NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Mike Levin Introduces Amendment to Uphold Congress’s Constitutional Authority—House Republicans Stunningly Vote No

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Levin (CA-49)

    June 11, 2025

    Washington, D.C.— Just after midnight, during a House Appropriations Committee meeting, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) introduced a simple amendment to affirm Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority to control federal spending and act as a co-equal branch of government.

    Stunningly, all 35 House Republicans on the Committee voted against it.

    By rejecting the amendment, Republicans sided with dramatically expanding executive power—undermining the separation of powers laid out in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

    Watch Rep. Levin’s opening and closing remarks here (captioned) and here (clean). 

    Watch the full Committee debate on the amendment here.

    Full text of the amendment is here and below:

    “Sec. ___. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be obligated or expended to—

    (1) carry out or facilitate activities that restrict or redirect funds in any way that is not outlined in this Act or in statute.”

    Rep. Levin will continue to introduce amendments during the Appropriations process to hold the Trump Administration accountable and ensure that Congress’s constitutional powers are respected.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: 21 State Attorneys General File Brief in Support of California’s Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Federalization of State’s National Guard

    Source: US State of California

    OAKLAND – Yesterday, 21 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief supporting California’s request for a court order blocking the president’s unlawful federalization and deployment of the California National Guard. The amicus brief outlines how President Donald Trump’s actions are wholly inconsistent with our nation’s founding principle that freedom depends on the subordination of the military to civilian authority. 

    “President Trump’s federalization and deployment of California’s National Guard, without the consent of California’s Governor and in clear violation of the statute on which he relies, is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. It is also wholly inconsistent with one of our Nation’s founding principle that freedom depends on the subordination of the military to civilian authority.

    “By calling forth troops when there is no invasion to repel, no rebellion to suppress, and when state and local law enforcement is fully able to execute the laws, the President flouts the vision of our Founders, undermines the rule of law, and sets a chilling precedent that puts the constitutional rights of Americans in every state at risk.

    “Emergency relief is vitally necessary to vindicate state sovereignty and protect the States’ National Guards, which play a vital role in ensuring the security of our states and preparing for and responding to emergencies. States rely on their National Guard units to protect their residents and save lives. National Guard troops fight fires, respond to hurricanes, protect their residents from flooding, and provide much-needed security. 

    “By undermining states’ authority, unlawfully deploying the National Guard troops, and leaving the door wide open to deploy the Guards of every state, the President has made us all less safe. 

    “This Court should enjoin the federal government from continuing down this unlawful and perilous path.” 

    The brief was filed by the state attorneys general of Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly also joined the brief. 

    A copy of the brief is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Micron Announces Massive Chips Investment, Onshoring Production

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    Today, the Trump Administration announced a $200 billion investment by Micron Technology, the sole U.S.-based manufacturer of advanced memory chips – only the latest large-scale investment secured since President Donald J. Trump took office.
    The investment includes construction of a second chip fabrication facility in Boise, Idaho, and modernizing its Manassas, Virginia, facility — onshoring production of its advanced DRAM technology from Taiwan for the first time and creating 90,000 direct and indirect jobs.
    It’s all part of President Trump’s commitment to revitalizing American manufacturing and establishing the country as the global leader in technology — particularly in artificial intelligence.
    Since President Trump took office, leading technology companies have pledged trillions of dollars in U.S.-based manufacturing and production, including Project Stargate, Apple, NVIDIA, IBM, TSMC, and others.
    It’s another big win for American workers, national security, and leadership in the world — and the best is yet to come.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: France’s final nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 30 years on

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Roxanne Panchasi, Associate Professor, Department of History, Simon Fraser University

    Former French President Jacques Chirac encounters a protest from members during an official visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in July 1995.
     (European Parliament)

    In recent months, the viability of France’s nuclear arsenal has been making headlines with talk of a French “nuclear umbrella” that might shield its allies on the European continent. In the face of the Russia-Ukraine war, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statements regarding the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in that conflict, the question of how to best defend Europe has taken on an urgency not seen since the height of the Cold War.

    Despite its more robust nuclear weapons capabilities, the United States in the Donald Trump era appears less committed to the defence of its NATO allies. Debates about a French nuclear umbrella aside, these discussions — combined with increased military spending worldwide and resurgent fears of nuclear war — make the history of France’s nuclear readiness and weapons testing feel uneasily current.

    In June 1995, French President Jacques Chirac announced that France would resume testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. Just weeks after being elected to office, Chirac ended a three-year moratorium on testing that his predecessor, François Mitterrand, had put into effect in April 1992.

    Chirac insisted this additional series of weapons tests was essential to France’s national security and the continued independence of its nuclear deterrent. The eight planned detonations scheduled to take place over the next several months would, he claimed, provide the data needed to move from real-world detonations to computer simulations in the future. He also said it would enable France to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty (CTBT) banning all nuclear explosions, for military or other purposes, by the fall of 1996.

    France’s history of nuclear tests

    A report on France’s nuclear tests in the South Pacific. (Disclose)

    Chirac’s June 1995 announcement, followed by the first new detonation in September that year, provoked intense opposition from environmental and peace groups, and protests from Paris to Papeete, throughout the Pacific region and across the globe.

    Representatives from the world’s other nuclear-armed states expressed concern that France was choosing to conduct further tests so close to a comprehensive ban. The governments of Australia, New Zealand and Japan also registered their staunch opposition, issuing diplomatic statements, calling for the boycott of French goods and pursuing other measures of rebuke.

    A defensive posture had been a pillar of France’s nuclear weapons policy since the nation first entered the atomic club in 1960 with the detonation of Gerboise Bleue, a 70-kiloton bomb, at Reggane in Algeria. The following three atmospheric and 13 underground Saharan tests resulted in serious long-term health and environmental consequences for the region’s inhabitants.

    In 1966, France’s nuclear testing program relocated to Maō’hui Nui, colonially known as “French Polynesia.”

    The next 26 years saw a further 187 French nuclear and thermonuclear detonations above and beneath the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa. They exposed the local population to dangerous levels of radiation, contaminating food and water supplies, and harming corals and other forms of ocean life.

    These experiments — along with the final six underground detonations the French carried out in 1995 and 1996 — left a toxic legacy for generations to come.

    Inadequate compensation for lingering harm

    When Chirac shared his rationale for France’s latest nuclear test series with a room full of journalists gathered at the Elysée Palace in June 1995, he was adamant that these planned tests, and all of France’s nuclear detonations, had absolutely no ecological consequences.

    Today, we know this claim was more than incorrect. It was a falsehood reliant on data and conclusions that grossly underestimated the harmful impact that France’s nuclear testing program had on the health of French soldiers and non-military personnel onsite, inhabitants in the surrounding areas and the environments where these explosions took place.

    Most recently, during the 2024 Paris Olympics, there was an evident deep contradiction between “French Polynesia” as a tourist paradise and idyllic location for the Games’ surf competitions and a space of continuing injustice for test victims that highlights the history of France’s nuclear imperialism in the region.

    In 2010, the French government passed the Morin law ostensibly aimed at addressing the suffering of those significantly harmed by radiation during France’s nuclear weapons detonations from 1960 through 1996.

    The number of people who have been successful in their applications for recognition and compensation remains inadequate, particularly in Algeria. Out of the 2,846 applications submitted by only a fraction of the thousands of estimated victims, just over 400 people in Maō’hui Nui and only one Algerian have received compensation since 2010.

    In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged that France “owes a debt” to the people of Maō’hui Nui. He has since called for the opening up of key archives pertaining to this history, but there is much more work to be done on all fronts.

    The findings of a recent French parliamentary commission on the effects of testing in the Pacific, scheduled to be released soon, may contribute to greater transparency and justice for victims in the future.

    In Maō’hui Nui, demands for acknowledgement and restitution have been intertwined with the independence movement, while confronting the impact and legacies of the nuclear detonations in Algeria has been fraught with tensions between Algeria and France over the colonial past.

    Future of the test ban treaty

    In January 1996, France conducted its last nuclear test by detonating a 120-kiloton bomb underground in the South Pacific. In September, France added its signature to the CTBT, joining the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and 66 other states without nuclear weapons in their commitment not to engage in further nuclear explosions in any context.

    Almost 30 years later, the CTBT has still not come into force. While most signatories have ratified the treaty, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the U.S. are among the nine that have not. Meanwhile, Russia withdrew its own ratification in 2023. Key non-signatories include India, North Korea and Pakistan — all nuclear-armed states that have conducted their own tests since 1996.

    Given these crucial exceptions to a test ban, the prospects for something as ambitious as the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which not a single nuclear weapons state has signed to date, remain uncertain, to say the least.

    Roxanne Panchasi has previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. France’s final nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 30 years on – https://theconversation.com/frances-final-nuclear-tests-in-the-south-pacific-30-years-on-256439

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Murray, Booker, Schumer Renew Push to Protect IVF Amid Ongoing GOP Attacks Against Reproductive Freedom

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 11, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Patty Muray (D-WA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today led 25 of their Senate Democratic colleagues in introducing legislation that would establish a nationwide right to in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Ever since Roe was repealed by Donald Trump’s Supreme Court majority, Republicans’ ongoing assault against reproductive freedom has threatened Americans’ access to IVF services—as evidenced by the Alabama Supreme Court ruling last year that shut down state clinics and painted IVF parents and their doctors as criminals. The Protect IVF Act would protect against such attacks by creating a statutory right for patients to access IVF services, a right for doctors to provide IVF treatment in accordance with medical standards as well as a right for insurance carriers to cover IVF without prohibition, limitation, interference or impediment. By establishing a statutory right, this would preempt any state effort to limit such access and help ensure no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family.

    “Donald Trump loves to tell everyone how strongly he supports IVF—but the reality is, he’s the reason IVF is at risk in the first place,” said Senator Duckworth. “If Trump really cares about protecting IVF, then the choice is simple: instead of signing toothless executive orders, he should call on Republicans to support my bill to establish a nationwide right to IVF. Otherwise, all the pro-IVF talk is just more lip-service from people who have proven time and again they have no interest in actually taking any meaningful action to protect IVF access.”

    “The anti-choice movement has never been about protecting life—it has always been about controlling women. Republicans’ efforts to rip away women’s reproductive rights and enshrine fetal personhood bit by bit are having catastrophic consequences for women across America and putting access to IVF in jeopardy,” said Senator Murray. “Trump is full of empty talk when it comes to IVF, but he’s refused to take any action that would meaningfully improve access, and he’s empowering the very same anti-abortion activists who are working to ban IVF nationwide. The Protect IVF Act would establish a statutory right to access IVF and other assisted reproductive technology, so that all Americans can grow their families on their own terms, free from Republican interference.”

    “Donald Trump and Senate Republicans have repeatedly jeopardized American families’ fundamental right to make their own decisions about when and how to start a family,” said Senator Booker. “Congress must act to ensure that the freedom to start and grow a family using IVF treatment is protected and accessible to everyone in the United States.”

    “Despite all the smoke and mirrors and hollow Executive Orders, Donald Trump and Republicans have led an unrelenting crusade against reproductive rights for years, refusing to support legislation that would truly protect access to IVF. Senate Democrats are united in protecting access to pro-family fertility treatment and giving every American the freedom to decide when and how to build a family. We will continue to fight extreme rightwing Republicans threatening access to IVF across the country, going against scientific evidence, and accelerating their ideologically-driven crusade,” said Leader Schumer. 

    In addition to Duckworth, Murray, Booker and Schumer, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Alex Padilla (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), John Fetterman (D-PA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Mark Warner (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Chris Coons (D-DE), Angus King (I-ME), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Chris Murphy (D-CT).

    The Protect IVF Act is endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, Endocrine Society, MomsRising, Indivisible, What to Expect Project, Legal Momentum: The Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Women’s Law Center.

    “In February 2024, a single court ruling in Alabama put providers’ ability to offer standard-of-care fertility treatments at immediate risk,” said Sean Tipton, ASRM Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer. “Since then, we have only seen an uptick in government leaders on both sides of the aisle expressing their support for medical procedures like IVF that make it possible for millions of Americans to start and grow their families. As a result, our federal lawmakers should rally behind legislation that would protect patients’ rights to reliable access to high quality fertility care and providers’ rights to deliver IVF in accordance with scientific and evidence-based clinical guidelines. We thank Senators Duckworth, Murray, Booker, and Schumer for their tireless leadership on the Protect IVF Act and urge immediate passage of this important bill.”

    “The path to parenthood is often filled with emotional and financial challenges, and for too many Americans, uncertainty about the future of IVF only adds to that burden,” said Barbara Collura, President/CEO, RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. “No one should have to wonder if accessing medical care to build their family will be legal in their state. We can solve this right now by passing the Protect IVF Act, championed by Senator Tammy Duckworth. This legislation offers a clear solution to protect access to IVF nationwide. It’s time to give people the peace of mind they deserve and ensure that the ability to build a family is protected—once and for all.”

    Full text of the legislation can be found on the Senator’s website.

    Throughout her time in the Senate, Duckworth has made protecting reproductive freedom a top priority in the face of Republicans’ anti-choice crusade. Duckworth has long pushed to pass her Right to IVF Act—which Senate Republicans blocked not once, but twice last year—that would both establish a right to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology (ART), expand access for hopeful parents, Veterans and federal employees, as well as lower the costs of IVF for middle class families across the country. Last September’s vote marked the fourth time Senate Republicans blocked Duckworth-led legislation that would protect access to IVF nationwide—Duckworth’s Access to Family Building Act, which builds on previous legislation she introduced in 2022.

    Duckworth was the first Senator to give birth while serving in office and had both of her children with the help of IVF. In 2018, she advocated for the Senate to change its rules so she could bring her infant onto the Senate floor.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Warren, Democrats Lead Push to Reverse Trump and Hegseth’s Ban on Transgender Servicemembers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 12, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democratic colleagues in introducing legislation to support our military readiness and national security by prohibiting discrimination against transgender servicemembers.

    “If you are willing to risk your life for our country and you can do the job, it shouldn’t matter if you are gay, straight, transgender, Black, white or anything else,” said Duckworth. “Every transgender servicemember earned their role through rigorous training and is more qualified to serve in those roles than Pete Hegseth is to be Secretary of Defense. I’m proud to join Senator Warren and my Democratic colleagues in working to reverse the Trump Administration’s offensive transgender military ban, which is disruptive to our military, hurts readiness and not only does nothing to strengthen our national security—it actively makes things worse.”

    Banning transgender servicemembers undermines our military’s readiness. The Administration’s actions hurt our national security and dehumanize the thousands of transgender servicemembers who have made meaningful contributions to our Armed Forces. To ensure the United States can continue to benefit from the service of transgender individuals, who have raised their hand to defend and protect their country and meet the same rigorous standards as their peers, the Fit to Serve Act prohibits the Defense Department from: 

    • Banning transgender servicemembers from the military; 
    • Prescribing qualifications for service on the basis of gender identity; 
    • Denying necessary health care for servicemembers on the basis of gender identity; 
    • Forcing a servicemember to serve in their sex assigned at birth; or 
    • Otherwise discriminating against servicemembers on the basis of gender identity.

    In addition to Duckworth and Warren, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), John Fetterman (D-PA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

    U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D-WA-09) introduced companion legislation in the House, which is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Gabe Amo (D-RI-01), Becca Balint (D-VT-AL), Joe Courtney (D-CT-02), Angie Craig (D-MN-02), Suzan DelBene (D-WA-01), Maxine Dexter (D-OR-03), Laura Friedman (D-CA-30), Robert Garcia (D-CA-42), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX-29), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-06), Sara Jacobs (D-CA-51), Hank Johnson (D-GA-04), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-08), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Chris Pappas (D-NH-01), Delia Ramirez (D-IL-03), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09), Eric Sorensen (D-IL-17), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA-10), Mark Takano (D-CA-41) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12).

    Duckworth, a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), has been leading the opposition in the Senate against Donald Trump’s un-American transgender military service ban. In April, Duckworth led over a dozen of her colleagues in pushing back against the ban for being a blatant violation of our brave servicemembers’ civil rights and weakening our national security. Secretary Hegseth responded to Duckworth’s letter—but he did not answer many of the questions that were asked about the short- and long-term impacts of the ban on servicemembers, readiness and national security as well as taxpayer cost and more. In response, last week Duckworth led 22 of her colleagues in urging Hegseth to not implement the ban and in demanding answers from the Secretary—including what specific data is being used to back up their misguided claim that transgender servicemembers are not in the “interests of national security” and how much it will cost taxpayers to train the replacements of perfectly capable transgender servicemembers that they are forcing out of our military.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Amid Trump’s Threats to Critical Agriculture Support Programs, Duckworth Discusses Agricultural Priorities with Illinois Farm Bureau

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 11, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—founding co-chair of the Senate Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Caucus—met with Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) President Brian Duncan and IFB members to discuss shared priorities to grow Illinois’s agriculture industry and support our farmers. Duckworth and the members discussed the importance of supporting our family farmers by expanding the biofuels market, increasing agricultural exports and improving farm safety net programs as Donald Trump continues to threaten critical federal agricultural programs. Photos from today’s meeting can be found on the Senator’s website.

    “America has always depended on our nation’s farmers to grow the food and fuel we need, and I’m proud to advocate for them on both the national and international stage,” Duckworth said. “The work of Illinois’s farmers is so important to the strength of our state and our nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to support the Illinois Farm Bureau and farmers across the state at the federal level.”

    In the Senate, Duckworth has been a leader in supporting biofuels, including expansion of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and permanent authority to use E15 fuel year-round. To help increase the availability of E15 biofuels, Duckworth helped introduce the bipartisan Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act and the bipartisan Next Generations Fuel Act to allow the year-round, nationwide sale of ethanol blends higher than 10 percent. Duckworth additionally helped introduce the bipartisan Home Front Energy Independence Act to ban Russian oil and expand use and production of biofuel that’s grown in the American heartland, while providing American families with a less expensive option to fuel their vehicles. Earlier this year she helped introduced the Farm to Fly Act to help accelerate the production and development of SAF.

    As a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Duckworth has been an advocate for Illinois agriculture across the globe and helped secure significant wins for Illinois and American agriculture. After Duckworth’s visit in 2023, Japan announced a regulatory change that will lead to an increase in imports from U.S. biofuel producers, supporting our farmers and growing Illinois’s economy, and following a prior trip to Taiwan in 2022, she helped secure a commitment from Taiwan to purchase an estimated $2.6 billion of our Illinois’s corn and soybeans.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: IN THE NEWS: Ranking Member Coons highlights Secretary Hegseth’s “poor judgement” in appropriations hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, drew attention for his opening statement and questioning of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth yesterday, where he called attention to Secretary Hegseth’s “poor judgement.” Reports noted that Ranking Member Coons criticized Secretary Hegseth’s leadership on multiple fronts, including his failures to secure appropriate funding for the department, his focus on culture war issues at the expense of military readiness, and his role in the administration’s efforts to weaken our nation’s relationships with NATO allies.

    The comments occurred yesterday at a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing on the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request.

    From the Washington Post: Sen. Chris Coons describes ‘chaos and poor judgement’ under Hegseth

    Sen. Chris Coons (Delaware), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, opened his remarks at a hearing featuring Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with a list of ways the former Fox News host has exhibited what Coons called “poor judgment” and executed decisions that Coons said are damaging to the country’s military and national security.

    “For the very first time,” Coons noted, U.S. troops are “operating under a full-year continuing resolution” — a temporary piece of legislation to keep the government open because the administration and Congress have failed to pass an annual appropriations bill. And that means “tens of billions of dollars less in purchasing power than under the previous administration,” Coons said.

    From NBC: Sen. Chris Coons says Hegseth spending too much time ‘fighting culture wars’

    Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., the top Democrat on the subcommittee, criticized staffing shake-ups at the Pentagon and the focus on culture war issues…

    He also slammed Hegseth for sharing military information on Signal. “Mishandling important and sensitive information in the middle of an operation by a secretary is unthinkable,” Coons said.

    From NOTUS: Congress Wants to Know Where the Department of Defense’s Budget Is

    “The department has been unacceptably slow in providing us with the account-level information that we need to draft the defense appropriations bill,” Sen. Susan Collins told Hegseth, echoing a critique her Democratic colleague Sen. Chris Coons lodged earlier….

    “We are still waiting for real budget details. This is officially the latest budget submission of the modern era,” Coons said. “This committee, to do its job, wants to work with you on the details.”

    From The Daily Beast: Hegseth Blasted by Top Republican Over Trump-Putin Bromance

    When it was Senator Chris Coons’ turn to question Hegseth, he also raised concerns, and said it seems Putin has no intention of negotiating.

    “It seems to me concerning that the 2026 request eliminates aid to Ukraine entirely,” the Democratic Party senator said.

    Coons also took issue with Hegseth’s comments about Europe freeloading. He noted that Article 5 was only invoked once after 9/11, when America’s allies deployed to Afghanistan alongside the U.S. and suffered casualties. He also noted that 50 other countries have delivered support for Ukraine.

    From the Las Vegas Sun: Senators critical of Defense Secretary as hearing kicks off

    Pete Hegseth met with bipartisan criticism Wednesday as the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee hearing kicked off.

    Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, slammed him, saying that “more of your time so far has been spent inside the building on culture wars, rather than outside the building, deterring real ones.”

    He criticized Hegseth’s moves to fire the previous chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other “qualified uniformed leaders” and said the Pentagon is worried more” about each other than America’s enemies.

    From CBS News [VIDEO]: Coons blasts Hegseth for request to eliminate funding for Ukraine’s war against Russia

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Boyle Grills Secretary Bessent Over Cost of Trump’s Budget Bill in Ways & Means Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Brendan Boyle (13th District of Pennsylvania)

    WASHINGTON, DC — In today’s Ways and Means Committee hearing, Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, questioned Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about the staggering cost of the Republican budget bill.

    Boyle warned that Trump’s plans would add $3 trillion to the deficit while kicking 16 million people off their health care and slammed the administration’s trade policies that led the World Bank to slash growth projections.

    A full transcript and video are below: 

     

     (Click for video of remarks as delivered.)

    Congressman Boyle’s full remarks and questions as delivered:

    Congressman Boyle: “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous pork-filled spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it.” Those were the words of your former White House colleague and good friend Elon Musk.

    Another: “This spending bill contains the largest increase in debt ceiling in US history. It is the debt slavery bill. A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn’t massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.”

    Why do you believe Mr. Musk is right or wrong?

    Secretary Bessent: You’d have to ask Mr. Musk.

    Congressman Boyle: Well, take the substance of what he said. Does it not add trillions of dollars, your bill to the deficit and debt?

    Secretary Bessent: It is not my belief that it does. It may be his, he could speak for himself.

    Congressman Boyle: But of course, it’s not just Mr. Musk, it is the Congressional Budget Office. It is conservative leaning groups like Tax Foundation, Cato, left-leaning groups, and nonpartisan groups like CBO and JCT. So this bill has actually united the left, the right, and the center all saying it massively increases deficit and debt, but they’re all wrong and you’re right?

    Secretary Bessent: Congressman, I think that there are a, are a range of outcomes that I think that many do not include the pro growth measures, just as they were wrong with the original TCJA, and that has proven to be a resounding success. Just as, I don’t know if you were here to vote for the IRA, the CBO scoring on that, it has been three to four times more expensive.

    Congressman Boyle: So, it’s curious to me because you spent decades as an executive at George Soros’ hedge fund being very successful, making billions of dollars. Back then you would always rail against deficit and debt. What happened?

    Secretary Bessent: I, again, that it is smart spending, that what are we spending for?

    Congressman Boyle: Tax cuts that mostly go to billionaires such as yourself while throwing 16 million people off their healthcare coverage.

    Secretary Bessent: Well, I, I would dispute that 16 million. I think you’re conflating a lot of numbers.

    Congressman Boyle: No, it’s the — excuse me, reclaiming my time — those aren’t my numbers. Just to be clear, as you know, it’s the Congressional Budget Office projection.

    Secretary Bessent: I think you’re adding up a, a lot of numbers that shouldn’t be added.

    Congressman Boyle: Excuse me. I am adding two specific numbers. The cuts CBO found coming to Medicaid — no, we’re entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts and not our own numbers. The CBO shows that 10.9 million will lose their health care coverage from the Medicaid cuts and another 5.1 million will lose their healthcare coverage due to the ACA cuts. 10.9 plus 5.1 is 16 million.

    Secretary Bessent: So, so you are adding numbers.

    Congressman Boyle: Yes. Correctly.

    Secretary Bessent: Do, do you support Medicaid for illegal aliens? 1.4 million.

    Congressman Boyle: I’m asking the questions, not you, although you’ll be happy to know that my home state commonwealth of Pennsylvania, actually they check your citizenship status before you can enroll in Medicaid.

    Congressman Boyle: But I understand why you’re wanting to divert and change the subject. Let me move, since we’ve taken up already most of my time, the World Bank yesterday had a shocking growth projection. They slashed their growth projection for the United States by upwards of 40%. I’m just curious, do you agree or do you think they’re wrong as well, because they specifically cited the trade uncertainty caused by your administration, the administration that you serve as Secretary of the Treasury, as being the primary reason why they’ve had to slash their growth projection to the lowest since 2008.

    Secretary Bessent: Congressman, you kindly cited the success that I may or may not have had in my previous career, but I could tell you I would not have had it if I followed World Bank projections.

    Congressman Boyle: So, it is interesting that you believe all of these groups are wrong. From your former colleague, Elon Musk, to left leaning groups, to right leaning groups, to center groups, to the World Bank, everything is going hunky dory. The reality is, I can see why you would have that opinion. You as a billionaire will reap the rewards of this tax cut while 16 million Americans will lose their health coverage. That is the sad reality of the situation.

    Secretary Bessent: We could look at the, who would be most harmed if these tax cuts expire?

    Congressman Boyle: Well, you’ll be happy to know that on this Democratic side of the dais, through an 18 hour markup, every single Democratic member voted to extend the tax cuts for everyone making under a billion dollars.

    Congressman Boyle: I see my time has expired. I yield back.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Vasquez Secures Key Commitments from Ag Secretary Rollins on Rural New Mexico Priorities

    Source: US Representative Gabe Vasquez’s (NM-02)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – On June 11, 2025, U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) secured key commitments from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to address urgent issues affecting rural New Mexico — including frozen food security funding, wildfire readiness, and broken federal contracts. She also committed to visiting New Mexico and meeting with Rep. Vasquez’s Agriculture Advisory Group. 

    WATCH: REP. VASQUEZ SECURES COMMITMENTS FROM SECRETARY ROLLINS IN HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

    “I represent one of the largest and most rural districts in the country — a district that elected both me and President Trump,” said Vasquez. “Farmers, ranchers, food banks, and wildfire crews in my district rely on a functioning USDA — not just for support, but for survival.”

    Vasquez raised the abrupt funding freeze to Frontier Food Hub in Silver City, which serves as the only food pantry for hundreds of miles and the only organization supporting small-scale rural producers in the region. Secretary Rollins committed to reviewing the matter and working with Vasquez on food insecurity issues.

    On wildfire preparedness, Vasquez described how essential USDA trail crews responsible for cutting fire lines and maintaining forest access have been laid off ahead of peak fire season in New Mexico. He secured a commitment from Secretary Rollins to assess staffing cuts and their impact on New Mexico’s wildfire response capabilities.

    Vasquez also called on USDA to honor existing agreements with producers and nonprofits and urged support for his Honor Farmers Contracts Act, which would ensure the agency follows through on executed contracts.

    Secretary Rollins accepted Vasquez’s invitation to visit New Mexico’s 2nd District to hear directly from his Agriculture Advisory Group, which consists of producers, hunger advocates, local business owners, and land conservationists throughout NM-02.  

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pallone Blasts Trump Budget for Gutting Emergency Response Funds Ahead of World Cup, Nation’s 250th Anniversary

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Frank Pallone (6th District of New Jersey)

    Elimination of Hospital Preparedness Program Would Cripple NJ’s Emergency Medical Response

    Washington, DC – Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) today slammed the Trump Administration’s new budget proposal for eliminating the Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) – a federal initiative that directly supports New Jersey’s Emergency Medical Services Task Force and ensures the state can respond to mass casualty events.

    “Eliminating this program is reckless,” Pallone said. “The Hospital Preparedness Program is the backbone of New Jersey’s ability to respond to disasters. Without it, we’re flying blind as we prepare for millions of visitors to descend on our region for the World Cup and America’s 250th anniversary. Republicans in Congress should be fighting to protect their communities, not helping Trump gut the systems that keep people alive.”

    Next year, MetLife Stadium will host multiple FIFA World Cup matches and communities across New Jersey are expected to host large public events to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary. Pallone said pulling the plug on the HPP now puts first responders and residents at serious risk.

    The Hospital Preparedness Program, currently administered through the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), provides approximately $240 million annually to help states prepare hospitals and EMS systems for large-scale emergencies. In New Jersey, those funds support the NJ EMS Task Force, a nationally recognized team that has coordinated public safety for major events, natural disasters, and mutual aid deployments.

    Pallone, top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is leading efforts in Congress to block the cut and fully restore HPP funding.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ranking Member Lauren Underwood Delivers Remarks at Homeland Security Subcommittee Markup to Highlight How Republican Funding Bill Weakens National Security and Makes Americans More Vulnerable to Terrorism

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14)

    WASHINGTON — During today’s House Appropriations subcommittee markup of the 2026 Homeland Security funding bill, Ranking Member Lauren Underwood (IL-14) delivered the following remarks: 

    “Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

    I think we can all agree that whether it is at the border, the airport, our country’s shorelines, or in cyberspace, the Department of Homeland Security cannot fail.  

    But I also believe the Department cannot fail the ideals and values that make America the greatest nation in the world. Under the Trump Administration, DHS is out of control: illegally spending hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars and flagrantly violating the rights and civil liberties of Americans. 

    Under this administration, due process and the limitations that the Constitution puts on our government are being ignored, and this bill does nothing to protect Americans from being targeted.  

    It fails to protect American citizens from deportation.  

    It does nothing to protect American citizens from being confronted in their homes and offices, or having their property seized, as this Administration’s deportation policies ignore legal safeguards.  

    It allows ICE agents to continue to grab people in places of worship and in our schools without a warrant, and it punishes legal immigrants who speak their minds all while rewarding for-profit detention centers with billions of taxpayer dollars.  

    As Members of Congress, we have a constitutional responsibility to keep this Administration accountable in both how it spends taxpayer dollars and how it operates.  

    We saw this year after our FEMA hearing what this Department does when anyone speaks truth to power. I am deeply concerned that if this bill passes and the Trump-Noem DHS goes unchecked, the United States of America will become a country that our own citizens will seek refuge from because of the repeated attacks on our basic freedoms and rights.  

    Giving unchecked power to this Administration is bad enough, but unfortunately, the bill makes things worse, by leaving Americans more vulnerable to catastrophic cyber threats and burdening state and local governments. The bill adopts DOGE staffing cuts to CISA and FEMA personnel by roughly $130 million and $93 million, respectively.   

    The burden to respond to the next ransomware attack on your local hospital or deadly hurricane in your district – will increasingly fall to state and local leaders who lack the resources to protect your sensitive health care information from hackers. States don’t have the ability to rebuild after disasters on their own. This bill abandons our neighbors after a crisis.  

    Both the Acting Administrator and the recently named Acting Deputy Administrator of FEMA have little to no emergency management experience.  

    Let me say that again: the two most senior people running FEMA are severely-under qualified at a time when an above-average hurricane season is forecasted, and when the disaster relief fund is already expected to end fiscal year 2025 with an $8 billion deficit.  

    Listen, as recently as last week, the White House had to clean up after the brand new FEMA Administrator was caught supposedly joking about the upcoming hurricane season. We are also heading into wildfire season in the West, and friends, the funding level provided in this bill is insufficient to help us dig out of this hole, and it all but guarantees that FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund will be at a dangerously low level again by next summer. 

    Meanwhile, the White House requested zero dollars to supplement this critical fund that all Americans rely on to recover from major disasters, and fails to acknowledge an urgent $8 billion dollar deficit in the Disaster Relief Fund.  

    The bill fails to address the catastrophic cybersecurity threats facing our critical infrastructure: our hospitals, banks, schools, and secure government systems.  

    And it does nothing to protect Americans from growing attacks on their privacy. The only people who benefit from this bill’s failure to invest here are cybercriminals in China, Russia, and around the world who will now find it easier to attack Americans.  

    Finally, the bill does not include funding for the Citizenship and Integration Program that has been running for more than a decade by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.   

    This initiative funds faith-based organizations and community-focused organizations that help legal immigrants prepare to become citizens by preparing them for the citizenship exam and helping them learn English.  

    Mr. Chairman, we make America stronger and more secure when we make investments in our communities stronger, and when we uphold our values. But this bill does neither, and I cannot support it.   

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for the Record that Ms. Escobar is not able to attend today’s markup due to a canceled flight from Texas. I know she would join me in opposing this bill if she were here and I would like that to be reflected.” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: California Will Not Waver in Defending Itself from Federal Overreach: Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Attack on California’s Clean Vehicles Program

    Source: US State of California

    LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board today led a coalition of 10 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the unprecedented and unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to upend California’s clean vehicles program, specifically the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Omnibus, and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) standards. Predicated on illegal actions by the Trump Administration, Congress purported to disapprove the Clean Air Act waivers, granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that allow California to enforce these more stringent, state-level emission standards. In the 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been subject to the CRA.  Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission—such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. Congress’s unprecedented action attempting to invalidate California’s waivers contradicts the non-partisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian, both of whom determined that the CRA process to disapprove federal regulations does not apply to waivers.

    If California is prevented from enforcing these vehicle emission standards, it will result in the loss of significant economic and public health benefits, costing California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in preventable health care costs. Despite decades of progress, tens of millions of Californians still breathe some of the worst air in the nation—these regulations were specifically designed to change that. Losing these standards would also undermine market certainty for vehicle manufacturers, stifling innovation and job creation, including in the electric vehicle sector, which has been a growing source of high-paying green jobs and investment. 

    “The President’s reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California continue, this time with his attempt to trample on our longstanding authority to maintain more stringent clean vehicle standards,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President is busy playing partisan games with lives on the line and yanking away good jobs that would bolster the economy – ignoring that these actions have life or death consequences for California communities breathing dirty, toxic air. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: California will not back down. We will continue to fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach.”

    “Trump’s all-out assault on California continues – and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

    Motor vehicle emissions contribute to the formation of smog, as well as fine particle pollution and unhealthy levels of air toxics, all of which are linked to premature death, respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, among other serious health impacts. Transportation is also the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars and trucks account for more than 80% of those transportation emissions. 

    The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. The Clean Air Act allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires EPA to approve preemption waivers for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, EPA – under both Republican and Democratic administration – has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the State’s new motor vehicle emissions control program. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve on its vehicle emissions program, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate vehicle emissions via the Clean Air Act.

    Consumers are rapidly embracing clean vehicle options. In California alone, over 2 million zero-emission passenger cars have been sold, with clean vehicles now making up 26% of all new car sales. This momentum extends to the medium-and heavy-duty vehicle market as well, where sales have exceeded targets for two consecutive years – well ahead of timelines set by state regulations.

    Since 2023, the EPA granted California three waivers, allowing it to enforce the ACC II, Omnibus and ACT regulations in California. Under ACC II, automakers must continue to sell an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles in California—as they have been for decades. By model year 2035, 80% of the passenger vehicles sold in California must be zero-emission, while the remaining 20% may be plug-in hybrids. Advanced Clean Truck regulations, which aim to accelerate the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium and heavy-duty truck sector, are similarly critical for California’s efforts to meet air quality standards and protect public health. By 2040, the Advanced Clean Truck regulations will reduce emissions of NOx by 16.9 tons per day and fine particulate matter emissions by 0.46 tons per day. The Omnibus regulation requires internal combustion heavy-duty trucks sold in California to meet strict standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are major contributors to smog formation.

    Under the direction of President Trump, the EPA transmitted these waivers to Congress as “rules” in an attempt to invoke CRA procedures, even though all three waivers state EPA’s consistent and longstanding position, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, that waiver decisions are not “rules.” Both the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate illegally used the CRA to “disapprove” of California’s Clean Air Act waivers.

    The complaint filed today alleges that the attempt to invalidate California’s waivers violated constitutional principles of federalism and separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, and multiple federal statutes including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint asks the court to declare the resolutions to be unlawful and to require the Administration to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. 

    Attorney General Bonta led the lawsuit with the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

    A copy of the complaint is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Tuberville Joins “Kudlow” to Discuss President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Alabama Tommy Tuberville

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined Larry Kudlow on Fox Business Network to discuss President Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” and how the Senate needs to pass it quickly to enact historic tax cuts for Americans. Senator Tuberville also discussed the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers and shared how President Trump’s tariffs are delivering positive results in Alabama.  

    Excerpts from Senator Tuberville’s interview can be found below and the full interview can be found on Rumble or YouTube. 

    KUDLOW: “Joining us now is Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, [the] great Senator Tommy Tuberville. Senator, welcome back as always. I just wanna try this thesis out in you. Mr. Trump acted so decisively to stop the riots in Los Angeles, to protect the work of ICE, to keep the deportations going, to make it very clear that criminals would be thrown into jail, if you spit on somebody, you’re going to jail, etc., etc. That was a big win, I mean, I think it was a big win and a big loss for Democrats. But here’s my questions there. I think that kind of action, which is so popular—it’s like an 80/20 issue—plays into passage of the one big, beautiful bill because people want promises made, promises kept. They want the Trump agenda, and they see that he is unhesitatingly defending the Trump agenda on which he was elected last November. What you think? I’m going from LA to one big, beautiful bill.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Well, if you just think about this summer coming up, it’s probably gonna be the ‘summer of hate’ instead of the ‘summer of love,’ Larry. We got huge problems. 1,400 protests just this weekend, but at the end of the day, President Trump never hesitated with this. He goes in—this is a third world country run by a communist governor. And the guy should be in jail, and also the mayor. This is an absolute disgrace. The American people—actually the citizens of California—should be treated a lot better than this. But at the end of the day, it is really gonna help, I think, also, as you said, coming back to the big, beautiful bill, President Trump means business. If you look at this bill, about ¾ of it is tax cuts for all Americans. Tax cuts.”

    KUDLOW: “Mhmm.”

    TUBERVILLE: “And that’s what we need. We gotta get that done. The other—there’s some things in there, that I don’t agree with all of it—a little bit too much spending, but the one thing we have to get done is the tax cuts and all those other things will work itself out as we go through this bill and another reconciliation down the road. But, yeah, President Trump means business. He knows what he’s doing. He’s got huge backing from really smart people like [Secretary Scott] Bessent and [Secretary Howard] Lutnick, and all the people that are working, all the trade and tariff deals. I’m fired up about the big, beautiful bill being passed here in the very near future.”

    KUDLOW: “I mean, you—look, you’ve probably seen some of these numbers from the White House Legislative Affairs, but a 15% tax cut to working families, [has] 82% [support], [support for the] child tax credit [is even] higher, [at] 81% percent. Ending taxes on tips, [has] 77% [support] to 18% [non-support]. Cutting taxes on overtime, [has] 74% [support] to 18% [non-support]. I mean, these are like 75% to 80% [support] to 20% [non-support] issues. You know what they’re like, Senator. They’re like law and order, punishing criminals, or deporting murderers and sex traffickers[which are all popular issues]. They’re 80/20 issues too. And I’m just saying, to me it all kind of comes together—I know LA seems a long way from one big, beautiful bill, but in the public’s mind, the guy they hired to be president is doing what folks want, and I think there’s been momentum. That’s why I wanna get the one big, beautiful bill done as soon as possible, sir.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Exactly. Take our country back like he’s doing in California. Take our economy back like he’s gonna do with this bill. This bill is gonna help a lot of people, Larry, and it’s gonna build growth. You know, just last week, I talked to a group in Alabama that President Trump saved 300 jobs at this manufacturing textile mill because of what he did with tariffs.” 

    KUDLOW: “Mhmm.”

    TUBERVILLE: “That’s gonna happen. Biden, Obama, Clinton, they all sold our manufacturing out. Anywhere you drive in this country, you’re gonna see manufacturing plants that are just old, dilapidated. Nobody’s working there—small towns gone to heck in a hand basket. But at the end of the day, President Trump means business. He’s gonna get people to come back. He’s gonna tariff everybody that’s against this country, especially China. And we’re gonna get manufacturing back and take care of ourself instead of other people.”

    KUDLOW: “Well, you know, full cost expense is gonna help that. But the bigger story is the tariff inflation is missing in action. And I think these exporting countries with their unfair trading practices—you know, Senator, I think they’re eating the tariff. That’s what I think is happening because there’s no inflation. It’s only 1.4% for the past four months. That’s remarkable. Every economist practically in the liberal media was completely wrong.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Well, the Democrats have been hollering, ‘Chicken little, the sky is falling. The sky is falling,’ and all we have to do is look at really what’s going on and everything is getting better. You know, we might not have improved a lot, but we haven’t tanked like the Democrats were expecting because look at all the things we’re having to go through, the tariffs, the wars, all these protests. They’re doing everything they can to slow President Trump down. It’s not working. He’s not listening to the nonsense anymore. The media can do what they want to, but he’s gonna do exactly what he told American people he’s gonna do. He’s gonna stick with it. He’s got a game plan. And I’m looking forward to this game plan continuing on. When we get these tax cuts done, the country is gonna take off in the right direction, and you don’t have to worry about inflation. We’re gonna be on the way up.”

    KUDLOW: “Senator Tuberville, President Trump is hinting at putting in a new Fed chairman. I mean, this guy, Jay Powell, should have been cutting rates with the absence of inflation. How about you running the Federal Reserve System? A commonsense guy like you—businessman, you know the farm community. We need somebody. I know your eye—you got your eye on the Alabama governorship. I got the Federal Reserve checked off for you.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Well, the one thing I will tell you and [you] hit it on one of those ideas there, Larry. The interest rates are killing our farmers. We’re gonna lose our farmers if we don’t get this interest rate down. It’s costing them a fortune. They can’t make a profit. And what happens when we lose our farmers like we did manufacturing, we’re gone go south. And we cannot allow that to happen. We gotta protect our farmers. Yeah, let’s drop the interest rates. Drop them now. They were way too high for way too long.”

    KUDLOW: “Senator Tommy Tuberville, that’s the best. Thank you for your wisdom, sir.”

    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell, Experts Agree: Trump’s Trade War Is Short-Term Pain With No Long-Term Gain

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    06.12.25

    Cantwell, Experts Agree: Trump’s Trade War Is Short-Term Pain With No Long-Term Gain

    “We’re really going to hurt our long-term competitiveness as a nation from doing this,” says Cantwell

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, participated in a spotlight forum on tariffs hosted by Democratic senators.

    At the forum, Sen. Cantwell questioned witnesses about the long-term damage that President Trump’s trade war is inflicting on America’s long-term competitiveness.

    “We should be doubling down now on workforce training. Instead, we’re throwing it into cost and chaos, and so we’re really going to hurt our long-term competitiveness as a nation from doing this,” said Sen. Cantwell. “So, we’re not getting any short-term gain. Nobody’s going to make any money here.”

    “Senator, you’re absolutely right,” responded Adam Posen, President of the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Even if our goal is to create more manufacturing or good jobs […], you can’t compete in manufacturing if you’re further up the value chain, where the better jobs are, if you can’t substitute for these imports at any reasonable price.”

    “This is short-term pain and long-term pain,” added Thea Lee, Economist and Former Deputy Undersecretary for International Labor Affairs. “There is no short-term pain for the long-term gain, because we are destroying the rules-based system.”

    This week, Sen. Cantwell joined 30 Senators in filing an amicus brief in a key case, Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security, challenging the Trump Administration’s abuse of emergency powers to impose global tariffs.

    In April, Sen. Cantwell introduced the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025 to reaffirm Congress’ key role in setting and approving U.S. trade policy, and reestablish limits on the president’s ability to impose unilateral tariffs. Her bill has since picked up 12 additional cosponsors – an equal mix of Republicans and Democrats – and been endorsed by multiple major U.S. business organizations, including the National Retail Federation, which is the largest retail trade association in the world. House members also introduced a bipartisan companion bill.

    On April 16, Sen. Cantwell joined nine local business owners and leaders at the Port of Seattle to push back against the Trump administration’s chaotic tariffs-first trade policy. On May 29, she gathered stakeholders at the Port of Seattle again to respond to the chaos caused by President Donald Trump scrambling to keep his draconian tariffs in place amid court challenges.

    “American businesses need a rules-based trade system. That means American families would have the certainty, not chaos and not higher prices. We know this: That when you start trade wars, usually that means you end up closing markets,” Sen. Cantwell said in at the May 29 press conference.

    In Washington state, two out of every five jobs are tied to trade and trade-related industries. More information about how those tariffs will affect consumers and businesses in the State of Washington can be found HERE.  

    For the past four months, President Trump has been sowing economic chaos across the country with unpredictable and ever-changing tariff announcements. His back-and-forth announcements and actions have whipsawed American businesses and consumers, as well as close neighbors and allies.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Powell recently warned, “What looks likely, given the scope and scale of the tariffs, is that … the risks to higher inflation, higher unemployment have increased.”  This week, the Federal Reserve issued its “beige book” report, which found that all 12 Federal Reserve Districts “indicated that higher tariff rates were putting upward pressure on costs and prices.”  Today, the World Bank also said that because of a “substantial rise in trade barriers,” it is cutting its forecast for U.S. economic growth in 2025 in half, while also cutting its estimate for global economic growth, and warned that the world economy “is once more running into turbulence” and “Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep.’’

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Miller Participates in Ways and Means Committee Hearing with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) participated in a Ways and Means committee hearing with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Congresswoman focused her comments on the success of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill in fixing the Democrat-imposed 1099-K $600 reporting threshold and Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. A video of the Congresswoman’s questions followed by Secretary Bessent’s responses can be found here and is transcribed below. 

    Congresswoman Miller began by voicing support for the One, Big, Beautiful Bill’s inclusion of her Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act and asking Secretary Bessent about how reverting back to the time-tested standard of $20,000 and 200 transactions for 1099-K will positively affect taxpayers.

    “One of my top priorities in the tax package is to repeal the Democrat’s absurd 1099-K threshold. Under the Biden Administration, Democrats changed the time-tested standard of $20,000 and 200 transactions to $600 when determining whether a taxpayer receives a 1099-K or not. Before this committee, your predecessor acknowledged that this new threshold would be difficult to administer and lead to the taxpayer’s confusion. Instead of working with us to fix it, the Biden Treasury unconstitutionally delayed implementation and then changed the threshold to try and ease the taxpayer’s confusion in the election year. Unfortunately, there are still millions more 1099-K forms that were sent out and Republicans have worked to restore the 1099-K threshold to the time-tested standard of $20,000 and 200 transactions by including my Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. Can you shed some light on how this policy and others being produced from your Department will make life easier for taxpayers?” asked Congresswoman Carol Miller.
     
    “Representative, thank you for discussing these very important issues. As I said, I believe the underappreciated part of President Trump’s economic plan is the deregulation and what you were describing, the cutting back on paperwork that putting thresholds at proper level, is indeed deregulation, lower paperwork. And I think you correctly pointed out that the previous administration, I’m not sure that anyone ever signed […] the front of a paycheck or the back of a paycheck. I think they mostly received direct deposit from the US government because they’re always government employees. So, if you have never made payroll, if you were not processing paperwork, you don’t understand the costs that are inherent in this. If you are a small business person, if you or someone with a lawn care business. [… A]s you said, we have a completely new economy today with the gig economy, whether it is Uber drivers, delivery people, the contract workers who work from home […] in programming fields. So I think that it was tone deaf, completely tone deaf for the nature of the new economy,” replied Secretary Bessent.

    Congresswoman Miller concluded by sharing her support for President Trump’s ongoing trade negotiations and requested Secretary Bessent’s support to secure fairness for America’s domestic steel industry.
     
    “I also want to voice my support for the ongoing trade negotiations that the President and you are working on. For too long, our trusted trade partners have quietly taken advantage of the United States. I am a firm believer that trade truly is the great equalizer and a powerful tool to bring the world together. However, that tool can’t be used effectively if there isn’t fairness within trade deals. I am particularly interested in the domestic steel industry. West Virginia has been producing quality steel for decades, some in my hometown of Huntington, and my district is currently ramping up steel production even further with addition of new mills in Mason County. I am very supportive of the Section 232 tariffs on steel that the President has pursued and am eager to work together with the administration to ensure that a level playing field is also applied to the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal. The U.K. has a history of subsidizing its steel industry – which in turn often undercuts our domestic steel producers. Secretary Bessent, can you commit to continuing working to secure fairness for our domestic steel industry across trade deals?” asked Congresswoman Carol Miller.

    “Representative Miller, I had the privilege of being with the President at the U.S. steel factory in Pittsburgh a week ago Friday, and I can tell you that the President’s commitment to the U.S. steel industry is unwavering [and] that we are bringing back domestic production. And that what we have seen, and one of the previous questions about ‘is China a reliable partner?’, what we have seen during COVID since then is that there are strategic industries, strategic industries in the United States where we must have an industrial base, and I would put steel in the top three,” replied Secretary Bessent. 
     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Scalise Talks FBI Politicization

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Scalise (1st District of Louisiana)

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined Newsmax ahead of tonight’s Congressional Baseball Game to discuss the FBI falsely classifying the 2017 shooting as ‘suicide by cop’ and how Kash Patel has worked to release information around the incident to correct the record. Leader Scalise also outlined how the One Big Beautiful Bill unlocks economic growth by preventing a $4.5 trillion tax hike on American families and secures the border by funding more ICE agents.

    Click here or the image above to view Leader Scalise’s full interview. 
    On this year’s Congressional Baseball Game:“Well, feeling really good. Tonight, I drop all the titles, and I’m the leadoff batter for the team. And you know, we’re focused. We’ve been practicing. We want to win the game. We’re going to raise over two and a half million dollars for charity. So it’s a lot of fun. It’s a really good cause, but we’re competitive people, so we play to win, and we’re in the big league ballpark. We already are halfway there.”  On the transparency of Kash Patel’s FBI:“Well, I’m really glad and appreciative that Kash Patel got the facts out, because there were a lot of things not only suppressed, there were inaccuracies, deliberate inaccuracies, in the original report. They tried to call it suicide by cop. The gunman came out there, and he wasn’t only trying to kill all of us. He tried to kill the two cops that were with me once he found out they were cops because they were [dressed in] plain clothes, he didn’t know they were cops. And then he tried to kill them as he was trying to kill us. So, where the FBI got that original classification, we were furious about that. Kash and others changed it to what it was – domestic terrorism. But he’s also getting other facts out that I didn’t even know about the shooter. And so I think it’s good for the public to really see the full picture. You know why? The original FBI, back then in 2017 tried to change the narrative, tried to suppress facts, to say it wasn’t even politically motivated when it was clearly politically motivated. You know, call it what it is. I mean, their job should be to get the facts out wherever the facts lead. They didn’t do that in 2017. Kash Patel is getting them back to their original mission, and I appreciate it.”On securing President Trump’s agenda through reconciliation: “Look, I mean, we had a lot of internal conversations. Once Democrats walked away and said, because it’s President Trump’s signature achievement, Democrats decided they didn’t want to be a part of it, and that’s a shame, because this bill prevents a four-and-a-half trillion dollar tax hike on American families. So we came together as Republicans and said, if this is going to get done, and it has to get done, then it’s going to be us who does it. And so we put coalitions together. We built a really good coalition of members when we can only lose two votes or three votes at certain points, and then we got it done and sent it to the Senate.“You know, this is a really, really important bill. It’s One Big Beautiful Bill, but it has all of President Trump’s priorities – no tax increases, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. You know, you think about producing more energy in America. President Trump ran on it. We deliver. Having border security. You look at what’s going on in LA right now. You know, they’re waving foreign flags in American cities. President Trump said, I’m securing the border, and he’s done most of it, but he needs more money from Congress now to build the wall, to hire more Border Patrol and ICE agents. That’s in this bill, by the way, that’s another reason every Democrat voted no, is because we hire more ICE agents. They want to defund ICE. Does any American want to literally turn the streets of America over to hardened criminals from foreign countries? So all of that is in this bill. It will get our economy moving again. We’ve got to get it done. I don’t think the Senate is going to make a lot of big changes just because they have the same dynamics on their side. No Democrats will vote for it, so only Republicans are going to get it done. They just need to keep it moving, get it to his desk by July 4th so we can turn America around.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Halt Funding to El Salvador Mega-Prison

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mark Takano (D-Calif)

    June 12, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Mark Takano (CA-39) introduced a bill to halt and prohibit both current and future funding to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) maximum security prison. This comes after reports that the White House initiated a $6 million payment to the notorious prison to detain immigrants deported to El Salvador. 

    Credible reporting has revealed CECOT engages in human rights abusesto include beatings, electric shocks, and cruel living conditions. This bill would make perilously clear that CECOT should receive no financial support from the U.S. government in order to facilitate torture.

    “The United States should not be in the business of funding torture. CECOT is a mega-prison with a well-documented record of human rights abuses—electric shocks, beatings, and degrading conditions,” said Representative Mark Takano. “Yet the Trump Admin made a deal to send millions of taxpayer dollars to fund it. That is unacceptable. At a time when Republicans are trying to cut billions of dollars foreign assistance in the rescissions package, we cannot allow our tax dollars to bankroll a foreign facility that violates the very values we claim to stand for.”

    Read the full bill text here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy Leads Senate Vote to Block Trump’s Corrupt Weapons Deals

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    June 12, 2025

    [embedded content]
    WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Wednesday forced two votes in the Senate to object to President Trump’s corruption of U.S. foreign policy and block a $1.9 billion arms sale to Qatar and a $1.32 billion arms sale to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) after Trump demanded billions of dollars in luxury gifts and business deals from the two countries. Senate Republicans blocked the votes. Ahead of the votes, Murphy addressed his colleagues on the Senate floor.
    “What we need to say here is not that we are going to permanently pause our military relationships with these countries, but for the time being while these two nations are willing to pay the president tribute, we cannot endorse or condone business as usual. These are important partners of the United States in the region, and they will be important partners in the future, but this is an exceptional moment where the corruption and our effort to stop the corruption has to take priority and has to take precedent,” Murphy said.
    Murphy concluded: “And so, I’m going to vote for both of these resolutions while also still believing that we are going to have a continued, important bilateral relationship with Qatar and with the UAE. But if we start to endorse and grease the wheels of this kind of corruption, then there will be no end. Because once it becomes accepted, once it becomes implicitly endorsed by the United States Senate that foreign governments can put money into the personal treasury of the President in order to gain favorable treatment from the United States of America that becomes the way our foreign policy works.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy to Defense Secretary Hegseth: You Are Not Willing to Defend Our Democracy

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    [embedded content]

    WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, on Wednesday questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a Defense Subcommittee hearing on President Trump’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget. Murphy challenged Hegseth on his readiness to deploy the military for President Trump’s political benefit but not to defend the Capitol during January 6th. He also pushed Hegseth to explain why taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill to modify and upgrade the luxury jet the Qatari government gifted Trump for his personal use after his term ends. 

    Murphy pressed Hegseth for refusing to say whether he supported calling in the National Guard to quell the January 6th Capitol riot: “I think that speaks to the worry that many Americans have, that there is a double standard. That you are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president, but you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protesters who are criticizing the president. 

    Murphy continued: “That’s not how our taxpayer dollars are supposed to work. They’re supposed to be used to defend the United States, no matter the nature of the political affiliation of the protesters.” 

    Murphy highlighted the brazen corruption of using taxpayer dollars to upgrade the luxury jet from Qatar after Hegseth confirmed it would be transferred to Trump after his presidency ended:  “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of a billion dollars on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president? … I think this is extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. We’re talking about a pretty massive investment of appropriations dollars into a plane that, the Secretary is saying, is currently planned to be transferred personally to the president. There’s a lot of other pending needs that we need to fund. This would seem to be low on the list.” 

    A full transcript of Murphy’s exchange with Hegseth can be found below:

    MURPHY: “Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary for being here today.

    “I wanted to build on some of the questions that Senator Schatz was asking, just to try to build a fact predicate for some of the tough spending decisions we’re going to have to make here. Just to confirm, I heard you say, with respect to the gift of the plane from Qatar, that we do not yet have a signed MOU with the government of Qatar, is that right?”

    HEGSETH: “Correct. We’re in the process of working through that.”

    MURPHY: “And did you also say we don’t have a signed contract with the company that is going to do the work, or did you say that we have a contract, you’re just not willing to disclose the terms?”

    HEGSETH: “The terms should not be disclosed of anything related to an aircraft of this type.”

    MURPHY: “So, in 2018, when the contract was signed with Boeing to do the upgrades, or the new contracts for Air Force One, the terms of that contract were disclosed. They were made public. In fact, it was the Trump administration that issued a press release giving the total as $3.9 billion. Are you saying this time around, even after you signed the contract, you’re not going to make public any of the terms of the contract?”

    HEGSETH: “I wasn’t involved in that previous administration decision, but we’re happy to take a look.”

    MURPHY: “The Air Force testified before the House that that contract would likely deliver the new Air Force Ones by the 2028 timeframe. It doesn’t stand to reason that you will be able to retrofit the plane from Qatar much sooner than 2028. I’m trying to understand what the gap is that we’re trying to fill. If this contract ends up being a half a billion dollars and the gap only ends up being six months, that doesn’t sound like a wise investment for this committee to make.”

    HEGSETH: “Senator, I would defer to the expertise of the Air Force as far as timing of modifications and when that would happen, but there’s also been delay after delay after delay on the Boeing side, so I don’t know that a firm fixed date yet, unfortunately, can be counted on.”

    MURPHY: “So, obviously the underlying question here is ‘what is going to happen to the plane at the end of Trump’s presidency?’ The president said on May 12 that this plane would be transferred to his presidential library at the end of his term. Is that your understanding of what is going to happen with this plane?”

    HEGSETH: “The president said that. That’s my understanding, although I would look at what comes out in the MOU.”

    MURPHY: “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of a billion dollars on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president? That doesn’t sound like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.”

    HEGSETH: “A lot of the capabilities, as you know, Senator, of that particular platform are and should remain classified. So there are reasons why you might modify, even for a short period of time, an aircraft to ensure the safety and security of the president of the United States.”

    MURPHY: “When do you believe that those upgrades would be made? How long would the president have it before it got transferred to his personal possession?”

    HEGSETH: “That would be a determination of the Air Force, that would take hold of it and make those modifications within whatever time window they believe gets it to the place where it needed to be.”

    MURPHY: “Yeah, I think this is extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. We’re talking about a pretty massive investment of appropriations dollars into a plane that, the secretary is saying, is currently planned to be transferred personally to the president. There’s a lot of other pending needs that we need to fund. This would seem to be low on the list. 

    “Mr. Secretary, one final question. Obviously you know that there is a concern in the public about a double standard that is applied to protests – sometimes protest that turns violent. The president, when he came into office, issued pardons to the individuals that attacked the United States Capitol, including those individuals who beat, savagely, police officers. You have deployed the National Guard and readied Marines in a way that many people think is unnecessary given the state and the local resources. So maybe let me ask the question this way so that you can assuage people’s concerns that there is a double standard: the National Guard was deployed here on January 6, and that was a decision made by the Department of Defense. Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that was the right decision, to deploy the National Guard to defend the Capitol on January 6?”

    HEGSETH: “All I know is it’s the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents, who deserve to be defended in the execution of their jobs.”

    MURPHY: “But I think it’s important to know whether you think it was also important to have the National Guard defending the United States Capitol, when there were violent protesters here on the president’s behalf, to make sure that folks know that you care about protest, whether it’s against the president or on behalf of the president.”

    HEGSETH: “Senator, I was in the Washington D.C. National Guard when that happened, and was initially ordered to go guard the inauguration of Joe Biden. But because of the politicization of the Biden administration, my orders were revoked, and ultimately, because of the politics that were being played inside the Defense Department by the previous administration.”

    MURPHY: “But do you support the decision made on January 6 to send the National Guard here to defend the Capitol?”

    HEGSETH: “I support the decision that President Trump made, in requesting the National Guard, that was denied. President Trump requested support for the National Guard in advance and was denied.”

    MURPHY: “You do not support the decision to send the National Guard here to defend the Capitol.  I think that speaks to the worry that many Americans have, that there is a double standard. That you are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president, but you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protesters who are criticizing the president. That’s not how our taxpayer dollars are supposed to work. They’re supposed to be used to defend the United States, no matter the nature of the political affiliation of the protesters. 

    “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Kelly statement on anti-ICE protests in Chicago

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Robin Kelly IL

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (IL-02) released a statement following peaceful protests in Chicago against the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE):

    “Yesterday, thousands of people exercised their constitutional right to peacefully assemble in Chicago to defend their immigrant neighbors. Unlawful detentions and arrests by ICE in the city have caused fear, chaos and untold grief in immigrant communities. The separation of families and random deportation quotas are cruel. I will continue to defend the human dignity of those who choose to call Illinois their home and the civil rights of protestors.

    “As protests in Chicago continue to remain peaceful, I warn against any similar actions taken by President Trump in Los Angeles. He deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles, calling protestors ‘violent, insurrectionist mobs.’ Where was the National Guard when MAGA extremists stormed the Capitol? I still remember crawling on my hands and knees on the House gallery with my colleagues as we escaped on January 6 – that was a violent insurrection. President Trump needs to stop escalating the situation in Los Angeles and pull out the Marines and National Guard. These abuses of power against our democracy would not be welcomed in Chicago.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Global outrage over Gaza has reinforced a ‘siege mentality’ in Israel – what are the implications for peace?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Eyal Mayroz, Senior Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney

    After more than 20 months of devastating violence in Gaza, the right-wing Israeli government’s pursuit of two irreconcilable objectives — “destroying” Hamas and releasing Israeli hostages — has left the coastal strip in ruins.

    At least 54,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military, close to two million have been forcibly displaced, and many are starving. These atrocities have provoked intense moral outrage around the world and turned Israel into a pariah state.

    Meanwhile, Hamas is resolved to retain control over Gaza, even at the cost of sacrificing numerous innocent Palestinian lives for its own survival.

    Both sides have been widely accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and mainly in Israel’s case, genocide.

    While the obstacles to ending the fighting remain stubbornly difficult to overcome, a troubling pattern has become increasingly apparent.

    The very outrage that succeeded in mobilising, sustaining and swelling international opinion against Israel’s actions — a natural psychological response to systematic injustice — has also reinforced a “siege mentality” already present among many in its Jewish population.

    This siege mentality may have undermined more proactive Israeli Jewish public support for a ceasefire and “day-after” concessions.

    A toxic cocktail of emotions

    Several dominant groups have shaped the conflict’s dynamics, each driven by a distinct set of emotional responses.

    For many Israeli Jews, the massacres of October 7 have aggravated longstanding feelings of victimhood and mistrust, fears of terrorist attacks, perceptions of existential threats, intergenerational traumas stemming from the Holocaust, and importantly, the strong sense of siege mentality.

    Together, these emotions have produced a toxic blend of anger, hatred and intense desire for revenge.

    For the Palestinians, Israel’s devastation of Gaza has followed decades of oppressive occupation, endless rights violations, humiliation and dispossession. This has exacerbated feelings of hopelessness, fear and abandonment by the world.

    The wider, global pro-Palestinian camp has been driven by moral outrage over the atrocities being committed in Gaza, alongside empathy for the victims and a sense of guilt over Western governments’ complicity in the killings through the provision of arms to Israel.

    Similarly, for Israel’s supporters around the world, anger and resentment have led to feelings of persecution, and in turn, victimisation and a sense of siege.

    Many on both sides have become prisoners of this moral outrage. And this has suppressed compassion for the suffering of the “other” — those we perceive as perpetrators of injustice against the side we support.

    Complaints of bias and content omissions

    Choosing sides in a conflict translates almost inevitably into biases in how we select, process and assess new information.

    We search for content that confirms what we already believe. And we discount information that would go against our pre-existing perceptions.

    This tendency also increases our sensitivity to omissions of facts we deem important for our cause.

    Since early in the crisis, voices in the two camps have accused the mainstream media in the West of biased coverage in favour of the “other”. These feelings have added fuel to the moral outrage and sense of injustice among both sides.

    Outrage in the pro-Israel camp has focused mainly on a perceived global conspiracy to absolve Hamas of any responsibility.

    In that view, Israel has been singled out as the only culpable party for the killings in Gaza. This is despite the fact Hamas unleashed the violence on October 7, used the Gazan population as human shields while hiding in tunnels, and refused to release all the Israeli hostages to end the fighting.

    On the other side, pro-Palestinian outrage has focused on “blatant” omissions by the media and Western governments of important historical facts that could provide context for the October 7 attacks.

    These included:

    On both sides, then, significant focus has been placed on omissions of facts that could support one’s own narrative or cause.

    A siege mentality in Israel

    Many Israelis continue to relive October 7 while remaining decidedly blind to the daily horrors their military inflicts on Gaza in their name. For them, the global outrage has reinforced a long-existing and potent siege mentality.

    This mindset has been fed by a reluctance to directly challenge Israeli soldiers risking their lives and other rally-around-the-flag effects. It’s also been bolstered by the desire for revenge and an intense campaign of dehumanising all Palestinians — Hamas or not.

    The so-called “ring of fire” created around Israel by Iran and its proxies —Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Houthis — has further amplified this siege mentality. Their stated objective is the destruction of Israel.

    I’ve conducted an exploratory study of Israeli media, government statements and English Jewish diaspora publications from October 2023 to May 2025, reviewing some 5,000 articles and video clips.

    In this research, I’ve identified strong, consistent uses of siege mentality language, phrases such as:

    In a detailed analysis of 65 English articles from major Israeli outlets, such as The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel, and Jewish publications in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, I found siege mentality language in nearly nine out of ten searches.

    Importantly, nearly half of these occurrences were in response to pro-Palestinian rhetoric or advocacy: campus protests and actions targeting Israelis or Jews, university groups refusing to condemn October 7, or foreign governments’ recognition of Palestinian statehood.

    The sharp increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish installations since October 7 has also sparked global debates over rising antisemitism. Distinguishing honest critiques of Israel’s actions in Gaza from antisemitic rhetoric has become contentious, as has the use of antisemitism claims by Israeli leaders to dismiss much of this criticism.

    Moving forward

    When viewed through the prism of injustice, the strong asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian suffering has long been apparent. But it’s grown even wider following Israel’s brutal responses to October 7.

    The culpability of Israel’s government and Hamas for the atrocities in Gaza is incontestable. However, many in the Israeli-Jewish public must also share some of the blame for refusing to stand up to – or by actively supporting – their extremist government’s policies.

    The pro-Palestine movement’s justice-driven campaigns have done much to combat international bystanding and motivate governments to act. At the same time, the unwillingness to unite behind a clearer unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’ massacres may have been a strategic mistake.

    By ignoring or minimising the targeting of civilians, the hostage-taking and the reports of sexual violence committed by Hamas, a vocal minority of advocates has weakened the movement’s otherwise strong moral authority with some of the audiences it needed to influence most. First and foremost, this is people in Israel itself.

    My research suggests that while injustice-based outrage can be effective at generating attention and engagement, it can also produce negative side effects. One adverse impact has been the polarisation of the public debate over Gaza, which, in turn, has contributed to the intensification of Israelis’ siege mentality.

    Noam Chomsky, a well-known Jewish academic and fierce critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, once noted in relation to Palestinian advocacy:

    You have to ask yourself, when you conduct some tactic, what the effect is going to be on the victims. You don’t pursue a tactic because it makes you feel good.

    The question, then, is how to harness the strong mobilising power of moral outrage for positive ends – preventing bystander apathy to atrocities – without the potential negative consequences. These include polarisation, expanded violence, feeding a siege mentality (when applicable), and making peace negotiations more difficult.

    The children in Gaza and elsewhere in the world deserve advocacy that will prioritise their welfare over the release of moral outrage — however justified.

    So, what approaches would most effectively help end the suffering?

    Most immediately, the solution rests primarily with Israel and, by extension, the Trump administration as the only international actor powerful enough to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to halt the killings.

    Beyond that, and looking toward the future, justice-based activism should be grounded in universal moral principles, acknowledge all innocent victims, and work to create space for both societies to recognise each other’s humanity.

    I served as a counterterrorism specialist with the Israeli Defence Forces in the 1980s.

    – ref. Global outrage over Gaza has reinforced a ‘siege mentality’ in Israel – what are the implications for peace? – https://theconversation.com/global-outrage-over-gaza-has-reinforced-a-siege-mentality-in-israel-what-are-the-implications-for-peace-258561

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Should global media giants shape our cultural and media policy? Lessons from satellite radio

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brian Fauteux, Associate Professor Popular Music and Media Studies, University of Alberta

    Debates about regulating Canadian content for streaming media platforms are ongoing, and key issues include revising the definition of Canadian content for audio and visual cultural productions and whether big streaming companies would be mandated to follow new Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) policies.

    Global streaming companies are fighting regulations requiring them to fund Canadian content and news.

    The Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents large streamers like Netflix, Amazon and Disney, has argued that the CRTC should not impose “mandatory positions, functions or elements of a ‘Canadian program’” on global streaming companies.

    The Online Streaming Act, passed in 2023, amended the Broadcasting Act to “ensure that online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content.”

    For example, according to the act, online audio streaming services that make more than $25 million in annual revenue and that aren’t affiliated with a Canadian broadcaster will contribute five per cent of those funds to organizations such as FACTOR, Musicaction, the Community Radio Fund of Canada and the Indigenous Music Office, among others.

    This has the potential to benefit musicians in Canada. But Apple and Spotify, and other tech and music companies, have banded together (under the Digital Media Association, DiMA), labelling the act a “streaming tax” on users.

    This is a pivotal moment to think about the important role of policy to support Canada’s independent artists, as well as public and community media, and the increasing power of global streaming companies when it comes to setting the terms of cultural policy. One way to do this is to consider the trajectory of satellite radio.



    Read more:
    Canada’s identity is at stake if we don’t equitably fund and support its music now

    Lessons from satellite radio

    As I have previously argued, the history of satellite radio anticipated the broader turn to subscription music listening. Similarly, the story of satellite radio in Canada exemplifies the tensions arising in policymaking today with streaming media.

    As I discuss in my new book, Music in Orbit: Satellite Radio in the Streaming Space Age, the launch of subscription satellite radio services in the United States in 2001, and their subsequent entry into the Canadian market in 2005, raised questions about how to regulate these new services.

    Canadian content regulations had been established for broadcast radio in 1971, and these needed to be sorted out for satellite radio channels. Many artists and music industry workers were keen to allow the service to enter the country, while others were concerned with the lack of substantial cultural protectionism.

    Canadian content for satellite

    When the CRTC first licensed Sirius and XM in Canada, the license stipulated that each provider had to offer at least eight Canadian-produced channels, each with at least 85 per cent Canadian content. (These guidelines countered the satellite providers’ proposal of only four Canadian channels each.) Later, the CRTC revised regulations, so that no less than 10 per cent of unique channels, per provider, had to be Canadian.

    Critics felt that relegating Canadian music to a small selection of channels higher on the channel lineup (in the 160s and 170s) was a disservice to Canadian content regulations, as those channels were easy to ignore. They also thought that, overall, the domestic music content featured on satellite would be lower than what was heard on terrestrial radio.

    During the 2004 CRTC public hearing before the licensing of Sirius and XM in Canada, Neil Dixon, the president of Canadian Music Week, argued that “one of the most difficult things we had to do in promoting independent music on an independent label was getting it outside this country.”

    Dixon championed the advantages of satellite radio in comparison to terrestrial radio, as did several creatives entities. They spoke of the belief and hope in seeing Canadian, as well as Indigenous artists, heard beyond Canadian borders and in areas not served by broadcast radio.

    CBC Radio 3 and satellite

    Among the Canadian satellite channels was CBC Radio 3, a channel programming 100 per cent independent Canadian music. It served as a beacon of hope for Canadian artists because its music programming drew from a wide variety of artists who had not yet received commercial radio play. This channel came from a financial and programming partnership between CBC, the public broadcaster, and Sirius Canada.

    Years after the 2011 merger of Sirius and XM in Canada, SiriusXM Canada was restructured in 2016, with 70 per cent of the company now owned by U.S. SiriusXM. This also meant that the CBC would cease being a shareholder in SiriusXM Canada.

    In 2022, Sirius XM Canada announced it was removing CBC Radio 3 and CBC Country; these were replaced by channels programmed by SiriusXM. The company also cut French-language CBC music channels ICI Musique Franco-Country and ICI Musique Chansons and introduced new French music channels.

    Uproar over cutting of CBC channels

    The cutting of CBC channels sparked uproar among artists in Canada, namely independent ones. SiriusXM had become a major income source for Canadian artists, particularly by comparison to the low royalty payments from Canadian commercial radio and streaming platforms.

    One headline in the Toronto Star read: “‘Final nail in the coffin’: Why SiriusXM dropping CBC Radio 3 is ‘potentially catastrophic’ for Canadian artists.”

    For artists, a royalty payment could be about $50 per play, divided between artist and owner of the song’s master (typically labels).



    Read more:
    Artists’ Spotify criticisms point to larger ways musicians lose with streaming — here’s 3 changes to help in Canada

    Subscription radio and superstar artists

    Among the new channels introduced by SiriusXM when it simultaneously cut CBC channels was Mixtape North, devoted to Canadian hip hop and R&B.

    Such a channel has the potential to support upcoming Canadian artists in these genres. However, the Mixtape North channel description mentions massively successful commercial artists: “Playing the newest hits from Drake and Jessie Reyez to classic throwbacks from Kardinal Offishall and K-OS to emerging voices.” In late May 2025, according to xmplaylist.com, the most played artists were The Weeknd and Drake, as well as Melanie Fiona, who has a new song with American artist LaRussell.

    A balance between superstar artists and smaller or independent artists is evident. The channel seems designed for more superstar artists than Radio 3, because it is without the CBC’s public media mandate to play independent artists.

    Precarity of public media institutions

    SiriusXM is a massive commercial subscription radio company with a long history of working to alter cultural policy in its favour. Some have argued that it didn’t make sense for a public media company to partner with a commercial subscription radio service in this way.

    The precarious position of public institutions and regulations to support smaller or independent artists remains a pressing issue. Traditional public broadcasters globally, since at least the early 2000s, have faced a growing pressure to reconceive service delivery and responsiveness to public needs and interests, and the multimedia ways people may want to tune in or engage.



    Read more:
    Trump and many GOP lawmakers want to end all funding for NPR and PBS − unraveling a US public media system that took a century to build

    The story of satellite radio exemplifies an imperfect approach to supporting Canadian culture across the digital and streaming music era, as well as the competing commercial and public interests in policymaking.

    We need to pay careful attention to the uneven power dynamics between major media companies and then the musicians and music lovers who live by the rules established through policymaking.

    Brian Fauteux receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Should global media giants shape our cultural and media policy? Lessons from satellite radio – https://theconversation.com/should-global-media-giants-shape-our-cultural-and-media-policy-lessons-from-satellite-radio-257531

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Democrats Want to Defund and Dismantle ICE

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

    WASHINGTON — The heroic men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) work around the clock to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens from the U.S. Since President Trump returned to office, ICE has deported murderers, wife-beaters, child sex predators, and violent gang members, making our communities safer. Despite the important work this agency does day in and day out, Democrats take the side of the criminals and want to defund and dismantle it.

       

    “Peaceful” Anti-ICE Protests in Los Angeles

    “While Republicans are supporting the men and women of ICE through the One Big Beautiful Bill, Democrats are fighting for illegal aliens and against law enforcement agents. They’re defending the violent anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles. They visited a violent MS-13 gang member and human trafficker in El Salvador,” Speaker Johnson said. “They charged an ICE facility in Newark and clashed with ICE officers. That was members of the House of Representatives doing that. They’re advocating for people to dox ICE agents and making them targets for threats from radicals. And they’re calling for the elimination of ICE.”

    DEMOCRATS IN THEIR OWN WORDS

    “I believe that ICE, an agency that was just formed in 2003 during the Patriot Act era, is a rogue agency that should not exist.” – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    “Every single ICE agent who’s engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people, will be unsuccessful in doing that…every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will, of course, be identified.” — Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries

    “Donald Trump’s modern-day gestapo…” — Minnesota Governor Tim Walz

    “I don’t know of any police department that routinely wears masks. We know that there are other groups that routinely wear masks. NSC-131 routinely wears masks.” — Boston Mayor Michelle Wu

    “ICE,  get the f*** out of L.A.” — Rep. Norma Torres

    “This is not immigration policy that we’re seeing unfold. This is domestic terrorism.” – Rep. Kamlager-Dove

    Activists are taking these words to heart. According to the Department of Homeland Security, brave and patriotic ICE agents are facing a 413% increase in assaults against them.

    Federal law enforcement officers that keep our communities safe deserve our support. And the One Big Beautiful Bill delivers it.

    • Makes the largest investment in border security and interior enforcement in a generation, providing over $150 billion to secure the border and deport illegal aliens
    • Includes $45 billion to expand ICE detention capacity
    • Provides $12 billion in funding to hire 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and 1,000 criminal investigators, among others
    • Provides $10,000 bonuses to Border Patrol and ICE agents
    • Includes $1.2 billion to hire 200 immigration judges and to expand immigration courtroom space
    • Includes $14.4 billion for air and ground transportation sufficient to support at least 1 million removals per year

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: WATCH: Pingree Rips into GOP Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Failing to Deliver on Health, Food Security, and Farm Resilience

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (1st District of Maine)

    Today in the full Appropriations Committee markup of the Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration funding bill for Fiscal Year 2026, Senior Appropriator Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) called out the Trump Administration’s hypocrisy, touting a “Make America Healthy Again” agenda while stripping access to healthy food away from families and children. A summary of the bill is available here.

    “14,000 families use WIC in my state. That’s a lot in a state of only 1.3 million people. This is a way to make sure we have healthier fruits and vegetables and better health outcomes for young children in their diet,” Pingree said. “You know, this is the administration of ‘MAHA’—Make America Healthy Again. And how do we expect to make America healthy if we are not going to make sure that people get that healthy food in their diet?”

    [embedded content]

    Watch Pingree’s opening remarks here; Watch the full markup here.

    In her opening remarks, Pingree also railed against the bill’s attacks on supporting farmers impacted by the effects of climate change, dispelling the notion that these programs are “woke” or part of a “liberal climate change agenda.” 

    “When we talk about conservation funds and the cuts there, or the ‘climate change agenda’ as if it’s some woke thing – who deserves more attention than our farmers who are dealing with this extreme weather? That is our responsibility and these programs that help them to access no till agriculture or cover crops or more irrigation. These are the very things that we should be funding now,” Pingree said. “Our farmers deserve our attention. This is not woke. This is not some crazy liberal climate change agenda. This is what’s really going on with our weather right now. And we are derelict in our duty. We are not holding up our responsibility to farmers.”

    A transcript of Pingree’s full remarks is copied below:

    I’m disappointed that I can’t support this bill. The Agriculture Appropriations Committee in this bill is my second favorite subcommittee after, of course, the work I do with Mr. Simpson on the Interior bill. And I am sorry that this bill isn’t a better piece of work from this committee.

    One of the things I love about this bill is that we’re really focusing on farmers and what people eat, and we need to ask ourselves, as we look at this bill in its entirety, what are we doing to help our farmers stay on their farms, to access capital, to be sure that they can purchase or own a farm, to increase their family income, to make ends meet, and to keep their farms in business during these ever challenging times?

    The reason you’ll hear a lot today, and we’ve already heard some about the cuts to the local food purchase assistance program and the local foods and schools programs, and I’m going to talk about it today in much more detail in an amendment, is because it is such a good example of a program that was designed to give farmers contracts to supply food to local schools, food banks, and other entities in our home states.

    We spend so much time talking about how to get more healthy foods in our diets, how to make sure we give farmers the contracts they need, and for the farmers in Maine who lost those contracts when this was ridiculously cut, it was part of making ends meet. It was part of their winter income. As part of what they had planned for everything from yogurt to carrots to apples to a whole variety of other things.

    And that was true in states across the country. And we’ve ended that program and that is an example of something that we should be doing the reverse of in this program. There are other cuts to making sure people get healthy food in their diet, the cuts to WIC – fruits and vegetables that we will talk about more in an amendment today, 14,000 families use WIC in my state.

    That’s a lot in a state of only 1.3 million people. And again, this is a way to make sure we have healthier fruits and vegetables, better health outcomes for young children in their diet. You know, this is the administration of “MAHA” – Make America Healthy Again. And how do we expect to make America healthy if we are not going to make sure that people get that healthy food in their diet?

    Housing is another cut in this bill. Housing is the number 1 or 2 issue for so many people in my state. The cost of housing, the challenges with finding affordable housing. And we are making cuts there, $46 million of cuts overall to rural development staffing. I have a constituent in my district, Hillary, who is disabled in her 40s.

    She was getting a home through an RD loan. It’s her only viable pathway to home ownership. She’s taken all the steps she needs to: completed her homebuyer education, submitted her paperwork on time … But after years of delays, because of funding cuts, she’s finally where she should be, but there is no staff to process her loan to answer the phone.

    Her calls and emails are going unanswered, and there’s a question about whether or not she will get to the finish line. Those staffing cuts are throughout our districts, in our local offices, and we talk about how to make sure our farmers are able and eligible to get the funding, whether it is, through a conservation program, through a loan.

    But so many of our offices now are understaffed and underfunded, and I know we will be talking more about that. We’ll talk about the cuts. The Dairy Farmers Innovation program. In my state, dairy farmers are under assault, just barely making it. Now, so many of the amendments we’ll have today, we’re going to hear this reply: “Oh, that’s just woke Democratic thinking” or “that’s climate change agenda” or that’s “pre-pandemic money or pandemic money that we don’t need anymore.”

    But you know we learned a lot of lessons in the pandemic. We learned that our supply chains were broken, that we should buy more locally. That’s why we have these programs. Yet we’re having them cut out from under us. When we talk about conservation funds and the cuts there, or the “climate change agenda” as if it’s some woke thing – who deserves more attention than our farmers who are dealing with this extreme weather? That is our responsibility and these programs that help them to access no till agriculture or cover crops or more irrigation or a whole variety of other things are the very things that we should be funding now.

    Our farmers deserve our attention. This is not woke. This is not some crazy liberal climate change agenda. This is what’s really going on with our weather right now. And we are derelict in our duty. We are not holding up our responsibility to farmers and to making sure our constituents get that healthy food. We’ll have many opportunities to talk about this today.

    I’m sorry, I have to oppose this bill.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The big Musk v Trump break-up: what the polls say about who the public thinks won

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

    Many people thought that the close relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk would end badly, since they both have the hubris that comes from success and power. One is arguably the most powerful politician in the world and the other the richest man.

    That said, most people were not prepared for the rapid breakdown in their relationship and the slanging match that took place after Musk spectacularly fell out with the US president. This was magnified by the fact that both have their own influential social media sites (X and Truth Social) and so the divorce was very, very public.

    More recently Musk has rowed back on the comments he made about Trump after leaving his role as a “special government employee” of the administration, and says he went “too far”. But Trump might have a long memory for grievances, so it remains to be seen if the relationship can be patched up.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    What do the American people think? The chart below shows the percentage of respondents with favourable and unfavourable opinions of Trump and Musk in the most recent US Economist/YouGov poll completed on June 9 after the row blew up.

    It is clear that the most people think that Trump won the contest, giving him a favourability gap (% favourable minus % unfavourable) of minus 10% compared with Musk’s gap of minus 23%.

    What Americans think of Trump and Musk after their row:


    Author’s graph based on Economist polling., CC BY-SA

    The demographics of these favourability judgements are particularly interesting. After the row, around 49% of men thought favourably of Trump, compared with 38% of women, continuing a trend that shows more male than female support for the president. But the gender gap for Musk is even wider with 43% men and only 27% women having a favourable view of the billionaire, making the gap 11% for Trump and 16% for Musk.

    Another interesting demographic is age. Some 35% of 18-to-29 year olds favour Trump (the lowest number of any age group), compared with 30% who favour Musk. The equivalent figures for the over 65s are 45% favouring Trump and 37% Musk. The age divide is wide, with young Americans disliking both more than older Americans, but it is not as wide as the gender gap.

    The income figures and attitudes to both are surprising. A total of 38% of those with incomes less than US$50,000 (£36,700) a year favour Trump, compared with 51% of those with incomes between US$50,000 and US$100,000. The surprise is that only 42% of those with incomes greater than US$100,000 favour Trump, making affluent Americans closer to the low-income group than to the middle-income group in attitudes to the president.

    The equivalent figures for Musk are 32% favourable in the US$50,000 group, 39% in the US$50,000 to US$100,000 group and 36% in the US$100,000+ group, which gives a similar picture.

    If we look at the voting record of the survey respondents in the presidential elections last year, 86% of Trump voters still have a favourable view of him, compared with only 5% of Harris voters. In comparison 67% of Republican voters are favourable to Musk, compared with 10% of Democrats. Equally, 81% of Conservatives favour Trump compared with 67% who favour Musk.

    Looking at the overall picture Musk is the loser in the row as far as the American public are concerned, and this may in part explain his apparent contrition.

    The price of Tesla shares (US$) since the presidential election:


    Author’s graph based on data from Yahoo finance., CC BY

    Overall though, Trump has been gradually losing support on his job approval since the election and the polling shows that 43% of respondents approve and 52% disapprove of his performance as president.

    We don’t have equivalent figures for Musk, but if we take the stock market price of Tesla shares as a guide to his approval ratings this has declined rapidly over time as the chart shows. On December 17 last year the price was US$480 (£353) per share, compared with US$332 per share on June 11 2025. This represents a fall of about 30%. The dramatic dip at the end of the series is an indicator of how markets have reacted to the spat between them.

    Following his public break-up with Trump, Musk’s other major company, Space X, is also likely to face fallout. It is a private company and so does not have a share price, but it is heavily dependent on contracts from the US government to keep going. It seems likely that the flow of contracts for space projects is likely to dry up following the row with Trump, as the president has suggested.

    Overall, Musk has paid a heavy price for becoming such a visible Trump supporter and subsequently falling out with him. And, so far, the public appears to be on Trump’s side.

    Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

    – ref. The big Musk v Trump break-up: what the polls say about who the public thinks won – https://theconversation.com/the-big-musk-v-trump-break-up-what-the-polls-say-about-who-the-public-thinks-won-258841

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to Train Your Dragon: refreshed visuals don’t save this remake’s hackneyed American exceptionalism

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Louisa Bowen, Head of Animation at the Northern Film School, Leeds Beckett University

    The original DreamWorks animated feature film, How To Train Your Dragon, was released in 2010 to widespread critical acclaim. Praised for its innovative 3D animation, emotional depth and stunning flying sequences, spectacle converged with identity, inclusion and a story of generational change that adhered to a reassuringly traditional narrative structure. Fifteen years later, in a world more politically fractured, the live-action remake has been released.

    The original film confidently mastered the uncanny valley issues of early 3D animation. This new live-action version builds on its success and presents a spectacular photo-realistic fantasy world.

    Hyper-real flight sequences offer immersion in ways that have appealed to audiences since the inception of cinema when phantom rides simulated the thrill of speed and continuous movement from a first person perspective.

    There are references to other films throughout, including Titanic (1997), Saving Private Ryan (1998) and the Alien and Harry Potter franchises. But even with its extensive use of CGI and visual effects, the differences between the live-action and animation are not as pronounced as might be expected in films made 15 years apart.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Significant differences are apparent when it comes to the characters, however. The 2025 reinterpretations of Hiccup (Mason Thames), Astrid (Nico Parker) and Stoic (Hiccup’s father, played by Gerard Butler) seem less nuanced than the original versions. With animated characters, the audience accepts a stylised story world and character motivation more readily. But translated to live action, their motivations now feel as though they turn on a sixpence. As such they come across more as narrative devices than psychologically developed characters.

    The story centres on a young Viking named Hiccup. He looks older here than the original animated 15-year-old, but like most heroes heading off for a rite of passage, he is still awkward, cerebral and caught in the space between boyhood and an adult masculinity.

    Hiccup is expected to kill a dragon as his initiation into adulthood. Instead, he bonds with the fearful Night Fury Dragon (which he names Toothless), and relates to the creature’s feelings of exclusion. This furthers his understanding of the creature he has injured and leads him to question the beliefs of his community.

    The trailer for How to Train Your Dragon.

    When Hiccup reaches out (a moment of welcome respite in the relentless musical score) to Toothless, the most feared dragon, becomes puppy-like with exuberance, gratitude and goodwill. This underlines the film’s themes of empathy over power and a vision for a world that is remade through connection. As such, Hiccup’s mastery of Toothless, through mutual trust and consent, belongs to a cinematic lineage of children and their animal companions.

    American exceptionalism

    The film begins with an introduction to the village of Berk that is under aerial bombardment from dragons. The plucky island community endures the raids with a grit and stoicism that is reminiscent of cinematic representations of the British during the blitz.

    If the dragons are stand-ins for the German Luftwaffe Messerschmitt, then Toothless is all RAF Spitfire. The aerial combat takes a new direction when the attacking dragons are revealed to be controlled by tyrannical alpha dragon, The Red Death.

    The voice casting of the villagers distracts from the action, however. The established Viking community is represented by a range of identities. All the adults speak with British accents while their children, the future inheritors, have an American lilt.

    Tradition versus modernity is one of the themes of the film.

    The implication is that the old Viking community is blinkered by tradition while the American youths represent modernity through reason and inclusion. This hackneyed trope of a traditional community stuck in the past until the Americans drive progress remains in this live-action version. It contradicts the film’s themes of inclusion and understanding by perpetuating an American exceptionalism that resonates with cultural shifts in the aftermath of the second world war.

    As such, the choice of accents is not merely a concession to the market but a continuation of the cultural hegemony of US war narratives. Even though the Battle of Britain was mostly a British, European and Commonwealth effort, it’s the legacy of the Eagle Squadrons, those rule-breaking Americans, who are alluded to here.

    This live-action version of How To Train Your Dragon is therefore refreshed in its visuals only. The dreams, cultural anxieties and post-war allusions remain. The question then is this: after Trump’s reshaping of America’s relationship with the UK and Europe, is a second world war meta-narrative still going to fly?

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

    – ref. How to Train Your Dragon: refreshed visuals don’t save this remake’s hackneyed American exceptionalism – https://theconversation.com/how-to-train-your-dragon-refreshed-visuals-dont-save-this-remakes-hackneyed-american-exceptionalism-258496

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Raul Ruiz Defends the Antiquities Act and California’s Public Lands from Political Attack

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Raul Ruiz (36th District of California)

    Washington, D.C. – The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, was designed to protect areas of cultural, historical, and scientific significance. Its purpose is to preserve these vital resources for the public and for future generations.

    The Trump Administration’s efforts to undermine this law will set a dangerous precedent. Rolling back protections not only disregards the intent of the Antiquities Act, it puts at risk the very lands and resources this law was meant to safeguard.

    This action would harm veterans, tribal communities, working families, and endangered species. It strips away protections that uphold our responsibility to leave the earth better than we found it, for the benefit of generations to come.

    This is yet another attack in a long line of actions targeting California. I will not stand by while our public lands, communities, and future are under threat. I will keep fighting to protect what belongs to all of us.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Bullish on Drone Stocks as Recent Executive Orders Focuses on Strengthening U.S. Leadership for Drone Operations

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    PALM BEACH, Fla., June 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FN Media Group News Commentary – On Friday, June 6, the White House issued two sweeping executive orders focused on strengthening U.S. leadership in uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS, or drones). These actions aim to streamline rulemaking for enabling regulations, fortify domestic supply chains and promote manufacturing, advance security measures, and align federal operations with emerging aviation technologies. The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) applauds the Administration’s commitment to advancing drone integration through timely, coordinated federal action. These Executive Orders mark a significant step toward reducing regulatory uncertainty, accelerating innovation and manufacturing, and reinforcing U.S. competitiveness in the global autonomy race. AUVSI envisions a future where uncrewed systems, robotics, and autonomous technologies are seamlessly integrated to solve critical challenges resulting in lasting safety and societal benefits, economic growth, and enhanced national security. AUVSI represents leaders from more than 60 countries across industry, government, and academia in the defense, civil and commercial sectors. Our strength is in our community, which gathers in-person and online to share new ideas, promote effective policy, advocate for the value of autonomous technology, and spark new partnerships. Active Companies in the markets today include ZenaTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZENA), Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT), Ondas Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: ONDS), Draganfly Inc. (NASDAQ: DPRO), AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. (NYSE: UAVS).

    The AUVSI article added: “Today is a historic day for the drone industry in the United States. The White House Executive Orders issued today showcase that drones are critical to American economic strength, national security, and global leadership” said Michael Robbins, AUVSI’s President & CEO. “AUVSI commends the Trump Administration for advancing policies that will ensure U.S. leadership in drone innovation, security, operations, and manufacturing. As we have long advocated, innovation and security must advance in lockstep, and President Trump got that right with these Executive Orders. By prioritizing long-overdue drone enabling rules and much needed security reforms, the Administration is accelerating the safe and responsible growth of the drone industry at a pivotal moment.”

    ZenaTech (NASDAQ:ZENA) ZenaDrone to File Patent and Accelerate Deployment of Counter-UAS Technology on the ZenaDrone 1000 in Response to US Executive Order – ZenaTech, Inc. (FSE: 49Q) (BMV: ZENA) (“ZenaTech”), a technology company specializing in AI (Artificial Intelligence) drone, Drone as a Service (DaaS), enterprise SaaS, and Quantum Computing solutions, today announces its subsidiary ZenaDrone’s intent to file a patent and accelerate the deployment of Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (Counter-UAS) technology, to be mounted on the company’s flagship ZenaDrone 1000 drone platform in response to a new executive order policy directive. Counter-UAS technology refers to tools or systems that can detect, track, or mitigate unauthorized or dangerous drones to protect people, property, and airspace.

    ZenaDrone’s technology for this was originally designed last year but was placed on hold as the company prioritized other commercial and defense applications. However, the recent policy directive on Counter-UAS contained in the June 6th, 2025, White House Executive Order, ‘Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty’, has clarified the urgency and importance of bringing effective drone defense solutions to market. In response, ZenaDrone is accelerating development and commercialization efforts to meet growing domestic and international demand.

    “We developed our Counter-UAS system with future threats in mind, and the Executive Order has made it clear that the time to act is now,” said Dr. Shaun Passley, CEO of ZenaTech. “Integrating this technology into the ZenaDrone 1000 positions us to meet urgent security needs with a smart, autonomous aerial defense platform and be seen as a provider of safe, trusted, and mission-ready solutions.”

    The company will immediately expand its engineering and defense teams to fast-track R&D, testing, and deployment. The enhanced ZenaDrone 1000 will feature real-time threat detection and neutralization capabilities, making it a viable solution for military, homeland security, and critical infrastructure protection operations.

    The recent executive order, one of two historic policy directives announced on June 6th, 2025, provides a boost to US drone companies by driving demand for counter-UAS technologies, setting needed federal standards for secure airspace integration, and prioritizing US-made systems over foreign alternatives.

    The ZenaDrone 1000 is an AI multifunction autonomous drone that is a 12X7-foot rotary-wing octocopter design—built for commercial applications including surveillance, inspection and precision agriculture, as well as for defense. It features a patented foldable-wing design, can carry up to a 40 kg or 88 lbs of payload, and can fly for up to an hour before recharging on its docking station. It can be equipped with a variety of thermal imaging, LiDAR, or multispectral sensors to enable real-time ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), border patrol, and other defense applications. Continued… Read this full release by visiting: https://www.financialnewsmedia.com/news-zena/

    Other recent developments in the markets include:

    Ondas Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:ONDS), a leading provider of private industrial wireless networks and commercial drone and automated data solutions through its Ondas Networks and Ondas Autonomous Systems business units, recently announced the closing of its underwritten public offering of (i) 27,200,000 shares of its common stock, which includes 4,800,000 shares of common stock sold pursuant to the exercise in full by the underwriter of their over-allotment option, and (ii) in lieu of common stock, pre-funded warrants to purchase up to 9,600,000 shares of its common stock, at an exercise price of $0.0001 per share. Ondas estimates net proceeds from the offering to be approximately $42.8 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses, and excluding any proceeds that may be received from the exercise of the pre-funded warrants.

    Ondas intends to use the net proceeds of the offering for general corporate purposes, including funding capital expenditures and providing working capital. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. acted as the sole underwriter for the offering. Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., Lake Street Capital Markets, LLC and Northland Capital Markets served as financial advisors to Ondas. Akerman LLP served as legal counsel to Ondas and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. served as legal counsel to the underwriter.

    Draganfly Inc. (NASDAQ: DPRO) (CSE: DPRO), a drone solutions, and systems developer, recently announced the pricing of its public offering (the “Offering”) of 5,500,000 units, with each unit consisting of one common share and one warrant to purchase one common share. Each unit is to be sold at a public offering price of US$2.50, for gross proceeds of approximately US$13.75 million, before deducting placement agent discounts and offering expenses. The warrants will have an exercise price of CA$5.0768 (or US$3.71) per share, are exercisable immediately and will expire five years following the date of issuance.

    Maxim Group LLC is acting as sole placement agent for the Offering. Draganfly currently intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering for general corporate purposes, including to fund its capabilities to meet demand for its new products including growth initiatives and/or for working capital requirements including the continuing development and marketing of the Company’s core products, potential acquisitions and research and development. The Offering is expected to close on or about June 12, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

    AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. (NYSE: UAVS), a leading provider of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), sensors, and software solutions for commercial and government use, recently announced the Company participated in a second high-level, invitation only policy discussion with the White House, hosted by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This most recent engagement was centered on the proposed FAA Rule Part 108, which will define the regulatory framework for Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) drone operations across the United States. AgEagle CEO Bill Irby joined industry peers from uAvionix, BRINC, Kelly Hills, and Pierce Aerospace in presenting key insights on how enactment of Part 108 will remove significant operational barriers, drive capital investment, and unlock next-generation drone technologies that enhance both commercial and public sector applications.

    “This follow-up invitation by OIRA reaffirms the strategic importance of expanding BVLOS operations for the domestic drone industry,” commented Irby. “We were honored to continue our engagement with the White House and contribute our perspective on how thoughtful and timely rulemaking can accelerate innovation, improve safety and compliance, and strengthen the U.S. position as a global leader in drone technology. Of particular value was the discussion of how streamlined regulation will allow broader deployment of autonomous data solutions and open the door for increased economic activity.”

    Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT), a drone technology company integrating robotic hardware and software for military, government, and commercial operations, recently issued a statement of support for a series of executive orders from the White House that advance U.S. leadership in uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and reinforce the resilience of America’s domestic industrial base.

    The executive actions are expected to remove regulatory barriers and modernize federal approval processes to prioritize U.S.-manufactured drones. Additional provisions include expanded detection and mitigation authority, and streamlined regulations to accelerate the deployment of UAS across federal and commercial sectors.

    About FN Media Group:

    At FN Media Group, via our top-rated online news portal at www.financialnewsmedia.com, we are one of the very few select firms providing top tier one syndicated news distribution, targeted ticker tag press releases and stock market news coverage for today’s emerging companies. #tickertagpressreleases #pressreleases

    Follow us on Facebook to receive the latest news updates: https://www.facebook.com/financialnewsmedia

    Follow us on Twitter for real time Market News: https://twitter.com/FNMgroup

    Follow us on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/financialnewsmedia/

    DISCLAIMER: FN Media Group LLC (FNM), which owns and operates FinancialNewsMedia.com and MarketNewsUpdates.com, is a third party publisher and news dissemination service provider, which disseminates electronic information through multiple online media channels. FNM is NOT affiliated in any manner with any company mentioned herein. FNM and its affiliated companies are a news dissemination solutions provider and are NOT a registered broker/dealer/analyst/adviser, holds no investment licenses and may NOT sell, offer to sell or offer to buy any security. FNM’s market updates, news alerts and corporate profiles are NOT a solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. The material in this release is intended to be strictly informational and is NEVER to be construed or interpreted as research material. All readers are strongly urged to perform research and due diligence on their own and consult a licensed financial professional before considering any level of investing in stocks. All material included herein is republished content and details which were previously disseminated by the companies mentioned in this release. FNM is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment when investing in stocks. For current services performed FNM has been compensated fifty one hundred dollars for news coverage of the current press releases issued by ZenaTech, Inc. by the Company. FNM HOLDS NO SHARES OF ANY COMPANY NAMED IN THIS RELEASE.

    This release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. “Forward-looking statements” describe future expectations, plans, results, or strategies and are generally preceded by words such as “may”, “future”, “plan” or “planned”, “will” or “should”, “expected,” “anticipates”, “draft”, “eventually” or “projected”. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, including the risks that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, and other risks identified in a company’s annual report on Form 10-K or 10-KSB and other filings made by such company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements included herein, and not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements in this release are made as of the date hereof and FNM undertakes no obligation to update such statements.

    Contact Information:

    Media Contact email: editor@financialnewsmedia.com – +1(561)325-8757

    SOURCE: FN Media Group

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Fieldhouse, Visiting Assistant Professor of Finance, Texas A&M University

    Research can make everyone better off.
     Emilija Manevska/Moment via Getty Images

    Large cuts to government-funded research and development can endanger American innovation – and the vital productivity gains it supports.

    The Trump administration has already canceled at least US$1.8 billion in research grants previously awarded by the National Institutes of Health, which supports biomedical and health research. Its preliminary budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed slashing federal funding for scientific and health research, cutting the NIH budget by another $18 billion – nearly a 40% reduction. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the basic scientific research conducted at universities, would see its budget slashed by $5 billion – cutting it by more than half.

    Research and development spending might strike you as an unnecessary expense for the government. Perhaps you see it as something universities or private companies should instead be paying for themselves. But as research I’ve conducted shows, if the government were to abandon its long-standing practice of investing in R&D, it would significantly slow the pace of U.S. innovation and economic growth.

    I’m an economist at Texas A&M University. For the past five years, I’ve been studying the long-term economic benefits of government-funded R&D with Karel Mertens, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. We have found that government R&D spending on everything from the Apollo space program to the Human Genome Project has fueled innovation. We also found that federal R&D spending has played a significant role in boosting U.S. productivity and spurring economic growth over the past 75 years.

    Measuring productivity

    Productivity rises when economic growth is caused by technological progress and know-how, rather than workers putting in more hours or employers using more equipment and machinery. Economists believe that higher productivity fuels economic growth and raises living standards over the long run.

    U.S. productivity growth fell by half, from an average of roughly 2% a year in the 1950s and 1960s to about 1%, starting in the early 1970s. This deceleration eerily coincides with a big decline in government R&D spending, which peaked at over 1.8% of gross domestic product in the mid-1960s. Government R&D spending has declined since then and has fallen by half – to below 0.9% of GDP – today.

    Government R&D spending encompasses all innovative work the government directly pays for, regardless of who does it. Private companies and universities conduct a lot of this work, as do national labs and federal agencies, like the NIH.

    Correlation is not causation. But in a Dallas Fed working paper released in November 2024, my co-author and I identified a strong causal link between government R&D spending and U.S. productivity growth. We estimated that government R&D spending consistently accounted for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. And a decline in that spending after the 1960s can account for nearly one-fourth of the deceleration in productivity since then.

    These significant productivity gains came from R&D investments by federal agencies that are not focused on national defense. Examples include the NIH’s support for biomedical research, the Department of Energy’s funding for physics and energy research, and NASA’s spending on aeronautics and space exploration technologies.

    Not all productivity growth is driven by government R&D. Economists think public investment in physical infrastructure, such as construction of the interstate highway system starting in the Eisenhower administration, also spurred productivity growth. And U.S. productivity growth briefly accelerated during the information technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which we do not attribute to government R&D investment.

    More R than D

    We have found that government R&D investment is more effective than private R&D spending at driving productivity, likely because the private sector tends to spend much more on the development side of R&D, while the public sector tends to emphasize research.

    Economists believe the private sector will naturally underinvest in more fundamental research because it is harder to patent and profit from this work. We think our higher estimated returns on nondefense R&D reflect greater productivity benefits from fundamental research, which generates more widely shared knowledge, than from private sector spending on development.

    Like the private sector, the Department of Defense spends much more on development – of weapons and military technology – than on fundamental research. We found only inconclusive evidence on the returns on military R&D.

    R&D work funded by the Defense Department also tends to initially be classified and kept secret from geopolitical rivals, such as the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. As a result, gains for the whole economy from that source of innovation could take longer to materialize than the 15-year time frame we have studied.

    Research takes not just time but money, and the government is now cutting that funding.
    Nitat Termmee/Moment via Getty Images

    Role of Congress

    The high returns on nondefense R&D that we estimated suggest that Congress has historically underinvested in these areas. For instance, the productivity gains from nondefense R&D are at least 10 times higher than those from government investments in highways, bridges and other kinds of physical infrastructure. The government has also invested far more in physical infrastructure than R&D over the past 75 years. Increasing R&D investment would take advantage of these higher returns and gradually reduce them because of diminishing marginal returns to additional investment.

    So why is the government not spending substantially more on R&D?

    One argument sometimes heard against federal R&D spending is that it displaces, or “crowds out,” R&D spending the private sector would otherwise undertake. For instance, the administration’s budget request proposed reducing or eliminating NASA space technology programs it deemed “better suited to private sector research and development.”

    But my colleague and I have found that government spending on R&D complements private investment. An additional dollar of government nondefense R&D spending causes the private sector to increase its R&D spending by an additional 20 cents. So we expect budget cuts to the NIH, NSF and NASA to actually reduce R&D spending by companies, which is also bad for economic growth.

    Federal R&D spending is also often on the chopping block whenever Congress focuses on deficit reduction. In part, that likely reflects the gradual nature of the economic benefits from government-funded R&D, which are at odds with the country’s four-year electoral cycles.

    Similarly, the benefits from NIH spending on biomedical research are usually less visible than government spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for those 65 years and older and those with low incomes or disabilities. But Medicare or Medicaid help Americans buy prescription drugs and medical devices that were invented with the help of NIH-funded research.

    Even if the benefits of government R&D are slow to materialize or are harder to see than those from other government programs, our research suggests that the U.S. economy will be less innovative and productive – and Americans will be worse off for it – if Congress agrees to deep cuts to science and research funding.

    The views expressed in the Dallas Fed working paper are the views of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System.

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

    – ref. Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise – https://theconversation.com/federal-randd-funding-boosts-productivity-for-the-whole-economy-making-big-cuts-to-such-government-spending-unwise-255823

    MIL OSI Analysis –