing chaos for patients and providers alike, and forcing doctors to play lawyers and lawyers to play doctors. When doctors are forced to navigate the complex legal interplay of state abortion bans and federal EMTALA protections, pregnant people experience care delays and may receive substandard care. In response to the confusion caused by these restrictive abortion bans, HHS Secretary Becerra issued guidance in July 2022 restating hospitals’ legal obligation under federal law to provide stabilizing treatment, including necessary abortion care, to pregnant patients in emergency situations. Even with such guidance in place, physicians across the country report that hospitals fail to meet the challenge of supporting doctors in navigating this extraordinary legal environment and, in many cases, hospitals continue to rely on guidance developed pre-Dobbs. While Republican-led states and anti-abortion groups have tried to challenge proper meaning and scope of the federal law, EMTALA has always and will continue to protect emergency abortion care and preempt all state laws to the contrary.
    The Trump administration’s decision to rescind this guidance will create more confusion, fear, and stress for hospitals and their staffs about what care they are legally required to provide pregnant patients whose lives are or could be in danger. Moreover, it will undermine patients’ faith that their doctor will be able to act in their best interest in the event of an emergency. State abortion laws with vague medical exceptions and criminal penalties force hospitals and physicians to delay and deny emergency abortion care for pregnant patients, placing patients at higher risk for medical complications, lasting health consequences, and avoidable death.
    By rescinding the guidance, HHS has needlessly put pregnant patients at severe risk of harm and preventable death. Given the threat to women’s lives following the rescission of this guidance, we request information and responses to the following questions by July 3, 2025, at 5:00pm ET.
    In your recent announcement regarding the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance, you stated that the July 2022 guidance “d[id] not reflect the policy of this Administration” with respect to EMTALA.
    What is the Administration’s policy related to EMTALA for pregnant patients who are experiencing emergency medical conditions that could result in serious bodily harm or death?
    When did the Administration develop this policy related to EMTALA?
    Which stakeholders and individuals did the Administration consult in the development of this policy?
    In the same announcement, you stated that “CMS would continue to enforce EMTALA … [for] all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment.”
    How will CMS enforce EMTALA, specifically for pregnant patients or patients experiencing pregnancy loss who are facing life-threatening or other serious emergency medical situations?
    How will CMS and its remaining regional offices adjudicate on and refer for investigation EMTALA complaints involving delayed or denied necessary emergency abortion care? 
    Does CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) have sufficient resources and personnel to investigate violations of EMTALA? Please provide detailed information on the number of employees and federal funding that HHS has available to investigate complaints of EMTALA violations.
    Please provide a list of EMTALA complaints since June 24, 2022, involving delayed or denied necessary emergency abortion care by state, hospital, incident date, nature of allegation, investigation status, recommended action by surveyors, and final action in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC § 552a).
    The announcement also stated, “CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to states – including state survey agencies – about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to hospitals about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    Did CMS provide any advance notice to professional physician organizations about the decision to rescind the July 2022 guidance before it was announced?
    What specific steps will CMS take to address the legal confusion of patients, hospitals, and physicians caused by state abortion bans conflicting with federal law?
    Has the Administration created any materials to educate patients, hospitals, and physicians about this policy? If so, please produce them.
    The July 2022 guidance reaffirmed the longstanding legal and professional obligation hospitals have to provide patients with emergency abortion care under EMTALA.
    Will CMS issue new guidance making it clear to hospitals that they are legally required to follow EMTALA by providing stabilizing treatment for patients experiencing a medical emergency, including where that treatment is an abortion?
    Will CMS issue updates or require changes to the Medicare provider agreements for hospitals?
    Will CMS issue new guidance to state survey agencies related to EMTALA investigations?
    This abrupt decision will further the chaos and confusion that hospitals, physicians, and patients have experienced since the Dobbs decision and will result in negative and deadly consequences for women and families across the United States. HHS should immediately reverse its decision to rescind the guidance.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Hosts Telephone Town Hall, Highlighting Negative Impacts of Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ on Illinois

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    June 25, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) tonight hosted a telephone town hall to answer Illinois constituents’ questions and discuss how Donald Trump and Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” will profoundly harm Illinoisans. In tonight’s town hall, Duckworth highlighted how Senate Republicans are currently trying to jam through this legislation—that no one has seen final text for—in order to give Trump and his billionaire buddies a massive tax cut paid for by increasing taxes on and cutting basic needs services for the most vulnerable Americans and the middle class. Photos from tonight’s telephone town hall are available on the Senator’s website.
    “Donald Trump’s so-called Big, Beautiful Bill throws middle class families under the bus and increases taxes on low-income families in order to fund another monstrous tax cut for Trump’s billionaire Mar-A-Lago buddies,” Duckworth said. “This bill lets Republicans off the hook from having to earn a single Democratic vote to pass their deeply unpopular ‘well, we’re all going to die’ agenda that cuts Medicaid, guts critical food assistance programs and explodes our deficit and debt by trillions of dollars—selling out the middle class to enrich billionaires like Donald Trump.”
    If Republicans’ plan is passed, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans would be at risk of losing health coverage through Medicaid and food assistance through SNAP, and dozens of rural hospitals and nursing homes in our state would likely close—cutting off or restricting access to critical services for entire communities, including Illinoisans with private insurance. As a result of these cuts and other irresponsible slashes by Republicans, thousands of jobs across the clean energy, agriculture and medical industries are at risk.
    Duckworth hosted her last town hall in May in McHenry County, focusing on Veterans and all of the ways Donald Trump and his Administration are hurting our nation’s Veterans.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Massachusetts’ Women Congressional Leaders Stand in Defense of Women’s Reproductive Freedom

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)

    LOWELL, MA – Ahead of the third anniversary of Dobbs, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03),  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (MA-05), and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) joined Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts President Dominique Lee for a press conference calling out the attacks on reproductive freedom tucked into Republicans’ Big, Ugly Bill.
    “Three years ago, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court opened the floodgates to extreme abortion bans in GOP-controlled states across the country – bans that criminalize doctors, endanger women’s lives, and force survivors of rape to carry pregnancies against their will,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “Now, Republicans in Washington are trying to punish states like Massachusetts for protecting access to abortion by withholding federal health care funding for families who need it most. It’s a coordinated effort to force every state to fall in line with Trump’s anti-abortion, anti-woman agenda, and we have to do everything in our power to stop it from passing.”
    “Tomorrow will mark three years since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. For three years, the Republicans have marched nonstop toward their ultimate goal of a national abortion ban — with total control over women’s health care in every state, including Massachusetts,” said Whip Clark. “And now, we have their Big, Ugly Betrayal of Women Budget, which will impose the single biggest health care cut in our country’s history and inflict the biggest assault on women’s health care since Dobbs. To put it simply, this is a life-and-death fight every day. Republicans are choosing to make life harder and more expensive and more dangerous for America’s 170 million women and girls. All to help America’s 900 billionaires.”
    “Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn. Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion — even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it,” said Sen. Warren.
    “As we mark three years since the devastating day the Supreme Court denied us our bodily autonomy and ripped away the basic right to abortion care in America, we recommit to fighting for families across this country to access the basic medical care they need to survive, to be safe in birth, to be treated with human dignity,” said Rep. Pressley, Co-Chair of the House Reproductive Freedom Caucus. “It starts by defeating Republicans’ Big Ugly Bill – their shameful reconciliation bill that would put necessary health care further out of reach for millions of people and would drastically defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood clinics across this nation are quite literally saving lives – often the only option for miles for life saving cancer screenings, affordable birth control, and compassionate prenatal care. We will never yield to Trump and Republicans’ agenda to make America a nation of forced birth – this is not an inevitability, and I’m proud to join Whip Clark, Senator Warren, and Congresswoman Trahan in standing with Planned Parenthood in our fight to restore true bodily autonomy and reproductive justice.”
    “The so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ is a backdoor abortion ban, even in safe-haven states like Massachusetts,” said Dominique Lee, president of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “This bill would ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood by blocking Medicaid reimbursement, which could impact half of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts’ budget. PPLM serves more than 30,000 patients annually, and nearly 40% of them are on Medicaid. If this bill passes, it won’t matter that abortion is legal here. People could lose access to abortion, birth control, STI testing, cancer screenings and other care from the provider they trust most. Planned Parenthood will not abandon our patients, our staff, or our communities, but we need everyone with us to help stop this attack on people’s health and freedom.”
    Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ budget bill would defund Planned Parenthood health centers, bar private health insurers on the ACA marketplace from offering abortion coverage, and slash Medicaid health care coverage — leaving over 300,000 Massachusetts residents unable to access basic health care services.
    For event photos, click HERE. To watch the full press conference, click HERE.
    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Hickenlooper, Senators Host PRIDE Celebration at Kennedy Center

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado
    In case you missed it, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper, along with U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and Brian Schatz hosted a pride celebration and musical performance titled “Love is Love” on Monday at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum.
    The concert, produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller and directed by Seth Rudetsky and James Wesley Jackson, celebrated the important role that the arts have played in the gay rights movement. The actors and other creative talent who created this show gave their time and artistic energy to recognize and amplify this cultural transformation. The performance reminds us that our fight for equality – and for democracy – isn’t over. It’s happening right now, all around us.
    Photos from the event can be found HERE and attributable to the Office of U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper.
    Check out the headlines below:
    New York Times: With Broadway Tunes, Democrats Protest Trump’s Takeover of Kennedy CenterFive Democratic senators staged a gay pride concert at a small theater at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Monday night as a form of symbolic protest against President Trump’s takeover of the institution.The event, which was held before an invited audience, featured performances by Broadway artists including Javier Muñoz, a “Hamilton” alum who sang “Satisfied” from the hit musical. Many of the songs and monologues were rife with L.G.B.T. themes, including one penned by Harvey Fierstein.Other performances included Brandon Uranowitz’s singing “What More Can I Say?” from “Falsettos,” and Beth Malone’s rendition of “An Old-Fashioned Love Story” from “The Wild Party.” That song’s composer, Andrew Lippa, performed a song from his oratorio “I Am Harvey Milk” alongside the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington.The 90-minute concert was called “Love Is Love,” a slogan used by the gay rights movement and quoted by the “Hamilton” creator Lin-Manuel Miranda when his show won at the Tony Awards in 2016. It was produced by Jeffrey Seller, the lead producer of “Hamilton,” who recently canceled a planned 2026 run of the musical at the Kennedy Center, saying he did not want to support Mr. Trump’s vision for the venue.“What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light,” Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who hosted the concert, said in a statement. “The L.G.B.T.Q. community has long embodied this resilience, maintaining joy and creativity in the face of adversity.”
    National Public Radio (NPR): Democratic senators held an invite-only Pride event at the Kennedy CenterA group of Democratic senators and Hamilton producer Jeffrey Seller hosted a Pride celebration at the Kennedy Center Monday evening. But the Kennedy Center had nothing to do with programming it.Senators John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin rented the Justice Forum, a small theater at the REACH, an expansion to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts that opened in 2019.While the group of senators booked the space a few weeks ago, the Pride event, called Love Is Love, wasn’t announced until Monday. A statement from Sen. Hickenlooper’s office said the event was “about standing up for the arts and the progress the LGBTQ community has made. The performance reminds us that our fight for equality — and for democracy — isn’t over. It’s happening right now.”Directed by Seth Rudetsky and James Wesley, the show celebrated gay culture with songs and spoken word performances by top Broadway talent, including John Cameron Mitchell, Jelani Remy, Lisa Kron and Andrew Lippa.Details of Monday night’s show were first reported by The New York Times. Seller, whose credits also include Rent and Avenue Q, told the outlet that Hickenlooper called him to see if he’d like to engage in some “guerrilla theater.” Seller, who is gay, didn’t hesitate.
    Politico: Playbook Arts SectionSens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) hosted a Kennedy Center gay pride performance last night, per the NYT. Drawing a contrast with the Trump administration’s takeover of the theater, the Broadway concert-cum-protest included songs and performers from “Hamilton,” “Falsettos” and moreColorado Public Radio (CPR): Sen. Hickenlooper helps organize Pride concert at Trump-led Kennedy CenterColorado Sen. John Hickenlooper led a one-night takeover of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., Monday night to celebrate Pride month, in defiance of the Center’s move away from what President Trump has called “woke” programming.The concert, titled “Love is Love,” featured Broadway artists and was produced by Jeffrey Seller, who has been behind shows such as “Hamilton,” “Avenue Q” and “Rent.”The event started when Hickenlooper reached out to Seller with what he described as a “goofy idea.”“Taking songs from this arc of acceptance (of gay rights), so that we get to celebrate for a moment just how powerful our arts and culture is and how it’s changed America and how better off we are,” explained Colorado’s junior senator.Playbill: Beth Malone, Brandon Uranowitz, Jelani Remy, More to Perform in Pride Protest Concert at Kennedy CenterSince President Trump took over the Kennedy Center in February, the institution has cancelled a number of Pride-related events. In protest, Hamilton producer Jeffrey Seller and five Democratic Senators are going to stage a Pride-themed concert at the Kennedy Center the evening of June 23.According to a report in the New York Times, senators are allowed to rent space at the Kennedy Center. So the Democratic senators asked to rent the 144-seat Justice Hall and didn’t tell the Kennedy Center what they needed it for. The invitation-only event will be called Love Is Love and will feature queer-themed songs and readings. The participants include Tony winners John Cameron Mitchell, Lisa Kron, and Brandon Uranowitz, as well as Andrew Lippa, Beth Malone, Jelani Remy, Hennessy Winkler, Alexis Michelle, Dylan Toms, Javier Muñoz, Kathryn Gallagher, and Brandi Chavonne Massey.The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, D.C. (whose previously planned concert had been cancelled at the Kennedy Center), will also perform. The title of the concert is a Pride slogan, and Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda quoted it in a 2016 Tony Awards acceptance speech.Seller produced the event, after being invited to participate from Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado. As Seller told the Times: “This is our way of reoccupying the Kennedy Center. This is a form of saying, ‘We are here, we exist, and you can’t ignore us.’ This is a protest, and a political act.” Seller previously pulled a planned engagement of Hamilton from the Kennedy Center as protest against the Trump Administration. Seth Rudetsky and his husband, James Wesley Jackson, are directing the event. They previously helped organize a Broadway Rallies for Kamala event during the 2024 election.Said Rudetsky to Playbill: “I am honored that Jeffrey Seller reached out to me and my husband James to help put this concert together after Jeffrey was contacted by the Senator’s office. We decided together that we wanted to create concert of joy and pride! The gay community has been always integral to the arts and should be welcome in every artistic venue! I am so excited to be in the company of so many amazing queer artists who will be performing songs from the Broadway canon that celebrate PRIDE! Stay tuned for photos and videos of fabulous harmonies and belting!”Deadline: Democratic Senators To Host Kennedy Center Pride Concert To Protest Trump TakeoverFive Democratic senators will host an invitation-only Pride concert at the Kennedy Center Monday as a protest against President Donald Trump’s takeover of the Washington D.C. arts institution.The 90-minute concert, which is expected to feature Broadway performers as well as The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington D.C., is set for Monday night, The New York Times reports.Organized by John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., the group of Senators – Hickenlooper, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – have rented the Justice Forum, a 144-seat theater located in the Reach expansion of the Kennedy Center, using a privilege available to all members of Congress.“What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “The L.G.B.T.Q. community has long embodied this resilience, maintaining joy and creativity in the face of adversity.”Colorado Today Podcast: June 24, 2025Last night, Colorado’s U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper led a little guerrilla theater. It was supposed to be a sort of takeover of a venue that’s already been taken over by President Donald Trump. The venue was the Kennedy Center in Washington, where Hickenlooper and a handful of other Democrats put on a night to celebrate LGBTQ pride. 
    …If you’re wondering why Hickenlooper specifically organized this, I’m not surprised that he decided to do it. You know, he’s a performer, banjo player, and you know, enjoys music. So I can understand why he turned to the arts and celebrated not just for pride, but to try and ensure that the arts unites the country.KKTV Colorado Springs: 11 News at 6am
    A group of U.S. Senators, including Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came together and hosted a pride celebration in a musical performance titled “Love is Love.”Now, that performance was held last night at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum and produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller.The press release from Hickenlooper’s team said the performance reminds us that our fight for equality and democracy isn’t over. It’s happening right now, all across the world. Queerty: Dems hosted a private Pride bash at the Kennedy Center as a giant F.U. to Tr*mpWhen President Tr*mp took over the running of the Kennedy Center in February, he promised no more “woke” productions. He installed gay chum Richard Grenell as the art center’s acting President.Since then, not only have performers and productions pulled their appearances at the venue, but the center also canceled all of its planned Pride Month events.That was until last night!In a rebuke of the President’s takeover of the venue, five Democratic Senators hosted a private, invite-only Pride Month event. They didn’t tell the Kennedy Center in advance the exact nature of the private booking.The New York Times reported yesterday that the 90-minute show was booked at the 144-seat Justice Forum. It was organized by Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO). His co-hosts included Tammy Baldwin (WI), Jacky Rosen (NV), Brian Schatz (HI) and Elizabeth Warren (MA).
    …Hickenlooper reshared the New York Times story to X, saying, “Let’s do this,” with a pride flag emoji.LGBTQ Nation: Gay MAGA official scorns “Hamilton” creators for Kennedy Center boycott: They “cosplay as victims”As the Daily Beast notes, Grenell’s statement came the same day as an invite-only Pride concert produced by Seller and staged by Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Brian Schatz (D-HI) at one of the Kennedy Center’s theaters. According to the outlet, Miranda does not seem to have been involved in the event in any way. While the New York Times reported on the concert Monday, the paper was also not involved in its production, as Grenell suggested. While Grenell claimed in his Monday statement that “No one has been cancelled by the Kennedy Center” and that “we welcome everyone who wants to celebrate the arts, including our compatriots on the other side of the political aisle,” under his leadership, several Pride events and performances have, in fact, been canceled.According to the Times, Hickenlooper invited Seller to produce Monday’s concert, which Seller said was meant “to celebrate gay characters, gay culture, gay music and gay pride.”“This is our way of reoccupying the Kennedy Center,” Seller told the paper. “This is a form of saying, ‘We are here, we exist and you can’t ignore us.’ This is a protest, and a political act.”Daily Beast: Kennedy Center President Melts Down at ‘Hamilton’ Duo in Social Media TiradeHickenlooper said in an X post that “this is about standing up for freedom. It’s about standing up for self-expression. At the core of it all, it’s about standing up for love.”BroadwayWorld: Photos: Senators Host LOVE IS LOVE Pride Celebration at the Kennedy CenterOn June 23rd U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper, Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and Brian Schatz hosted a Pride celebration and musical performance titled Love is Love, which was produced by acclaimed Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller, at the Kennedy Center’s Justice Forum.
    …Senator Hickenlooper opened the program, which featured an evening of live performances and monologues celebrating LGBTQ culture and resilience.The Hill: 5 Democratic senators protest Trump Kennedy Center takeover with gay pride concertA group of five Democratic senators reportedly protested President Trump’s unprecedented overhaul of the Kennedy Center by hosting a gay pride concert.The performance, dubbed “Love is Love” and first reported by The New York Times, was held Monday night at a theater inside the Washington performing arts institution and included pro-LGBTQ songs and monologues. Sen. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) — one of the five Democrats behind the event — said in a statement, “What’s happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light.”The Monday concert, which came during Pride Month, aimed to “honor the role that the freedom of expression and the theatrical arts play in continuing to expand LGBTQ rights in America,” Hickenlooper said.The musical performance was also hosted by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Jacky Rosen (Nev.).Colorado Pols: Hickenlooper Master Trolls Trump’s Censored Kennedy CenterAs Colorado Public Radio’s Caitlyn Kim reports, Washington is abuzz this morning after a group of Democratic U.S. Senators led by Colorado’s Sen. John Hickenlooper pulled off a protest concert inside the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which was taken over by the Trump administration soon after taking power, after Donald Trump personally objected to the content featured there during previous administrations:
    …Of course, none of this would be happening were it not for Trump’s takeover and ideological remake of the Center’s event schedule that Grenell himself presided over. There’s no amount of carping after the fact that can overcome the much bigger impression made by pulling off this protest concert inside the arts complex that Trump wants to micromanage like the infamous Carter White House tennis courts.These are the moments history remembers after repressive eras end, and this one belongs to Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.

    Read more: Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.

    Read more: Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    – Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them
    – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.



    Read more:
    Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.



    Read more:
    Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

    The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

    At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

    This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

    The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

    More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Several actors have taken sides.

    Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

    These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

    I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.



    Read more:
    Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

    The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

    For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

    The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

    The African Union

    The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

    Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

    First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

    Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

    Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

    Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

    The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

    The United Arab Emirates

    The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

    Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.



    Read more:
    Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

    In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

    In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

    The United States

    During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

    However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

    The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

    But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

    The European Union

    The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

    Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

    The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

    A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

    What now?

    To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

    Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

    John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pressley, Lawmakers Demand Trump Admin. Exempt Essential Baby Products from Harmful Tariffs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Last Month, After Pressure from Pressley, Treasury and Trump Said Exemption Was “Under Consideration”

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) led 25 of her colleagues on a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demanding an immediate exemption for essential infant and toddler products—including car seats, strollers, cribs, and highchairs—from current and future tariffs. Last month, after sharp questioning from Congresswoman Pressley in the House Financial Services Committee, Secretary Bessent conceded that such an exemption was “under consideration,” which was later reaffirmed by President Trump.

    “There have been more than thirty days since your testimony and no exemptions on baby products have been announced. Hence, we urge you to relieve families of the high tariffs on products they need to care for their children,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “As you are aware, baby products are not optional luxury goods. They are necessities for millions of American families to ensure a safe environment for infants.”

    Car seats are legally required in all fifty seats, but more than 90% of them are made in China. Under the current on-again, off-again tariff regime, many of these products have seen price increases of up to 30%, placing a significant and unnecessary burden on working families. With approximately 3.5 million babies born each year in the United States, this means millions of families face steep cost increases to care for their newborns and comply with basic child safety laws. Further, according to BabyCenter, new parents now spend an estimated $20,000 during their child’s first year—including nearly $1,000 on baby safety gear alone.

    According to the Joint Economic Committee, new parents are at risk of paying an additional $875 million overall in 2025 on baby goods, including bouncers, activity centers, carriers, diaper bags, and other types of car seats, as a result of Trump’s tariffs. In Massachusetts, new parents could pay an additional $20.6 million.

    “At a time when families are already struggling with the rising costs of food, housing, and healthcare, trade policies that further inflate essential childcare expenses are both counterproductive and deeply concerning,” the lawmakers continued. “We therefore urge you to immediately work with the President to exempt baby and toddler products from current and future tariffs, particularly those involving imports from China.”

    The lawmakers noted that during the first Trump Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative created exclusions for baby safety products, an acknowledgement that the health and safety of infants should not be collateral damage in trade policy. They requested a response to their letter by July 10, 2025.

    Joining Rep. Pressley in sending the letter are Representatives Becca Balint, Greg Casar, Sharice Davids, Cleo Fields, Bill Foster, Josh Gottheimer, Al Green, Jonathan Jackson, Julie Johnson, Stephen F. Lynch, Betty McCollum, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chris Pappas, Delia Ramírez, Deborah K. Ross, Andrea Salinas, Brad Sherman, Eric Swalwell, Emilia Strong Sykes, Shri Thanedar, Rashida Tlaib, Jill Tokuda, Ritchie Torres, Eugene Simon Vindman, and Frederica S. Wilson.

    To view a copy of the letter, click here.

    Last month, in a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Rep. Pressley pressed Secretary Bessent about the harmful impact of Trump’s tariffs on families with young children and asked if he would support an exemption to tariffs on baby products and other items that parents need to care for their kids, such as car seats. In response to her questioning, Secretary Bessent conceded that such an exemption was “under consideration.”

    In April, Congresswoman Pressley joined 45 colleagues in sending a Congressional letter to the Trump Administration imploring them to end tariffs on essential baby goods.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Union Minister Bhupender Yadav chairs 21st Steering Committee Meeting of Project Elephant in Dehradun

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav on Thursday chaired the 21st Steering Committee Meeting of Project Elephant at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA) in Dehradun. The meeting convened senior officials, scientists, and field experts from elephant range states, alongside representatives from key conservation institutions, to review the progress of Project Elephant and chart the future of elephant conservation in India.

    A key focus of the meeting was addressing the ongoing challenge of human-elephant conflict, which poses significant risks to both human safety and elephant conservation. Yadav emphasized the critical need to involve local communities as active partners in wildlife conservation, particularly in regions heavily impacted by such conflicts. He stressed that effective management of human-wildlife conflict is essential for the success of conservation programs and called for improved working conditions and social security for frontline forest staff and ground-level conservation workers.

    The Minister urged coordinated efforts with Indian Railways, the Ministry of Power, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and mine developers to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. He also highlighted the role of institutions like the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), and State Forest Training institutions in implementing awareness and outreach programs. Additionally, Shri Yadav emphasized the importance of systematic data collection and analysis on elephant deaths due to railway accidents and the need for knowledge sharing among states, institutions, and experts to replicate best practices nationwide.

    The meeting reviewed significant progress in conservation efforts, including the development of Regional Action Plans for human-elephant conflict in Southern and North-Eastern India and the completion of surveys covering 3,452.4 km of sensitive railway stretches, identifying 77 high-risk areas for mitigation. DNA profiling of captive elephants has advanced, with 1,911 genetic profiles completed across 22 states. Phase-I of the synchronized elephant population estimation in North-Eastern states has been completed, with over 16,500 dung samples collected. Work on the Model Elephant Conservation Plan (ECP) for the Nilgiri Elephant Reserve is underway and expected to be finalized by December 2025.

    Several important documents were released during the meeting, including a report on measures to mitigate elephant-train collisions, a comprehensive study on 23 years of human-elephant conflict in Assam, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh, an advisory on safe tusk trimming practices for captive elephants, and the latest edition of Trumpet, Project Elephant’s quarterly newsletter.

    Looking ahead, the Committee discussed preparations for World Elephant Day on August 12, to be celebrated in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, where the Gaj Gaurav Awards will be presented. Upcoming initiatives include finalizing the Nilgiri ECP, launching a three-year elephant tracking study in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, conducting Management Effectiveness Evaluations (MEE) in Elephant Reserves with support from the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), and developing an integrated conservation strategy for the Ripu-Chirang Elephant Reserve, with a focus on the Udalguri landscape.

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Schwartz, Professor of Urban Policy, The New School

    Thousands of American families that can’t find affordable apartments are stuck living in extended-stay motels. Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    If there’s one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that rents are far too high.

    Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations.

    Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.

    As experts on housing policy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.

    However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.

    A financial sinkhole

    Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?

    According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.

    Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.

    Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.

    Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.

    We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.

    Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.

    The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.

    Vouchers offer more breathing room

    Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.

    In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.

    These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.

    The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.

    By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.

    The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.

    Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.

    Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.

    However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.

    The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.

    Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?

    Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.

    The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.

    However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.

    Only about 25% of eligiblge households receive rental assistance from the federal government.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.

    Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.

    Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.

    Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.

    On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.

    This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

    Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.

    Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/what-if-universal-rental-assistance-were-implemented-to-deal-with-the-housing-crisis-257213

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Schwartz, Professor of Urban Policy, The New School

    Thousands of American families that can’t find affordable apartments are stuck living in extended-stay motels. Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    If there’s one thing that U.S. politicians and activists from across the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that rents are far too high.

    Many experts believe that this crisis is fueled by a shortage of housing, caused principally by restrictive regulations.

    Rents and home prices would fall, the argument goes, if rules such as minimum lot- and house-size requirements and prohibitions against apartment complexes were relaxed. This, in turn, would make it easier to build more housing.

    As experts on housing policy, we’re concerned about housing affordability. But our research shows little connection between a shortfall of housing and rental affordability problems. Even a massive infusion of new housing would not shrink housing costs enough to solve the crisis, as rents would likely remain out of reach for many households.

    However, there are already subsidies in place that ensure that some renters in the U.S. pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The most effective solution, in our view, is to make these subsidies much more widely available.

    A financial sinkhole

    Just how expensive are rents in the U.S.?

    According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing is deemed to be cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50%, it’s considered severely burdened. In 2023, 54% of all renters spent more than 30% of their pretax income on housing. That’s up from 43% of renters in 1999. And 28% of all renters spent more than half their income on housing in 2023.

    Renters with low incomes are especially unlikely to afford their housing: 81% of renters making less than $30,000 spent more than 30% of their income on housing, and 60% spent more than 50%.

    Estimates of the nation’s housing shortage vary widely, reaching up to 20 million units, depending on analytic approach and the time period covered. Yet our research, which compares growth in the housing stock from 2000 to the present, finds no evidence of an overall shortage of housing units. Rather, we see a gap between the number of low-income households and the number of affordable housing units available to them; more affluent renters face no such shortage. This is true in the nation as a whole and in nearly all large and small metropolitan areas.

    Would lower rents help? Certainly. But they wouldn’t fix everything.

    We ran a simulation to test an admittedly unlikely scenario: What if rents dropped 25% across the board? We found it would reduce the number of cost-burdened renters – but not by as much as you might think.

    Even with the reduction, nearly one-third of all renters would still spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, reducing rents would help affluent renters much more than those with lower incomes – the households that face the most severe affordability challenges.

    The proportion of cost-burdened renters earning more than $75,000 would fall from 16% to 4%, while the share of similarly burdened renters earning less than $15,000 would drop from 89% to just 80%. Even with a rent rollback of 25%, the majority of renters earning less than $30,000 would remain cost-burdened.

    Vouchers offer more breathing room

    Meanwhile, there’s a proven way of making housing more affordable: rental subsidies.

    In 2024, the U.S. provided what are known as “deep” housing subsidies to about 5 million households, meaning that rent payments are capped at 30% of their income.

    These subsidies take three forms: Housing Choice Vouchers that enable people to rent homes in the private market; public housing; and project-based rental assistance, in which the federal government subsidizes the rents for all or some of the units in properties under private and nonprofit ownership.

    The number of households participating in these three programs has increased by less than 2% since 2014, and they constitute only 25% of all eligible households. Households earning less than 50% of their area’s median family income are eligible for rental assistance. But unlike Social Security, Medicare or food stamps, rental assistance is not an entitlement available to all who qualify. The number of recipients is limited by the amount of funding appropriated each year by Congress, and this funding has never been sufficient to meet the need.

    By expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households, the government could make huge headway in solving the rental affordability crisis. The most obvious option would be to expand the existing Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8.

    The program helps pay the rent up to a specified “payment standard” determined by each local public housing authority, which can set this standard at between 80% and 120% of the HUD-designated fair market rent. To be eligible for the program, units must also satisfy HUD’s physical quality standards.

    Unfortunately, about 43% of voucher recipients are unable to use it. They are either unable to find an apartment that rents for less than the payment standard, meets the physical quality standard, or has a landlord willing to accept vouchers.

    Renters are more likely to find housing using vouchers in cities and states where it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher holders. Programs that provide housing counseling and landlord outreach and support have also improved outcomes for voucher recipients.

    However, it might be more effective to forgo the voucher program altogether and simply give eligible households cash to cover their housing costs. The Philadelphia Housing Authority is currently testing out this approach.

    The idea is that landlords would be less likely to reject applicants receiving government support if the bureaucratic hurdles were eliminated. The downside of this approach is that it would not prevent landlords from renting out deficient units that the voucher program would normally reject.

    Homeowners get subsidies – why not renters?

    Expanding rental assistance to all eligible low-income households would be costly.

    The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates it would cost about $118 billion a year.

    However, Congress has spent similar sums on housing subsidies before. But they involve tax breaks for homeowners, not low-income renters. Congress forgoes billions of dollars annually in tax revenue it would otherwise collect were it not for tax deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions. These are known as tax expenditures. A tax not collected is equivalent to a subsidy payment.

    Only about 25% of eligiblge households receive rental assistance from the federal government.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    For example, from 1998 through 2017 – prior to the tax changes enacted by the first Trump administration in 2017 – the federal government annually sacrificed $187 billion on average, after inflation, in revenue due to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, and for the exemption of proceeds from the sale of one’s home from capital gains taxes. In fiscal year 2025, these tax expenditures totaled $95.4 billion.

    Moreover, tax expenditures on behalf of homeowners flow mostly to higher-income households. In 2024, for example, over 70% of all mortgage-interest tax deductions went to homeowners earning at least $200,000.

    Broadening the availability of rental subsidies would have other benefits. It would save federal, state and local governments billions of dollars in homeless services. Moreover, automatic provision of rental subsidies would reduce the need for additional subsidies to finance new affordable housing. Universal rental assistance, by guaranteeing sufficient rental income, would allow builders to more easily obtain loans to cover development costs.

    Of course, sharply raising federal expenditures for low-income rental assistance flies in the face of the Trump administration’s priorities. Its budget proposal for the next fiscal year calls for a 44% cut of more than $27 billion in rental assistance and public housing.

    On the other hand, if the government supported rental assistance in amounts commensurate with the tax benefits given to homeowners, it would go a long way toward resolving the rental housing affordability crisis.

    This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

    Alex Schwartz has received funding from the Catherine and John D. MacArthur Foundation. Since 2019 he has served on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board. He has a relative who works for The Conversation.

    Kirk McClure received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. What if universal rental assistance were implemented to deal with the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/what-if-universal-rental-assistance-were-implemented-to-deal-with-the-housing-crisis-257213

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

    Polarization has led many people to feel they’re being silenced. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

    A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

    That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

    Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

    Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

    I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

    A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023.
    AP Photo/Nathan Howard

    The muting of the American voice

    According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

    And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

    About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

    Censorship in the US and globally

    Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

    Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

    The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

    How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

    In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

    The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

    People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025.
    AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

    A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

    This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

    This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

    The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

    Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

    The consequences for democratic deliberation

    The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

    No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

    Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

    But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

    The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

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

    – ref. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

    Polarization has led many people to feel they’re being silenced. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

    A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

    That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

    Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

    Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

    I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

    A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023.
    AP Photo/Nathan Howard

    The muting of the American voice

    According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

    And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

    About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

    Censorship in the US and globally

    Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

    Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

    The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

    How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

    In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

    The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

    People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025.
    AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

    A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

    This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

    This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

    The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

    Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

    The consequences for democratic deliberation

    The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

    No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

    Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

    But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

    The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

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

    – ref. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel-Iran war recalls the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – a war my undergraduate students see as a relic of the past

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrea Stanton, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies & Faculty Affiliate, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver

    American troops topple a statue of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, in Baghdad. Gilles Bassignac/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

    After 12 days of trading deadly airstrikes, Israel and Iran confirmed on June 24, 2025, that a ceasefire is in effect, one day after President Donald Trump proclaimed the countries reached a deal to end fighting. Experts are wondering how long the ceasefire, which does not contain any specific conditions, will hold.

    Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike have debated whether the Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran’s three nuclear facilities on June 22 constituted an unofficial declaration of war – since Trump has not asked Congress to formally declare war against Iran.

    The United States’ involvement in the fighting between Iran and Israel, which Israel started on June 12, has also sparked concerned comparisons with the eight-year war the U.S. waged in Iraq, another Middle Eastern country.

    The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 20 years ago in March 2003, claiming it had to disarm the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction and end the dictatorial rule of President Saddam Hussein. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December 2003, but the war dragged on through 2011.

    A 15-month search by U.S. and United Nations inspectors revealed in 2004 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to seize.

    The Trump administration, bolstered by the Israeli government, has claimed that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons represents an imminent, dangerous threat to Western countries and the rest of the world. Iran says that its nuclear development program is for civilian use. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization that is part of the United Nations, monitors Iran and other countries’ nuclear development work, Iran has not complied with recent IAEA requests for information about its nuclear program.

    Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, writing on his Truth Social media platform on June 22 that he wants to “Make Iran Great Again”, though he has since walked back that plan. The case of U.S. involvement in Iraq might offer some lessons in this current moment.

    The start and cost of the Iraq War

    The conflict between Western powers and Iraq dragged on until 2011. More than 4,600 American soldiers died in combat – and thousands more died by suicide after they returned home.

    More than 288,000 Iraqis, including fighters and civilians, have died from war-related violence since the invasion.

    The war cost the U.S. over $2 trillion.

    And Iraq is still dealing with widespread political violence between rival religious-political groups and an unstable government.

    Most of these problems stem directly or indirectly from the war. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war that followed are defining events in the histories of both countries – and the region. Yet, for many young people in the United States, drawing a connection between the war and its present-day impact is becoming more difficult. For them, the war is an artifact of the past.

    I am a Middle East historian and an Islamic studies scholar who teaches two undergraduate courses that cover the 2003 invasion and the Iraq War. My courses attract students who hope to work in politics, law, government and nonprofit groups, and whose personal backgrounds include a range of religious traditions, immigration histories and racial identities.

    The stories of the invasion and subsequent war resonate with them in the same way that stories of other past events do – they’re eager to learn from them, but don’t see them as directly connected to their lives.

    Former President George W. Bush formally declared war on Iraq in a televised address on March 19, 2003.
    Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images

    A generational shift

    Since I started teaching courses related to the Iraq War in 2010, my students have shifted from millennials to Generation Z. The latter were born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s. There has also been a change in how these students understand major early 21st-century events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    I teach this event by showing things like former President George W. Bush’s March 19, 2003, televised announcement of the invasion.

    I also teach it through the flow of my lived experience. That includes remembering the Feb. 15, 2003, anti-war protests that took place in over 600 cities around the world as an effort to prevent what appeared to be an inevitable war. And I show students aspects of material culture, like the “Iraqi most wanted” deck of playing cards, distributed to deployed U.S. military personnel in Iraq, who used the cards for games and to help them identify key figures in the Iraq government.

    The millennial students I taught around 2010 recalled the U.S. invasion of Iraq from their early teen years – a confusing but foundational moment in their personal timelines.

    But for the Gen-Z students I teach today, the invasion sits firmly in the past, as a part of history.

    Why this matters

    Since the mid-2010s, I have not been able to expect students to enroll in my course with personal prior knowledge about the invasion and war that followed. In 2013, my students would tell me that their childhoods had been defined by a United States at war – even if those wars happened far from U.S. soil.

    Millennial students considered the trifecta of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to be defining events in their lives. The U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This followed the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11.

    By 2021, my students considered Bush’s actions with the same level of abstract curiosity that they had brought to the class’s earlier examination of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which said that a country could request help from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another country, and was used to justify U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1958.

    On an educational level, this means that I now provide much more background information on the first the Gulf War, the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush presidency, the immediate U.S. responses to 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion than I had to do before. All of these events help students better understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why Americans felt so strongly about the military action – whether they were for or against the invasion.

    The Iraq invasion lost popularity among Americans within two years. In March 2003, 71% of Americans said that the U.S. made the right decision to use military force in Iraq.

    That percentage dropped to 47% in 2005, following the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet those supporters continued to strongly endorse the invasion in later polls.

    In 2018, just over half of Americans believed that the U.S. failed to achieve its goals, however those goals might have been defined in Iraq.

    An Iraqi family flees past British tanks from the city of Basra in March 2003.
    Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images

    A new set of priorities

    Older Americans age 65 and up are more likely than young people to prioritize foreign policy issues, including maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

    Younger Americans – age 18 to 39 – say the top issues that require urgency are providing support to refugees and limiting U.S. military commitments abroad, according to a 2021 Pew research survey.

    Generation Z members are also less likely than older Americans to think that the U.S. should act by itself in defending or protecting democracy around the world, according to a 2019 poll by the think tank Center for American Progress.

    They also agree with the statement that the United States’ “wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” They prefer that the U.S. use economic and diplomatic means, rather than military intervention, to advance American interests around the world.

    Israel’s conflict with Iran may not flare again and give way to more airstrikes and violence. If the countries resume fighting, however, their conflict threatens to draw in Lebanon, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East, as well as likely the U.S. – and to drag on for a long time.

    This is an update from a story originally published on March 15, 2023.

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

    – ref. Israel-Iran war recalls the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – a war my undergraduate students see as a relic of the past – https://theconversation.com/israel-iran-war-recalls-the-2003-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-war-my-undergraduate-students-see-as-a-relic-of-the-past-259652

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Using TikTok could be making you more politically polarized, new study finds

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zicheng Cheng, Assistant Professor of Mass Communications, University of Arizona

    Are you in an echo chamber on TikTok? LeoPatrizi/E+ via Getty Images

    People on TikTok tend to follow accounts that align with their own political beliefs, meaning the platform is creating political echo chambers among its users. These findings, from a study my collaborators, Yanlin Li and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, and I published in the academic journal New Media & Society, show that people mostly hear from voices they already agree with.

    We analyzed the structure of different political networks on TikTok and found that right-leaning communities are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with.

    Our study is based on a massive dataset of over 16 million TikTok videos from more than 160,000 public accounts between 2019 and 2023. We saw a spike of political TikTok videos during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. More importantly, people aren’t just passively watching political content; they’re actively creating political content themselves.

    Some people are more outspoken about politics than others. We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok’s social rewards system. Engagement signals – likes, shares, comments – are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more.

    Why it matters

    People are turning to TikTok not just for a good laugh. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that almost 40% of U.S. adults under 30 regularly get news on TikTok. The question becomes what kind of news are they watching, and what does that mean for how they engage with politics.

    The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions.

    TikTok is not unique; social media generally fosters polarization.

    Amid the debates over banning TikTok, our study highlights how TikTok can be a double-edged sword in political communication. It’s encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that’s their medium of choice. However, if a user’s network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.

    When people are exposed to one-sided messages, it can increase hostility toward outgroups. In the long run, relying on TikTok as a source for political information might deepen people’s political views and contribute to greater polarization.

    What other research is being done

    Echo chambers have been widely studied on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, but similar research on TikTok is in its infancy. TikTok is drawing scrutiny, particularly its role in news production, political messaging and social movements.

    TikTok has its unique format, algorithmic curation and entertainment-driven design. I believe that its function as a tool for political communication calls for closer examination.

    What’s next

    In 2024, the Biden/Harris and Trump campaigns joined TikTok to reach young voters. My research team is now analyzing how these political communication dynamics may have shifted during the 2024 election. Future research could use experiments to explore whether these campaign videos significantly influence voters’ perceptions and behaviors.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

    – ref. Using TikTok could be making you more politically polarized, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/using-tiktok-could-be-making-you-more-politically-polarized-new-study-finds-258791

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    – ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark 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. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Can Zero Tariffs Drive Real Change? China’s New Trade Policy and Africa’s Energy-Led Future

    China’s zero-tariff policy for African goods has expanded rapidly in recent years, with 53 of the continent’s countries now eligible to export their taxable goods to the Chinese market duty-free. Promoted as a vehicle for deeper Sino-African cooperation and shared prosperity, the policy has gained attention for its potential to open access to one of the world’s largest consumer markets. But as the continent looks to secure long-term development and industrial transformation, a central question arises: will trade preferences like this serve as a catalyst for Africa’s economic evolution, or simply reinforce its role as a low-value commodity supplier?

    Eswatini – one of the few African countries that maintains diplomatic ties with Taiwan – was excluded from the tariff breaks, underscoring that access to China’s market remains conditional. The expanded duty-free and tax incentives also appear as a counter to the Trump-era tariffs, placing Africa in the throes of the China-U.S. trade war.

    As African Energy Week (AEW) 2025: Invest in African Energies prepares to convene in Cape Town from September 29 to October 3, the broader question for the continent is whether these expanding trade policies can deliver tangible, scalable benefits. Africa’s ability to meet its development and energy access goals will depend not only on increased trade, but on how effectively such policies translate into investment in infrastructure, energy, and industrial growth.

    The Promise and Limits of Zero-Tariff Access

    On paper, zero-tariff access is a welcome opportunity. For African countries seeking to diversify export destinations and boost agricultural, mineral and energy-based trade, the initiative offers a cost advantage that could help expand trade volumes. For oil and gas producers, there may be openings to increase exports of refined products, petrochemicals or fertilizers, if the necessary processing capacity exists.

    But therein lies the challenge. Most African countries lack the industrial and energy infrastructure to capitalize on such preferences. Many exports continue to be raw or semi-processed materials with limited value retention on the continent. Tariff-free access does little to change that if non-tariff barriers, unreliable power supply or inadequate transport logistics continue to undermine competitiveness.

    Energy sits at the core of that equation. Africa’s path to economic sovereignty depends on its ability to convert natural resources into industrial products – a process that begins with investment in upstream development and extends through midstream logistics and downstream transformation. Whether it’s building pipelines and LNG infrastructure, electrifying industrial corridors or developing fertilizer and plastics manufacturing hubs, Africa’s energy systems must evolve to support trade ambitions.

    Africa’s Path to Integrated Energy and Industrial Growth

    Several countries are already moving in that direction. Nigeria is pushing forward with its gas commercialization strategy; Mozambique is scaling up LNG; Senegal and Mauritania are emerging as cross-border gas hubs. These projects not only generate export revenue, but create the foundation for broader economic diversification, from petrochemical industries to power generation for local factories.

    Meanwhile, the African Continental Free Trade Area provides the framework to harmonize standards, reduce internal tariffs and build common infrastructure, such as pipelines, ports and refineries, thereby enabling economies of scale and intra-African trade. If combined with external access like China’s zero-tariff policy, this dual approach could allow African nations to integrate vertically and horizontally, moving from fragmented markets to unified production ecosystems.

    Still, risks remain. Trade with China remains heavily skewed toward raw materials, with manufactured imports often undercutting local industries. Without targeted support for African manufacturing, technology transfer and local content, tariff preferences risk entrenching the continent’s supplier status rather than overturning it. African governments must therefore ensure that policies – both trade- and energy-related – are designed to channel benefits inward, not just extract them outward.

    “That is the true promise of AEW 2025. As leaders, investors and institutions gather in Cape Town, the conference will not only facilitate deals and investment flows, but ask complex questions about how Africa can seize agency in its global partnerships. Energy security, industrialization and trade access must be viewed not in silos, but as interconnected levers for long-term prosperity,” says NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman, African Energy Chamber.

    AEW: Invest in African Energies is the platform of choice for project operators, financiers, technology providers and government, and has emerged as the official place to sign deals in African energy. Visit www.AECWeek.com for more information about this exciting event.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Next week will be the 40th anniversary of the Hawke government’s tax summit. Dominated by then treasurer Paul Keating’s unsuccessful bid to win support for a consumption tax, it was the public centrepiece of an extraordinary political and policy story.

    That story was about the possibilities for, but constraints on, bold reform; how a determined treasurer can muster a formidable department to push for change, and the way the ambitions of a minister can clash with the pragmatism of a prime minister.

    Ken Henry, later secretary of the treasury, was then part of what they dubbed the “treasury tax reform bunker”. He kept a timesheet, averaging 100 hours work a week for a three-month period. Officials brought sleeping bags and their small children (Henry’s were aged three and five) into the office.

    Before the summit, the government produced a comprehensive draft white paper. Keating battled to keep the conflicting interests “in the cart” for his blueprint. But the four-day summit, attended by business, unions, premiers and community groups, was inevitably divided by stakeholders’ self-interests. In particular, the unions couldn’t wear Keating’s consumption tax, and Bob Hawke kyboshed it unceremoniously. Keating, who had to settle for a more limited but still very significant set of reforms, was furious with Hawke, and it left a fracture in their relationship.

    Jim Chalmers was aged seven in 1985. But he’s a student of Keating (he did his PhD on his prime ministership) and you can be sure he’s boned up on what went right and wrong in that tax reform exercise. Now he is preparing for the government’s August 19-21 “roundtable” and his own bid at major tax reform.

    The roundtable, as first announced, focused on “productivity”, and that will be central. But Chalmers has taken to calling it an “economic reform” roundtable – its brief also includes budget sustainability and resilience – and he is effectively putting tax reform close to its heart, or at least letting others do so. After all, a fit-for-purpose tax system is one key to improving productivity.

    The roundtable (for which invitations to business and the union movement are now going out, with more to follow) is nothing like on the scale, in size (the 1985 summit had about 160 attendees, the roundtable will have about 25) or preparation, of the elaborate 1985 conference.

    And crucially, while that summit was the culmination of a process, Chalmers is using the roundtable to kick off a process.

    Chalmers is lowering expectations in regard to specific outcomes from the summit on tax. While those might be obtainable on some productivity issues, on tax he is likely to look for broad support for a direction of reform. For instance, is there a general appetite for reshaping the tax system towards lower personal and company tax, offset by higher taxes on certain investments and savings? `

    Most tax experts argue Australia’s system is too skewed towards taxing income rather than spending. This leads to calls to increase or broaden the GST, financing cuts to personal income tax.

    Chalmers has been a long-term opponent of changing the GST, but he says he is not ruling the GST out for discussion at the roundtable. (That’s a contrast to when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, commissioning Henry to lead a major tax review, excluded the GST from its terms of reference.)

    Almost certainly, however, it would not be possible to get “consensus” from business and unions for GST changes. Not least of the constraints is that compensating the losers in such a change is very expensive and there is not the money to do so these days.

    That immediately limits the extent of reform.

    Henry tells The Conversation’s podcast that if he were designing a tax reform package “I’d be looking at opportunities to broaden the GST and maybe to increase the rate as well”.

    But “I do think it is possible to achieve major tax reform […] without necessarily increasing the [GST] rate or extending the base”.

    Henry’s (non-GST) wish list includes getting rid of the remaining state transaction taxes, such as stamp duty on property conveyancing.

    Notably, he argues for extracting more revenue from taxing natural resources and land, and also from taxing pollution from various sources. “We’re going to need to tax those things more heavily if we’re going to relieve the tax burden on young workers through lower personal income tax and introducing tax indexation.”

    Henry is particularly focused on the unfair burden at present put on these younger taxpayers. He has come around to the idea of income tax indexation as one means of assisting them.

    A system more geared to younger workers raises immediate questions about the present generous treatment of superannuants. Chalmers is already caught in that hornets’ nest with his proposed changes for those with balances more than $3 million.

    To what extent will the roundtable tax debate revive the issues of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount? The government hosed down before the election the prospect of any changes to negative gearing this term. Chalmers, however, had work done on this last term and he would likely favour reining it in. But would this be a bridge too far for the prime minister?

    Indeed, where will Anthony Albanese’s limits be when it comes to reform? Would he only support changes that had strong consensus? And how far would he feel constrained in going beyond what he considers he has a mandate for?

    If Chalmers stays serious about the tax push, it is going to take many months of intense work. It can’t be rushed, but nor can it be delayed. If it ran for much over a year it would likely find the government’s political capital had been eroded. The size of its capital store can appear deceptive because so much of it is thanks to Peter Dutton and Donald Trump.

    In 2022, the Liberals boycotted Labor’s jobs and skills summit (although Nationals leader David Littlepround attended). This time, shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien has accepted Chalmers’ invitation and will participate in the roundtable.

    It will be a tricky gig for O’Brien, new to this shadow portfolio. He has to avoid being too negative, but nor can he endorse things the opposition might later reject. The Coalition will not have a tax policy against which to judge what’s said.

    The occasion will be a chance for O’Brien to make contacts and get more insight into stakeholders’ views on the key economic debates, much wider than just tax.

    Importantly, however, O’Brien will need to remember judgements will be being made about him by other participants in the room. Business in particular will be seeking to get a fix on whether opposition leader Sussan Ley’s declarations about wanting to be constructive where possible are fair dinkum.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-jim-chalmers-juggles-expectations-and-ambition-in-pursuing-tax-reform-258971

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Next week will be the 40th anniversary of the Hawke government’s tax summit. Dominated by then treasurer Paul Keating’s unsuccessful bid to win support for a consumption tax, it was the public centrepiece of an extraordinary political and policy story.

    That story was about the possibilities for, but constraints on, bold reform; how a determined treasurer can muster a formidable department to push for change, and the way the ambitions of a minister can clash with the pragmatism of a prime minister.

    Ken Henry, later secretary of the treasury, was then part of what they dubbed the “treasury tax reform bunker”. He kept a timesheet, averaging 100 hours work a week for a three-month period. Officials brought sleeping bags and their small children (Henry’s were aged three and five) into the office.

    Before the summit, the government produced a comprehensive draft white paper. Keating battled to keep the conflicting interests “in the cart” for his blueprint. But the four-day summit, attended by business, unions, premiers and community groups, was inevitably divided by stakeholders’ self-interests. In particular, the unions couldn’t wear Keating’s consumption tax, and Bob Hawke kyboshed it unceremoniously. Keating, who had to settle for a more limited but still very significant set of reforms, was furious with Hawke, and it left a fracture in their relationship.

    Jim Chalmers was aged seven in 1985. But he’s a student of Keating (he did his PhD on his prime ministership) and you can be sure he’s boned up on what went right and wrong in that tax reform exercise. Now he is preparing for the government’s August 19-21 “roundtable” and his own bid at major tax reform.

    The roundtable, as first announced, focused on “productivity”, and that will be central. But Chalmers has taken to calling it an “economic reform” roundtable – its brief also includes budget sustainability and resilience – and he is effectively putting tax reform close to its heart, or at least letting others do so. After all, a fit-for-purpose tax system is one key to improving productivity.

    The roundtable (for which invitations to business and the union movement are now going out, with more to follow) is nothing like on the scale, in size (the 1985 summit had about 160 attendees, the roundtable will have about 25) or preparation, of the elaborate 1985 conference.

    And crucially, while that summit was the culmination of a process, Chalmers is using the roundtable to kick off a process.

    Chalmers is lowering expectations in regard to specific outcomes from the summit on tax. While those might be obtainable on some productivity issues, on tax he is likely to look for broad support for a direction of reform. For instance, is there a general appetite for reshaping the tax system towards lower personal and company tax, offset by higher taxes on certain investments and savings? `

    Most tax experts argue Australia’s system is too skewed towards taxing income rather than spending. This leads to calls to increase or broaden the GST, financing cuts to personal income tax.

    Chalmers has been a long-term opponent of changing the GST, but he says he is not ruling the GST out for discussion at the roundtable. (That’s a contrast to when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, commissioning Henry to lead a major tax review, excluded the GST from its terms of reference.)

    Almost certainly, however, it would not be possible to get “consensus” from business and unions for GST changes. Not least of the constraints is that compensating the losers in such a change is very expensive and there is not the money to do so these days.

    That immediately limits the extent of reform.

    Henry tells The Conversation’s podcast that if he were designing a tax reform package “I’d be looking at opportunities to broaden the GST and maybe to increase the rate as well”.

    But “I do think it is possible to achieve major tax reform […] without necessarily increasing the [GST] rate or extending the base”.

    Henry’s (non-GST) wish list includes getting rid of the remaining state transaction taxes, such as stamp duty on property conveyancing.

    Notably, he argues for extracting more revenue from taxing natural resources and land, and also from taxing pollution from various sources. “We’re going to need to tax those things more heavily if we’re going to relieve the tax burden on young workers through lower personal income tax and introducing tax indexation.”

    Henry is particularly focused on the unfair burden at present put on these younger taxpayers. He has come around to the idea of income tax indexation as one means of assisting them.

    A system more geared to younger workers raises immediate questions about the present generous treatment of superannuants. Chalmers is already caught in that hornets’ nest with his proposed changes for those with balances more than $3 million.

    To what extent will the roundtable tax debate revive the issues of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount? The government hosed down before the election the prospect of any changes to negative gearing this term. Chalmers, however, had work done on this last term and he would likely favour reining it in. But would this be a bridge too far for the prime minister?

    Indeed, where will Anthony Albanese’s limits be when it comes to reform? Would he only support changes that had strong consensus? And how far would he feel constrained in going beyond what he considers he has a mandate for?

    If Chalmers stays serious about the tax push, it is going to take many months of intense work. It can’t be rushed, but nor can it be delayed. If it ran for much over a year it would likely find the government’s political capital had been eroded. The size of its capital store can appear deceptive because so much of it is thanks to Peter Dutton and Donald Trump.

    In 2022, the Liberals boycotted Labor’s jobs and skills summit (although Nationals leader David Littlepround attended). This time, shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien has accepted Chalmers’ invitation and will participate in the roundtable.

    It will be a tricky gig for O’Brien, new to this shadow portfolio. He has to avoid being too negative, but nor can he endorse things the opposition might later reject. The Coalition will not have a tax policy against which to judge what’s said.

    The occasion will be a chance for O’Brien to make contacts and get more insight into stakeholders’ views on the key economic debates, much wider than just tax.

    Importantly, however, O’Brien will need to remember judgements will be being made about him by other participants in the room. Business in particular will be seeking to get a fix on whether opposition leader Sussan Ley’s declarations about wanting to be constructive where possible are fair dinkum.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Jim Chalmers juggles expectations and ambition in pursuing tax reform – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-jim-chalmers-juggles-expectations-and-ambition-in-pursuing-tax-reform-258971

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Corbett, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London

    Mark Rutte had an unenviable task at the Hague summit this week. The Nato secretary-general had to work with diverging American and European views of current security threats. After Rutte made extraordinary efforts at highly deferential, overt flattery of Donald Trump to secure crucial outcomes for the alliance, he seems to have succeeded for now.

    But what this meeting and the run-up has made increasingly clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having a single common enemy. Nato was established in 1949 as a defensive alliance against the acknowledged threat from the USSR. This defined the alliance through the cold war until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, Nato has focused on Moscow as the major threat to international peace. But the increasingly bellicose China is demanding more attention from the US.

    There are some symbolic moves that signal how things are changing. Every Nato summit declaration since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: “We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.”

    The declaration published during the Hague summit on June 25 conspicuously does not mention either. Indeed, in a departure from recent declarations, the five paragraphs of the Hague summit declaration are brutally short and focused entirely on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. No mention of international law and order this time.

    This appears to be a carefully orchestrated output of a deliberately shortened summit designed to contain Trump’s unpredictable interventions. This also seems symptomatic of a widening division between the American strategic trajectory and the security interests perceived by Canada and the European members of Nato.

    That this declaration was so short, and so focused on such a narrow range of issues suggests there were unusually entrenched differences that could not be surmounted.

    Since the onslaught of the full Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Nato allies have been united in their criticism of Russia and support for Ukraine; until now.

    Since January, the Trump administration has not authorised any military aid to Ukraine and significantly reduced material support to Ukraine and criticism of Russia. Trump has sought to end the war rapidly on terms effectively capitulating to Russian aggression; his proposal suggests recognising Russia’s control over Crimea and de facto control over some other occupied territories (Luhansk, parts of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Kherson) He has also suggested Ukraine would not join Nato but might receive security guarantees and the right to join the EU.

    Meanwhile, European allies have sought to fund and support Ukraine’s defensive efforts, increasing aid and military support, and continuing to ramp up sanctions.

    Another sign of the differing priorities of Europe and Canada v the US, was the decision by Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, to step back from leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, an ad-hoc coalition of states across the world providing military support to Ukraine. Hegseth also symbolically failed to attend the group’s pre-summit meeting in June.

    Trump has long been adamant that Nato members should meet their 2014 commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, and Rutte recognised that. In 2018, Trump suggested that this should be increased to 4 or 5% but this was dismissed as unreasonable. Now, in a decision which indicates increasing concern about both Russia as a threat and US support, Nato members (except for Spain) have agreed to increase spending to 5% of GDP on defence over the next 10 years.

    Donald Trump gives a press conference after the Nato summit.

    Nato’s article 3 requires states to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack. However, since 2022, it has become increasingly apparent that many Nato members are unprepared for any major military engagement. At the same time, they are increasingly feeling that Russia is more of a threat on their doorsteps. There has been recognition, particularly among the Baltic states, Germany, France and the UK that they need to increase their military spending and preparedness.

    For the US to focus more on China, US forces will shift a greater percentage of the US Navy to the Pacific. It will also assign its most capable new ships and aircraft to the region and increase general presence operations, training and developmental exercises, and engagement and cooperation with allied and other navies in the western Pacific. To do this US forces will need to reduce commitments in Europe, and European allies must replace those capabilities in order to sustain deterrence against Russia.

    The bedrock of the Nato treaty, article 5, is commonly paraphrased as “an attack on one is an attack on all”. On his way to the Hague summit, Trump seemed unsure about the US commitment to Nato. Asked to clarify this at the summit, he stated: “I stand with it [Article 5]. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”

    Lord Ismay, the first secretary-general of Nato, famously (if apocryphally) suggested that the purpose of the alliance was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Germany is now an integral part of Nato, and the Americans are in, if distracted. But there are cracks, and Rutte will have his hands full managing Trump’s declining interest in protecting Europe if he is to keep the Russians at bay.

    Andrew Corbett 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 Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy – https://theconversation.com/how-nato-summit-shows-europe-and-us-no-longer-have-a-common-enemy-259842

    MIL OSI Analysis –