NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI Global: How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kendall Deas, Assistant Professor of Education Policy, Law, and Politics, University of South Carolina

    Originally developed as a tool to help Black children attend better schools, school voucher programs now serve a different purpose. Drazen via Getty Images

    School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular.

    Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs.

    In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships.

    More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption.

    School vouchers have a long history in the U.S.

    The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts.

    After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration.

    More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options.

    As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children.

    History of school voucher programs

    Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into education subsidies for middle-class families.
    Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

    Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students.

    Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools.

    School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations.

    Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students.

    Impact on public schools

    School voucher programs can negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students.
    Connect Images via Getty Images

    States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows.

    This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools.

    Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools.

    In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today.

    For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools.

    School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students.

    As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources.

    In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state’s voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools.

    Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools.

    Vouchers can siphon school funding

    Voucher programs can disproportionately affect funding in majority Black school districts.
    kali9/Getty Images

    Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding.

    This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools.

    Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black.

    Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the “Corridor of Shame,” known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area’s low tax base due to a lack of industry.

    On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year.

    In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year.

    By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000.

    Returning voucher policy to its roots

    Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education.

    Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent.

    It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students.

    These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education.

    Kendall Deas 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. How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families – https://theconversation.com/how-school-choice-policies-evolved-from-supporting-black-students-to-subsidizing-middle-class-families-252481

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Who controls the present controls the past’: What Orwell’s ‘1984’ explains about the twisting of history to control the public

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Laura Beers, Professor of History, American University

    George Orwell’s ‘1984’ has some lessons for 2025. NurPhoto/Corbis via Getty Images

    When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.

    It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.

    It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.

    In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America’s official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, “reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.”

    Such ambitions are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.

    Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a “historical impulse,” or “the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”

    But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order to determine whether ‘public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties … have been removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history.’
    Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Winners write the history

    During World War II, the Nazis broadcast reports on German radio describing nonexistent air raids over Britain.

    Orwell knew about those reports and wrote: “Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain? For the purposes of a future historian, did those raids happen, or didn’t they?”

    The answer, Orwell wrote, was, “If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls, they didn’t happen. So with innumerable other events of the past ten or twenty years. … In no case do you get one answer which is universally accepted because it is true: in each case you get a number of totally incompatible answers, one of which is finally adopted as the result of a physical struggle. History is written by the winners.”

    As Orwell wrote in “1984,” his final, dystopian novel, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    Power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to create their own historical narrative. It also allowed those in power to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out.

    The Ministry of Truth

    The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith’s job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in “1984.”

    The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South.

    Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is.

    The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or “thought crime,” is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present.

    But it also controls the past. As the party’s protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down “memory holes,” where they are “wiped … out of existence and out of memory.”

    At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole.

    The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past.

    Down the memory hole

    The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation’s official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes.

    Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to “gay” and LGBTQ+ content on government websites.

    As part of efforts to purge references to gay people, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the removal of gay rights advocate Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship.
    Screenshot, Military.com

    Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life of Harriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom.

    The administration also directed the removal of content concerning the Tuskegee Airmen, the group of African American pilots who flew missions in World War II.

    In these cases, public outcry led to the restoration of the deleted content, but other less high-profile deletions have been allowed to stand.

    Over the past several months, many of Trump’s opponents have bemoaned the fecklessness of the Democratic Party in mounting an effective opposition to the president’s agenda.

    Critics on the right and even some on the left denounced as little more than a stunt New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker’s marathon 25-hour speech on the U.S. Senate floor detailing the constitutional abuses of Trump’s first few months.

    But while words are no substitute for action, in the face of a regime that is intent on stifling voices of dissent, from media outlets to law firms, to university campuses, through a combination of formal censorship and informal coercion and bullying, the act of speaking out matters.

    Booker’s protest will be written into the Congressional Record and remain a part of the nation’s contested history.

    So too will the meticulous recounting of the administration’s constitutional abuses in publications such as The Atlantic and The New York Times. The existence of such a record allows the potential for a critical historical narrative to be written in the future.

    But the administration is also looking ahead.

    Repressing thought

    Current proponents of the “anti-woke” agenda at both the federal and state level are focused on reshaping educational curricula in a way that will make it inconceivable for future generations to question their historical claims.

    Orwell’s “1984” ends with an appendix on the history of “Newspeak,” Oceania’s official language, which, while it had not yet superseded “Oldspeak” or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect.

    According to the appendix, “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

    Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: “The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds.’ … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.”

    The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future.

    If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change.

    It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it. As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.

    Laura Beers 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. ‘Who controls the present controls the past’: What Orwell’s ‘1984’ explains about the twisting of history to control the public – https://theconversation.com/who-controls-the-present-controls-the-past-what-orwells-1984-explains-about-the-twisting-of-history-to-control-the-public-257798

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s continued attacks on lawyers risks undermining the US legal system. Is that the point?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

    Since returning to office, Donald Trump has often called the US legal system into question. He has criticised judges as activists, challenged the role of the courts and insisted some firms do free legal work in support of his administration’s causes to make up for working for some of his political opponents.

    Meanwhile, Vice-President J.D. Vance has advised US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts that he ought to be “checking the excesses” of the lower courts.

    And Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, said: “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” after the US Court of International Trade ruled the president didn’t have the power to impose international trade tariffs. Meanwhile, judges are asking for more security to protect them from threats.

    Trump’s federal investigations and volley of executive orders (presidential directives that don’t require legislative approval by Congress) have also put enormous pressure on law firms. And a recent report shows that both trust in law firms’ independence, and even the rule of law itself, is perceived as under threat in the US. But what does this mean, and why is it important?

    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.

    The president has taken action against law firms in two prominent ways:

    First, by federal investigation. Specifically, letters to a group of 20 law firms from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These demanded information about their diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies, based on the proposition that any sort of treatment of underrepresented groups that appeared preferential to them in policy, or practice, was unequal treatment for other groups, and, consequently, discriminatory.

    Second, the president has passed numerous executive orders introducing punitive measures on specific law firms that previously represented clients opposing his administration, or employed attorneys involved in past investigations against him. His administration has also revoked government contracts and suspended security clearance from buildings. In practice, the orders would prevent attorneys from accessing from where they work, such as courthouses and federal agencies.

    In response, some prominent law firms have sought to mitigate the fallout with the Trump administration by entering into agreements with it. These have included pledging US$1 billion (£730,000,000) in pro bono (free) legal services supporting causes aligned with Trump’s agenda.

    For example, support for veterans, representing police officers, and antisemitism prevention. Noteworthy is that law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison have now agreed to discontinue certain DEI policies, in addition to committing US$40 million (£29.4 million) in pro bono work for the president’s causes. In response the Trump administration has now lifted restrictions against them.

    Judges say they are under threat.

    More broadly, it has been reported that 70% of the US Justice Department civil rights division’s attorneys are leaving their posts. The mass exodus is believed to be part of attempts to reshape the division into one focused on enforcing executive orders.

    The consequences of these developments are that the president’s actions have led to a significant realignment in the legal professions. Some US attorneys have reported that law firms are now more hesitant to engage in pro bono work that could be viewed as opposing the administration’s policies.

    By contrast, some lawyers are now trying to establish independent firms aimed at defending civil servants and challenging federal overreach, ensuring at least some, albeit less resourced, support for underrepresented groups.

    Trump criticizes judges and legal activists.

    Other lawyers have sought legal action against the orders as unconstitutional interference. Some of these have led to success. For example, Perkins Coie challenged theirs and got it struck down. The concern here centred around their representation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In arriving at the decision, the district judge ruled the president’s actions to be an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints”.

    Why this matters

    These developments call into question the balance between governmental influence and the independence of lawyers in upholding the rule of law. Lawyers must be impartial in representing their clients in order to effectively represent their interests, and allow the judiciary to fulfil their duty of checks and balances on the government’s decisions.

    When unfettered power is wielded by the government, and the law is undermined, scope for monitoring the constitutionality of decision making is compromised.

    The rule of law is a foundational principle of western democracies. It means that everyone is subject to the law, including governments. Laws must be applied equally, fairly and consistently, and no one is above them.

    In essence, laws govern the nation, not arbitrary decisions by individuals in power. In that sense, following the rule of law helps prevent tyranny, protect people’s rights and liberties, and ensures a stable and predictable society.

    In order to deliver these objectives, an independent legal sector is needed. Trump’s actions are a threat to achieving this cornerstone US constitutional principle. Some have gone as far as to suggest that by entering into agreements with Trump, law firms have become subsidiaries of his administration.

    A recent study on trust in the rule of law found that Americans’ trust in lawyers was already undermined, even before the second Trump administration.

    The results, based on public attitudes in 2024, compared public perceptions in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, the UK and the US. Norway and the UK ranked highest in respect of trust in the rule of law (81% and 74% respectively), and Spain and Italy were least trusted (49% and 43%).

    The results for the US are interesting. Around 71% of American respondents stated that they had a high level of trust in the rule of law. Yet the country came third from the bottom under the metric “you feel like you are in good hands in US courts”.

    The reasons for this are implied in the responses to the other questions in the survey. The US performed second worst (just behind Spain) in respect of belief that judges could be biased. The US also performed worst of all in the category where the public were asked if lawyers were impartial (just 41% agreed).

    In interpreting these results it is important to note that the survey was conducted in 2024, prior to Trump’s second term. But anti-elite and anti-judge rhetoric pointing to arguments for more presidential power and less judicial oversight had already been prominent in the first Trump term, and the 2024 campaign.

    The results expose the already fragile nature of trust in the legal sector in the US, and underline how this could be ramped up further after the announcements in recent weeks.

    Stephen Clear 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. Trump’s continued attacks on lawyers risks undermining the US legal system. Is that the point? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-continued-attacks-on-lawyers-risks-undermining-the-us-legal-system-is-that-the-point-256960

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI: Bitcoin Solaris Presale Heats Up in Phase 7 as Token Launch Nears with 233% ROI Forecast

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TALLINN, Estonia, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitcoin Solaris (BTC-S), a next-generation blockchain project, has officially entered Phase 7 of its presale, offering early participants a strategic entry point ahead of its upcoming exchange launch. With tokens currently priced at $7 and a forecasted listing price of $20, BTC-S presents a 233% ROI potential for early supporters — based on current market benchmarks and demand from its live mining ecosystem.

    A Structural Replay of Bitcoin’s Earliest Advantages

    Bitcoin Solaris isn’t riding a wave of speculative hype. Its model is engineered around fundamentals that made Bitcoin successful in the first place — a fixed 21 million token supply, scarcity-based mechanics, and a functioning distribution model tied to user contribution rather than capital lockups.

    At its core, the protocol combines a Proof-of-Stake and Proof-of-Capacity base layer with a high-performance Solaris Layer that processes over 10,000 transactions per second. Finality occurs in under two seconds, and energy consumption is reduced by over 99.95% compared to traditional mining systems.

    Price Forecasts Rooted in Function

    Phase 7 of the presale is now live, with BTC-S priced at $7 per token. Exchange launch benchmarks target $20, translating to an immediate 233% ROI for early backers — assuming no speculative appreciation beyond the forecasted listing value.

    This figure isn’t abstract. It’s grounded in market benchmarking, liquidity provisioning frameworks, and rising demand from the Bitcoin Solaris mining ecosystem, which has already completed closed beta testing with strong reported returns.

    Analyst Attention and Audit-Backed Trust

    As President Trump’s crypto-positive policies fuel renewed attention toward blockchain technologies, Bitcoin Solaris is emerging as a key beneficiary — not because of political noise, but because its structure and transparency offer actual utility.

    The project has passed a full Cyberscope audit of its smart contract systems, as well as a mobile infrastructure audit by Freshcoins. KYC verification has also been completed by a third party , giving retail participants added assurance in a space often lacking transparency.

    Analyst Ben Crypto recently released a market breakdown on YouTube, calling Bitcoin Solaris the closest thing we’ve seen to early Bitcoin conditions since 2012. His thesis centers not on nostalgia, but on clear tokenomics: a capped supply, no emissions curve, and a network ready for mainstream use.

    Final Thoughts

    Crypto markets follow narratives, but they reward mechanics. Bitcoin Solaris isn’t promising future breakthroughs — it’s rolling them out. The tech is live, the presale is active, and the fundamentals are visible to anyone willing to look beyond the headlines.

    With President Trump signaling favorable conditions for crypto adoption, and BTC-S offering a direct path to early-stage ownership with built-in mining incentives, this moment marks a real chance at structural participation.

    Website: https://bitcoinsolaris.com/
    X: https://x.com/BitcoinSolaris
    Telegram: https://t.me/Bitcoinsolaris

    Media Contact
    Xander Levine
    press@bitcoinsolaris.com
    Press Kit: Available upon request

    Disclaimer: This is a paid post and is provided by Bitcoin Solaris. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility. Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

    Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

    Photos accompanying this announcement are available at

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/448d5e66-b854-438f-981c-9d3dfe2bb858

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/53f38c5c-94c8-4418-88f6-3dbef15d0eeb

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/cab2bbac-1f7f-4e98-bb20-21d3b53d6ab8

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/40f9de05-4c90-4e1e-b6eb-861f588527b2

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Matador Technologies Announces Strategic Advisory Board Featuring Leaders from Bitcoin and Gold

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Matador Technologies Inc. (“Matador” or the “Company”) (TSXV: MATA, OTCQB: MATAF, FSE: IU3), the Bitcoin Ecosystem Company, is pleased to announce the formation of its Strategic Advisory Board. This diverse group of advisors will guide Matador as it scales its Bitcoin treasury balance sheet strategy and real-world asset (“RWA”) platform.

    The Strategic Advisory Board includes:

    David Bailey
    David Bailey | CEO of BTC Inc | Founder & CEO of Nakamoto Inc | General Partner at UTXO Management
    David Bailey is the Co-founder and CEO of BTC Inc, the company behind Bitcoin Magazine and the Bitcoin conference. Since 2013, he has helped shape the global Bitcoin ecosystem through media, events, and venture incubation. A vocal advocate for hyperbitcoinization, David served as a surrogate for the Trump 2024 campaign, helping define its Bitcoin strategy. He also sits on the board of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. In 2025, David founded Nakamoto Inc, a Bitcoin-native holding company focused on building a publicly traded Bitcoin conglomerate. Nakamoto recently merged with KindlyMD (NASDAQ: NAKA) and is executing a Bitcoin treasury strategy backed by a US$710M capital raise. David is a General Partner at UTXO Management, an early investor in Metaplanet (TYO: 3350, OTC: MTPLF). Through BTC Inc, he partnered with Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR) to launch Bitcoin for Corporations, helping companies adopt Bitcoin for their balance sheets and treasury management.

    Brad Mills
    Entrepreneur | Bitcoin Investor | Value Maximalist
    Brad Mills is a seasoned entrepreneur, investor, and early Bitcoin advocate active since 2011. With a long history in Bitcoin mining, strategic investing, Bitcoin angel investing and building successful media ventures, Brad champions Bitcoin’s transformative economic and social potential. As a committed “Value Maximalist,” Brad strategically aligns his focus on long-term Bitcoin treasury strategies, community engagement, and driving impactful adoption. In his advisory role at Matador, Brad will leverage his expertise to shape the company’s Bitcoin treasury model, accelerate market entry, and cultivate a vibrant Bitcoin-centric community.

    Dave Forestell
    Public Policy & Corporate Affairs Executive | Former Barrick Gold Executive
    Dave Forestell brings deep expertise at the intersection of natural resources, public markets, and public policy. He is currently Chair of the Board at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and served as the Founding Chair of iGaming Ontario (2022–2024), where he oversaw the launch of Ontario’s online gaming market—generating $1.4 billion in revenue in year one and $2.4 billion in year two, with total wagers exceeding $82.7 billion. Dave previously served as Vice President, Corporate Affairs at Barrick Gold, one of the world’s largest gold producers, where he led global stakeholder engagement, government relations, and ESG strategy. He also served as Chair (2015–2017) of the Cerro Casale Joint Venture (Barrick/Kinross), a gold project with over 17 million ounces of proven and probable reserves. His leadership navigating complex regulatory frameworks and deep understanding of global commodities make him an invaluable advisor as Matador builds products at the intersection of Bitcoin, gold, and financial innovation.

    “We’re incredibly proud of the advisory team we’ve assembled,” said Deven Soni, CEO of Matador Technologies Inc. “Each member brings a powerful blend of industry expertise, principled leadership, and deep commitment to Bitcoin. Together, they will help Matador accelerate its mission of bridging traditional assets with the Bitcoin economy.”

    “Bitcoin is changing everything—from money to markets to nation-states,” added Mark Moss, Chief Visionary Officer of Matador. “Our advisors are not just spectators—they are builders of the new financial system. Their collective insight will guide us through the next phase of our growth.”

    Matador would also like to thank Darius Eghdami and Michael Wekerle for their past contributions as advisory board members. Their support and guidance helped shape the foundation of Matador’s early growth and positioning in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

    Matador continues to differentiate itself as a Bitcoin Ecosystem company accumulating Bitcoin as its primary treasury asset and developing products on the Bitcoin network. This approach focuses on creating institutional-grade tools to unlock Bitcoin’s full potential as both a treasury reserve and an infrastructure for new digital assets.

    The Company trades on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol MATA, on the OTCQB under MATAF and now on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the symbol IU3.

    For additional information, please contact:

    Media Contact:
    Sunny Ray
    President
    Email: sunny@matador.network
    Phone: 647-496-6282

    About Matador Technologies Inc.
    Matador Technologies Inc. is a publicly traded Bitcoin ecosystem company that holds Bitcoin as its primary treasury asset and builds products to enhance the Bitcoin network. Through a self-reinforcing model that combines strategic Bitcoin accumulation, Bitcoin-native product development, and participation in digital asset infrastructure, Matador aims to grow long-term shareholder value without dilution.

    The Company’s flagship offering, the Digital Gold Platform, allows users to buy, sell, and trade 1-gram gold units on the Bitcoin blockchain—bridging traditional value with decentralized technology. With a Bitcoin-first strategy, a debt-free balance sheet, and a clear focus on innovation, Matador is helping shape the future of financial infrastructure on Bitcoin. Visit us online at https://www.matador.network/.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

    This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities in any jurisdiction.

    Forward Looking Statements – Certain information set forth in this news release may contain forward-looking statements that involve substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including risks associated with the implementation of the Company’s treasury management strategy, receipt of regulatory approvals, and the launch of its mobile application as currently proposed or at all. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, certain of which are beyond the control of the Company, including with respect to the potential acquisition of Bitcoin and/or US dollars, the pricing of such acquisitions and the timing of future operations. Readers are cautioned that the assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI China: Soliciting external support for “Taiwan independence” will only fail: Defense Spokesperson 2025-06-09 “The Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, and is the first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations,” said Senior Colonel Jiang Bin, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, at a press briefing on Monday.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      BEIJING, June 9 — “The Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, and is the first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations,” said Senior Colonel Jiang Bin, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, at a press briefing on Monday. 

      It is reported that the US is transporting a new batch of M1A2 tanks to Taiwan and plans to increase its arms sales to Taiwan in the next four years. New arms sales may surpass that of the first Trump administration. In addition, a former official of the US military said that about 500 US military personnel are operating in Taiwan, which is over ten times of the number previously disclosed by the US Congress.

      When being asked to comment on these, the Chinese defense spokesperson first pointed out that this is another solid piece of evidence that the US and the “Taiwan independence” separatist forces are taking efforts to violate China’s core interests, change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait and escalate regional tensions.

      “Who is making provocations despite strong opposition from the Chinese side? Who is undermining cross-Strait stability and repeatedly stirring up troubles? We all know the answers. The Chinese side is strongly dissatisfied with  and firmly opposed to this act,” said the spokesperson.

      Following on, the spokesperson urged the US side to stop its military collusion with Taiwan in any form; otherwise it will get burnt for playing with fire and gain more harm than good. He also warned the DPP authorities that the US weapons cannot save them, and soliciting external support for “Taiwan independence” is doomed to fail. 

      “The Chinese PLA will continue to strengthen military training and combat readiness and enhance its capability to fight and win. We will take resolute measures to thwart “Taiwan independence” separatist activities and external interference,” stressed the spokesperson. 

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: All democratic governors stand united against President Trump’s militarization in Los Angeles

    Source: US State of California 2

    Jun 8, 2025

    In case you missed it, every single Democratic governor agrees: Donald Trump’s attempts to militarize California are an alarming abuse of power. 

    Democratic Governors Association: “President Trump’s move to deploy California’s National Guard is an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state’s governor is ineffective and dangerous.

    “Further, threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.

    “It’s important we respect the executive authority of our country’s governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.”

    This continues the chorus of elected officials across California and the nation speaking out against this clear federal overreaction.

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    Jun 8, 2025

    News In case you missed it, last night, President Trump – disregarding Governor Newsom – federalized California National Guard troops in Los Angeles at a time when there were no unmet law enforcement needs. In fact, local law enforcement efforts successfully…

    Jun 7, 2025

    News Los Angeles, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to speaking out peacefully on the federal government’s immigration actions: The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000…

    Jun 7, 2025

    News Los Angeles, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the federal government’s intent to deploy the California National Guard: The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US companies blame changing trade policy for eroding business prospects for the future – media

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    WASHINGTON, June 9 (Xinhua) — American businessmen warn that the U.S. administration’s ever-changing trade policies are making it difficult for them to plan for the future, leading to a freeze in hiring and investment, The Wall Street Journal reported.

    John Starr, owner of UltraSource, a Kansas City, Mo., supplier of meat processing and packing equipment, said he is holding off on hiring or making additional capital investments until there is clarity on tariffs.

    The company is waiting for suppliers in Europe to finalize $20 million in orders it placed before the Trump administration’s 10 percent tariffs went into effect on April 9, the report said. That means it faces a $2 million tax bill if the tariffs remain in place.

    “How am I supposed to pay for this?” said J. Starr, the third-generation owner of the company. “It could wipe out the entire year’s profits.”

    For months, US President Donald Trump has announced one significant tariff increase after another, at times switching from escalation to temporary settlement.

    “Where this all ends depends on what Trump decides to do next, and frankly, even Trump doesn’t know what Trump will do next,” Christopher Thornberg, a founding partner at Beacon Economics in Los Angeles, was quoted as saying in the article. “So it’s almost impossible to know where this is going.”

    In this environment, the US economy faces three main risks in the coming months, namely a potential rise in unemployment, a decline in consumer demand, and disruptions caused by financial market turmoil or sharp changes in sentiment, the article says.

    With the possibility of companies laying off workers due to low demand remaining, unemployment could rise quickly once such a scenario becomes a reality.

    At the same time, the level of delinquent debt on consumer loans has been rising for a year, raising concerns that the worsening financial situation of low-income borrowers could lead to a more noticeable slowdown in consumer spending, the article notes.

    For many companies, the uncertainty caused by Trump’s sudden and seemingly arbitrary tariff announcements has impacted sales prospects this year, the article says.

    “I have to take action immediately,” said J. Starr. “We will be very careful about any cash expenditures just because we need the money to pay the tariff.” -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Díaz-Balart Leads FL Delegation on Homestead Air Reserve Base F-35A Letter to Trump Administration

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (25th District of FLORIDA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26), Vice Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, led a 17-member coalition from the Florida Congressional Delegation in a letter to President Trump and his administration requesting sustained F-35A production and fielding to modernize the aging F-16C fleet at Homestead Air Reserve Base.

    “As Dean of the Florida Delegation, I am acutely aware of the security threats our nation faces from drug trafficking, transnational criminal organizations, and the increasing malign influence and presence of anti-American adversaries like Russia and China in the Southern Hemisphere. Florida is foundational in protecting our national security, countering the southern border threats and defending our Eastern coastline.

    “For these reasons, having the modern, multi-role F-35A fighter aircraft at HomesteadAir Reserve Base, which has served as a foundational line of defense for over 80 years, is a vital asset and will ensure the United States’ readiness in confronting these threats to our national security,” said Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart.

    “As America faces growing threats from our adversaries like Communist China and Putin’s Russia, the need to modernize our air defenses has never been more urgent,” said Congressman Carlos Gimenez. “The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, and its production is critical to maintaining our military dominance. Located in Florida’s 28th District, Homestead Air Reserve Base must receive the investments and upgrades needed to support the next generation of tactical air power. South Florida plays a strategic role in our national defense, and Homestead must be ready to host and sustain the F-35 mission for decades to come.” 

    Read the full text of the letter here or below.

    “We would first like to thank you for your efforts to keep our nation safe, make our military the most lethal military force in the world and return peace through strength around the world. As Commander in Chief, you understand the critical role Florida plays in delivering on that mission and protecting our national security. From deterring and preventing the approximately $2.7 trillion impact to American lives through fentanyl counternarcotics efforts to supporting Southern border operations and homeland defense alert missions along our coastlines, Homestead Air Force Reserve Base (HARB) is critical for our national security. Florida’s strategic location makes it uniquely postured to counter Chinese, Russian, Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs), and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and their influence in the southern hemisphere. These regional threats are the largest contributor to the state of national emergency within the United States over illegal aliens, infiltration of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs, and illicit opioids.

    “Under your leadership as both our 45th and 47th president, Florida continues to fight the cartels and drug traffickers, leading to South Florida being named the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area of the Year. We dismantled or disrupted 54 drug trafficking organizations in 2023 and seized an estimate value of $748 million in illicit drugs, including 23 metric tons of cocaine, 248 kilograms of methamphetamine, and 224 kilograms of fentanyl.

    “Through U.S. Southern Command, appropriately headquartered in Florida, we are tracking and thwarting Chinese efforts to expand their Belt and Road Initiative in Latin American Countries to monopolize natural resources, such as 20% of the world’s oil reserves, 25% of the strategic metals, and 31% of the fishing areas. We are working to claw back the $358 billion amassed by 35 TCOs in the region in 2023 through interdiction and counter trafficking efforts to help stabilize South America, preventing their problems from reaching our shores. The Russian Surface Action Group, led by the frigate Admiral Gorshkov and cruise missile submarine Kazan docked in Havana, Cuba, passed within 30 miles of the Florida Keys last June. Florida is uniquely postured to support the border alert mission to deter these acts of aggression.

    “Within Florida, HARB serves a foundational role in supporting the most critical national defense missions. HARB generated $364 million for the local economy in 2023 alone. It is the home to the 2,500-member 482nd Fighter Wing and its reserve associate, the 367th Fighter Squadron, responsible for F-16 alerts across the coastline in support of Operation Noble Eagle. It houses the Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Branch, operating Blackhawks and turbo-prop airliners like the DHC-8 to interdict smugglers and prevent illegal aliens from crossing into the United States. Special Operations Command South Headquarters is also resident at HARB, executing special operations as assigned to U.S. Southern Command, spanning 31 countries and 10 overseas territories across Central and South America and the Caribbean.

    “Florida’s Gulf of America, Atlantic Ocean access, and its proximity to Central and South America is what drove the 125th Fighter Wing Air National Guard (ANG) unit selection for the F-35A Lightning II. Starting with an initial batch of aircraft to Jacksonville ANG in March of this year and expanding to the 125th Fighter Wing Detachment 1 at HARB in 2027. The Air Force Reserve also planned this F-35A modernization to replace the aging F-16C fleet within the 482nd Fighter Wing. This would create a common fighter platform between the Reserves and National Guard at HARB, reducing costs for base operations through shared maintenance efforts. Together, these units would provide a considerable increase in readiness for the North American Aerospace Defense Command Alert mission across both the Southern and Eastern U.S. border as well as downrange multi-role operations through short-notice worldwide deployments.

    “Together, we ask your administration to ensure that the F-35A goes to Homestead Air Reserve Base and the F-35A production quantities remain undeterred. There is no real trade when comparing other airframes and locales to a multi-role fighter aircraft capable of countering Russian, Chinese, VEOs, and TCOs operations across the entirety of the Southern and Eastern U.S. border and throughout the Southern Hemisphere. HARB is a vital asset for our national security and power projection, and critical for your Peace through Strength agenda. Thank you again for your leadership and we hope you will consider, within all applicable rules and regulations, our input on the matter.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Díaz-Balart’s Statement on Rescissions Package

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (25th District of FLORIDA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Appropriations Committee Vice Chair and Chairman of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26) issued the following statement regarding the Office of Management and Budget’s rescissions package:

    “Since becoming Chairman of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, I have advocated for common-sense priorities that align with American values. I’m proud of my proven track record of advancing U.S. national security interests while eliminating the wasteful out-of-control spending that characterized the previous Administration.

    “My National Security and Department of State funding bill for fiscal year (FY) 2024, which is now law, achieved a six percent cut, the largest year-to-year funding cut of all appropriations bills compared to FY 2023, and the largest in recent memory. The FY 2025 version of the same bill, which passed the House, cut funding a further 11% below FY 2024 levels.

    “I am also proud of my well-documented FY 2024 and FY 2025 budget hearings with Biden Administration officials, where I consistently raised concerns about U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for controversial programs that failed to advance U.S. national security interests or reflect our values. These missteps have brought us to where we are today.

    “While not perfect, the $9.4 billion rescissions package reflects President Trump’s vision of restoring conservative and responsible fiscal policies.

    “I look forward to working with President Trump and his Administration to fund priorities that make sense for the American people, advance our national security interests, and support long-standing congressional directives that bolster security, stability, and prosperity at home and abroad.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Iran to present counter-proposal to U.S. in nuclear talks

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran will soon hand a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal to the United States via Oman, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday, in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems “unacceptable”.

    Reuters previously reported that Tehran was drafting a negative response to the U.S. proposal which was presented in late May. An Iranian diplomat said the U.S. offer failed to resolve differences over uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, the shipment abroad of Iran’s entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium and steps to lift U.S. sanctions.

    “The U.S. proposal is not acceptable to us. It was not the result of previous rounds of negotiations. We will present our own proposal to the other side via Oman after it is finalised. This proposal is reasonable, logical, and balanced,” Baghaei said.

    Baghaei added that there was not yet any detail regarding the date of a sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S.

    Last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the U.S. proposal as against the country’s interests, pledging to continue enrichment.

    During his first term in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond that pact’s limits.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    “You just [expletive] shot the reporter!”

    Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet.

    Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same “non-lethal” ammunition.

    The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States”. He then deployed the National Guard.

    ‘Can’t you just shoot them?’

    As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US.

    In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the killing of a Black man, Rodney King.

    Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people.

    During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

    Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He’s classified them as “un-American” and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression.

    During last year’s election campaign, he promised to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”. Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump’s “political enemies” as “echoing Hitler, Mussolini”.

    In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about “sanctuary cities”, such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been “invaded” by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true.

    It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as “disgracing our country”, there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology.

    That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone.

    As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, “the cruelty is the point”.

    The Trump administration’s mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out.

    In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of ten million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises.

    White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as “Waffen SS”, called the protests “an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States”. Trump himself also described protesters as “violent, insurrectionist mobs”.

    Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation.

    The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act.

    Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California.

    A broader assault on democracy

    This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump’s longstanding attacks against independent media – what he describes as “fake news” – are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera.

    The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law.

    Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups – policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act.

    Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: “the bar is what I think it is”.

    As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:

    We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life.

    While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink.

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    – ref. Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-long-speculated-about-using-force-against-his-own-people-now-he-has-the-pretext-to-do-so-258471

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • NATO needs 400% increase in air and missile defence, Rutte will say in London

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte will use a speech in London on Monday to say the military alliance needs a 400% increase in air and missile defence, one of the priorities for a summit of members in the Hague later this month.

    Rutte is pushing for members to boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP and commit a further 1.5% to broader security-related spending to meet U.S. President Donald Trump’s demand for a 5% target. Last month, he said he assumed that target would be agreed at the summit on June 24-25.

    Rutte will argue in a speech at London’s Chatham House think tank that for NATO to maintain credible deterrence and defence, it needs “a 400% increase in air and missile defence”.

    “We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,” he will say, according to extracts of his speech provided by his office.

    “The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.”

    With little let up in fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine despite ceasefire calls, European countries are under pressure to raise defence spending after Trump signalled a shift in policy, pushing for the region to better protect itself.

    Several countries say they are doing so, with Britain pledging an increase from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% of GDP at a later date. Germany has said it will need roughly 50,000 to 60,000 additional active soldiers under new NATO targets.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    “You just [expletive] shot the reporter!”

    Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet.

    Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same “non-lethal” ammunition.

    The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States”. He then deployed the National Guard.

    ‘Can’t you just shoot them?’

    As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US.

    In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the killing of a Black man, Rodney King.

    Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people.

    During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

    Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He’s classified them as “un-American” and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression.

    During last year’s election campaign, he promised to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”. Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump’s “political enemies” as “echoing Hitler, Mussolini”.

    In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about “sanctuary cities”, such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been “invaded” by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true.

    It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as “disgracing our country”, there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology.

    That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone.

    As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, “the cruelty is the point”.

    The Trump administration’s mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out.

    In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of ten million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises.

    White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as “Waffen SS”, called the protests “an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States”. Trump himself also described protesters as “violent, insurrectionist mobs”.

    Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation.

    The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act.

    Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California.

    A broader assault on democracy

    This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump’s longstanding attacks against independent media – what he describes as “fake news” – are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera.

    The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law.

    Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups – policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act.

    Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: “the bar is what I think it is”.

    As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:

    We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life.

    While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink.

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    – ref. Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-long-speculated-about-using-force-against-his-own-people-now-he-has-the-pretext-to-do-so-258471

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: WATCH: Padilla Slams Trump Administration for Terrorizing Los Angeles Communities Through ICE Raids, Deploying National Guard

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

    WATCH: Padilla Slams Trump Administration for Terrorizing Los Angeles Communities Through ICE Raids, Deploying National Guard

    Padilla: California is “the fourth-largest economy in the world, not despite our immigrant population, but because of our immigrant population, who contribute so much as [a] workforce, as consumers, as entrepreneurs. That’s something to be respected, not insulted.”

    “Our nation is better than this. Look to California as a way forward.”

    Watch the full interview here.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, joined MSNBC’s “The Weekend: Primetime” to condemn the Trump Administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids across Los Angeles and President Trump’s ensuing unprecedented deployment of nearly 2,000 members of California’s National Guard to the region.

    Senator Padilla slammed President Trump for manufacturing a cruel crisis to scapegoat immigrants and distract from Republicans’ harmful budget bill that will cut critical services that millions of Americans depend on to give tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy. He also blasted the Trump Administration for their hypocrisy in calling the largely peaceful Los Angeles protests an “insurrection” as President Trump and Republicans refuse to use that word to describe the January 6th Capitol insurrection. Padilla encouraged Californians to continue peacefully protesting the Trump Administration’s inhumane immigration enforcement.

    Key Excerpts:

    On Trump demonizing immigrants to distract from Republicans’ harmful budget bill:

    • “The Senate Republicans are on the verge of passing what House Republicans just passed in this bill that threatens to cut Medicaid, cut the social safety net for so many, and underwrite tax breaks for billionaires. So to distract from that, it never fails. This is [Trump’s] classic playbook. He’s not brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine. His tariff war has gone horribly wrong. So when all else fails, he demonizes immigrants again.”
    • “If we were having a serious, substantive policy conversation, I think there is room to discuss increased funding for our immigration system, not just smarter enforcement at the border, utilizing technology, focusing on ports of entry, but also for all the people who have pending cases, whether it’s an asylum case, whether it’s anything else, there is a need for more immigration judges and hearing officers and counsel, those sorts of things. And let’s reduce the backlog. But what the Trump Administration is doing is exactly the opposite, shifting it to complete enforcement and aggressive, extreme, cruel enforcement for that matter, while the backlogs continue to grow because they’ve shifted resources away from those services and those programs.”
    • “By and large, this supposedly Big Beautiful Bill, which is anything but, is nothing but increasing funding for … immigration enforcement, gutting so many other critical areas of the budget that working families across the country depend on, all to underwrite tax breaks for the most wealthy in America, including somebody like Elon Musk. You know, Donald Trump didn’t like the headlines he was getting because of his fallout with Elon Musk, and so again, what happens? He stages a crisis, manufactures a cruel crisis to try to change the news of the day.”

    On Trump’s hypocrisy in his response compared to January 6:

    • “The other thing he wants is for people to, yes, maybe get out of hand, so that he has the justification to escalate and increase the use of force. Look what happened in his first term. Look what happened on January 6. You’ve got to call out the hypocrisy. He did not once say “insurrectionist” for the people who stormed the Capitol and attacked police officers, but one protester who gets a little bit out of hand in Los Angeles and all of a sudden, he’s going to bring in the Marines? That’s beyond hypocritical.”
    • “If it’s one thing that the Team Trump does have going for it, is they are masters of misinformation and disinformation. What’s happening in Los Angeles is not an insurrection. What happened on January 6 at the nation’s Capitol was an insurrection. So intellectual dishonesty is nothing new for J.D. Vance, or Donald Trump, or anybody in the White House right now. They should know better.”

    On the cruelty of Trump’s ICE raids and the importance of peaceful protests:

    • “These raids are not new. Obviously, we’ve been seeing them around the country for a few months, but increasingly with extremism and cruelty. And that’s what people in Los Angeles are responding to. Again, as others have said, you want to focus on violent and dangerous criminals? Great, there’s no disagreement there. But when you’re going after kids that are depending on lifesaving treatment, when you’re going after people in the workplace, in houses of worship, children in schools — that’s a whole thing altogether. So in a diverse community like Los Angeles, there’s going to be a lot of people who are passionate about defending fundamental rights and due process and to speak up when they see that not being respected.”
    • “So for all the people in Los Angeles, I do say protest. Protest peacefully, but protest because Donald Trump wants one of two things. He wants people … to be quiet, to suck it up, and ignore what’s happening, let him do whatever he wants. That’s not in our DNA.”

    On immigrants’ integral role in driving California’s economic success:

    • “We are not just the most populous state in the nation, we’re the most diverse state in the nation, home to more immigrants than any state in the nation, both mostly documented, some undocumented. But remember, folks, this is also the largest economy of any state in the nation, by far. The fourth-largest economy in the world, not despite our immigrant population, but because of our immigrant population, who contribute so much as [a] workforce, as consumers, as entrepreneurs. That’s something to be respected, not insulted.”

    On his personal story growing up as the son of immigrants from Mexico and fighting against anti-immigrant actions:

    • “You can’t help but take this personal because you can relate to the story, because you can relate to the sacrifice, because you can relate to that journey — not just me, my brother, my sister, my parents, and our family, but everybody, frankly, in the community where and how I grew up, which is indicative of millions of families across the country. You know, my parents came in pursuit of the American Dream, as so many have over generations, and my parents found it. My dad as a short order cook for 40 years, my mom cleaning houses. And to think that in one generation, someone like me can grow up in public schools in Los Angeles, go on to college, and one day represent our state in the United States Senate.”
    • “But there’s a reason why I left my engineering degree behind in 1994. It’s because of the rhetoric I saw back then in California, very different than the California we see today. Governor Pete Wilson, at the time, standing for re-election, down in the polls, turns to anti-immigrant rhetoric to try to seek re-election and divide the people. And it was because of … that Proposition 187 that people like my parents, finally took the steps to become citizens, as opposed to just being long-term permanent residents, but also my generation choosing to get involved in government and politics and change the trajectory of our state. California is very different today, but it is just so heartbreaking and offensive that the rhetoric continues to this day, even more so, because it’s not just coming out of the governor’s office in California back then, not now, but out of the Oval Office. Our nation is better than this. Look to California as a way forward.”

    On Trump’s mismanagement of the protests in Los Angeles:

    • “Law enforcement on the ground knows the community, and the community knows LAPD and the Sheriff’s Department. This is just a reminder that what happens when you don’t know what you’re doing as President United States, when you send in DHS, when you send in the National Guard, and they don’t know the community, they don’t have the rapport and the trust of the community, things get out of hand. And then the federal officials are in the position of having to call in LAPD to help them bring the temperature down in a situation, or the sheriff’s office in parts of the county outside the city of Los Angeles. It’s pointing out the weaknesses and the inability, the inexperience, and irresponsibility, frankly, of the Trump Administration.”

    Video of the full interview is available here.

    Senator Padilla also joined Los Angeles outlets KTLA and KNX tonight to discuss the fear and chaos the Trump Administration is stoking in Los Angeles and across California. On Friday, Padilla issued a statement condemning the Los Angeles ICE raids.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: US economic growth slows amid rising trade barriers

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

    This photo taken on March 29, 2023 shows the White House in Washington, D.C., the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its latest Economic Outlook on June 3, projects global GDP growth to decelerate from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% for both this year and the next. The United States economy is expected to see a significant slowdown, with growth dropping to 1.6% in 2025 and 1.5% in 2026. So, what’s behind this slowdown? Let’s take a closer look at the role of trade barriers.

    First, let’s get a handle on the current state of trade barriers. In recent years, the U.S. has been at the forefront of implementing a series of protectionist trade measures. These include imposing tariffs and erecting various trade barriers. For example, on May 23, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed directly imposing a 50% tariff on EU products starting from June 1. Products manufactured or produced in the U.S. would be exempt from this tariff. However, according to the latest news, after a phone call between President Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, it was decided to postpone the implementation of the 50% tariff on EU products until July 9. While the intention might have been to shield domestic industries and jobs, the reality has turned out to be quite different.

    Trade barriers have had a profound impact on U.S. exports. As a major export-oriented economy, the U.S. relies heavily on international markets for many of its industries. However, these barriers have diminished the competitiveness of U.S. products abroad. In retaliation for U.S. protectionist moves, other countries have also raised tariffs on U.S. goods. This has left U.S. exporters grappling with higher costs and shrinking market shares. Take U.S. agricultural exports, for example. Due to retaliatory tariffs from other nations, U.S. agricultural products have found it increasingly difficult to penetrate international markets. In 2024, the export value of U.S. soybeans was $24.5 billion, lower than the $27.7 billion in 2023 and the record high of $34.4 billion in 2022. This has led to a drop in domestic agricultural prices and a decline in farmers’ incomes.

    Trade barriers have also wreaked havoc on supply chains. In today’s globalized world, many U.S. industries depend on intricate global supply chains. These barriers have caused these supply chains to fracture and reconfigure. Numerous companies have had to scramble to find new suppliers, incurring additional costs and experiencing reduced production efficiency. For instance, U.S. manufacturing firms often rely on imported components. Trade barriers have disrupted the supply of these parts, forcing companies to spend more time and money seeking alternatives. This not only affects production but also drives up product prices. The manufacturing PMI for May shows that the prices index was as high as 69.4%. Although it slightly decreased compared to last month, it still remained at a high level, indicating that raw material costs have been rising for eight consecutive months.

    Trade barriers have led to a decline in business investment. Amid the uncertainty of the trade environment, many companies have become wary of future market prospects. They fear that escalating trade barriers could further erode their profits. As a result, they have cut back on investments in new projects and equipment. This not only hampers long-term corporate development but also has a negative impact on economic growth. For example, some U.S. tech companies had planned to expand production, but they have had to either delay or shelve these plans due to the impact of trade barriers. Green energy projects have also been suspended to varying degrees, with major clean energy projects not being spared. Flagship projects that have been put on hold include the $1 billion solar panel factory in Oklahoma by Italy’s Enel Green Power, the $2.3 billion battery storage facility in Arizona by South Korea’s LG Energy Solution, and the $1.3 billion lithium refinery in South Carolina by the world’s largest lithium miner, U.S.-based Albemarle.

    Lastly, trade barriers have eroded consumer confidence. Consumers are a vital part of the economy, and their spending behavior directly affects economic growth. Trade barriers have caused product prices to rise, increasing the cost of living for consumers. For example, in April 2025, the U.S. CPI increased by 3.4% year on year. At the same time, trade barriers have led to job losses, with unemployment in the U.S.at 4.2% in April, heightening consumers’ concerns about the economic outlook. This has led consumers to cut back on spending, which in turn has had a negative impact on economic growth.

    So, what does the future hold for the U.S. economy in the face of these trade barriers? In the short term, the U.S. economy is likely to continue facing the pressure of slower growth. The impact of trade barriers won’t vanish overnight, and companies will need time to adapt to the new trade landscape. In the long run, the U.S. will need to reassess its trade policies and seek more open and cooperative trade relations. Only by strengthening international cooperation and reducing trade barriers can sustainable economic growth be achieved.

    In summary, trade barriers are a key factor in the projected U.S. economy slowdown. They have affected U.S. exports, disrupted supply chains, reduced business investment and eroded consumer confidence. The U.S. must take proactive measures to address these challenges. 

    The author is an associate professor in economics at Beijing International Studies University.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Protesters Clash With National Guard in Los Angeles

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    LOS ANGELES, June 9 (Xinhua) — More than 200 protesters clashed with National Guard troops in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday during fresh demonstrations against immigration enforcement raids that took place across California over the weekend.

    Xinhua reporters at the scene saw National Guard troops, along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security officials, repeatedly use tear gas and smoke bombs to disperse the crowd. Several protesters and journalists were injured in the clashes.

    “We want to protest peacefully. But the Trump administration just sent soldiers to fight against us. Is it really necessary?” one protester told Xinhua.

    Shortly after the clashes, California Governor Gavin Newsom called on protesters to remain calm.

    “California! Don’t give Donald Trump what he wants. Speak up. Keep the peace. Keep calm,” Newsom wrote in an online post. “Be non-violent and respect the law enforcement officers who are doing everything they can to keep the peace.”

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.

    And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.

    Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.

    After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.

    In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.

    Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?

    Musk in politics

    Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.

    In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.

    This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.

    In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.

    Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.

    After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.

    Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.

    From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.

    There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    DOGE: success and failure

    Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.

    However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).

    In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.

    Trump clips Musk’s wings

    Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.

    Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.

    On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.

    Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.

    For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative rap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.

    The falling out

    Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.

    However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.

    Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.

    For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.

    Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.

    What now?

    Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.

    Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.

    Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.

    More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.

    Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.

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

    – ref. The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast? – https://theconversation.com/the-blow-up-between-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-been-entertaining-but-how-did-things-go-so-bad-so-fast-258394

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

    That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

    Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.

    This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]

    At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.

    However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.

    Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?

    Self-defence in the law

    Self-defence has a long history in international law.

    The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.

    The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.

    Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.

    Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

    The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.

    The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.

    The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.

    This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.

    These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.

    A test of proportionality

    The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.

    Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.

    While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.

    The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.

    While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.

    Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.

    The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.

    Is rescuing hostages in self-defence?

    Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.

    In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.

    In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.

    Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.

    An act of aggression?

    If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?

    Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.

    While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.

    Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.

    However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.

    Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.

    These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.

    The international community has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel’s conduct in Gaza?

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-still-claim-self-defence-to-justify-its-gaza-war-heres-what-the-law-says-257822

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    Jade Gao/Getty Images

    When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

    However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

    Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

    This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

    From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

    Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

    Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

    When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

    But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

    So why does Australia matter?

    Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

    Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

    Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

    The hidden costs of cheap clothes

    The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

    The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

    Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

    Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

    Will ethical fashion ever compete?

    Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
    Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

    Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

    Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

    Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

    Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

    Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

    Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

    Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

    Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

    Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

    Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

    Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

    Yun Shen 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 Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible “form of rebellion” against the authority of the U.S. government.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind “its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County” and return them to his command.

    WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE?

    Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service.

    A provision of Title 10 – Section 12406 – allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” or the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

    WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP’S ORDER?

    An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement.

    Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property.

    For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests.

    WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

    The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press.

    Experts have said that Trump’s decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration’s policies.

    IS TRUMP’S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES?

    Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump’s use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump’s actions would only escalate tensions.

    The protests in California do not rise to the level of “rebellion” and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said.

    Title 10 also says “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States,” but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president’s decision to deploy troops.

    COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP’S MOVE?

    California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no “rebellion” or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said.

    WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS?

    Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent.

    Casting protests as an “insurrection” that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren’t the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address.

    The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial.

    But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state’s governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.

    (Reuters)

  • Political divide widens as Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Republicans and Democrats traded barbs on Sunday after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid massive protests against increasing and divisive immigration raids.

    “Important to remember that Trump isn’t trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said in one of the most direct rebukes.

    “His movement doesn’t believe in democracy or protest – and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it.”

    Democratic Senator Cory Booker condemned Trump for deploying troops without California’s approval, warning it would only escalate tensions. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” he accused Trump of hypocrisy, and noted the president’s inaction on January 6, 2021 when thousands of his supporters raided the U.S. Capitol and his subsequent pardons for those arrested.

    Footage showed at least a half dozen military-style vehicles and riot shields on Sunday at the federal building in Los Angeles with federal law enforcement firing gas canisters to disperse demonstrators protesting against the ICE crackdown.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom and Trump sparred over the protests, with Newsom condemning the federal response as an overreach, saying Trump wants “a spectacle,” while the president accused Newsom of failing to maintain order.

    Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday defended Trump’s decision and said he had no concern about the National Guard deployment, adding, “One of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that in foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don’t think that’s heavy handed.”

    Republican Senator James Lankford said Trump is trying to de-escalate tensions, pointing to scenes of protesters throwing objects at law enforcement.

    He recalled similar unrest in 2020 in Seattle and Portland, where National Guard backed local law enforcement amid racial justice protests.

    The protests against the raids have become the latest focal point in a national debate over immigration, protest rights, and the use of federal force in domestic affairs. It also has fueled discussion on the boundaries of presidential power and the public’s right to dissent.

    (Reuters)

  • China’s May exports slow, deflation deepens as tariffs bite

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    China’s May export growth slowed to a three-month low as U.S. tariffs slammed shipments, while factory-gate deflation deepened to its worst level in two years, heaping pressure on the world’s second-largest economy on both the domestic and external fronts.

    The global trade war and the swings in China-U.S. trade ties have in the past two months sent Chinese exporters, along with their business partners across the Pacific, on a roller coaster ride and hobbled world growth.

    Exports expanded 4.8% year-on-year in value terms in May, slowing from the 8.1% jump in April and missing the 5.0% growth expected in a Reuters poll, customs data showed on Monday, despite a lowering of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods which had taken effect in early April.

    Imports dropped 3.4% year-on-year, deepening sharply from the 0.2% decline in April and worse than the 0.9% downturn expected in the Reuters poll.

    Exports had surged 12.4% year-on-year and 8.1% in March and April, respectively, as factories rushed shipments to the U.S. and other overseas manufacturers to avoid U.S. President Trump’s hefty levies on China and the rest of the world.

    While exporters in China found some respite in May as Beijing and Washington agreed to suspend most of their levies for 90 days, tensions between the world’s two largest economies remain high and negotiations are underway over issues ranging from China’s rare earths controls to Taiwan.

    Trade representatives from China and the U.S. are meeting in London on Monday to resume talks after a phone call between their top leaders on Thursday.

    “Export growth was likely stalled by heavy customs inspections in May due to tightened export control efforts,” said Xu Tianchen, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, noting that rare earth exports nearly halved last month, while electric machinery exports also slowed significantly.

    Underscoring the U.S. tariff impact on shipments, customs data showed that China’s exports to the U.S. slumped 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, widening from a 21% drop the previous month. Imports to the U.S. also lost further ground, dropping 18.1% from a 13.8% slide in April.

    China’s May trade surplus came in at $103.22 billion, up from the $96.18 billion the previous month.

    Other data, also released on Monday, showed China’s import of crude oil, coal, and iron ore dropped last month, underlining the fragility of domestic demand at a time of rising external headwinds.

    Beijing in May rolled out a series of monetary stimulus measures, including cuts to benchmark lending rates and a 500 billion yuan low-cost loan program for supporting elderly care and services consumption.

    The measures are aimed at cushioning the trade war’s blow to an economy that relied on exports in its recovery from the pandemic shocks and a protracted property market slump.

    China’s markets showed muted reaction to the data. The blue-chip CSI300 Index CSI300 and the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index SSEC were up around 0.2%.

    DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES

    Producer and consumer price data, released by the National Bureau of Statistics on the same day, showed that deflationary pressures worsened last month.

    The producer price index fell 3.3% in May from a year earlier, after a 2.7% decline in April and marked the deepest contraction in 22 months, while consumer prices extended declines, having dipped 0.1% last month from a year earlier.

    Cooling factory activity also highlights the impact of U.S. tariffs on the world’s largest manufacturing hub, dampening faster services growth as suspense lingers over the outcome of U.S.-China trade talks.

    Sluggish domestic demand and weak prices have weighed on China’s economy, which has struggled to mount a robust post-pandemic recovery and has relied on exports to underpin growth.

    Retail sales growth slowed last month as spending continued to lag amid job insecurity and stagnant new home prices.

    U.S. coffee chain Starbucks said on Monday it would lower prices of some iced drinks by an average of 5 yuan in China.

    The core inflation measure, excluding volatile food and fuel prices, registered a 0.6% year-on-year rise, slightly faster than a 0.5% increase in April.

    However, Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the improvement in core prices looks “fragile”, adding “we still think persistent overcapacity will keep China in deflation both this year and next.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Jobs at US’s Largest Port Halved Amid Tariff Controversy – Media

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    LOS ANGELES, June 8 (Xinhua) — The number of jobs at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest and busiest port in the United States, has been cut in half due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs that have crippled trade with the Asia-Pacific region, local media reported Saturday.

    Over the last 25 shifts, only 733 jobs were available for the 1,575 dockworkers seeking work, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka, adding that the port handled 25 percent less cargo than projected for May.

    “They haven’t been laid off, but they’re working a lot less than they were before,” Seroka said. “We’ve actually seen a decline in work since the tariffs were put in place, in May,” he added.

    J. Seroka attributed the job losses to the decrease in the volume of cargo passing through the port.

    The Port of Los Angeles has been the largest container port in the United States every year since 2000. In California alone, nearly 1 million jobs are tied to trade through the port. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 9, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 9, 2025.

    Israeli forces intercept Gaza freedom aid boat Madleen – cut communications
    Pacific Media Watch Contact has been lost with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla humanitarian aid boat Madleen after Israeli commandos intercepted it in international waters. The commandos demanded that everyone on board turn off their phones, and the boat lost contact with Al Jazeera Mubasher journalist Omar Faiad as well as its live feed, reports the

    NZ homes are notorious for being cold and damp. Here are 4 ways to make yours feel warmer this winter
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology New Zealand has just been hit by the first big cold snap of 2025 and, like every year, many New Zealanders will be reaching for an extra jumper, slippers and maybe a blanket to try and keep

    2-million-year-old pitted teeth from our ancient relatives reveal secrets about human evolution
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Towle, Research Fellow in Biological Anthropology, Monash University Ian Towle / The Conversation The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you’d think about the relationships between

    Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharina J. Peters, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong Will Falcon/Shutterstock Why do dolphins jump out of the water? Charlize, age 8, Melbourne Have you ever seen images of dolphins jumping out of the waves and performing impressive acrobatics in the air? Or maybe you’ve seen

    How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney Jade Gao/Getty Images When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs. However, this process of re-shoring is complex and

    Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the

    Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty Images Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022. Outbreaks

    What can you do if you don’t like your child’s friends?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Murrihy, Director, The Kidman Centre, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney Getty Images/ Wander Woman Collective Many parents will be familiar with this situation: your child has a good or even best friend, but you don’t like them. Perhaps the friend is bossy, has poor

    Immortality at a price: how the promise of delaying death has become a consumer marketing bonanza
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Errmann, Senior Lecturer, Marketing & International Business, Auckland University of Technology Living forever has become the wellness and marketing trend of the 2020s. But cheating death – or at least delaying it – will come at a price. What was once the domain of scientists and

    Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment. (Shutterstock) “You always mess things up. Why are you even on

    Phil Goff: Israel doesn’t care how many innocent people it’s killing in Gaza
    COMMENTARY: By Phil Goff “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.” This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister

    New Zealand’s foreign policy stance on Palestine lacks transparency
    COMMENTARY: By John Hobbs It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people. The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being

    The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the

    Gaza plea: RSF, CPJ and 150+ media outlets call on Israel to open Strip to foreign journalists, protect Palestinian reporters
    Pacific Media Watch More than 150 press freedom advocacy groups and international newsrooms have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in issuing a public appeal demanding that Israel grant foreign journalists immediate, independent and unrestricted access to the Gaza Strip. The organisations are also calling for the full protection

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Jobs at largest US port down by half amid tariff tensions: media

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

    Jobs at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest and busiest port in the United States, are down by half as U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs cripple trade with Asia-Pacific, local media reported on Saturday.

    Over the last 25 work shifts, only 733 jobs were available for 1,575 longshoremen looking for work, Los Angeles Times reported, citing Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, adding that the port processed 25 percent less cargo than forecast for May.

    “They haven’t been laid off, but they’re not working nearly as much as they did previously,” Seroka said. “Since the tariffs went into place, and in May specifically, we’ve really seen the work go off on the downside.”

    Seroka attributed the decrease in job opportunities to lower cargo volume moving through the port.

    The Port of Los Angeles has ranked as the largest container port in the United States each year since 2000. In California alone, nearly 1 million jobs are related to trade through the port. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS CONDEMNS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION FOR RACIST IMMIGRATION POLICY

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (43rd District of California)

    “Trump is demonstrating the height of his racism as he works to remove 500,000 legal immigrants from this country.”

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43), Ranking Member of the Committee on Financial Services, released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court granting the Trump Administration’s request to revoke humanitarian parole from more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and order them out of the Country. 

    “Donald Trump is demonstrating the height of his racism as he works to remove 500,000 legal immigrants from this country. These are individuals who followed the legal process to apply for and receive humanitarian parole, which allows migrants from countries facing instability, including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to enter the United States and live and work here legally, in this case for two years, provided they have a private sponsor. These people followed that process, entered the United States legally, and became law-abiding and contributing members of their communities.  It is downright cruel for Donald Trump to interfere with that process, take away their parole status with virtually no warning, uproot them from their families, sponsors, and communities, and deport them to situations that are still unstable.

    “I am appalled that the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to proceed with these racist deportation plans targeting law-abiding, legal immigrants who are working, raising families, and contributing in a positive way to their communities. I commend Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor for their dissent against this terrible decision.

    “Meanwhile, Trump lied to the American people and the world when he perpetuated a false narrative about white South Africans being subjected to genocide, and then used these lies to justify bringing white South Africans into the United States as refugees, while attempting to deport thousands of legal immigrants who are not white but who truly are refugees.  South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the United States intelligence community, and the international community have all confirmed that Trump lied about South Africa. 

    “Co-President Elon Musk spread these outrageous lies. Elon Musk is the same man whose family worked hard to maintain the racist apartheid system in South Africa for decades and who himself repeatedly gestured the Afrikaner salute (associated with white supremacist groups like South Africa’s neo-Nazi political party Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging).

    “But this isn’t new for Trump. Throughout his campaign and even after his election, Trump held rallies that featured racist and disparaging comments and outright lies about immigrants, especially Haitians, in an attempt to stoke fear amongst the American people. Trump’s baseless attacks caused irreparable harm to communities across our nation and further tarnished America’s image around the world.” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Stevie Wonder Owner of KJLH Radio Honors Congresswoman Maxine Waters at KJLH 25th Annual Women’s Health Expo

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (43rd District of California)

    Congresswoman Maxine Waters delivered a powerful speech to a packed crowd at KJLH’s 25th Annual Women’s Health Expo. The KJLH Women’s Health Expo is one of the largest health events for women in the state. This year’s theme – The Silver Lining: 25 Years of Building Generational Health – honors the legacy and impact of the event, as well as the dedication to advancing the health and empowerment of women and families across Southern California. Under Stevie Wonder’s leadership, this annual event continues to grow and features hundreds of exhibitors showcasing health, wellness, beauty, fitness, and lifestyle resources, tailored to women and families.

    The Congresswoman released the following statement:

    “Each year since the expo was founded, I am so pleased to join KLJH in advancing the health and wellness of women and families. The founders of this Expo knew that women wanted information about their health and needed better connections with health care providers, so that they could take control of their health and the health of their families.

    As the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, I’ve been raising the alarm – in the halls of Congress and back here in Los Angeles — about the disastrous impact of Donald Trump’s policies. I was absolutely appalled to learn of the Trump administration’s plans to slash more than $30 billion from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in his budget for next year. That is more than one quarter of the department’s budget.

    This cruel and senseless budget would dismantle the life-saving programs that enable Americans to stay healthy – from medical research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to disease prevention by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – from substance use treatment by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to the training of our nation’s future health care workforce.

    You might be wondering: What can I do, as an ordinary citizen, to fight back against Trump’s attack on our institutions and way of life? What can I do to stop cuts to Medicaid and other life-saving health care programs?

    We have to be out there in the streets. We need to make our voices heard and show that we won’t stand silently by while they take away our benefits and destroy our government. Trump’s relentless assault on our institutions and individual freedoms is not just dangerous; it is a coup in slow motion. And we all must be committed to defending our democracy before it’s too late”.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian VanDeMark, Professor of History, United States Naval Academy

    Smoke and tear gas surround a protester in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, amid confrontations between immigration rights advocates and law enforcement personnel. Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular U.S. troops “as necessary” to support the California National Guard.

    The president’s orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president’s decision as “inflammatory” and warned it “will only escalate tensions.”

    I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation’s past. My recent book, “Kent State: An American Tragedy,” examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio.

    The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life.

    In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill, and to win wars.

    Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. Local police responded with pepper spray, rubber bullets and tear gas.

    Federalizing the Guard

    The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency, or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer.

    Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd.

    Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors’ consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters.

    The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

    Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any “locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.”

    ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025.
    Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The standoff at Kent State

    The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces’ Reserve Officer Training Corps program.

    In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities.

    Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn’t going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. “We’re going to put a stop to this!” he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3.

    Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers.

    There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon’s expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard’s presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures.

    Archival footage from CBS News of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

    ‘Fire in the air!’

    The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly.

    In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens’ rifles loaded with live ammunition.

    As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers’ responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops’ discharge of weapons.

    When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted “Fire in the air!” in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students’ heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus’ order, and fired at the students.

    The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were.

    Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. “Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,” one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, “Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?”

    Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4.

    A fighting force

    National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds.

    In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that “the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.”

    In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force.

    Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 27, 2024.

    Brian VanDeMark 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. From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy – https://theconversation.com/from-kent-state-to-los-angeles-using-armed-forces-to-police-civilians-is-a-high-risk-strategy-258468

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI China: Protesters clash with National Guard troops in Los Angeles

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

    More than 200 protesters clashed with National Guard troops in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday during the latest demonstrations against immigration raids that swept across California over the weekend.

    Xinhua reporters at the scene observed National Guard soldiers, along with agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, repeatedly firing tear gas and smoke grenades to disperse the crowd. Some protesters and journalists were hit during the confrontation.

    “We want to protest peacefully. However, the Trump administration just sent soldiers to fight against us. Is it necessary?” one protester told Xinhua.

    Shortly after the clash, California Governor Gavin Newsom urged protesters to remain peaceful.

    “California — Don’t give Donald Trump what he wants. Speak up. Stay peaceful. Stay calm,” Newsom wrote in an online post. “Do not use violence and respect the law enforcement officers that are trying their best to keep the peace.”

    MIL OSI China News –