Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
WASHINGTON, June 16 (Xinhua) — A federal judge in the U.S. city of Boston ruled on Monday that the Donald Trump administration’s decision to cut funding for diversity-related research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was illegal, accusing the administration of discriminating against minority groups.
The NIH has stopped funding more than $1 billion in research because it was deemed related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Federal District Court Judge William Young said in a non-jury trial that the move violated federal law and was “invalid and illegal.”
W. Young, a federal judge appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said he would restore funding to Democratic-led organizations and states that sued over the funding cuts.
W. Young criticized the defunding of research related to minorities, saying: “I have never seen racial discrimination so palpable.”
“Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires a court decision, and at the appropriate time I intend to do so,” said W. Young.
The NIH is the world’s largest federally funded biomedical research organization, awarding about 60,000 grants each year to nearly 3,000 universities and hospitals. Under the Trump administration, it has become a key target for funding cuts and federal spending cuts.
Since Trump took office for a second term in January, the NIH has terminated 2,100 research grants worth about $9.5 billion and additional contracts worth $2.6 billion, according to media reports. –0–
The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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.
The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
How is power wielded in today’s Iran?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The all-powerful IRGC
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
Possible scenarios post-Khamenei
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas 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.
The Middle East is a region of intense beauty and ancient kingdoms. It has also repeatedly endured periods of geopolitical instability over many centuries.
Today, geopolitical, socio-political and religious tensions persist. The world is currently watching as longstanding regional tensions come to a head in the shocking and escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
The global airline industry takes a special interest in how such tensions play out. This airspace is a crucial corridor linking Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Middle East is now home to several of the world’s largest international airlines: Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways. These airlines’ home bases – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi, respectively – have become pivotal hubs in international aviation.
Keeping passengers safe will be all airlines’ highest priority. What could an escalating conflict mean for both the airlines and the travelling public?
Safety first
History shows that the civil airline industry and military conflict do not mix. On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes, a US navy warship, fired two surface-to-air missiles and shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an international passenger service over the Persian Gulf.
More recently, on July 17 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine as the battle between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists continued.
Understandably, global airlines are very risk-averse when it comes to military conflict. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires airlines to implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS).
One of the main concerns – known as “pillars” – of the SMS is “safety risk management”. This includes the processes to identify hazards, assess risks and implement risk mitigation strategies.
The risk-management departments of airlines transiting the Middle East region will have been working hard on these strategies.
Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization has strict requirements and protocols to keep passengers safe. meunierd/Shutterstock
Route recalculation
The most immediate and obvious evidence of such strategies being put in place are changes to aircraft routing, either by cancelling or suspending flights or making changes to the flight plans. This is to ensure aircraft avoid the airspace where military conflicts are flaring.
At the time of writing, a quick look at flight tracking website Flightradar24 shows global aircraft traffic avoiding the airspace of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. The airspace over Ukraine is also devoid of air traffic.
Rerouting, however, creates its own challenges. Condensing the path of the traffic into smaller, more congested areas can push aircraft into and over areas that are not necessarily equipped to deal with such a large increase in traffic.
Having more aircraft in a smaller amount of available safe airspace creates challenges for air traffic control services and the pilots operating the aircraft.
More time and fuel
Avoiding areas of conflict is one of the most visible forms of airline risk management. This may add time to the length of a planned flight, leading to higher fuel consumption and other logistical challenges. This will add to the airlines’ operating costs.
There will be no impact on the cost of tickets already purchased. But if the instability in the region continues, we may see airline ticket prices increase.
It is not just the avoidance of airspace in the region that could place upward pressure on the cost of flying. Airliners run on Jet-A1 fuel, produced from oil.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”, this could see the cost of oil, and in turn Jet-A1, significantly increase. Increasing fuel costs will be passed on the paying passenger. However, some experts believe such a move is unlikely.
A major hub
The major aviation hubs in the Middle East provide increased global connectivity, enabling passengers to travel seamlessly between continents.
Increased regional instability has the potential to disrupt this global connectivity. In the event of a prolonged conflict, airlines operating in and around the region may find they have increased insurance costs. Such costs would eventually find their way passed on to consumers through higher ticket prices.
Across the globe, airlines and governments are issuing travel advisories and warnings. The onus is on the travelling public to stay informed about changes to flight status, and potential delays.
Such warnings and advisories can lead to a drop in passenger confidence, which may then lead to a drop in bookings both into and onwards from the region.
Until the increase in instability in the Middle East, global airline passenger traffic numbers were larger than pre-pandemic figures. Strong growth had been predicted in the coming decades.
Anything that results in falling passenger confidence could negatively impact these figures, leading to slowed growth and affecting airline profitability.
Despite high-profile disasters, aviation remains the safest form of transport. As airlines deal with these challenges they will constantly work to keep flights safe and to win back passenger confidence in this unpredictable situation.
Natasha Heap 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.
Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran.Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images
Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran.Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images
Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by counter-strikes by Iran on Israel.
These attacks have come at a moment of growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, and have prompted larger questions over what this means for the global non-proliferation regime.
The short answer: it’s not good.
Where was uranium being enriched in Iran?
There are two main enrichment sites: one at Natanz and one at Fordow. There’s also a facility at Isfahan, which, among other things, is focused on producing important materials for the enrichment process.
Natanz has a hall of centrifuges, which are cylindrical devices that spin incredibly quickly to enrich uranium for creating either the fuel for a nuclear power program or the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
Much the same is happening at Fordow, as far as we know. It is a smaller facility than Natanz but much of it is buried deep under a mountain.
To make it weapons grade, uranium ought to be close to 90% purity. It is possible to create a bomb with uranium enriched to a lower level, but it is a much less efficient method. So around 90% is the target.
The key nuclear sites being targeted by Israel. CC BY-NC
The Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran signed in 2015 (in exchange for the US lifting sanctions) limited Iran’s enrichment capacities and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But Trump ripped up that deal in 2018.
Iran remained in compliance for a while, even while the US resumed its economic sanctions, but in recent years, has started to enrich to higher levels – up to about 60%. We know Iran still hasn’t got weapons-grade enriched uranium, but it’s a lot closer than it was to being able to build a bomb.
And worse, much of their stockpile of enriched uranium will now be effectively unaccounted for because of the strikes by Israel. There are no inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening there now and probably won’t be for some time.
Iran could also say some of its stockpile was destroyed in the strikes – and we’ve got no way of knowing if that’s true or not.
Both Natanz and Fordow have extensive, hardened, underground facilties. The above-ground facility at Natanz, at least, appears to have been badly damaged, based on satellite photos.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the centrifuges at Natanz were likely to have been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. This was likely caused by power cuts, despite the fact the underground facility was not directly hit.
Grossi said there was no visible damage to the underground facilities at Fordow, which is hidden some 80–90 metres beneath a mountain.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the very deep penetrating ordinance that can totally destroy such deeply buried structures.
So a key question is: has Israel done enough damage to the centrifuges inside? Or have Iran’s efforts at fortifying these facilities been successful? We may not know for some time.
Was Iran trying to hide its activities?
In the past, Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program laying out the foundation of how it would build a bomb.
We know that because, as part of the diplomatic process associated with the previous nuclear deal that Trump killed off, the IAEA had issued an assessment confirming that Iran previously had this plan in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran hadn’t actually built weapons or done a test, but it had a plan. And that plan, Project AMAD, was shelved in 2003. We also know that thanks to Israel. In 2018, Israeli special forces undertook a raid in downtown Tehran and stole secret documents revealing this.
When the Obama administration managed to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, part of the deal was Iran had to accept greater oversight of its nuclear facilities. It had to accept restrictions, limit the number of centrifuges and couldn’t maintain large stockpiles of enriched uranium. This was in exchange for the US lifting sanctions.
These restrictions didn’t make it impossible for Iran to build a weapon. But it made it extremely difficult, particularly without being detected.
What did the IAEA announce last week and why was it concerning?
Last week, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution saying that Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT.
This related to Iran being unable to answer questions from inspectors about nuclear activities being undertaken at undeclared sites.
That’s the first time in 20 years the IAEA has come to this finding. This is not why Israel attacked Iran. But it helps explain the exact timing. It gives Israel a degree of cover, perhaps even legitimacy. That legitimacy is surely limited however, given that Israel itself is not a signatory of the NPT and has maintained its own nuclear arsenal for more than half a century.
In response to the IAEA announcement last week, Iran announced it would plan to build a third enrichment site in addition to Fordow and Natanz.
Can a militarised approach to counter-proliferation backfire?
Yes.
When Israel hit the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, it put Iraq’s nuclear program back by a few years. But the Iraqis redoubled their efforts. By the end of that decade, Iraq was very close to a fully-fledged nuclear weapons program.
Presumably, Israel’s thinking is it will have to redo these strikes – “mowing the grass”, as they say – in an effort to hinder Iran’s attempts to reconstitute the program.
Overnight, Iranian lawmakers also drafted a bill urging Iran to withdraw from the NPT. That is entirely legal under the treaty. Article X of the treaty allows that if “extraordinary events” jeopardise a state party’s “supreme interests” then there’s a legal process for withdrawal.
Only one state has done that since the NPT was opened for signature in 1968: North Korea. Now, North Korea is a nuclear-armed state.
Iran seems likely to withdraw from the treaty under this article. It has experienced a full-scale attack from another country, including strikes on key infrastructure and targeted assassinations of its top leaders and nuclear scientists. If that doesn’t count as a risk to your supreme interests, then I don’t know what does.
Iran’s withdrawal would pose a significant challenge to the wider non-proliferation regime. It may even trigger more withdrawals from other countries.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the next big questions are how much damage has Israel done to the centrifuge facilities? How quickly can Iran enrich its uranium stockpile up to weapons grade?
And, ultimately, how much damage has been done to the ever-fragile nuclear non-proliferation regime based around the NPT?
Benjamin Zala has received funding from the Stanton Foundation, a US philanthropic group that funds nuclear research. He is an honorary fellow at the University of Leicester on a project that is funded by the European Research Council.
Indian benchmark indices opened in the red on Tuesday, tracking weak cues from Asian markets, with early trade witnessing selling pressure in auto, IT, and pharma sectors.
At around 9:28 a.m., the BSE Sensex was down 186.35 points or 0.23 per cent at 81,609.80, while the NSE Nifty fell 68.20 points or 0.27 per cent to trade at 24,878.30.
The Nifty Bank index slipped 30.10 points or 0.05 per cent to 55,914.80. The Nifty Midcap 100 index was trading lower by 36.40 points or 0.06 per cent at 58,732.10, while the Nifty Smallcap 100 declined 66.30 points or 0.36 per cent to 18,482.90.
Market sentiment remained cautious as investors reacted to geopolitical tensions and global cues. Analysts noted that former US President Donald Trump’s latest comments on Iran have raised concerns about the broader geopolitical outlook.
Despite escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, global markets have shown resilience. The decline in the US volatility index (CBOE VIX) suggests that sharp corrections are unlikely unless the conflict escalates further, market experts said.
“The key reason for the market’s resilience is the participation of retail investors, who continue to see every market dip as a buying opportunity. Elevated valuations are not discouraging retail flows,” said Dr. V.K. Vijayakumar, Chief Investment Strategist at Geojit Financial Services.
Among the Sensex constituents, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, NTPC, PowerGrid, Adani Ports, ICICI Bank, SBI, TCS, and HCL Tech were the top gainers in early trade. On the flip side, Tata Motors, Sun Pharma, IndusInd Bank, UltraTech Cement, Titan, and Bajaj Finance were among the top losers.
On the institutional side, foreign institutional investors (FIIs) offloaded equities worth ₹2,287.69 crore on June 16, while domestic institutional investors (DIIs) remained net buyers with purchases worth ₹5,607.64 crore.
In Asian markets, indices in Bangkok, Jakarta, Japan, and Seoul were trading in the green, while those in Hong Kong and China witnessed losses.
In the previous trading session, US markets ended higher. The Dow Jones closed at 42,515.09, up 317.30 points or 0.75 per cent. The S&P 500 gained 56.14 points or 0.94 per cent to end at 6,033.11, and the Nasdaq rose 294.39 points or 1.52 per cent to 19,701.21.
Attention now turns to the US Federal Reserve, which begins its two-day policy meeting on Tuesday. The central bank is widely expected to keep interest rates unchanged.
“Comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell will be closely watched, especially in the context of easing inflation and continued economic strength,” said Devarsh Vakil, Head of Prime Research at HDFC Securities.
The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Iran’s national broadcaster, came under direct attack in what Israeli military officials described as retaliation for strikes on Israeli media infrastructure. The assault on IRIB marks a troubling escalation in the targeting of civilian facilities by both sides.
On Monday, Iranian missiles struck Israel’s Tel Aviv and the port city of Haifa, destroying homes and causing civilian casualties as the conflict between the two nations entered its fourth consecutive day. In response, Israel launched airstrikes on buildings housing Iranian state-owned media organizations in Tehran, including the IRIB television facility—hit during a live broadcast.
The intensifying confrontation has prompted urgent diplomatic efforts by Gulf nations and raised alarm among global leaders gathered at the G7 Summit over the risk of a wider regional war.
Tehran has reached out to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, urging these Gulf intermediaries to persuade U.S. President Donald Trump to use his influence on Israel to agree to an immediate ceasefire. In exchange, Iran has signaled openness to renewed flexibility in nuclear negotiations. Gulf leaders and their top diplomats are reportedly engaged in round-the-clock communication with Tehran, Washington, and other capitals in an effort to contain what is now considered the most serious direct confrontation between the two longstanding rivals in West Asia.
The diplomatic push comes amid ongoing missile and drone strikes targeting each other’s military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday did not rule out a potential strike on Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stating that such an action could “end the conflict.” However, according to a U.S. official, President Trump has reportedly rejected Israeli plans to assassinate the Iranian leader.
The Israeli military issued evacuation warnings to residents and personnel in target areas of Tehran before conducting the strikes. Similar warnings were also issued within Israel.
Speaking at the G7 Summit in Canada, President Trump urged Iran to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program to help resolve the crisis. “They should talk, and they should talk immediately before it’s too late,” Trump said. While the United States has not provided direct military support to Israel so far, the president has indicated that future involvement remains a possibility.
Despite mounting destruction and civilian casualties, there are currently no clear signs of de-escalation. Iran has expressed a willingness to return to nuclear negotiations if Israeli attacks cease, but both nations appear entrenched in their positions.
As a security precaution, the Israeli Civil Aviation Authority has announced a complete closure of airspace over major cities, while Iran has imposed similar restrictions on civilian flights over Tehran and other urban centers. Both militaries have issued evacuation advisories to civilians in high-risk zones, though their effectiveness in preventing casualties remains uncertain.
Israel and Iran attacked each other for a fifth straight day on Tuesday, and U.S. President Donald Trump urged Iranians to evacuate Tehran, citing what he said was the country’s rejection of a deal to curb nuclear weapons development.
Trump was due to leave the Group of Seven summit in Canada later on Monday, a day early, due to the Middle East situation, the White House said. Fox News reported he would convene his National Security Council.
“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social media platform.
French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump’s early departure from the G7 was positive, given the immediate objective was to get Israel and Iran to agree to a ceasefire that the U.S. had proposed.
“There is an offer that has been made, especially to have a ceasefire and to initiate broader discussions. And I think this is a very good thing,” Macron told reporters. “So now we need to see what the stakeholders will do.”
Iranian media reported explosions and heavy air defence fire in Tehran early on Tuesday. Air defences were activated also in Natanz, home to key nuclear installations 320 km (200 miles) away, the Asriran news website reported.
A White House aide said it was not true that the U.S. was attacking Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News that Trump was still aiming for a nuclear deal with Iran, while adding the U.S. would defend its assets in the region.
In Israel, air raid sirens wailed in Tel Aviv after midnight and an explosion was heard as Iranian missiles targeted the country again.
Iranian officials reported 224 deaths, mostly civilians, in five days, while Israel said 24 civilians had been killed. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said nearly 3,000 Israelis had been evacuated due to damage from Iranian strikes.
Sources told Reuters that Tehran had asked Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to urge Trump to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree to an immediate ceasefire. In return, Iran would show flexibility in nuclear negotiations, according to two Iranian and three regional sources.
“If President Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on X. “Israel must halt its aggression, and absent a total cessation of military aggression against us, our responses will continue.”
Netanyahu told reporters on Monday that Israel was committed to eliminating threats posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, adding, “If this can be achieved in another way—fine. But we gave it a 60-day chance.”
Speaking to Reuters on Friday, the first day of Israel’s assault, Trump said he had given the Iranians 60 days to come to an agreement to halt uranium enrichment and that the time had expired with no deal. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.
Oil prices rallied more than 2% early in Asia on Tuesday after Trump’s evacuation warning, reversing losses on Monday amid reports that Iran was seeking an end to hostilities.
CHINESE URGED TO LEAVE ISRAEL
With security concerns growing and Israeli airspace closed because of the war, the Chinese embassy in Israel urged its citizens to leave the country via land border crossings as soon as possible.
The Iran-Israel air war – the biggest battle ever between the two longtime enemies – escalated on Monday with Israel targeting Iran’s state broadcaster and uranium enrichment facilities.
Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the BBC that the Natanz plant sustained extensive damage, likely destroying 15,000 centrifuges, while Iran’s Fordow plant remained largely intact.
Talks between the United States and Iran, hosted by Oman, had been scheduled for June 15 but were scrapped, with Tehran saying it could not negotiate while under attack.
Israel launched its air war with a surprise attack that has killed nearly the entire top echelon of Iran’s military commanders and its leading nuclear scientists. It says it now has control of Iranian airspace and intends to escalate the campaign in the coming days.
Trump has consistently said the Israeli assault could end quickly if Iran agreed to U.S. demands that it accept strict curbs on its nuclear programme.
“As I’ve been saying, I think a deal will be signed, or something will happen, but a deal will be signed, and I think Iran is foolish not to sign,” Trump told reporters on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday.
A U.S. official said Trump would not sign a draft statement from G7 leaders calling for a de-escalation of the conflict. The draft statement says Iran must never have a nuclear weapon and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 17, 2025.
In view of Trump’s review of AUKUS, should Australia cancel the subs deal? We asked 5 experts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Andrews, Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University Speculation is swirling around the future of the A$368 billion AUKUS agreement, following Washington’s decision to review the nuclear submarine deal to ensure it meets President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was planning
Australians in the bush want tougher penalties on crime. Here’s why – and what’s needed now Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Davey, Lecturer of Criminology, Griffith University New research has found that while Australians generally support strong punishments, people living in the bush are significantly more likely than city dwellers to want to punish more harshly those who break the law. It means Australians living in rural
Judy Davis gives a singularly vivid performance in The Spare Room – but the play falls short Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Moya Costello, Adjunct Lecturer in Creative Writing, Southern Cross University Brett Boardman/Belvoir In The Spare Room, Judy Davis lights up the stage with a singularly vivid performance. Adapted by Eamon Flack from Helen Garner’s 2008 novel of the same name, Davis plays sharp-tongued Helen (or Hel) to
US travel ban on Pacific 3 – countries have right to decide over borders, Peters says RNZ Pacific New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters says countries have the right to choose who enters their borders in response to reports that the Trump administration is planning to impose travel restrictions on three dozen nations, including three in the Pacific. But opposition Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni says the foreign minister should push
Attack on Iran’s state media – Israel bombs IRIB building in new war crime Pacific Media Watch Israel targeted one of the buildings of the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) in Tehran on the fourth day of attacks on Iran, interrupting a live news broadcast, reports Press TV. The attack, involving at least four bombs, struck the central building housing IRIB’s news department, while a live news
What is ‘cognitive shuffling’ and does it really help you get to sleep? Two sleep scientists explain Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melinda Jackson, Associate Professor at Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University Ursula Ferrara/Shutterstock If you’ve been on social media lately – perhaps scrolling in the middle of the night, when you know you shouldn’t but you just can’t sleep –
New research shows Australians see influencers as major sources of misinformation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Park, Professor of Communication, News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra As consumption of traditional news continues to fall, audiences are turning to social media personalities and influencers for their information. These figures are increasingly shaping public debates. But Australian news audiences are sceptical. More
Why does my phone sometimes not ring when people call? A communications expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jairo Gutierrez, Professor, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Auckland University of Technology Tada Images There’s a certain feeling I get in the pit of my stomach when I’m waiting for an important call to come through. You know the type – maybe a call from your
Wetland restoration is seen as sunk cost – but new research shows why it should be considered an investment Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wei Yang, Senior Scientist in Environmental Economics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Shutterstock/Wirestock Creators As extreme weather intensifies globally, governments are seeking nature-based solutions that deliver both climate and economic benefits. The restoration of wetlands is an often overlooked opportunity. As our recent study shows,
Jaws at 50: a cinematic masterpiece – and an incredible piece of propaganda Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University Jaws turns 50 on June 20. Last year, Quentin Tarantino called Stephen Spielberg’s film “possibly the greatest movie ever made”. Though he was quick to add that it isn’t the best film in terms of script, cinematography
Ancient termite poo reveals 120 million-year-old secrets of Australia’s polar forests Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alistair Evans, Professor, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University Witsawat.S/Shutterstock Imagine a lush forest with tree-ferns, their trunks capped by ribbon-like fronds. Conifers tower overhead, bearing triangular leaves almost sharp enough to pierce skin. Flowering plants are both small and rare. You’re standing in what is now
When new dads struggle, their kids’ health can suffer. Tackling mental distress early can help Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Delyse Hutchinson, Associate Professor, Clinical Psychologist, and NHMRC Leadership Fellow, SEED Centre for Lifespan Research, School of Psychology, Deakin University D-BASE/Getty In Australia, an estimated one in ten men experience mental health issues such as anxiety and depression before and after their child is born (the perinatal
A weird group of boronias puzzled botanists for decades. Now we’ve solved the pollination mystery Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Douglas Hilton, Chief Executive, CSIRO Andy Young Boronias, known for their showy flowers and strong scent, are a quintessential part of the Australian bush. They led Traditional Owners to the best water sources and inspired Australian children’s author and illustrator May Gibbs to pen one of her
Some students learning English can take at least 6 years to catch up to their peers. How can we support them better? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucy Lu, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney Rawpixel/ Getty Images About one quarter of Australian school students are learning English as an additional language or dialect. This means their first language or dialect is something other than English and they
Ice Age shelter high up in the Blue Mountains reveals Aboriginal heritage from 20,000 years ago Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Wilkins, Aboriginal Cultural Educator, Trainer and Facilitator, Indigenous Knowledge Artist’s impression of Dargan Shelter as it would have looked during the last Ice Age. Painting by Leanne Watson Redpath Travel back 20,000 years into the last Ice Age, to a time when the upper reaches of
‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments. Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters,
Samoan fashion designer fatally shot at Salt Lake City ‘no kings’ protest RNZ Pacific A renowned Samoan fashion designer was fatally shot at the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City on Saturday, the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) has confirmed. Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, known as Afa Ah Loo, an “innocent bystander” at the protest, died despite efforts by paramedics to save his life, police
Israelis ‘now realise’ what Palestinians and Lebanese have been suffering, says analyst Asia Pacific Report A Paris-based military and political analyst, Elijah Magnier, says he believes the hostilities between Israel and Iran will only get worse, but that Israeli support for the war may wane if the destruction continues. “I think it’s going to continue escalating because we are just in the first days of the war
What is uranium enrichment and how is it used for nuclear bombs? A scientist explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaitlin Cook, DECRA Fellow, Department of Nuclear Physics and Accelerator Applications, Australian National University Uranium ore. RHJPhtotos/Shutterstock Late last week, Israel targeted three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, killing several Iranian nuclear scientists. The facilities are heavily fortified and largely underground, and
Issa Amro: Youth Against Settlements – ‘life is very hard, the Israeli soldiers act like militia’ RNZ News Palestinian advocate Issa Amro has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his decades of work advocating for peaceful resistance against Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The settlements are illegal under international law — and a record 45 were established last year under cover of the war
The President of the Council of Ministers, Giorgia Meloni, had a bilateral meeting with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, today, in the margins of the G7 Summit in Kananaskis and on the eve of the session dedicated to foreign policy issues.
The meeting provided an opportunity to discuss the most recent developments in Iran, reaffirming that it would be opportune to reopen negotiations. During the conversation, President Meloni also stressed the need at this time to work towards reaching a ceasefire in Gaza.
Lastly, the conversation also allowed President Meloni to confirm the importance of reaching an agreement in the EU-US trade negotiations and to address the prospects for the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague.
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters says countries have the right to choose who enters their borders in response to reports that the Trump administration is planning to impose travel restrictions on three dozen nations, including three in the Pacific.
But opposition Labour’s deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni says the foreign minister should push back on the US proposal.
Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have reportedly been included in an expanded proposal of 36 additional countries for which the Trump administration is considering travel restrictions.
The plan was first reported by The Washington Post. A State Department spokesperson told the outlet that the agency would not comment on internal deliberations or communications.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Peters said countries had the right to decide who could cross their borders.
“Before we all get offended, we’ve got the right to decide in New Zealand who comes to our country. So has Australia, so has . . . China, so has the United States,” Peters said.
US security concerns He said New Zealand would do its best to address the US security concerns.
“We need to do our best to ensure there are no misunderstandings.”
Peters said US concerns could be over selling citizenship or citizenship-by-investment schemes.
Vanuatu runs a “golden passport” scheme where applicants can be granted Vanuatu citizenship for a minimum investment of US$130,000.
Peters says citizenship programmes, such as the citizenship-by-investment schemes which allow people to purchase passports, could have concerned the Trump administration. Image: 123rf/RNZ Pacific
Peters said programmes like that could have concerned the Trump administration.
“There are certain decisions that have been made, which look innocent, but when they come to an international capacity do not have that effect.
“Tuvalu has been selling passports. You see where an innocent . . . decision made in Tuvalu can lead to the concerns in the United States when it comes to security.”
Sepuloni wants push back However, Sepuloni wants Peters to push back on the US considering travel restrictions for Pacific nations.
Labour Party Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni . . . “I would expect [Peters] to be pushing back on the US and supporting our Pacific nations to be taken off that list.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
Sepuloni said she wanted the foreign minister to get a full explanation on the proposed restrictions.
“From there, I would expect him to be pushing back on the US and supporting our Pacific nations to be taken off that list,” she said.
“Their response is, ‘why us? We’re so tiny — what risk do we pose?’”
Wait to see how this unfolds – expert Massey University associate professor in defence and security studies Anna Powles said Vanuatu has appeared on the US’ bad side in the past.
“Back in March Vanuatu was one of over 40 countries that was reported to be on the immigration watchlist and that related to Vanuatu’s golden passport scheme,” Dr Powles said.
However, a US spokesperson denied the existence of such a list.
“What people are looking at . . . is not a list that exists here that is being acted on,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said, according to a transcript of her press briefing.
“There is a review, as we know, through the president’s executive order, for us to look at the nature of what’s going to help keep America safer in dealing with the issue of visas and who’s allowed into the country.”
Dr Powles said it was the first time Tonga had been included.
“That certainly has raised some concern among Tongans because there’s a large Tongan diaspora in the United States.”
She said students studying in the US could be affected; but while there was a degree of bemusement and concern over the issue, there was also a degree of waiting to see how this unfolded.
Speculation is swirling around the future of the A$368 billion AUKUS agreement, following Washington’s decision to review the nuclear submarine deal to ensure it meets President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was planning to use talks with Trump at the G7 to demand the US continue to back the deal – but the meeting has been cancelled.
With the Pentagon taking another look at AUKUS, we ask five experts whether the government should rethink Australia’s own commitment to the pact.
Jennifer Parker
Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
Absolutely not. Another review would consume time and capacity better spent delivering AUKUS on its tight timelines.
To understand why, we must put the decision in context.
The leaked details of the US Department of Defense review does not alter the position of any of the three AUKUS partners. Much of the commentary has missed the broader picture: Washington is undertaking its regular review of defence strategy.
It makes sense the Pentagon would also assess AUKUS – a central element of its Indo-Pacific posture.
While some have fixated on Colby’s supposed scepticism, the reality is different. In March, Colby told the US Senate Armed Services Committee the US should do everything in its power to make AUKUS work.
Why now? Because the strategy review is being accelerated under the new administration. As for the leak, it is plausible it was designed to apply pressure to Australia over its defence spending commitments.
The more important question is: what is the likely outcome? While nothing is certain, AUKUS enjoys strong bipartisan support in the US, as it does in Australia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called it a “blueprint” for cooperation, echoed by other senior officials.
Crucially, the real driver of this so-called “America First” review is what the US gets out of AUKUS. The answer is quite a lot. It secures access to Southeast and Northeast Asia from a location beyond the range of most Chinese missiles, adds a fourth maintenance site for Virginia-class submarines, and delivers an ally with an independent nuclear-powered submarine industrial base.
Beyond AUKUS, Australia has expanded its support for Marine and bomber rotations and other posture initiatives. Australia is central to US strategy in the Indo-Pacific. They need us as much as we need them. All signs point to a constructive outcome from this short, sharp review.
While AUKUS carries risks and Australia must remain clear-eyed, alarmism is unhelpful. Much of the public debate has taken that tone. Nothing fundamental has changed since the optimal pathway was announced in 2023. The risks we face now were known then.
There is no basis for an Australian review at this point. It would only distract from delivering this ambitious program. If core assumptions materially change, then a review may be warranted. But until then, such talk is a distraction.
Albert Palazzo
Adjunct Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney
The AUKUS review should be welcomed by all Australians as an opportunity for the Albanese government to scrap the agreement and wean itself off US dependency.
The review is a chance for our political leaders to exercise their most important responsibility: asserting the nation’s sovereignty and equipping Australia to provide for its national security on its own.
Since AUKUS already contains clauses the US could use to cancel the pact, a termination now would benefit Australia. It would save the nation huge sums of money, and force the government to formulate a more useful and appropriate security policy.
Elbridge Colby has previously questioned the logic of “giving away” America’s “crown jewels”, namely its nuclear-powered submarines, and argued the US will need all its boats against China.
Elbridge Colby is in charge of the AUKUS review.
More alarmingly, in his book The Strategy of Denial, Colby concludes the ideal way for the US to deny China regional hegemony is to use its allies to minimise its own “risks, commitment and expense”. Additionally, he says the US needs to retain the opportunity to walk away from a China conflict if that proves to be in America’s best interest.
Colby’s track record suggests he will recommend Australia make a larger military contribution to the alliance — as his boss Pete Hegseth demanded at the Shangri-La Dialogue. This is even as the US reserves its right to desert us at a time of its own choosing, as the United Kingdom did during the second world war with the Singapore Strategy.
At one time, the existing defence policy of reliance on the US made a degree of sense. But that is no longer the case. Instead, Australia’s leaders have an opportunity to recalibrate defence policy from one of dependency to one of self-defence.
As I outline in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix, Australia should adopt the philosophy of “strategic defensive”. This is a method of waging war in which the defender only needs to prevent an aggressor from achieving its objectives.
This would eliminate the risks and enormous cost of AUKUS while securing the nation’s future. A strategic defensive approach is well within Australia’s capabilities to implement on its own.
While it would be an ironic act of dependency if the US was to save Australia from itself by either cancelling AUKUS or by making it too unpalatable to swallow, the chance to reconsider should not be missed.
AUKUS remains an affront to Australian sovereignty.
Ian Langford
Executive Director, Security & Defence PLuS and Professor, UNSW Sydney
Australia should not walk away from AUKUS in light of the Pentagon’s newly announced review. However, it should seize the moment to increase defence spending to meet short-term challenges not addressed by the submarine deal.
Despite the noise, AUKUS remains Australia’s most straightforward path to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, deepening strategic interoperability with the United States and United Kingdom, and embedding itself in the advanced defence technology ecosystems of its closest allies.
But clinging to AUKUS without confronting the deeper risks it now exposes would be a strategic mistake. From an Australian perspective, the submarine pathway is on a slow fuse: first deliveries are not expected until the early 2030s.
Meanwhile, the risk of major power conflict in the Indo-Pacific is accelerating, with a potential flashpoint involving China and the US as early as 2027. Naval brinkmanship in the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas is already routine.
Submarines that arrive too late do little to shape the strategic balance in the next five years. Canberra must therefore confront a hard truth: AUKUS may enhance Australia’s deterrence posture in the 2030s, but it does little to prepare the ADF for a near-term fight.
That fight, should it come, will demand capabilities the ADF currently lacks in sufficient quantity: long-range missiles, deployable air defence, survivable command and control, and more surface combatants.
Yet under current spending plans, Australia is trying to fund both the AUKUS build and short-term deterrence within a constrained budget. It will not work. Even after recent increases, defence spending remains around 2% of GDP. This is well below the level needed to fund both long-term deterrence and immediate readiness.
Without a step change – closer to 2.5–3% of GDP – or a major reprioritisation of big-ticket programs, the ADF faces a dangerous capability gap through the second half of this decade.
Australia should hold firm on AUKUS. The strategic upside is real, and the alliance commitments it reinforces are indispensable. But we should not pretend it is cost-free.
Unless the defence budget is significantly expanded, AUKUS risks hollowing out the rest of the Defence Force. The result would be a future submarine fleet paired with an underpowered ADF, unready to meet the threats of today.
In reaffirming AUKUS, Australia must confront the complex reality that it won’t address the threats of this decade, and should plan accordingly.
Maria Rost Rublee
Professor, International Relations Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne
Let’s be honest – Australia is not going to withdraw from AUKUS.
The United States is our most important military and diplomatic partner; in the words of the 2024 National Defence Strategy, “our alliance with the US remains fundamental to Australia’s national security”.
Unilaterally extracting ourselves from AUKUS would significantly damage our relationship with the US. Given the bipartisan and public support for the alliance within Australia, it simply won’t happen.
As we navigate the complexities of AUKUS under Trump 2.0, we should remember that as a defence industrial agreement, AUKUS creates numerous benefits for Australia. In both Pillar I (nuclear submarines) and Pillar II (advanced defence capabilities), Australia is developing deep partnerships, collaboration and even integration with both the US and the UK in shipbuilding, advanced technology, and stronger supply chains.
In addition, a rarely discussed benefit of AUKUS is the total life-cycle climate impacts, given nuclear submarines are superior to diesel alternatives. Diesel is a non-renewable energy source with significant global warming potential, while nuclear power is generally acknowledged to be low-carbon.
However, AUKUS does offer very significant risks for Australia. Flexibility is baked into the arrangement for the three partner nations – leading to the very situation we are in today. There are significant concerns Washington may not sell nuclear Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s, as agreed.
We have known for years the US is not producing enough nuclear attack submarines for its own domestic use, but we seem to have hoped this would change or the US would sell us the subs anyway.
The current US review of AUKUS makes it clear Australia needs to think seriously about other options for submarines. Without the Virginia-class, we will be without any subs at all, at least until the SSN-AUKUS submarines are delivered by the mid-2040s.
Our current ageing Collins-class subs, already beset with operational problems, will not be fit for purpose much past mid-2030. At this point, the most likely viable option is off-the-shelf conventional submarines from Japan or South Korea.
The fact is, while Australia is unlikely to withdraw from AUKUS, the US may force the issue by refusing to sell us its nuclear-powered submarines. Refusing to acknowledge this does not change the risks.
President Donald Trumps wants US allies to lift their defence spending. Rawpixel/Shutterstock
David Andrews
Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University
I want AUKUS to succeed. It offers a unique opportunity to substantially upgrade Australia’s maritime capabilities with access to world-leading submarine technology and a suite of advanced and emerging technologies.
However, we cannot realistically pursue “AUKUS at any cost”. There must be an upper limit to how much time, effort and resources are committed before the costs – financial, political and strategic – outweigh the potential long-term benefits.
Of course, the government must not be hasty. Any decision should wait until the completion of the US review. Likewise, AUKUS should not be abandoned merely because it is being reviewed.
Reviews are not inherently negative processes. A review after four years of a project of this size and significance is not a particularly surprising development. As seen in the UK, reviews can refocus efforts and commit greater resources, if needed.
However, it doesn’t look like that’s what the US review is setting out to do. Rather, it’s focused on ensuring AUKUS is aligned with the America First agenda. That indicates an altogether different set of considerations.
People often describe Trump as a “dealmaker” or “transactional”, but these are misleading euphemisms. This review, and recent language from senior US officials, gives the impression of a shakedown – of coercion, not partnership.
The need to “win” and extract money from alliances is antithetical to their purpose. It misunderstands their nature and the fundamental importance of trust between partners. AUKUS is not an ATM.
Past behaviour suggests no deal Trump makes will last without further demands being imposed. No amount of money is likely to be satisfactory. Even if Australia’s defence spending was lifted to 3.5% of GDP, the question would be “why isn’t it 5%?” For AUKUS, there is no such thing as an offer he cannot refuse.
I do not say this lightly, but if the outcome of this process is a series of gratuitous or untenable demands by the US, the Albanese government should strongly consider walking away from AUKUS.
The consequences would be significant, so the threshold of such a decision would need to be similarly calibrated. But no single project should be put above the integrity of our wider defence enterprise and the sovereign decision-making of our government.
David Andrews has not personally received funding from any relevant external bodies, but he has previously worked on projects funded by the Australian Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, and Defence. David is a member of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Institute of International Affairs, and previously worked for the Australian Department of Defence.
Albert Palazzo is not a member of a political party but does occasional volunteer work for The Greens. In 2019, he retired from the Department of Defence. He was the long-serving Director of War Studies for the Australian Army.
Ian Langford is affiliated with Security & Defence PLuS, a collaboration between the University of New South Wales, Arizona State University and Kings College, London.
Maria Rost Rublee has received grant funding from the Australian Department of Defence and the US Institute of Peace. She is affiliated with Women in International Security-Australia and Women in Nuclear-Australia.
Jennifer Parker 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.
Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
Washington – On Monday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) published an op-ed in The Washington Times, marking the celebration of the 250th Birthday of the United States Army, and reflecting on how these celebrations can restore pride in America again.
Read the full op-ed HERE or below:
The Army’s 250th Birthday: A Personal and National Triumph
Senator Roger Marshall
The Washington Times
June 16, 2024
Standing in a quiet room at Gettysburg last month, I read about Lincoln’s Address—many headlines from 1863 called it “silly,” others “a perfected gem.” That’s the America I love: where we speak freely, protest boldly, and debate fiercely. Yet, as I scanned coverage of the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday celebration on June 14, 2025, one truth was missing: 1.3 million soldiers gave their lives to protect those freedoms. The grand parade and festival on the National Mall weren’t just a showcase of strength; it was a rebirth of patriotism, a moment that hit me personally and resonated for our nation.
My family’s story is woven into the Army’s 250 years. Every generation has served. Three ancestors fell in the Civil War’s brutal fields. A great-uncle, along with many other brave soldiers, suffocated from nerve gas in the Argonne Forest during World War I, the “war to end all wars.” Two other great-uncles stormed Normandy’s beaches; later in the Second World War, my wife lost an uncle. My dad served, my brother served, I served, and my son serves today. I’ve always believed every American should serve, not just for duty, but to feel the weight of sacrifice. At this great celebration, watching my grandsons’ eyes light up as tanks rumbled by on the Mall, I saw history spark their young hearts. This celebration wasn’t just about the past; it was about inspiring the future.
I’ve lived through patriotism’s highs and lows. The Korean War, before my time, sparked questions about America’s global role. Vietnam, which I watched as a kid, left us confused—protests clashed with America First pride. The Gulf Wars came, and as 9/11’s memory faded, we debated how far was too far. Over the last four years, an open border signaled a nation adrift, with our military and law enforcement wondering if their commander-in-chief had their backs. Patriotism seemed shattered. But June 14 was a new day. The first-ever Army birthday celebration on the National Mall, with 6,600 soldiers marching, felt like a reset—a bold reclaiming of national pride.
My daughter and niece, there with their young kids, saw it too. They said the parade taught their children military history, American pride, and gratitude for freedoms won through sacrifice. Veterans at home, glued to their TVs, felt seen—many watched every moment, marveling at “cool weapons,” tanks, and drones. Nearby us was a mom whose son re-enlisted, sworn in by President Trump. Tears streamed down her face as she waved her flag, her Army shirt emblazoned with her son’s regiment. “This is for all who served,” she said. I wish every veteran could’ve been flown to D.C. to feel that joy.
The celebration’s significance ran deeper. It honored a legacy: the Army, born a year before the Declaration of Independence, secured our freedom in the Revolutionary War and defended us through the Civil War, World Wars, and modern conflicts. It showcased unity, with events like the wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier echoing the Army’s motto, “This We’ll Defend.” It highlighted innovation—radar, the internet, wireless tech—all rooted in Army ingenuity that shaped global progress. It inspired, with the “Be All You Can Be” campaign driving recruitment to 85% of 2025’s target, promising the strongest class in years. And as a prelude to America’s 250th anniversary in 2026, it set the stage for national reflection.
While too much of the media focused on other issues, no one can doubt that this celebration restored pride, boosted military morale, and sent a message to the world. As my grandson exclaimed, “America’s Army is undefeated,” rolling through 250 years of victories. To those burning flags or kneeling during the anthem, it’s a gut punch—a pain that breaks the hearts of those who served. I wish they’d served, felt the cost of freedom, had held a dying soldier in their arms as they said their last words, or joined a Chaplain as they delivered the news of a lost loved one to a young wife and children. As riots flare, let’s remember: millions died so we can stand, debate, and rebuild.
Regardless, when the President calls, the Army is rolling along!
Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand
Proposal Would Increase Costs, Put Rural Hospitals At Risk Of Closure, Threaten Nursing Home Operations, And Make It Harder For Kids To Access Care
If Bill Passes, An Estimated 45,000 People Would Lose Health Insurance And 31,000 Risk Losing Some Or All SNAP Benefits In The Buffalo Area Alone
Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand visited the St. Joseph Campus of Catholic Health to highlight how President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” will hurt Buffalo hospitals and families. If passed, this legislation would cause 10.9 million Americans, including up to 1.5 million New Yorkers, to lose their health insurance coverage by 2034, and 11million would be at risk of having their SNAP benefits reduced or eliminated.
President Trump’s bill would cause Americans to lose their benefits by imposing work requirements on people receiving Medicaid and even stricter, more onerous work requirements for SNAP recipients. This would force families with children and people with disabilities to jump through more hoops to access benefits, and it would generate additional administrative costs for the program. In New York State, work requirements for Medicaid will cost an estimated $510 million annually to administer and enforce.
President Trump’s bill would also put rural hospitals at risk of closure by limiting the use of provider taxes, which help make it possible for rural and urban hospitals and clinics to remain open and care for patients by providing maternity, emergency, and behavioral health care. Funds collected by states through provider taxes are often directed to health care providers whose costs far exceed base Medicaid payment rates. These providers are typically located in rural America – where health care services are hard to find – or in dense urban areas, where the cost to deliver health care is high and health care providers are serving more people with Medicaid.
“President Trump’s bill is not ‘beautiful’—it’s a betrayal of millions of hard-working Americans,”said Senator Gillibrand.“This bill includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in history, and it puts the future of our state’s critical rural hospitals in jeopardy. Congress and the Trump administration should be focused on bringing down the cost of essentials, not limiting access to the health care and benefits that so many New Yorkers rely on to get care and put food on the table. This is an unacceptable piece of legislation, and I will do everything in my power to stop it from passing.”
“As an Occupational Therapist, I’ve seen firsthand the impacts of delayed and diminished healthcare,”said Rep. Kennedy (NY-26).“Treatable conditions become chronic illnesses, quality of life decreases, and ultimately, lives are cut short. The Republican reconciliation bill is a direct attack on working families and the healthcare they rely on in every community across our nation. This bill will make Americans less healthy and hurt Western New Yorkers.”
Gillibrand was joined by Joyce Markiewicz, President and CEO of Catholic Health, and Denise Abbott, President of the Buffalo Central Labor Council.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Van Hollen, Kaine Introduce Legislation to Sanction Salvadoran Officials for Human Rights Abuses, Collusion with Trump Administration in Violation of Constitutional Rights
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced new legislation in a continuation of their efforts to hold El Salvador accountable for its human rights abuses and its collusion with the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States without due process. The Senators’ legislation would apply sanctions on Salvadoran officials and others who have engaged in international human rights violations or worked to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The legislation would additionally explicitly sanction Salvadoran President Bukele and Vice President Ulloa, as well as El Salvador’s Ministers of Foreign Relations, Defense, and Justice and Public Security, among others. In addition to its actions alongside the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States, Bukele and his government have continued to jail and persecute innocent Salvadoran citizens, including journalists and human rights advocates such as Ruth López.
“President Bukele and his regime are continuing to commit abhorrent human rights atrocities and eradicate due process,” said Senator Padilla. “We must hold Bukele and all responsible parties accountable for the suspension of constitutional rights and continued collusion with the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States without due process. Imposing economic sanctions and visa restrictions on Bukele and his corrupt government is a necessary step to push El Salvador to finally uphold international human rights law and respect fundamental civil liberties.”
“President Bukele and the Government of El Salvador are colluding with the Trump Administration, taking American taxpayer dollars to imprison people as part of a scheme to violate their constitutional rights. We must hold Bukele and his cronies accountable for these wrongful actions as well as for the gross violations of human rights they are committing in El Salvador. This legislation would do just that by placing sanctions on Bukele and those in his government who are responsible for these abuses. We must send a clear signal that these injustices are unacceptable and must end,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Under President Bukele, tens of thousands of Salvadorans and even U.S. residents remain jammed in megaprisons without due process. President Bukele may think he has a friend in President Trump, but he should know that Americans will not tolerate his efforts to undermine the rule of law and democratic institutions—whether in El Salvador or here in the United States,” said Senator Kaine. “That’s why I’m introducing this legislation with my colleagues to sanction foreign nationals complicit in Bukele’s behavior and the Trump Administration’s illegal actions to deny due process to people living in the United States.”
The Senators’ legislation is supported by the Latin America Working Group, the Washington Office on Latin America, Human Rights Watch, and Immigration Hub.
Additional Background:
Sanctions: Imposes property-blocking and visa sanctions on President Bukele, key members of his cabinet, and other foreign persons working on behalf of the Salvadoran government that have:
engaged in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including in connection with the ongoing “state of exception” in El Salvador;
engaged in the scheme, including by accepting U.S. taxpayer dollars, to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their Constitutional rights; or
provided material support to any person that has engaged in the above activities.
Termination/Snapback of Sanctions: Sanctions cannot be terminated until at least four years after the bill is enacted and unless the President certifies to Congress that the Government of El Salvador is no longer engaged in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and no longer engaged in the scheme, including by accepting U.S. taxpayer dollars, to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their Constitutional rights. If the President determines that either of those conditions resume, then sanctions shall be reimposed.
Reporting Requirements: Requires reports to Congress that provide transparency on Salvadoran officials subject to a variety of sanctions authorities, U.S. government assistance to El Salvador, bilateral written agreements between the United States and El Salvador, and compliance with U.S. laws including the Leahy Laws and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Also requires a report on the actions of Salvadoran officials, including President Bukele, to use cryptocurrency as a mechanism for gross corruption, graft, and sanctions evasion.
Blocking International Financial Assistance: Instructs the United States to use its voice and vote in international financial institutions to oppose financial assistance to the Government of El Salvador until the appropriate Presidential certification is transmitted to Congress.
Prohibiting U.S. Funds for El Salvador: Prohibits any U.S. funding for the Government of El Salvador until the appropriate Presidential certification is transmitted to Congress.
“Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, and Padilla’s bill to impose sanctions on the regime of President Nayib Bukele is timely and importantly puts a spotlight on the gross violation of human rights that have occurred under President Bukele’s state of exception. Since March 2022, 85,000 people have been detained, constitutional guarantees have been suspended, and over 350 people have died while under state custody. Systemic torture and persecution are state policies. Significantly, the bill also addresses the pervasive corruption that has occurred since President Bukele took office and prevents the IMF and other international financial institutions not to lend support. Not one penny of our tax dollars should support this regime until there is an end to the human rights violations, and the rule of law, judicial independence, and government transparency are restored. All Members of Congress should get behind this bill,” said Vicki Gass, Executive Director, Latin America Working Group.
“Targeted individual sanctions for gross human rights violations are a critical diplomatic tool the U.S. can use to push for change and hold authoritarian actors accountable; as El Salvador’s political and human rights crisis deepens, strong international action like this becomes essential,” said Ana María Méndez-Dardón, Director for Central America at the Washington Office on Latin America.
“We are heartened to see Senators confronting the human rights abuses of government officials in El Salvador. This bill an important reminder that uncritical US government support to President Bukele will not last forever and a recognition that nobody should be deported to Salvadoran prisons,” said Juan Pappier, Deputy Director of the Americas division, Human Rights Watch.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Van Hollen, Kaine Introduce Legislation to Sanction Salvadoran Officials for Human Rights Abuses, Collusion with Trump Administration in Violation of Constitutional Rights
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced new legislation in a continuation of their efforts to hold El Salvador accountable for its human rights abuses and its collusion with the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States without due process. The Senators’ legislation would apply sanctions on Salvadoran officials and others who have engaged in international human rights violations or worked to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The legislation would additionally explicitly sanction Salvadoran President Bukele and Vice President Ulloa, as well as El Salvador’s Ministers of Foreign Relations, Defense, and Justice and Public Security, among others. In addition to its actions alongside the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States, Bukele and his government have continued to jail and persecute innocent Salvadoran citizens, including journalists and human rights advocates such as Ruth López.
“President Bukele and his regime are continuing to commit abhorrent human rights atrocities and eradicate due process,” said Senator Padilla. “We must hold Bukele and all responsible parties accountable for the suspension of constitutional rights and continued collusion with the Trump Administration to imprison people from the United States without due process. Imposing economic sanctions and visa restrictions on Bukele and his corrupt government is a necessary step to push El Salvador to finally uphold international human rights law and respect fundamental civil liberties.”
“President Bukele and the Government of El Salvador are colluding with the Trump Administration, taking American taxpayer dollars to imprison people as part of a scheme to violate their constitutional rights. We must hold Bukele and his cronies accountable for these wrongful actions as well as for the gross violations of human rights they are committing in El Salvador. This legislation would do just that by placing sanctions on Bukele and those in his government who are responsible for these abuses. We must send a clear signal that these injustices are unacceptable and must end,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Under President Bukele, tens of thousands of Salvadorans and even U.S. residents remain jammed in megaprisons without due process. President Bukele may think he has a friend in President Trump, but he should know that Americans will not tolerate his efforts to undermine the rule of law and democratic institutions—whether in El Salvador or here in the United States,” said Senator Kaine. “That’s why I’m introducing this legislation with my colleagues to sanction foreign nationals complicit in Bukele’s behavior and the Trump Administration’s illegal actions to deny due process to people living in the United States.”
The Senators’ legislation is supported by the Latin America Working Group, the Washington Office on Latin America, Human Rights Watch, and Immigration Hub.
Additional Background:
Sanctions: Imposes property-blocking and visa sanctions on President Bukele, key members of his cabinet, and other foreign persons working on behalf of the Salvadoran government that have:
engaged in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including in connection with the ongoing “state of exception” in El Salvador;
engaged in the scheme, including by accepting U.S. taxpayer dollars, to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their Constitutional rights; or
provided material support to any person that has engaged in the above activities.
Termination/Snapback of Sanctions: Sanctions cannot be terminated until at least four years after the bill is enacted and unless the President certifies to Congress that the Government of El Salvador is no longer engaged in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and no longer engaged in the scheme, including by accepting U.S. taxpayer dollars, to deprive individuals residing in the United States of their Constitutional rights. If the President determines that either of those conditions resume, then sanctions shall be reimposed.
Reporting Requirements: Requires reports to Congress that provide transparency on Salvadoran officials subject to a variety of sanctions authorities, U.S. government assistance to El Salvador, bilateral written agreements between the United States and El Salvador, and compliance with U.S. laws including the Leahy Laws and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Also requires a report on the actions of Salvadoran officials, including President Bukele, to use cryptocurrency as a mechanism for gross corruption, graft, and sanctions evasion.
Blocking International Financial Assistance: Instructs the United States to use its voice and vote in international financial institutions to oppose financial assistance to the Government of El Salvador until the appropriate Presidential certification is transmitted to Congress.
Prohibiting U.S. Funds for El Salvador: Prohibits any U.S. funding for the Government of El Salvador until the appropriate Presidential certification is transmitted to Congress.
“Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, and Padilla’s bill to impose sanctions on the regime of President Nayib Bukele is timely and importantly puts a spotlight on the gross violation of human rights that have occurred under President Bukele’s state of exception. Since March 2022, 85,000 people have been detained, constitutional guarantees have been suspended, and over 350 people have died while under state custody. Systemic torture and persecution are state policies. Significantly, the bill also addresses the pervasive corruption that has occurred since President Bukele took office and prevents the IMF and other international financial institutions not to lend support. Not one penny of our tax dollars should support this regime until there is an end to the human rights violations, and the rule of law, judicial independence, and government transparency are restored. All Members of Congress should get behind this bill,” said Vicki Gass, Executive Director, Latin America Working Group.
“Targeted individual sanctions for gross human rights violations are a critical diplomatic tool the U.S. can use to push for change and hold authoritarian actors accountable; as El Salvador’s political and human rights crisis deepens, strong international action like this becomes essential,” said Ana María Méndez-Dardón, Director for Central America at the Washington Office on Latin America.
“We are heartened to see Senators confronting the human rights abuses of government officials in El Salvador. This bill an important reminder that uncritical US government support to President Bukele will not last forever and a recognition that nobody should be deported to Salvadoran prisons,” said Juan Pappier, Deputy Director of the Americas division, Human Rights Watch.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
U.S. stocks ended higher on Monday, recovering from Friday’s sharp losses as investors’ concerns over ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran eased somehow.
Escalation of conflicts between Iran and Israel had briefly rattled markets — oil prices surged, the Cboe Volatility Index (VIX) spiked, and gold prices rose as investors sought safe havens. However, Monday’s action suggested confidence remained intact. High-yield credit spreads widened by just 2 basis points.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 317.30 points, or 0.75 percent, to 42,515.09. The S&P 500 added 56.14 points, or 0.94 percent, to 6,033.11. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased by 294.39 points, or 1.52 percent, to 19,701.21.
Seven of the 11 primary S&P 500 sectors ended in green, with communication services and technology leading the gainers by adding 1.53 percent and 1.52 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, utilities and health led the laggards by losing 0.50 percent and 0.40 percent, respectively.
Market history supports the idea that geopolitical shocks are often short-lived in their market impact. According to Deutsche Bank analysts Parag Thatte and Binky Chadha, the S&P 500 typically drops around 6 percent in the three weeks following a geopolitical event, but usually recovers those losses in the next three weeks.
Deutsche Bank’s Henry Allen added in a Monday note that geopolitical events tend to have lasting effects on equities only when they disrupt the real economy, either by slowing growth or driving inflation. So far, investors seem to be betting that neither scenario is likely in the near term.
Despite lingering geopolitical concerns, historically low equity positioning and resilient fundamentals may be keeping a broader sell-off at bay, allowing risk appetite to return for now. “Focus will remain on geopolitical headlines, but as long as the conflict stays limited between Israel and Iran, it’s unlikely to materially impact the markets,” said Tom Essaye at the Sevens Report.
Tesla rose more than 1 percent on Monday, while Meta Platforms climbed 2.9 percent, helping power the broader market. Palantir, often seen as a beneficiary of rising geopolitical instability due to its defense and AI ties, rose near 3 percent.
The rising move comes ahead of a key week for monetary policy. Investors digested a weaker-than-expected manufacturing survey released Monday morning by the New York Fed, adding to signs of slowing momentum in the industrial sector. Still, the data did little to shift expectations ahead of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision on Wednesday.
According to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool, futures markets are pricing in a 100 percent chance that the Fed will hold rates steady, despite renewed pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates.
However, elevated oil prices stemming from the conflict in the Middle East are expected to keep inflation risks on the Fed’s radar and reduce the likelihood of rate cuts in the near term. “Markets got a reminder that tariffs aren’t the only potential source of market volatility,” said Chris Larkin at E*Trade from Morgan Stanley. “Right now, markets are signaling they expect the situation in the Middle East will remain contained, but any surprises could have an oversized impact on sentiment.”
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Washington, D.C. — After Trump fired Commissioner and former Chair Chris Hanson from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an independent agency created by Congress that is charged with ensuring the safe use of radioactive materials, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee; Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued the following statement. The President can only remove Commissioners for cause—which is restricted to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office—and the Trump Administration has provided no evidence of wrongdoing nor cited any cause in its termination of Commissioner Hanson.
“Trump’s lawlessness threatens the Commission’s ability to ensure that nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are safe and free from political interference. In removing NRC Commissioner Hanson, Trump has overstepped his authority, jeopardizing U.S. nuclear leadership at a critical time. It’s hard to understand this when so much nuclear reform progress has been bipartisan.”
Washington, D.C. June 16, 2025 – In response to Israel’s escalating attacks on Iranian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens unable to leave Israel and Iran, DAWN issued the following statements:
“Israel’s targeted attacks against Iranian media and government infrastructure makes clear that this is war for regime change and Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability is just the pretext,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN’s Executive Director.
“President Trump campaigned on a promise not to get us entangled in another endless regime change war, but he’s now allowing Israel and its Washington backers to dictate the agenda for a dangerous, new war with Iran.”
“The U.S. government has a moral and legal obligation to protect the hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens unable to leave Israel and Iran,” said Raed Jarrar, DAWN’s Advocacy Director. “The Trump administration should act immediately to evacuate all U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, from Israel and Iran before the situation worsens.”
“The U.S. should immediately withdraw troops, military assets, and bases from the Middle East because their continued presence is not only a danger to U.S. forces there but to the civilians anywhere near them,” said Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man, Israel-Palestine Director at DAWN. “Maintaining a large military presence in the region unwisely turns them into unnecessary, opportunistic targets.”
DAWN is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. Please refer to the organization’s name as “DAWN”.
June 16 2025 – Donald Trump’s Truth Social has filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to launch a dual Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded fund (ETF), sparking concern from one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory organizations.
The proposed fund, the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF (ticker: B.T.), sponsored by Yorkville America Digital, LLC, would be the first attempt by a politically affiliated platform to offer a spot ETF with combined exposure to both Bitcoin and Ethereum.
deVere Group is issuing a strong warning to investors to exercise caution and seek independent financial advice before engaging with this product.
Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, comments: “We’re long-term advocates of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and digital assets.
“We believe they are a crucial component of modern portfolios. But this filing is not just another step forward for crypto adoption, it’s an entry point that raises serious questions about alignment, influence, and investor risk.
“When a politically connected media platform attempts to issue a financial product tied to volatile, high-profile assets, investors must scrutinize everything from the structure to the motive.”
deVere warns that the convergence of politics and finance in this way could create an illusion of safety or legitimacy, particularly for retail investors.
“Being SEC-filed doesn’t automatically mean a product is in an investor’s best interests,” says the deVere CEO.
“It doesn’t insulate against poor governance or conflicts of interest. These are the considerations investors need to weigh carefully, with professional guidance.”
The renewed appetite for crypto exposure is intensifying, especially following the previous approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs.
The dual-asset proposal from Truth Social arrives at a moment of renewed enthusiasm.
deVere Group continues to support the development of well-regulated digital asset investment vehicles and encourages innovation that promotes access, security, and transparency.
“This fund filing will generate excitement. But excitement is not a strategy,” Nigel Green adds.
“We urge investors: ask the hard questions, understand the mechanics, and consult advisors who are not part of the hype cycle.”
deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients. It has a network of offices around the world, more than 80,000 clients, and $14bn under advisement.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The Group of Seven (G7) leaders met for the first day of the two-day summit in Kananaskis in the province of Alberta, Canada, on Monday with emerging disagreements.
According to CNN, U.S. President Donald Trump does not intend to sign a joint statement calling for de-escalation between Israel and Iran.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa held a press conference Sunday night saying that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.
French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer were also hoping to finalize a consensus among the leaders about the Middle East situation.
Trump’s decision not to sign on to the statement set up an immediate divide with his counterparts, said the report, although a senior Canadian official said that European leaders are still engaged in the hopes of reaching a consensus.
In the meantime, trade issues are to dominate discussions with Trump, and observers are watching to see whether he will soften his position.
After meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump was asked what is holding up a trade-security deal with Canada, and he replied that it’s not a matter of it being held up, but rather “different concepts.”
“I have a tariff concept and Mark has a different concept,” Trump said. “We will see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”
“I think Mark has a more complex idea, but also very good. We are going to look at both and we’ll see what we will come out with,” said Trump.
Trump also said it was a mistake to boot Russia from the G8 table, making it the current G7 and that there wouldn’t be war in Ukraine if Russia hadn’t been ejected.
The G7 summit unveiled its slimmed-down agenda on Sunday, prioritizing discussions on the global economy and energy security.
Originally scheduled to begin over the weekend, the summit has been shortened to two days and officially started on Monday.
The G7 is an informal bloc comprising seven of the world’s advanced economies — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, and the United States — along with the European Union.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled on Monday that Israel will not halt its offensive against Iran, not even for negotiations, saying that toppling Iran’s leadership “could certainly be the outcome” of the ongoing aerial warfare.
Netanyahu made the remarks during a press conference, as Iran called on U.S. President Donald Trump to push for a ceasefire in the aerial conflict that began with Israel’s surprise attack on Friday.
“If President Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on the social media platform X.
“Israel must halt its aggression… It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu. That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy,” Araghchi wrote.
In response, Netanyahu said Israel has no intention of stopping the campaign, declaring that the country is on the “path to victory.”
Asked whether Israel would agree to stop the war, Netanyahu replied, “We gave it a chance — 60 days while they held talks with the Americans.”
He said Israel would not end its attacks before achieving three objectives: eliminating Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and what he described as “the terror axis” formed by Iran and its regional allies.
Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes across Iran since Friday, damaging military targets and residential areas. At least 244 people have been killed and 1,277 injured, over 90 percent of them civilians, according to Iran’s Health Ministry.
Netanyahu said Israel inflicted “very heavy damage” on Iran’s main nuclear facility in Natanz, a claim that has not been verified by Iranian sources. Additional strikes targeted centrifuge and uranium enrichment facilities, as well as missile stockpiles and launchers. He claimed Iran had “thousands” of explosive drones and that half were destroyed in the strikes.
Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
Rochester’s GreenSpark Solar, Named Rochester’s #1 Fastest-Growing Business & A Rochester Top Workplace, Has Already Been Forced To Lay Off 20 Workers Due To GOP Clean Energy Attacks, And Worries About Future Of Business Under GOP Job-Killing Bill
House GOP Rushed Trump’s Tax Giveaway To Billionaires, Gutting Fed Clean Energy Tax Credits That Lower Energy Costs and Boost & Local Jobs –Now Even House Rs Are Regretting It, Asking Senate GOP To Reverse Cuts They Voted For; Senator With Impacted Rochester Businesses, Families Demands GOP Block Cuts
Schumer: ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Is A ‘Big, Bad Blow’ To Rochester-Finger Lakes Jobs, Families & Businesses
Standing at a Rochester family home that will soon see lower monthly energy bills thanks to newly installed solar panels, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer warned how the GOP plan to kill clean energy tax credits could raise energy costs for families and devastate Rochester’s HVAC and energy installation companies like GreenSpark Solar, named Rochester’s #1 fastest-growing business and a top place to work in Rochester for the seventh year in a row.
Schumer explained these unpopular, job-killing cuts in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” have already created panic among House Republicans and companies, and even House Republicans who voted for this bill last month are now begging to save these tax credits. Schumer said GreenSpark Solar is just one of many local Rochester businesses that could be decimated by this bill and demanded the GOP block these tax hikes that could devastate Rochester families and small businesses.
“Right now, we are at Defcon 1 for America’s clean energy future, and it’s jobs here in Rochester and monthly energy bills for New York families and businesses that are on the line. The Clark family’s house here in the Rochester area tells the story of today. Last year, they hired Rochester’s fastest-growing business to install solar panels on their roof with help from our Inflation Reduction Act, lowering their monthly energy bill over 65%, from over $100 to $35,” said Senator Schumer. “Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ would deal a ‘big bad blow’ to families here in Rochester, raising their costs and killing good-paying jobs at companies like Rochester’s GreenSpark Solar, which employs hundreds of workers. It guts one of the most effective tax credits middle-class families use to lower their monthly energy bills in order to give bigger breaks to billionaires; it’s outrageous. That’s why I’m demanding Republicans to stop this plan to gut America’s clean energy future and block these cuts that will hurt Rochester’s families’ wallets and decimate jobs.”
Schumer was joined by workers from leading Rochester HVAC, solar, and geothermal energy installation companies, including ACES Energy, Halco Home Solutions, Wise Home Energy, Schuler-Haas Electric, and GreenSpark Solar, who said the elimination of these investments would be a massive blow to their work, employees, and customers. Rochester’s GreenSpark Solar employs 150 workers, and on any given day, also employs an additional 150-300 union subcontractors from Rochester companies like Schuler-Haas Electric to help build their installations.
Just two years ago, they were named Rochester’s #1 fastest-growing business and have been able to double their workforce in recent years thanks to customer demand unleashed by the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits. GreenSpark Solar purchases equipment and supplies from local Rochester-area suppliers, boosting the local supply chain, and has just relocated to the heart of downtown Rochester, bringing life to an abandoned building and the surrounding area.
However, GreenSpark Solar recently had to lay off 20 workers in anticipation of the GOP’s job-killing “Big, Beautiful Bill’s” tax increases on clean energy projects, driving down demand for their business. Schumer said if this bill passes, it will pull the rug out from under GreenSpark Solar just as it is growing, rendering their investments in Rochester worthless and forcing them to lay off local workers.
“When I first joined the solar industry, I knew almost nothing – but the people at GreenSpark taught me everything: how solar works, how it strengthens communities, and how it builds careers,” said Rory Patrie, Field Service Administrator for GreenSpark Solar. “I believe in it so deeply I had solar installed on my own home. It’s helped me fight inflation, keep my bills low, and become more resilient. The proposed elimination of federal renewable energy investments threatens my livelihood, my coworkers, and the everyday families we serve. I’m glad to stand here with Senator Schumer to defend the credits that support this work – and I thank Senator Schumer for recognizing what’s at stake for workers like me.”
Kevin Schulte, CEO of GreenSpark Solarsaid, “I’ve been in the renewable energy business for 26 years, and every time the Federal Government attacked our industry, New York State stepped up, helping us build the fifth largest solar market in the country. Solar and battery storage are the fastest, most affordable forms of electricity on the grid today; we won’t meet our energy goals with offshore wind, nuclear, or even natural gas—it will also come from solar. I’m proud to stand with Senator Schumer to defend the policy that supports this critical work and provides quality jobs and affordable energy to many New Yorkers.”
The Clark family, who just hired GreenSpark Solar to install solar panels last year with help from the Residential Clean Energy Tax Credit, has already seen their monthly electricity bill decrease by over 65%, from over $100 to $35. Now, they are considering installing additional panels and a battery backup system that can store electricity, making them better prepared for power outages during extreme weather. However, if Republicans repeal the tax credits, the cost of making their home more energy efficient will skyrocket. Thousands of families across New York State are waiting to see what the GOP does in Washington and are holding off on new clean energy installations, hurting companies like GreenSpark Solar and the thousands of workers in the clean energy industry.
The GOP bill would kill clean energy incentives already benefiting hundreds of New York businesses with ongoing projects and the families who are using them to help improve their homes’ energy efficiency and lower their energy bills. Schumer specifically highlighted how the bill:
Eliminates the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credit, which provides families in New York up to $3,200 to help weatherize their homes for better protection in the harsh winters and make improvements to their home’s energy efficiency, lowering their energy bills with qualifying items like doors, windows, better insulation and heat pumps, and
Eliminates the Residential Clean Energy Credit, which gives New York families a 30% discount on home energy improvements, like solar panels, heat pumps, or energy storage, that help lower energy bills and keep the lights on during power outages.
Penfield homeowners also joined Schumer, including Al Hibner, who lowered his monthly heating costs by 44% with his geothermal heat pump installed by Rochester’s ACES Energy, and homeowner Katie Ryggs, who has saved $1650 a year on her utility bills thanks to solar panels installed by GreenSpark and geothermal installed by ACES. Her monthly bills went from $200 to $60, plus she’s saved thousands on gasoline costs because she was able to switch to an electric vehicle and charge at home, reducing her monthly energy costs by more than 70%.
In the past two decades, more than 5 million American households have put solar panels on their roofs – this skyrocketed after the Inflation Reduction Act expanded these tax credits three years ago. However, one analysis estimates residential solar installations could fall by half in the next year if this House GOP bill goes through.
“The Energy Tax Credit helped us install solar panels and slash our electric bill from over $100 to just $25 a month,” said Steve & Amy Clark, Penfield homeowners. “We were looking forward to adding additional solar panels and battery storage in the future – but if these credits are cut, that would put those plans out of reach. We appreciate Senator Schumer’s support for these essential tax credits that make clean energy possible for homeowners like us.”
Penfield homeowner Katie Ryggsaid, “These tax credits put geothermal, solar, and our first EV within reach for my family – helping us create a better future for our daughters – with the added benefits of having less pollution in the house and saving money on our monthly energy bills. In the summer, we use 1/6 of the electricity to cool our house and in winter, we use 1/4 of the energy to heat our home. We hope that Congress will fight to preserve these clean energy tax credits so that many more families will be able to access the savings, comfort, and health benefits that come with electric homes and vehicles.”
Schumer was joined by Rochester-Finger Lakes businesses across the clean energy sector who said this bill would hurt their businesses immediately.
Andrew (AJ) Heiligman, President, ACES Energy & Renewable Rochester said, “Geothermal heat pump Federal tax credits have empowered everyday Americans to invest in clean, domestic energy, lowering utility bills, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and generating well-paying local jobs. These incentives benefit more than just homeowners; they strengthen local economies and sustain the skilled workers driving our clean energy transition. Rolling them back now would stall momentum that’s delivering real results for people, the environment, and communities alike.”
Ryan Puckett, General Manager at Wise Home Energysaid, “The Federal tax credits for beneficial electrification and weatherization are critical tools for reducing carbon emissions in our buildings. These incentives drive investment in cleaner, more resilient technologies, reducing costs and improving living conditions for New Yorkers. Removing them would not only hinder progress toward energy independence but also place unnecessary burdens on contractors and families striving for sustainable solutions. Wise Home Energy thanks Senator Schumer for supporting clean energy policy that benefits us all.”
Schumer was also joined by Rochester Building Trades workers who, with the help of IRA’s Clean Electricity Investment Tax credits, just built New York’s first grid-scale solar project, Morris Ridge Solar, in Livingston County that created 550 jobs, provided a $70 million boost to the local economy, and is powering 47,000 households. These workers, who are now constructing the 2nd largest solar project in New York – the Excelsior Energy solar farm in Genesee County that is creating 290 construction jobs, $117.5 million in economic impact, and will power 74,000 homes – fear these thousands of jobs will now be lost.
Grant Malone, President of the Rochester Building & Construction Trades Councilsaid, “Good-paying family sustaining local construction jobs will be obliterated by the job-killing “Big, Beautiful Bill’s” repeal of clean energy incentives. Our hundreds of local skilled trades members who are on the job today building solar farms in Rochester to power hundreds of thousands of homes are proof that these federal investments are a win-win. We are proud to stand with Senator Schumer to oppose any attempts to eliminate these investments and kill the thousands of construction jobs they are set to unleash.”
Schumer said clean energy tax incentives have spurred a clean energy boom in New York State, and rolling them back would have devastating impacts. The Clean Economy Tracker estimates the Inflation Reduction Act’s incentives have spurred over $5 billion worth of investments in clean manufacturing in New York, creating over 7,200 jobs. Data from NERA Economic Consulting shows that repealing clean energy tax credits could cause New York to lose up to 20,300 jobs as clean energy projects are cancelled or scaled back, with a whopping nearly $3.5 billion hit to the state’s GDP, and New Yorkers paying up to $650 in higher energy costs each year by 2032 if these devastating cuts become law.
Already, Republicans have shown doubts about the provisions in this bill. Earlier this month, thirteen House Republicans sent a letter to Senate Republican leaders urging them to scale back clean energy cuts in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” – the very bill their votes helped pass in the House. Last week, House Republicans voted for a second time to pass this job-killing bill after deleting various provisions.
“The fight is far from over. House Republicans’ latest flipflopping shows our pressure is working, and we have a real opportunity to get them to go back to the drawing board on this bill, and stop their attacks to totally eliminate these clean energy tax credits. And we are doing that by showing the real-world impacts, the jobs lost and lives devastated by their brutal cuts,” added Schumer.
Schumer said if this House Republican plan goes through, many of the clean energy projects spurred by the IRA could be forced to scale back or even stop, the workers building the future of American energy would be laid off, and projects that otherwise would have plugged into the grid will never come to fruition. That would impact both major NY employers and manufacturers in the clean energy, manufacturing, electric vehicle, battery, and research sectors, and also our small businesses and major economic projects slated to come to New York. Schumer said the House Republican bill would repeal the very parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that have helped companies grow in New York and spurred millions of investments, many of which are in Republican districts such as:
Eliminates the Clean Electricity Investment & Production Credits that support more cheap, clean electricity. With natural gas turbines on a five-year delay, the IRA’s clean electricity tax credits have ensured a robust buildout of wind and solar power while spurring demand for American-made energy products and helping keep electricity prices from increasing.
Sabotages the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit that has generated a more than five-fold increase in investment in manufacturing in the solar and EV supply chains, creating thousands of good-paying jobs and shifting these industries out of China to the U.S.
Eliminates the IRA’s Electric Vehicle Tax Credits that make it cheaper to buy new and used electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and has led to a massive onshoring of EV and battery supply chain manufacturing, undercutting China and bolstering American companies.
Eliminates the New Energy-Efficient Home Credit that makes it cheaper to build new, highly efficient and affordable homes, expanding the housing supply while reducing energy costs.
Eliminates the Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit that supports American-made clean hydrogen, led by New York companies like Plug Power and Air Products, to be used for clean manufacturing and agriculture.
Graham Hughes, Director of Policy & Advocacy of the Climate Solutions Accelerator said, “Investments in clean energy made through the Inflation Reduction Act have allowed people in the Finger Lakes Regions to upgrade our homes, lowered the cost of our energy, and created good paying jobs in a growing sector of the economy. Cutting these tax credits will roll back this progress and make our region more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We need congress to protect these investments and ensure the green economy continues to grow in New York.”
Monroe County Legislator Susan Hughes-Smith & Climate Solutions Accelerator Co-founder said, “The federal clean energy tax credits are good for our economy, health, and environment. The Solar Energy Industry Association calculates that the elimination of just the solar tax incentives would result in 330,000 jobs lost across the country, close or cancel 331 factories and squander nearly $300 billion in local investments. These credits should be preserved.”
Repealing the clean energy tax incentives would also be a disaster for America that Schumer said would cede energy manufacturing leadership to China, which already produces a significant amount of the world’s clean technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. If companies can no longer support clean energy manufacturing in the United States, they will bring these projects to America’s competitors, and jobs that would’ve otherwise been created in America will be created in countries like China. This will destabilize American supply chains and make American families and businesses reliant on China and other foreign countries for cheap energy.
All workers will be in the firing line for instant dismissal regardless of circumstances under a law change now before Parliament.
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brook van Velden has introduced the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which will make it harder for workers to bring personal grievance claims.
“This is plainly and simply a fundamental erosion of workers’ rights to secure employment – the Minister is effectively giving employers the green light to fire workers at will,” said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.
“It will be virtually impossible for a worker to bring a successful personal grievance if unfairly sacked. This is a radical change for every workplace in New Zealand, again exposing the Government’s priority to make life easier for employers, harder for workers.
“If a worker is dismissed unjustifiably, the only remedy is through a personal grievance. There is no problem here the Government is trying to solve. The current remedies are already very limited with reinstatement only being ordered in 16 cases at the Employment Relations Authority in 2024 according to their Annual Report.
“But now the Bill will make it easier for employers to find a way to undermine any personal grievance claim by establishing some conduct by the worker that contributed to a dismissal.
“Under the Bill, an employer will be able to amplify any conduct by the workers – it won’t be hard for some justification to be found to defend against the claim.
“This is all about weakening any claim and discouraging a worker from bringing a claim in the first place. That will mean workers will find it much harder to be reinstated which is ultimately what most workers want or get compensation for hurt and humiliation.
“The Minister trumpeted the changes as all about ‘labour market flexibility’. We heard the same thing in 1991 with the Employment Contracts Act which the Government then promised would increase productivity. That didn’t happen, it just stripped workers of rights and emboldened employers.
“We are seeing the same playbook now with planned cuts to sick pay, pay equity, the 90-day fire at will law, weakening health and safety requirements for employers and the axing of Fair Pay Agreements.
“That all amounts to less secure employment, lower wages and more dangerous workplaces.
“The Government has no shame and workers across New Zealand will pay the price for that for years to come.”
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahiis Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest trade union, representing and supporting more than 95,000 workers across central government, state-owned enterprises, local councils, health boards and community groups.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA) issued the following statement on the Israeli and Iranian air strikes.
“Donald Trump has done virtually nothing to stop Iran’s continued enrichment of weapons-grade nuclear material or to curb its support for terrorist organizations that threaten Israel, destabilize the Middle East, and endanger U.S. interests since he walked away from the nuclear weapons treaty Obama negotiated.
“While I’m not generally supportive of Prime Minister Netanyahu, as he often seems intent on addressing every security challenge through military means, Israel unquestionably has the right to defend itself. And Iran has unquestionably and repeatedly threatened the security of Israel, directly and through their proxies.
“While I have hope, I also have little faith, that Donald Trump has the leadership skills or the interest to stabilize the region or secure lasting peace for Israel, but in the leadership vacuum he’s created, one thing is clear: Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and they have continued, in defiance of international nonproliferation treaties, to move toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Let’s be clear, a nuclear-armed Iran would endanger not just Israel — but the entire world.
“I would like both Israel and Iran to de-escalate the current conflict. But ultimately, there will be no stability in the Middle East, which requires a secure Israel, hope for the Palestinian people, and a denuclearized Iran, without diplomacy and U.S. engagement. The President needs to step up and provide the leadership this moment demands.”
Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
WASHINGTON, June 16 – Following Israel’s military strikes against Iran, which threaten to further destabilize the Middle East and draw the United States into yet another military conflict, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization. The bill contains an exception for self-defense as enshrined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.
Joining Sanders on this legislation are Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.). Sanders first introduced this legislation in January 2020 with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) as cosponsors.
“Netanyahu’s reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war. Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu’s war of choice,” Sanders said. “Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people’s elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress.”
“Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement,” Sanders continued. “I will do everything that I can as a Senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the U.S. from being drawn into another war.”
“Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund another reckless, open-ended conflict instigated by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Welch said. “War has badly damaged this region. Millions of civilians face acute hunger and need lifesaving aid in Gaza right now. Netanyahu just upended U.S.-led negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program in favor of recklessly escalating tensions. Congress needs to listen to the American people, as our founders intended, before getting involved.”
“The Constitution is clear: Congress decides when our country goes to war, not the President or the Netanyahu government,” Warren said. “The Trump administration must prioritize de-escalation to prevent this spiraling into a war that jeopardizes U.S. troops and destabilizes the Middle East.”
“As strikes between Israel and Iran continue, we need de-escalation and restraint from all sides. Trump’s reckless decision to abandon the JCPOA nuclear agreement, cheered on by Netanyahu, helped bring us to this dangerous moment. This bill makes clear: the President cannot launch another war in the Middle East without Congressional authorization. It’s long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role and prevent another disastrous conflict,” Merkley said.
“Instead of bringing wars to an end, Trump is facilitating them — leading to civilian deaths and threatening American lives in the region. Only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, and President Trump must not drag us further into this conflict without Congressional approval,” Van Hollen said.
“Our Constitution and laws give Congress, not the President, the exclusive powers to authorize military force and declare war. Congress must reassert that authority so that we are not drawn into a catastrophic regional war that would further imperil the safety of American citizens and forces, the stability of Middle East, and the lives of innocent civilians,” Markey said.
Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, attended a White House ceremony where President Trump signed her joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal California’s attempted electric vehicle mandate through their “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation that prohibits the sale of new gas-powered light-duty vehicles by 2035.
“With President Trump’s signature today, we have successfully ended California’s attempt to establish a nationwide EV mandate that would have hurt our economy, eliminated jobs, and removed consumer choice across our country. Despite the best efforts of the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats, the voice of the American people has been heard and put into action through the repeal of this rule. I’m proud to have led this effort and thank President Trump and my Republican colleagues in Congress for their work and support throughout this process,” Chairman Capito said.
TIMELINE OF SENATOR CAPITO’S EFFORTS:
May 22, 2025: The Senate passed Senator Capito’s CRA to repeal California’s EV mandate through their “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation.
May 21, 2025: Senator Capito spoke on the Senate floor outlining the importance of ending California’s EV mandate, and the Congressional Review Act process she led to repeal California’s waiver.
May 1, 2025: Senator Capito applauded the House of Representatives’ passage of joint resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s EV mandate.
April 4, 2025: Senator Capito, joined by Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) introduced joint resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s EV regulations that prohibit the sale of new gas-powered light-duty vehicles by 2035 and set unrealistic and stringent requirements for heavy-duty trucks and heavy-duty diesel engines.
December 18, 2024: Senator Capito pledged to work to reverse the Biden administration’s lame duck action of approving California’s waiver to implement its “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation.
February 28, 2024: Senator Capito joined Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.-05), Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), and Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.-13), in a bicameral letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan warning of the legal and economic consequences of granting a Clean Air Act waiver for the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which would enable the state to require 35 percent of automobile sales to be electric vehicles in model year 2026, and 100 percent of them by 2035.
PHOTOS:
U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) with President Donald Trump at the White House signing ceremony for her resolution to end California’s nationwide electric vehicle mandate.
U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) with President Donald Trump at the White House signing ceremony for her resolution to end California’s nationwide electric vehicle mandate.
Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) recently joined Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-La.) and eight other Republican senators in demanding the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) finally end the Biden era policy, Risk Rating 2.0, which caused flood insurance premiums to skyrocket.
“Since the Biden Administration’s rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) increased in every state. By FEMA’s own estimates, 77 percent of all NFIP policies now pay more than under the old system,” the senators said.
“The lack of transparency surrounding Risk Rating 2.0 is beyond troubling. FEMA has never allowed for meaningful public comment nor has it published the underlying data or assumptions used to justify the steep premium increases and refuses to disclose its actuarial model. Without transparency, communities cannot plan mitigation projects, lenders cannot accurately underwrite mortgages, and citizens cannot appeal punitive rate increases. Worse still, rising costs encourage policy lapses—shifting risk back to taxpayers when disasters strike,” the senators continued.
Read the full letter here or below.
Dear Acting Administrator Richardson,
We write to draw your urgent attention to the increasingly untenable flood insurance premiums paid by American homeowners as a result of the Biden era policy, Risk Rating 2.0, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We respectfully ask for your leadership to halt further premium increases under Risk Rating 2.0 and implement much needed transparency from FEMA.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13990, directing every federal agency to target and modify Trump era regulations under the auspice of combating climate change. A few months later, Biden signed EO 14030, requiring agencies to integrate up-to-date flood risk considerations into federal actions. Collectively, both of these EOs laid the groundwork for FEMA’s implementation of a new rating system known as Risk Rating 2.0, which was enacted on October 1, 2021.
Since the Biden Administration’s rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) increased in every state. By FEMA’s own estimates, 77 percent of all NFIP policies now pay more than under the old system. According to a 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, premiums on primary residences under Risk Rating 2.0 are subject to a maximum 18 percent increase each year until such premiums reflect “the full risk loss of the insured property,” as determined by FEMA.
Families in the following Republican states are especially hard-hit.
Louisiana:
It is estimated that 80 percent of Louisiana NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
In 2023 alone, the average flood insurance premium in our state jumped by 234 percent, forcing more than 52,000 Louisianans—many of them seniors on fixed incomes—out of the program.
Coastal parishes, which depend on flood insurance to secure mortgages and rebuild after storms, are now facing premiums that exceed 2 percent of median household income—a threshold that federal guidance deems “cost prohibitive.”
West Virginia:
It is estimated that 83% of West Virginia NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in West Virginia by ~176%
Over the last 12 months, ~600 West Virginians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Texas:
It is estimated that 86% of Texas NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Texas by ~53%.
Over the last 12 months, ~26,300 Texans have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Alabama:
It is estimated that 79% of Alabama NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Alabama by ~106%.
Over the last 12 months, ~1,200 Alabamians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Mississippi:
It is estimated that 84% of Mississippi NFIP policyholders experienced monthly premium increases in 2025 as a result of Risk Rating 2.0.
As of August 2023 (the latest available FEMA data), Risk Rating 2.0 would increase annual NFIP premiums for homeowners in Mississippi by ~103%.
Over the last 12 months, ~2,200 Mississippians have left the NFIP as a result of premium increases.
Rural and low-income homeowners, along with high-risk coastal areas, are being priced out at far higher rates than urban or wealthier communities. In ten states, full risk NFIP premiums today exceed 2 percent of median household income. This undermines home values, depresses property tax revenues, and ultimately inflates federal disaster assistance costs when uninsured homeowners cannot rebuild.
The lack of transparency surrounding Risk Rating 2.0 is beyond troubling. FEMA has never allowed for meaningful public comment nor has it published the underlying data or assumptions used to justify the steep premium increases and refuses to disclose its actuarial model. Without transparency, communities cannot plan mitigation projects, lenders cannot accurately underwrite mortgages, and citizens cannot appeal punitive rate increases. Worse still, rising costs encourage policy lapses—shifting risk back to taxpayers when disasters strike.
The President has long championed policies that reduce federal overreach and protect everyday Americans from burdensome costs. To limit the damage caused by this harmful Biden era policy, we urge you to:
Direct FEMA to terminate the Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology.
Require FEMA to publish all actuarial inputs and outputs of future flood insurance premium increases exceeding the 5% statutory minimum so stakeholders can verify fairness and accuracy.
Restore targeted affordability measures for coastal, low income, and historically underinsured communities—ensuring NFIP remains accessible to those who need it most.
Time is of the essence. Each month that Risk Rating 2.0 continues unchecked, more families are forced to abandon their insurance coverage, neighborhoods face economic strain, and entire communities risk collapse after the next disaster. We respectfully urge you to act now—before further harm is done—to protect vulnerable Americans, preserve homeownership, and ensure the NFIP fulfills its mission as Congress intended.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
