NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 5, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 5, 2025.

    Final counting shows polls understated Labor in 2025 election almost as much as they overstated it in 2019
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne With almost all primary votes now counted to two-party preferred (as I explained on May 29), Labor has won the national two-party vote by a 55.3–44.7 margin,

    Resignation of PM’s press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury Getty Images The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the

    One year ago, Australia scrapped a key equity in STEM program. Where are we now?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Vieira, Lecturer, Education Futures, University of South Australia ThisIsEngineering/Pexels In June 2024, the Australian government ended the Women in STEM Ambassador program. The decision followed a report that urged a broader, intersectional approach to diversity in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). For

    The pursuit of eternal youth goes back centuries. Modern cosmetic surgery is turning it into a reality – for rich people
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Gibson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Griffith University The Conversation, CC BY-SA Kris Jenner’s “new” face sparked myriad headlines about how she can look so good at 69 years old. While she’s not confirmed what sort of procedures she’s undergone, speculation abounds. As a US reality TV

    Woodside’s North West Shelf approval is by no means a one-off. Here are 6 other giant gas projects to watch
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Deakin Law School, Deakin University GREG WOOD/AFP via Getty Images The federal government’s decision to extend the life of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas plant in Western Australia has been condemned as a climate disaster. The gas lobby claims more gas is needed to

    Unprecedented heat in the North Atlantic Ocean kickstarted Europe’s hellish 2023 summer. Now we know what caused it
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew England, Scientia Professor and Deputy Director of the ARC Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, UNSW Sydney Westend61/Getty Images In June 2023, a record-breaking marine heatwave swept across the North Atlantic Ocean, smashing previous temperature records. Soon after, deadly heatwaves broke out across large areas

    Bowel cancer rates are declining in people over 50. But why are they going up in younger adults?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Mahady, Associate Professor, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Monash University Thirdman/Pexels Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Australia, with more than 15,000 cases diagnosed annually. It’s also the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Recently, headlines have warned of an uptick in cases

    Australian kids BYO lunches to school. There is a healthier way to feed students
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liesel Spencer, Associate Professor, School of Law, Western Sydney University Getty Images/ courtneyk Australian parents will be familiar with this school morning routine: hastily making sandwiches or squeezing leftovers into containers, grabbing a snack from the cupboard and a piece of fruit from the counter. This would

    Australia’s charity sector is growing – but many smaller charities are doing it tough
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Faulkner, Senior Marketing Scientist, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia Revenue for Australia’s charity and not-for-profit sector has reached record highs, and total donations have grown. But the story isn’t the same everywhere, and some smaller charities may be struggling. That’s according to the latest edition

    Taylor Swift now owns all the music she has ever made: a copyright expert breaks it down
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England On Friday, Taylor Swift announced she now owns all the music she has ever made. This reported US$360 million acquisition includes all the master recordings to her first six albums, music videos, concert films, album art, photos and

    The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University The iconoclastic American general Douglas Macarthur once said that “wars are never won in the past”. That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine’s recent audacious attack on

    Politics with Michelle Grattan: historian Emma Shortis warns against falling into Trump’s trade traps
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to have his first face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump this month, against a background of increased steel and aluminium tariffs and US pressure on Australia to boost its defence spending. How Australia

    Extreme weather events have slowed economic growth, adding to the case for another rate cut
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stella Huangfu, Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney Australia’s economy slowed sharply in the March quarter, growing by just 0.2% as government spending slowed and extreme weather events dampened demand. That followed an increase of 0.6% in the previous quarter. The national accounts report from

    Young people who witness domestic violence are more likely to be victims of it. Here’s how we can help them
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Diemer, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Melbourne In our national discussions on domestic and family violence, much of the focus is rightly on the women experiencing the violence and how best to help them. But another vital, less acknowledged part of the puzzle is

    Gluten intolerance and coeliac disease can both cause nausea, bloating and pain. What’s the difference?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yasmine Probst, Professor, School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences. Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of Wollongong fotodrobik/Shutterstock Around one in ten Australians say they follow a gluten-free diet. This means eliminating common foods – such as bread, pasta and noodles – that contain gluten, a protein

    How physicists used antimatter, supercomputers and giant magnets to solve a 20-year-old mystery
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Finn Stokes, Ramsay Fellow in Physics, University of Adelaide Cindy Arnold, Fermilab Physicists are always searching for new theories to improve our understanding of the universe and resolve big unanswered questions. But there’s a problem. How do you search for undiscovered forces or particles when you don’t

    Ahead of the Brisbane Olympics, it’s time for Australia to get serious about esports
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig McNulty, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, Queensland University of Technology Roman Kosolapov/Shutterstock Most of us have heard of esports but many don’t realise the fast-growing world of competitive video gaming features tournaments, university scholarships and billions of dollars in revenue. As we approach the 2032 Brisbane

    ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 4, 2025
    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 4, 2025.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Colleagues Demand Answers from Trump Administration on Cancellation of Protected Status for Afghans Living in U.S.

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    June 04, 2025

    Lawmakers: Administration decision could endanger thousands of Afghans, including many who supported U.S. efforts during the war in Afghanistan

    Washington D.C.— U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said today he has joined Senate and House colleagues in pressing for answers from the Trump administration  about its decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals living in the United States. 

    The lawmakers note the devastating impact of this decision, including on the many Afghans who supported the U.S. military during the war in Afghanistan and who face significant danger upon their return.

    “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025,” the lawmakers wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country.”

    “Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service,” they wrote. “We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions,” 

    “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain,” they wrote. “Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls.”

    The lawmakers close the letter urging the administration to reverse course and seeking the following information: 

    ·         Please provide any reports that credibly determine conditions have improved in Afghanistan since 2023.  

    ·         The TPS termination announcement stated “there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.” Please provide additional details on how the Administration made this determination and how widespread these allegations of fraud and threats are.

    ·         Describe the collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to reach the determination that Afghanistan no longer meets the conditions for designation for TPS. 

    ·         Please provide any reports that indicate the Taliban is no longer a threat to Afghan nationals that assisted the United States military during the war in Afghanistan. 

    ·         What steps are you taking to ensure Afghan nationals who previously had TPS will not be sent back to persecution or torture in Afghanistan?

    The letter was led by Senators Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and  Congressman Glenn Ivey, D-Md. In addition to Wyden, the letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Chris Coons, D-Del., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., John Fetterman, D-Pa., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Tim Kaine, D-Va., Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Andy Kim, D-N.J., Angus King, I-Maine, Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Mark Warner, D-Va., Rev. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Representatives Gabe Amo, D-R.I., Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., Rebecca Balint, D-Vt., Wesley Bell, D-Mo., Don Beyer, D-Va., Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill., Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., Troy Carter, D-La., Sean Casten, D-Ill., Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, Judy Chu, D-Calif., Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.,  Joe Courtney, D-Conn., Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., Diana DeGette, D-Colo., Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., Sarah Elfreth, D-Md., Dwight Evans, D-Pa., Cleo Fields, D-Ga., Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Jesus García, D-Ill., Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif.,  Vincente Gonzalez, D-Texas, Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., Jahana Hayes, D-Conn.,  Jonathan Jackson D-Ill., Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Julie Johnson, D-Texas, Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, Bill Keating, D-Mass., Robin Kelly, D-Ill., Tim Kennedy, D-N.Y., Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, John Larson, D-Conn., George Latimer, D-N.Y., Mike Levin, D-Calif., Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., April McClain Delaney, D-Md., Jennifer McClellan, D-Va., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., Jim McGovern, D-Mass.,  Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., Kweisi Mfume, D-Md., Seth Moulton, D-Mass., Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Scott Peters, D-Calif., Jaime Raskin, D-Md., Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Brad Sherman, D-Calif., Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., Suhas Subramanyam, D- Va., Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Dina Titus, D-Nev., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., Juan Vargas, D-Calif., Marc Veasey, D-Texas, and Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.

    The full text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Colleagues Press Administration for Answers on Cancellation of Protected Status for Afghans Living in U.S.

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) joined colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives pressing for answers from the Trump administration around the decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals living in the United States who have fled violence and persecution from the Taliban. Many of these TPS recipients served fearlessly with the U.S. during the war in Afghanistan, which makes it especially dangerous for them to return home. The lawmakers urged the Administration to reverse course.
    “We write with deep concern about the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country. Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service,” the lawmakers began.
    “We are also deeply concerned about the State Department Human Rights Report finding that widespread arbitrary and unlawful killings against officials associated with the pre-August 2021 government have occurred,” they continued. “Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military should not be put in harm’s way because they supported the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This would be a betrayal of those who bravely served alongside our servicemembers for nearly two decades.”
    “The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the U.S. following the return of the Taliban to power remain. Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the U.S. to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls,” they concluded.
    The full text of the letter is available here.
    The first and only Latina senator, Senator Cortez Masto has consistently supported immigrant communities in Nevada, calling on both administrations to protect TPS holders and other immigrants, as well as leading commonsense legislation to fix our broken immigration system. She has supported bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Afghan Special Immigration Visa (SIV) program to protect the Afghan civilians who risked their lives to support the U.S. mission. She has worked to pass meaningful immigration reform that balances critical border security measures with a path to citizenship for Dreamers, TPS holders, and essential workers.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto Leads Nevada Delegation in Urging President Trump to Reverse Harmful Tariffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Representatives Dina Titus (D-Nev.-01), Susie Lee (D-Nev.-03), and Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04) in a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to reverse his blanket tariffs that have had harmful impacts on Nevada. The delegation expressed concern that the tariffs will continue to raise costs for Nevada families, make small businesses harder to operate, worsen the housing shortage, and threaten Nevada’s tourism economy.

    “We write to express our deep concern that your reckless and uncoordinated tariffs imposed on American allies and partners will have a destructive effect on the economy in our home state of Nevada,” wrote the delegation. “Targeted tariffs on our adversaries can be a useful tool to protect American jobs and support our national security; however, your blanket tariffs are the opposite of that. We urge you to reverse your approach and remove harmful tariffs that will only create uncertainty and higher costs for hardworking families and small businesses across Nevada.”

    “That is why we believe U.S. trade policy must be thoughtfully implemented to strengthen our economic bonds with our allies, while strongly confronting adversaries like China. Your administration’s implementation of blunt, widespread tariffs is just the opposite,” concluded the delegation. “It has only served to create chaos and uncertainty across the economy. Your tariffs are raising prices of everyday items for Nevada families and imposing higher costs on Nevada businesses including manufacturers, tourism, and other companies, stunting our state’s previously booming economic growth. We urge your administration to reverse course and commit to working with Congress to modernize our trade policies to ensure they work in the best interest of Nevada and the United States.”

    Read the full letter here.

    Senator Cortez Masto has continued to push the Trump Administration to address the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on working families and Nevada small businesses. Earlier this year, the Senator wrote a letter to the Administration demanding they provide their plan to mitigate the economic stress caused by the implementation of President Donald Trump’s tariffs and other executive actions. During a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Cortez Masto pressed U.S. Trade Representative Greer about the impacts of President Trump’s blanket tariffs on Nevadans, particularly those employed in the tourism and hospitality industry. The Senator introduced the Tariff Transparency Act to require the U.S. International Trade Commission to publicly investigate how Donald Trump’s recent tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada will impact the American people.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: On the Senate Floor, Cortez Masto Slams Republican Plan to Kick Millions off Health Care

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    FTP for TV stations of her remarks is available here.

    “Republicans’ goal is to take Medicaid away from as many people as possible so they can pay for tax cuts for billionaires. It’s absurd and it’s un-American.”

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) spoke on the Senate floor to rake Republicans’ reconciliation bill over the coals for the devastating impact it would have on Nevadans’ health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would add $2.4 trillion to our national deficit and kick 16 million Americans off their health insurance, including nearly 100,000 Nevadans, all to pay for a tax giveaway to President Donald Trump’s billionaire friends.

    Below are her remarks as prepared for delivery:

    Mr. President, I’m joining my colleagues today to speak in opposition to Republicans’ catastrophic budget bill…that will end health care coverage for millions of American families…so that President Trump can orchestrate the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and working class to the ultra-rich that we have ever seen in this country.

    This bill has nearly $1 trillion in health care cuts, including over $800 billion in Medicaid cuts. In total, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would not only add $2.4 trillion to our national deficit, but also kick 16 million Americans off their health insurance in the next 10 years.

    In Nevada, that means about 95,271 people will lose their health care. 66,571 will be kicked off Medicaid.

    These numbers alone should at least give my Republican colleagues pause; make them think about how devastating this bill would be for working families. And maybe reconsider moving forward with trying to ram it through Congress.

    But there’s more to this than just these big numbers, and it needs to be brought to light.

    I was just home in Nevada, meeting with hospitals and providers. With the Medicaid cuts they’re anticipating from this billionaire tax giveaway, hospitals are bracing themselves not just for coverage losses, but for the downstream impact on care and costs.

    This is going to affect our most vulnerable populations in Nevada: seniors, children, veterans, parents of children with rare diseases, pregnant women, and our elderly in nursing homes.

    When people lose coverage, they delay their care. A single mom who’s living paycheck to paycheck and is worried about putting food on the table for her kids isn’t going to go to the doctor if she has a persistent cough. She’ll wait.

    But that means that when her cough turns serious, making it hard for her to breathe, she’ll have to go to the emergency room for treatment. By then, it’s more dangerous for her and more expensive for everyone involved.

    The hospital she goes to has to treat her, regardless of whether or not she has health insurance. If she can’t pay, the hospital is on the hook for the cost of her care.

    If you’re in a rural or underserved area – of which we have many in Nevada – and the one hospital for miles can’t afford to keep their doors open, it may scale back or close altogether.

    Now the hospital staff has to choose which services to cut. Labor and delivery? Mental health care? Trauma units? These are services entire communities rely on.

    Or will they be forced to close entirely if they can’t make up the costs?

    In rural Nevada, people sometimes have to drive 2, 3, 4 hours to see their doctor. A hospital closure would be devastating for rural families trying to access even basic care. That’s the danger we’re facing with this bill.

    This isn’t just about Medicaid patients. As providers look to cover the cost of treating more uninsured patients, those expenses will shift to everyone else. To working families and to employers. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs will soar.

    All so President Trump and Republicans can pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

    This is also going to impact Nevadans who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their medical insurance.

    Republicans’ bill cuts almost $300 billion from ACA Marketplace Plans, which would kick about 29,000 Nevada small business owners, middle-class families, and legal immigrants like Dreamers off their health care.

    It would increase Medicare premiums for over 1 million seniors and could end health care coverage for 1.5 million children. These are real people who are going to lose their coverage as a result of this bill.

    And the impact would be lasting – this bill is so expensive that it would force Congress to make even more Medicare cuts in the future.

    For those who don’t immediately get kicked off their health insurance as a result of cuts to Medicaid, my Republican colleagues want to implement burdensome work reporting requirements so they can take away coverage from even more Americans.

    In Nevada, over 67% of Medicaid recipients are already working. But if this bill passes, they’ll have to jump through even more government reporting hoops to prove that they work.

    We know from states that have tried this, like Arkansas, that people lost Medicaid not because they didn’t meet the requirement, but because they couldn’t keep up with the red tape.

    This bill adds complex paperwork, frequent deadlines, and little flexibility to the everyday lives of hardworking mothers, veterans, and families across the country.

    Why? Because the Republicans’ goal is to take Medicaid away from as many people as possible so they can pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

    It’s absurd, and it’s un-American. We cannot accept this as our new normal.

    My Democratic colleagues and I are going to continue to stand against this outrageous, dangerous bill. The American people deserve better.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Presses VA IG Nominee on Political Appointments, Involvement with DOGE

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH: Murray’s Q&A at nomination hearing *****

    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing to consider pending nominations, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, questioned Cheryl Mason, President Trump’s nominee to be Inspector General (IG) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), on how—as a political appointee for President Trump and an advisor to VA Secretary Doug Collins—she can be trusted to serve as an independent and nonpartisan watchdog for VA, as is the job of the VA Inspector General. Under Secretary Collins’ leadership, VA is stonewalling members of Congress on critical oversight requests and has rolled out controversial policies to dramatically limit Congressional engagement with veterans and VA employees.

    Senator Murray began by probing Ms. Mason on her time serving as a senior advisory to Secretary Collins at VA, including even after she was nominated to be Inspector General: “Ms. Mason, you did say on your questionnaire that you continued to be a senior adviser to Secretary Collins after you were nominated to become the Inspector General monitoring his agency. While you were senior advisor to Secretary Collins, what discussions were you involved in related to abruptly canceling contracts, or ending DEI efforts, or eliminating outreach to LGBTQ [veterans]?”

    “At the time I answered the questionnaire, I was senior advisor to the Secretary. That role ended very quickly after I submitted that questionnaire,” Ms. Mason replied. “So as for your question as to those roles, the only roles I had with contracts were ensuring that the organizations that were in my portfolio knew that they needed to justify the contracts and ensured that they responded timely. I did not review contracts; I was not involved in those. As far as in the DEI situation, that was an Executive Order, and shortly after the senior advisors came in, they were followed by more senior advisors, and that was not something that was on my plate. That belonged to General Counsel and the senior advisor who was charged with EOs.”

    “What substantive work were you doing if you weren’t involved in any of that?” Senator Murray pressed.

    “My role as senior advisor was to look into actions that were going on in the administration—,” Ms. Mason said.

    “But a lot of the actions that were going on in the administration that we know about were about ending DEI, about firing employees, about canceling contracts. So that was most of the activity that was going on there,” Murray replied.

    “That was not in my portfolio. There were separate senior advisors assigned to that. My portfolio was looking at the way those organizations operated and how they served veterans, particularly VBA, because it’s such a large organization. There were challenges with the digital GI Bill, challenge with disability compensation backlog and inventory, with both the Board and VBA, challenges with loan guarantees. There were a variety of challenges within VBA that I was looking at,” said Ms. Mason.

    Senator Murray followed up: “Let me ask you differently: What was your engagement with DOGE and the White House outside of the Presidential Personnel Office?”

    “I had no engagement with DOGE,” Ms. Mason said.

    “None, zero? No contact?,” Murray asked.

    “No. The only contact I had was a swearing-in—I attended a swearing-in for a person who has since, I guess, has left the department in DOGE. That person, I attended the VA swearing-in. That was it,” Ms. Mason replied.

    Senator Murray continued her questioning by asking whether Ms. Mason would Congressional oversight of the OIG. “As you know, Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight over the Office of Inspector General to make sure that they are properly conducting their role, so it’s really crucial, as you well know, that the OIG is transparent. If you are confirmed, will you provide us with a list of every ongoing OIG investigation within 30 days?”

    “Yes, Senator, I will do so,” replied Ms. Mason.

    “The budget for VA proposed the elimination of ‘unnecessary’ outreach activities. From a Congressional perspective, it is really critical to make sure that any canceled outreach doesn’t impact veterans’ ability to receive care that is necessary to provide. If confirmed, will you hold the Department responsible for conducting all outreach that is in statute or policy, even if the political leadership—meaning your former boss, Secretary Collins—doesn’t want to reach out to those groups?” Senator Murray pressed.

    Ms. Mason responded, “Senator Murray, I will look into all those situations and I will see where there are statutory require[ments] and they will be held accountable under my watch as OIG if confirmed.”

    Senator Murray continued, “Congress was very clear in 1978 when it passed the law governing Inspectors General. The law states, and I want to quote it, ‘each Inspector General shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity.’ Do you believe that an Inspector General should be entirely independent from the administration in which they serve?”

    “I do,” Ms. Mason replied.

    “Well, you were a political appointee for President Trump in his first term, and as we said on your questionnaire, you said you continued to be an advisor to Secretary Collins after you were nominated for this. Do you believe that this demonstrates the kind of nonpartisanship it takes to successfully execute this job?” asked Senator Murray.

    “Yes, I do believe I have that,” said Ms. Mason, referencing her prior experience in VA serving under different administrations.

    Senator Murray was the first woman to join the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the first woman to chair the Committee—as the daughter of a World War II veteran, supporting veterans and their families has always been an important priority for her. Senator Murray has been a leading voice in the Senate speaking out forcefully against President Trump and Elon Musk’s mass firing of VA employees and VA researchers across the country and Elon Musk and DOGE’s infiltration of the VA, including accessing veterans’ sensitive personal information.

    Last month at a hearing on veterans’ mental health, Senator Murray pressed administration officials on the importance of transparency and communication with Congress and how the Trump administration’s mass firings might undermine care for veterans who have dealt with sexual trauma. In February, Murray grilled Trump’s then-nominee for VA Deputy Secretary, Dr. Paul Lawrence, on the mass firings of VA employees and VA researchers. After pressing Doug Collins on EHR and protecting women’s access to VA health care, including lifesaving abortion care, at his nomination hearing, Senator Murray voted against Doug Collins’s nomination to be VA Secretary in early February, sounding the alarm over Elon Musk and DOGE’s activities at the VA and making clear that the Trump administration’s lawlessness is putting our national security and our veterans at risk.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Kelly Statement on Trump Administration’s Recissions Package: ‘Needlessly Cruel and Evil’

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

    WASHINGTON – The White House released its recissions package, requesting Congress to cancel $9.4 billion already appropriated by Congress. The package advances President Donald Trump’s agenda to codify DOGE’s spending cuts, slash foreign aid, cut funding from major public broadcasting entities and rolls back a Biden-era guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortion care.

    U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (IL-02) released the following statement condemning the recissions package:

    “President Trump’s recissions package is needlessly cruel and evil. He is stealing money – money that has already been designated by Congress – from Sesame Street to Main Street, hurting everyday Americans to give tax breaks to the well-off and well-connected. For years, I’ve heard my Republican colleagues spout about Congress’s constitutional power of the purse, but now, they’d consider cancelling $9.4 billion that we have already appropriated to programs like PBS, NPR, and USAID.

    “The President also continues to threaten the lives of women by rescinding guidance that reaffirmed hospitals’ obligation under law to provide lifesaving abortion care to patients experiencing a medical emergency. While the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act is still the law of the land, this is, again, a cruel and evil decision by the Trump administration. Rescinding this guidance will delay necessary emergency abortion care, endangering the lives of patients.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Final counting shows polls understated Labor in 2025 election almost as much as they overstated it in 2019

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    With almost all primary votes now counted to two-party preferred (as I explained on May 29), Labor has won the national two-party vote by a 55.3–44.7 margin, although this may drop to a 55.2–44.8 margin once the remaining votes from Bradfield come in.

    Labor’s two-party share is over two points higher than in any poll taken in the final week before the election.

    Final primary votes were 34.6% Labor (up 2.0% since the 2022 election), 31.8% Coalition (down 3.9%), 12.2% Greens (steady), 6.4% One Nation (up 1.4%), 1.9% Trumpet of Patriots (down 2.2% from United Australia Party in 2022), 7.4% independents (up 2.1%) and 5.7% others (up 0.6%).

    The table below shows the primary vote and two-party estimates of all ten polls conducted in the final week before the election, with the election results at the bottom. When polls gave a breakdown for Trumpet of Patriots, independents and others, I’ve combined these for an all Others total. Bold numbers in the table represent estimates that were within 1% of the result.

    Fieldwork dates for the Ipsos poll were not released, but it was published in The Daily Mail on election day, so it was presumably taken in the last week. Published primary votes in this poll included 5% undecided, which I have redistributed proportionally to the parties listed.

    In 2019, all the polls gave Labor between a 51–49 and a 52–48 lead. The actual result was a Coalition win by 51.5–48.5.

    This year, all polls had Labor between a 51–49 and a 53–47 lead and the actual result was a Labor win by 55.3–44.7. The two polls (Freshwater and Ipsos) that had Labor below a 52–48 lead were particularly poor.

    The polls understated Labor’s primary vote and overstated the Coalition’s. Labor won the primary vote by 2.7 points, when nearly all polls had the Coalition ahead (Redbridge was tied). The Freshwater and Ipsos polls performed badly in overstating the Coalition’s vote.

    The Greens were mostly overstated, while One Nation was overstated by every pollster except Morgan.

    Preference flow assumptions compounded the polls’ problems. If I plug the election primary votes into my 2022 preference flows spreadsheet, I get a Labor two-party lead of 55.3–44.7, the same as the actual result.

    Newspoll had higher One Nation preference flows to the Coalition than in 2022. If they’d used 2022 flows, Labor would have led by about 53–47. YouGov used data from its MRP polls that gave the Coalition both a higher share of One Nation and Greens preferences than in 2022. If they’d used 2022 flows, Labor would have led by 54.2–45.8.

    We won’t have data on preference flows by party for some time, but it’s likely that One Nation preferences did become more pro-Coalition. However, Greens and independent preferences compensated by becoming more pro-Labor.

    Respondent-allocated polls from Essential, Resolve, Freshwater, Redbridge and Spectre all suggested this would be the case. YouGov may have used MRP polls earlier in the year to allocate preferences. Labor was doing badly on preferences earlier.

    The poll graph that I used in my pre-election articles is below. There was a surge to Labor in March and April. Labor had been polling poorly from December to February and may have lost an election held then. The polls told us that Labor had recovered to an election-winning position, but they understated the magnitude of that win.

    The best two polls were not the final polls, but a Morgan poll taken two weeks from the election that gave Labor a 55.5–44.5 lead. Morgan’s final two polls both gave Labor a 53–47 lead. The other good poll was a Redbridge poll of 20 marginal seats that gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead a week before the election (actual result 54.8–45.2 to Labor across these seats).

    Redbridge would have been better if they’d stuck with their 54.5–45.5 to Labor in the marginal seats in this poll, but they dropped back to 53–47 to Labor in the poll published on election day.

    The final YouGov MRP poll predicted Labor would win 84 of the 150 seats, understating Labor by ten seats. An exit poll of early voters from the first two days of early in-person voting correctly had swings to Labor.

    While public polling was poor at this election, Liberal internal polling was worse. This article in The Australian published the day before the election said the Coalition was confident of gaining ten seats from Labor. Labor actually gained 14 seats from the Coalition.

    The worst seat polls

    I’m not going to relate every seat poll in this election, but there were some seat poll stinkers.

    I referred to JWS seat polls of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith on April 18. These polls gave the Liberal National Party a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan, with the Greens a distant third on primary votes. In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

    In Ryan, the Greens made the final two and defeated the LNP by 53.3–46.7. If Labor had made the final two, they would have won by 57.8–42.2. In Brisbane, Labor crushed the LNP by 59.0–41.0. In Griffith, Labor and the Greens made the final two, and a two-party count between Labor and the LNP had Labor winning by 65.9–34.1.

    I referred to a Compass seat poll of McMahon on April 11. This poll gave right-wing independent Matt Camenzuli 41% of the primary vote, the Liberals 20% and Labor incumbent Chris Bowen just 19%. Bowen actually won 45.5% of the primary vote, the Liberals 26.8% and Camenzuli just 9.8%.

    I referred to KJC polls of four seats on April 27. These polls gave the Liberals a 49–45 lead including undecided in Tangney and a 46–41 lead in Blair. In Richmond, the Greens led Labor by 39–34. In Hunter, Labor led the Nationals by 45–41.

    Labor actually won Tangney by 57.0–43.0 and Blair by 55.7–44.3. In Richmond, the Greens did not make the final two, and Labor would have beaten them easily if they had. In Hunter, One Nation instead of the Nationals made the final two, with Labor winning by 59.0–41.0. Had the Nationals made the final two, Labor would have won by a similar 59.5–40.5.

    Recount results and Greens senator defects to Labor

    In Liberal-held Bradfield, Teal Nicolette Boele defeated the Liberals by 26 votes after a recount, overturning an eight-vote Liberal lead on the original count. The Liberals could challenge this result in the courts, but Boele will be seated until the courts decide.

    In Goldstein, the partial recount of primary votes for Teal incumbent Zoe Daniel and Liberal Tim Wilson was completed on May 31. Wilson won by 175 votes, down from 260 before the recount started.

    With these results, the final seat outcome of the election is 94 Labor out of 150, 43 Coalition and 13 for all Others. That’s a Labor majority of 38 by the UK method.

    Western Australian Greens Senator Dorinda Cox, who was elected in 2022, defected to Labor on Monday. This gives Labor 29 of the 76 senators and the Greens ten. Labor will still need either the Coalition or the Greens to reach the 39 votes required for a Senate majority. Cox’s six-year term will expire in June 2028.

    South Korea and Poland elections

    On Tuesday the centre-left candidate won the South Korean presidential election that had been called early after the previous right-wing president was impeached and removed from office. On Sunday the Law and Justice (PiS) candidate won the Polish presidential election, defeating a pro-Western centrist.

    Donald Trump’s US national ratings have improved since his nadir in late April. I wrote about these events for The Poll Bludger on Wednesday.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. Final counting shows polls understated Labor in 2025 election almost as much as they overstated it in 2019 – https://theconversation.com/final-counting-shows-polls-understated-labor-in-2025-election-almost-as-much-as-they-overstated-it-in-2019-256981

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Warren, Blunt Rochester Condemn RFK for Making it Harder for Pregnant Women and Children to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines, Putting Their Health at Risk

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 04, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), joined by U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), today condemned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for announcing changes to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule that would dramatically limit access to COVID-19 vaccines for millions of pregnant women and children, needlessly endangering their health. In their letter, the Senators slam the decision as anti-science and politically motivated, criticizing Secretary Kennedy for failing to provide scientific justification for the policy change and for confirming their longstanding concerns that he would enact unscientific, anti-vax policies as HHS Secretary—despite all his clamoring before Senate committees that he would not restrict vaccine access.

    “Your politically driven, anti-science decision—made suddenly and behind closed doors, without input from the public or scientific and medical communities—flies in the face of your commitment to ‘not…take away anybody’s vaccines’ and will lead to an untold number of preventable illness and death of Americans,” wrote the Senators.

    “Enabled by President Trump and fueled by decades of anti-vaccine skepticism, you appear to be establishing a roadmap by which the United States’ government can implement unscientific, anti-vaccination policies,” the lawmakers continued. “By sowing distrust, creating chaos and justifying your actions with misinformation, you are laying the groundwork to undermine access to other safe, effective vaccines, including for those that prevent diseases like whooping cough, measles and more.”

    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below:

    Dear Secretary Kennedy:

    We write to express our extreme concern regarding the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’) recent policy changes to dramatically curtail access to the COVID-19 vaccine for those Americans who would choose to receive it. We are particularly alarmed by your May 27, 2025 announcement on X—along with Drs. Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), respectively—that the COVID-19 vaccine will no longer be included under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended routine immunization schedule for healthy pregnant women.

    We are also concerned that the CDC changed its recommendation for administering the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and adolescents from routine to using “shared clinical decision-making” between clinicians and families. As of the writing of this letter, the CDC has updated the immunization schedule for adults, removing the previous recommendation for pregnant women. The unjustified announcement “blindsided” senior officials at the CDC and were designed to “further erode public trust in the [agency].” By side-stepping the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) open and transparent deliberation of the evidence, you have thrown into question coverage of vaccines under Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance for millions of Americans. Your politically driven, anti-science decision—made suddenly and behind closed doors, without input from the public or scientific and medical communities—flies in the face of your commitment to “not…take away anybody’s vaccines” and will lead to an untold number of preventable illness and death of Americans. We therefore strongly urge you to reverse this position until there is a thorough, transparent consideration of the body of evidence regarding the COVID-19 vaccine’s public health benefit.

    Political Motivations Threaten COVID-19 Vaccine Access for Millions of Americans

    The ACIP’s vaccine recommendations, as adopted by the CDC, form the basis of no-cost access to the vaccines for millions of Americans. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, requires that most commercial health insurance plans and Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans cover ACIP-recommended vaccines for a given individual with no cost sharing. In addition, for the Vaccines for Children Program, authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, ACIP determines which vaccines are provided at no cost to children who are uninsured, underinsured, Medicaid-eligible, Medicaid-enrolled or American Indian or Alaska Native. States must also cover ACIP-recommended vaccines and their administration for children enrolled in separate State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs without enrollee cost-sharing.

    More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act expanded no-cost coverage of ACIP-recommended vaccines and vaccine administration without cost-sharing to adults under Medicare Part D, Medicaid and CHIP. The uncertainty and confusion caused by your politically driven actions may lead to many insurers deciding to drop coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine for millions of people. Without insurance coverage, individuals who wish to receive the COVID-19 vaccine will be forced to pay up to $200 or more out-of-pocket—an insurmountable cost for many families, especially amid cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by the current administration’s policies.

    Politically Driven, Anti-Vaccination Decision-Making Circumvents Scientific Input

    You appeared to make this policy change without consulting the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and prior to the next scheduled public meeting of the ACIP, the members of which are leading vaccine experts tasked with developing vaccine recommendations. You did so even though the ACIP had independently been considering updating COVID-19 vaccine recommendations to take into account the risk levels of different populations and was expected to vote on those recommendations when it was next scheduled to meet on June 25-27, 2025.

    Your announcement is a striking departure from the transparent and evidence-informed manner by which vaccine approvals and recommendations are formulated by HHS. For decades, scientists have weighed in on vaccine recommendations through a strenuous process. Following a decision from FDA experts about whether to approve a new vaccine based on clinical trial evidence and other data, ACIP “weighs extensive evidence about safety, effectiveness and other data to determine the best recommendation for who should receive the vaccine, when and how often.” The CDC director may choose to adopt, reject or modify these recommendations, though rejection or modification of such recommendations is rare. In the past quarter century, the CDC director has acted only twice to expand access beyond the ACIP’s recommendation, both times in response to extraordinary circumstances—in 2002 for the smallpox vaccine in connection with a vaccination campaign to address potential bioterrorism attacks, and in 2021 for the COVID-19 vaccine for front-line workers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in an unprecedented and deeply troubling abuse of your authority, you did not wait to hear ACIP’s expertise, and you exploited a key vacancy at CDC to set these recommendations yourself. According to the Washington Post, this is “the first time an HHS secretary has unilaterally altered an existing recommendation from the advisory committee and the CDC.”

    Your decision represents a significant public health threat that will endanger millions of Americans. Pregnant women are at higher risk of serious illness and hospitalization if infected with COVID-19, and the virus raises the risk of having a cesarean birth, preeclampsia or eclampsia and blood clots. COVID-19 infection during pregnancy has also been shown to result in higher risk of lower birthweight babies, preterm birth and stillbirth. Babies born to women who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 are at higher risk of needing intensive care. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) strongly recommend women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to get pregnant get the COVID-19 vaccine. According to ACOG and SMFM, the COVID-19 vaccine has been demonstrated repeatedly to be safe and protective for such individuals. Because this vaccine is so protective and safe for this population, ACOG further recommends eliminating barriers to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This is likely why the CDC stated in its “Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines in the United States,” updated on May 12, 2025:

    “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older in the United States…Vaccination is especially important for people at highest risk of severe COVID-19, including people ages 65 years and older; people with underlying medical conditions, including immune compromise; people living in long-term care facilities; and pregnant women to protect themselves and their infants.” (emphasis added)

    After birth, infants under 6 months of age are at the same high level of risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 as adults ages 65 to 74, and the only means of protecting these infants from COVID-19 is through maternal vaccination. An analysis of HHS data by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 11,199 children were admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 during the 2024-2025 respiratory virus season, 7,746 of whom were younger than 5 years old. And 41 percent of children ages 6 months to 17 years old hospitalized with COVID-19 from October 2022 to April 2024 did not have a known underlying condition, meaning that “healthy” children are also at risk of severe disease.

    Establishing an Anti-Vaccination Policy Roadmap

    Enabled by President Trump and fueled by decades of anti-vaccine skepticism, you appear to be establishing a roadmap by which the United States’ government can implement unscientific, anti-vaccination policies. By sowing distrust, creating chaos and justifying your actions with misinformation, you are laying the groundwork to undermine access to other safe, effective vaccines, including for those that prevent diseases, such as pertussis (whooping cough), measles, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), chickenpox, shingles, hepatitis A, as well as cancer caused by hepatitis B and human papilloma virus.

    The May 27, 2025 video announcement is just one action in a series of anti-vaccination, anti-science efforts you have led since becoming HHS Secretary. For example, while the ACIP made recommendations for meningococcal and RSV vaccines months ago, you have failed to adopt the recommendations. Further, even though the United States is experiencing the worst outbreak of measles in 25 years, you have downplayed the harm of one of the world’s most contagious diseases and made false claims that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine has not been “safety tested.” This undermining of trust in vaccines has led to multiple preventable hospitalizations and deaths. Indeed, President Trump’s nominee to serve as your deputy at HHS expressed unqualified support for your recommendation “encourag[ing] parents to take the measles vaccine,” while saying nothing about vaccinating children against the disease. And the Trump administration clawed back over $11 billion in pandemic-era funding, which has hampered the ability of public health departments across the country to contain the measles outbreak.

    Moreover, on May 20, 2025, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Commissioner Makary published an opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), outlining a new FDA approval framework that creates significant barriers for approval of annual COVID-19 vaccines for millions of Americans. This announcement indicated that the annual COVID-19 vaccine will generally be approved without a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT) only for people ages 65 and older and for those who have medical conditions that leave them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. The framework says nothing about the eligibly of healthy people at higher risk of being infected with COVID-19, such as healthcare professionals. This means that, unlike in most other countries, the annual vaccine will not be available to healthy individuals older than 6 months of age and under the age of 65 without an RCT. This change in the approval process will take away Americans’ freedom to choose to get the annual vaccine and put them and their loved ones at risk.

    Further, placebo-controlled trials for vaccines when a proven intervention exists are widely considered by the medical and research community to be unethical. Ethical guidance advises, “Extreme care must be taken to avoid abuse of [the option to conduct placebo-controlled trials when a proven intervention exists]”; the FDA and HHS have guidance accordingly restricting placebo-controlled trials to certain situations. There is no question that the existing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines are such “proven interventions,” and withholding their use in new placebo-controlled trials would constitute a grave ethical violation.

    Your new approval process for the annual COVID-19 vaccine will significantly delay access to updated FDA-approved vaccines, jeopardizing the health and lives of the American people. Typically, vaccines, such as the annually updated flu shot, are approved after exhibiting immunogenicity data or other laboratory testing data comparable to previous vaccine versions, which themselves have provided robust safety and efficacy data. A multi-year study and lengthy approval process, which is generally considered by experts to be unnecessary, particularly for annually updated vaccines. The significant hurdles associated with FDA’s new RCT requirement could discourage vaccine manufacturers and researchers from developing new, innovative products that could prevent cancer, HIV and other diseases and ultimately save lives. Dr. Peter Hotez from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston stated requiring RCTs for future vaccine development “would basically be a recipe for paralysis.”

    Indeed, the day after your announcement, Moderna withdrew an application for its new combined flu and COVID-19 vaccine, despite the new vaccine outperforming existing COVID-19 and flu vaccines. It also comes on the heels of the FDA delaying its approval of Novavax’s protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, missing its own April 1, 2025 deadline. When the FDA finally approved the vaccine, it did so for only a narrow population (adults 65 and older and those between ages 21-64 with an underlying medical condition). In a highly unusual step, FDA is also requiring that Novavax conduct a placebo-controlled RCT for less vulnerable populations.

    Given the suddenness of your May 27, 2025 announcement and its lack of detail or scientific justification, we respectfully request you provide written responses to the following questions no later than June 18, 2025:

    1. Despite “a commitment to gold-standard science,” you failed to provide an appropriate, detailed explanation for your change in the COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

    1. What specific studies, scientific or clinical data did you consult as the basis for removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule for pregnant women and children? Please provide citations for the research articles or publications you considered.
    2. Did you consult with any scientific or professional organizations, such as those representing obstetricians, pediatricians, family physicians, virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists or other relevant experts, in developing this new policy? Please provide the names of such stakeholders.
    3. Did you decide not to follow any recommendations from the scientific and medical communities? Why not?
    4. Did you submit a memo that explains the rationale and scientific justification for your decision? Please provide a copy of such memo, along with any attachments and communications related to it.

    2. Your directive implementing the new CDC recommendations suggests that the decision was made “[b]ased on a review of the recommendation of the FDA and the NIH.”

    1. Please list all individuals who carried out this review and their qualifications to weigh in on such decisions, such as their formal scientific and/or medical training, previously held professional positions or appointments, etc.
    2. Please provide a copy of the recommendation made by the NIH.
    3. Why were the CDC and ACIP apparently excluded from the process through which you imposed the new CDC recommendations?
    4. Given the former acting CDC director’s nomination to be CDC director, who is currently responsible for finalizing CDC recommendations?

    3. Why did you fail to consult the ACIP before changing the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for children and pregnant women, particularly before the ACIP’s next public meeting?

    4. The ACIP is scheduled to meet in June 2025 to discuss COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

    1. Do you commit to allowing the ACIP to move forward with its meeting in June 2025? If so, when will the meeting be publicly noticed in the Federal Register?
    2. Do you commit to not altering the anticipated agenda that includes the discussion of the COVID-19 vaccine?
    3. Do you expect the ACIP’s future COVID-19 vaccine recommendations to be influenced by your decision to publish the new vaccine approval framework?
    4. If the ACIP issues a COVID-19 vaccine recommendation that differs from your May 27 announcement, will you commit to listening to the experts and consider adopting that recommendation?

    5. Why did you fail to consult the VRBPAC before granting a narrow approval for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine?

    6. What role did you play in the decision to publish the new FDA framework outlined in the May 20, 2025 NEJM opinion piece, and in determining its content?

    7. Why did the FDA release this framework in an opinion piece, rather than formally publishing a regulation or guideline written by career vaccine experts?

    8. Does FDA plan to release a regulation, rule or formal guidance that formalizes the framework described in the NEJM article?

    1. If so, when will this policy be released?
    2. Will this policy be developed with the input of vaccine experts, providers, pharmacies, patient advocacy groups and/or other stakeholders?
    3. How will you and Commissioner Makary ensure vaccine experts, providers, pharmacies, patient advocacy groups and/or other stakeholders may provide input or feedback on the framework?

    9. Does the FDA’s new framework apply to initial doses (i.e., primary series) of new formulations of COVID-19 vaccines?

    1. Will this impact parents’ choices to vaccinate their children against COVID-19?
    2. Will you commit to preserving the current COVID-19 vaccine approval standards for the primary vaccine series?

    10. Given the ethical and recruitment challenges clinical trial sponsors may face because of new RCT requirements, how will FDA ensure the public has access to safe and effective vaccines if companies are unable to complete these trials in a timely manner?

    11. Figure 2 of the May 20, 2025 NEJM opinion piece listed pregnancy and recent pregnancy as underlying medical conditions that put an individual at risk of severe COVID-19.

    1. If the CDC is no longer recommending pregnant women get the COVID-19 vaccine, will such individuals still be eligible for the vaccine?
    2. If so, will they be able to get the vaccine at no cost?
    3. If there will be cost-sharing, what will be the cost-sharing policy for the vaccine, and who will make such decisions?

    12. Is the list in Figure 2 of the NEJM piece an exhaustive list for what medical conditions will be considered putting an individual at risk for severe COVID-19 disease?

    13. How do the conditions in the list align with the fact that the only high-risk condition now stated on the CDC immunization schedule for COVID-19 is “moderately or severely immunocompromised”?

    14. Do you believe that parents should have the right to vaccinate their children against COVID-19? If not, why not?

    15. Do you expect the current version of the COVID-19 vaccine to remain available in the primary vaccine series for individuals under 65 without underlying medical conditions?

    16. Will healthcare workers under age 65 who do not have a condition that predisposes them to severe COVID-19 and hospitalization be able to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine?

    17. Do you believe that young, healthy adults should be able to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to reduce the risk of getting Long COVID or of transmitting the virus to individuals with a higher risk of severe infection?

    1. If so, how will the FDA’s new framework preserve this choice?
    2. Why does the FDA’s new vaccine approval framework fail to consider a broad range of potential benefits of booster shots, such as reduced risk of Long COVID-19 and a shorter duration of illness?

    18. Has the FDA communicated with pharmacies about whether they plan to restrict COVID-19 vaccine access in response to the new vaccine approval framework?

    1. If so, will pharmacies require patients to verify they have health conditions putting them at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 to receive the vaccine?
    2. What will be an acceptable means of verification?

    19. What information did you provide health insurers (including Medicaid and Medicare) regarding their requirements for coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine going forward?

    1. Do you expect insurers to drop or alter coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine for children and pregnant women due to the altered CDC recommendation?
    2. If so, was that taken into consideration when formulating the recommendation?

    20. Have you communicated with the vaccine manufacturers to ensure there will be enough supply of the vaccine for the upcoming respiratory illness season? What steps are you taking to ensure supply chains will not be disrupted?

    21. Do you have any plans to change FDA approval frameworks or the CDC immunization schedule for any other vaccines? If so, which ones?

    Your anti-vaccine, anti-science stance has taken priority over the public health and well-being of the American people. We urge you to save lives by reversing course and making evidence-based policy in an open, transparent and clear manner.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: One year ago, Australia scrapped a key equity in STEM program. Where are we now?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Vieira, Lecturer, Education Futures, University of South Australia

    ThisIsEngineering/Pexels

    In June 2024, the Australian government ended the Women in STEM Ambassador program. The decision followed a report that urged a broader, intersectional approach to diversity in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM).

    For six years, under the leadership of astrophysicist Lisa Harvey-Smith, the program contributed to research, tools and resources aimed at breaking down structural barriers that limit women’s and girls’ participation in STEM education and careers.

    At the time, the move to scrap it was framed as a step toward more inclusive progress.

    Does that reasoning still hold one year later? As diversity and inclusion efforts face global cutbacks, it’s more important than ever to reflect on where Australia is heading. Are we truly building a more equitable STEM future?

    Why diversity in STEM matters

    Structural barriers have long limited participation in STEM for women, people of colour, First Nations communities, people with disabilities, and those in low socioeconomic groups.

    Such barriers include stereotypes and bias, a lack of role models, limited flexible work arrangements, and inadequate parental leave and childcare support.

    If we achieved equity in STEM, everyone – including entire groups who have been systemically excluded in the past – would have equal access to opportunities, resources and recognition.

    For a young Aboriginal woman studying engineering in a regional town, it would mean the same chance to apply for internships at top firms as peers who live in cities. She would have the same access to well-equipped labs and mentoring programs, and an equal likelihood of being nominated for academic awards or leadership roles.

    Improving diversity in STEM is also critical to Australia’s capacity for innovation, particularly as we face global challenges such as climate change, disruption from artificial intelligence, and geopolitical instability.

    Diverse STEM teams are more likely to approach problems from multiple perspectives. They embody democratic values, driving innovation and strengthening resilience in the face of complex issues.

    Yet, despite decades of gender-focused programs, meaningful progress has been limited. STEM Equity Monitor 2024 data show that while the number of women in STEM has increased, only 37% of university STEM enrolments are women. When it comes to STEM jobs in Australia, only 15% are occupied by women.

    If not an ambassador, then what?

    The lack of diversity in STEM is driven by systemic barriers such as persistent stereotypes, a shortage of diverse role models, and unequal access to opportunities.

    An independent report released in February 2024 recommended looking at diversity in a more inclusive way.

    Instead of focusing only on women in STEM, it suggested we consider how different aspects of a person’s identity – such as their gender, race, or background – can combine and affect their experience.

    This means some people may face additional challenges. For example, a migrant woman of colour in STEM might deal with more obstacles than a white woman in the same field, because of the way her different identities overlap.

    So … where are we now?

    While adopting this view is commendable, the practical changes that have happened over the past year raise important questions about whether Australia is truly moving toward a more inclusive STEM landscape.

    In August 2024, the government announced a $38 million boost to STEM programs, aligning with recommendations from the independent report. Two long-standing programs were closed, while seven other initiatives received additional funding.

    However, many of the funded programs still leave major gaps.

    For instance, one of the few initiatives targeting school-aged students, the National Youth Science Forum, is mostly limited to Years 11 and 12. Yet we know that girls’ disengagement from STEM begins as early as primary school.

    Similarly, while the Superstars of STEM initiative continues to receive investment, its focus remains on “inspiring” students through role models.

    Inspiration alone is not enough. We need a sustained, systemic approach that changes attitudes and builds structures to support and retain diverse students throughout their STEM journey.

    A key tool may have been left underfunded

    Of all the initiatives announced, the STEM Equity Monitor received the smallest share of funding, despite being the key tool for tracking Australia’s progress on diversity in STEM.

    The 2024 report still relies on some data last updated in 2022, reflecting a lack of commitment to maintaining a consistent, annual pulse on equity outcomes. Moreover, the monitor doesn’t provide intersectional analysis, limiting its ability to inform targeted, evidence-based actions.

    In principle, it still makes sense to shift Australia’s strategy on diversity in STEM towards a more intersectional and systemic approach. However, the practical steps taken so far don’t seem to align with that vision. Funding decisions, program closures, and limited investment in data and accountability tools suggest a disconnect between intent and implementation.

    Without clear action plans, inclusive design – which ensures STEM initiatives genuinely serve people of all backgrounds – and robust monitoring, there is a risk the new direction will be symbolic rather than transformative.

    Maria Vieira has previously received funding from the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship Round 3 Grant from the Australian Government.

    – ref. One year ago, Australia scrapped a key equity in STEM program. Where are we now? – https://theconversation.com/one-year-ago-australia-scrapped-a-key-equity-in-stem-program-where-are-we-now-257977

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Chairs Missouri District Judge Nominations Hearing  

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)

    Wednesday, June 04, 2025

    Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) chaired the Judiciary Committee nominations hearing featuring the four Missourians President Trump has tapped to serve as district judges for Missouri–his first tranche of judicial nominees. 
    The nominees are:
    Maria A. Lanahan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri
    Cristian M. Stevens, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri
    Joshua M. Divine, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri
    Zachary M. Bluestone, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri
    These individuals would fill judicial positions that have been vacant throughout the Biden Administration. Since the beginning of the year, Senator Hawley has worked closely with the Trump White House to ensure that appointments to Missouri vacancies are prioritized.

    Meet the 4 outstanding Missourians Trump tapped as his FIRST judicial nominees: Josh Divine, Maria Lanahan, Zachary Bluestone & Cris Stevens
    We’ve waited four long years for these judges. We WILL get them confirmed. And they will be a great credit to Missouri pic.twitter.com/OuC5mqAT1g
    — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) June 4, 2025

    Senator Hawley also had a memorable exchange on Title IX protections with Whitney D. Hermandorfer, nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Senator Hawley highlighted her record of defending legislation to safeguard women’s sports and opportunities from men who identify as women. 
    “I want to thank you for going to battle for our daughters, for going to battle for the women you played sports with, for standing up for this landmark legislation,”Senator Hawley said. 
    “When it comes to the litigation that you carried out on behalf of Tennessee … I think you did a great service, not just to Tennessee but for the nation,” Senator Hawley added. 
    Watch the full committee hearing here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: News 06/4/2025 Blackburn Introduces Legislation to Protect Federal Law Enforcement Officers from Doxxing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act to make it illegal to dox federal law enforcement officials following the dangerous actions of Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell and his office to publicly release the names of law enforcement officers last week. This puts them at a higher risk of being targeted by criminal gangs, including MS-13 and Tren De Aragua.
    “Blue city mayors are doing everything they can to obstruct the Trump administration’s efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens,” said Senator Blackburn. “Just last week, Nashville Mayor O’Connell and his office doxxed federal law enforcement officers after the Trump administration worked with Tennessee Highway Patrol to arrest criminal illegal aliens. My Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act would make this illegal and hold blue city mayors accountable for obstructing enforcement of our immigration laws by putting law enforcement officers in harm’s way.”
    BACKGROUND
    Last year, an illegal alien from Mexico was charged with criminal homicide and evidence tampering after Nashville restaurant owner, Matt Carney, was tragically killed in a hit-and-run crash. Just a few months earlier, another illegal alien was charged with attempted kidnapping, sexual battery, public intoxication, and evading arrest after he followed a woman into the bathroom and groped her at the Nashville Sundae Club in the Gulch.
    Click here for a list of examples of the criminal illegal aliens who were arrested during a joint operation in Nashville by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Tennessee Highway Patrol, including convicted rapists, drug dealers, and individuals affiliated with MS-13. Senator Blackburn praised this operation in a recent column published by The Tennessean.
    Following this operation, Mayor O’Connell and his office doxxed federal law enforcement officers, putting them at risk of being targeted by criminal gangs. 
    Senator Blackburn has called on the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the actions of Mayor O’Connell and his office for attempting to undermine President Trump and ICE’s work to get dangerous criminals out of Tennessee communities.
    THE PROTECTING LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM DOXXING ACT
    The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act would make it illegal to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation.
    Under this legislation, an individual found guilty of doxxing a federal law enforcement officer would face a fine and/or imprisonment of five years. 
    Click here for bill text.
    RELATED

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Facing Extreme Hurricane & Wildfire Seasons, Cantwell Slams Admin’s Erosion of Weather Forecasting: “NOAA Has Been Transparent That They Can’t Keep Up”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
    06.04.25
    Facing Extreme Hurricane & Wildfire Seasons, Cantwell Slams Admin’s Erosion of Weather Forecasting: “NOAA Has Been Transparent That They Can’t Keep Up”
    Meteorologists from WA, OK and FL sound the alarm on laying off 100s of National Weather Service employees, creating unprecedented staffing shortages; Earlier today, Trump’s Commerce Secretary misled a Senate subcommittee that NOAA was “fully staffed” heading into hurricane & wildfire season
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined renowned meteorologists from across the country for a virtual presser to sound the alarm on cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) as the United States heads into peak hurricane and wildfire season – and call on the Trump Administration to restore the agency to full capacity.
    “We have already seen these impacts from the Administration failing to heed these warnings. For at least a half a century, the National Weather Service has provided forecasts for 24 hours a day, seven days a week — until now. At least eight weather forecasting offices no longer have a meteorologist to cover overnight shifts. They are planning on eliminating the NOAA buoy program. You can’t map a hurricane if you don’t have the buoy information,” Sen. Cantwell said. “NOAA has been transparent that they can’t keep up. They have said that they can’t keep the lights on in a number of forecast offices. The Department of Commerce needs to be clear to the American people that the staffing shortages will impact our ability to compute that science [and] get those wildfire crews and emergency response where they need to go.”
    “We’re already a handful of days into the 2025 hurricane season. But the National Weather Service and NOAA are dealing with their own storm right now in the form of short staffing and budget cuts,” said Brian LaMarre, former Meteorologist in Charge in the Tampa Bay area. “There are eight [NWS offices] that are below a certain number of employees that work at that particular office, and that means that they can’t work 24/7 operations. That’s never before happened in my career.”
    “For the first time in 35 years, I have real concerns due to the staffing situation,” said Alan Gerard, a 35-year meteorologist with the NWS and the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, OK. “And the very fact that some offices aren’t able to operate 24/7 and that the administration has authorized these hires during a hiring freeze, tells you that there’s recognition that there’s serious shortages.”
    “I find it frankly shameful that we even have to have this sort of discussion,” said Jeff Renner, retired meteorologist of 39 years at KING 5 in Seattle. “More people such as you and I now utilize weather apps such as I have on my telephone, yet there is a lack of fundamental appreciation that most of those forecasts, if not all of them, stem from National Weather Service forecasts.”
    Video of today’s virtual press conference is available HERE; a transcript is HERE.
    Over the past several months, the NWS lost over 560 employees due to layoffs and retirements spurred by the Trump Administration. On Monday, they announced they’d hire 126 – amounting to “a flimsy band-aid,” Sen. Cantwell said.
    This dangerous decision to leave critical jobs unfilled comes as the National Interagency Fire Center, a partnership which includes NWS, released its Fire Maps for the next four months predicting above normal significant fire potential across the West, in Hawaii, the coasts of North and South Carolina, and parts of Texas and Florida. The National Weather Service predicts an above-normal hurricane season, which began June 1.  Last year, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information, there were 27 weather disaster events that cost over $1 billion each and resulted in 568 deaths.
    Earlier this week, the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) baffled his staff when he stated that he did not know that the United States had a hurricane season.
    And earlier today, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick testified in a Senate hearing and claimed, falsely, that NOAA is “fully staffed” heading into the summer.
    Lutnick was plainly incorrect:
    National Hurricane Center in Miami has at least five vacancies.
    At least eight NWS weather forecasting offices no longer have enough meteorologists to cover overnight shifts.
    30 of the 122 weather forecast offices don’t currently have a meteorologist-in-charge, their most experienced weather expert. Some of these vacancies are in major metropolitan areas such as New York City, Cleveland, Houston, and hurricane-prone Tampa.
    Since mid-March, at least 10 weather forecast offices have suspended or limited their weather balloon launches needed for daily forecasts.
    NOAA is short more than 90 staffers whose job is maintaining Doppler radar and automated airport weather sensors operational across the nation.
    Last Thursday, Sen. Cantwell sent a letter demanding that the Trump Administration immediately exempt the NWS from its current federal hiring freeze so that citizens and communities will not be left to fend for themselves without adequate warnings as both hurricane season and wildfire season rapidly approach.
    Monday’s action by the administration lifted the hiring freeze on 126 positions across four roles – meteorologists, hydrologists, physical scientists, and electronic technicians. However, many other important roles remain subject to the freeze, including credentialed mariners needed to safety operate NOAA research vessels, weather scientists, and weather satellite technicians. NOAA vessels and satellites are crucial to maintaining forecast and weather infrastructure needed for meteorologists to issue quality and timely forecasts. These firings also impact our economy, with a number of commercial fishing surveys cancelled this year, including for Alaska pollock and salmon. Elimination of surveys will take catch from fishing families, which will result in job loss and increased cost for consumers who want access to high-quality American seafood at their local markets and restaurants.
    Multiple recent reports have documented the impacts of the hiring freeze. The Washington Post reports that “Some…forecasting teams are so critically understaffed that the agency is offering to pay moving expenses for any staff willing to transfer to those offices, according to notices recently sent to employees…” And the New York Times found that “The National Weather Service is preparing for the probability that fewer forecast updates will be fine-tuned by specialists, among other cutbacks, because of ‘severe shortages’ of meteorologists and other employees, according to an internal agency document.” These reports make clear that action must be taken immediately to avoid a catastrophic gap in capacity in the face of a future storm or wildfire.
    In February, Sen. Cantwell sent Lutnick a letter warning of the likelihood of this exact situation.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    The iconoclastic American general Douglas Macarthur once said that “wars are never won in the past”.

    That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine’s recent audacious attack on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks.

    The synchronised operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometres from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia’s long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics.

    This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order.

    Ukraine’s success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security.

    Finding new solutions

    Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine’s successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia’s initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions.

    There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include:

    • attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago)

    • the relentless targeting of Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure with drones

    • attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and

    • its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory.

    On each occasion, Western defence analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv’s moves.

    Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow’s forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine?

    Why hit Russia’s energy infrastructure if it doesn’t markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces?

    And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous “escalation”?

    The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine’s defence and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought.

    Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means:

    • using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics

    • shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and

    • deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state.

    The impact of Ukraine’s drone attack

    In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice.

    Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country’s war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost.

    That said, Ukraine’s most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself.

    That’s why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine’s theory of victory.

    This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal.

    The destruction of even a small portion of Russia’s deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West.

    A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity.

    The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight.

    Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has “no cards”. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play.

    That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support.

    But Trump’s own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous.

    Unsurprisingly, Trump’s reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along.

    Indeed, Putin’s insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

    However, Ukraine’s ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent’s territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine’s friends, as well as its enemies.

    That’s because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine’s lessons.

    In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia’s domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job.

    The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion (A$10.9 billion). Ukraine’s drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each.

    At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can’t win wars in the past.

    Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.

    – ref. The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-to-ukraines-battlefield-successes-against-russia-it-knows-wars-are-never-won-in-the-past-258172

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Grassley, Republican Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Bolster Violent Crime Laws

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today led 10 Republican colleagues in introducing legislation to strengthen violent crime statutes and help prevent future crime. The Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act would resolve conflicting court decisions by clarifying penalties for violent offenses like carjacking, robbery and kidnapping.

    “Under the Biden-Harris administration, our nation saw a massive spike in violent crime. As the Trump administration works to clean up the previous administration’s mess, Congress has a duty to resolve any legal ambiguities that may weaken our ability to hold criminals fully accountable,” Grassley said. “Our bill includes several modest, but meaningful, reforms to tamp down on future crime and ensure justice is served.”

    The Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act addresses ambiguity and conflicting applications of existing law by clarifying congressional intent. Among other provisions, the bill would:

    • Resolve conflicting circuit court decisions that have resulted in a higher burden to charge violent offenses;
    • Clarify that an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offence involving physical force meets the legal definition of a violent crime;
    • Increase the statutory maximum penalty for carjacking and remove a duplicative intent requirement needed to charge a carjacking offense;
    • Clarify that attempted bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery are punishable under the current bank robbery statute;
    • Outlaw the marketing of candy-flavored drugs to minors; and
    • Establish a new category of violent kidnapping offences, allowing for greater penalties for violent kidnapping.

    Grassley is joined by Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho).

    Read the full bill text HERE. Read the section-by-section HERE.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Hammers Lutnick for Creating Waste, Inefficiency & Needless Bureaucratic Gridlock at Commerce

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WATCH: Sen. Reed warns Lutnick’s micromanagement and short-staffing of NOAA could leave states vulnerable to future disasters

    WASHINGTON, DC – In his partisan zeal to root out so-called waste, redundancy, and abuse, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is generating unprecedented bureaucratic waste and delays that are hampering the U.S. Department of Commerce’s mission, particularly at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Whistleblowers within the agency have come forward in the press to sound the alarm that Secretary Lutnick is causing bureaucratic gridlock and hindering the agency’s ability to assist local communities with preparations for extreme weather events.

    “Staff shortages and new layers of bureaucracy are suffocating NOAA and threatening its ability to accurately predict extreme weather events, ensure U.S. ports stay open and safeguard the nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries, say current and former agency officials,” according to E&E News by Politico.

    Things have gotten so bad at Commerce that even President Trump’s staunch ally U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has sounded the alarm.  Noting that NOAA has 5,700 contracts set to expire this year, Senator Cruz reported at a Congressional hearing last month that Secretary Lutnick typically reviews about two dozen contracts a week — at that pace, only 1,248 contracts would be reviewed in a year, and many of them require immediate attention and action.

    E&E News by Politico reported: “These contracts include everything from post-hurricane flood assessment to janitorial services,” Cruz said. He added that a data center at Texas A&M University was shut down for days, “depriving Texas emergency and water managers of critical drought forecasts that help them manage reservoirs and track storm surge data and hurricane forecasts in real time.”

    The report notes: “The coil around NOAA squeezes in two ways, they say. The first is personnel. More than 1,000 NOAA employees have left the agency since the start of the Trump administration, and the empty desks have led to staffing issues in key weather service offices — just as hurricane season approaches… The second issue is the slow pace of approval for outside contracts and grants… But fewer than 20 percent of outstanding grants have been approved, and more than 1,000 are in the queue with more added every day, according to a current NOAA official who was granted anonymity to speak without fear of reprisal.”

    Today, at a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) grilled Secretary Lutnick about the growing backlog of contracts that are still awaiting his sign off and how his inefficient and insufficient micromanagement tactics have slowed down the vital work of NOAA just as hurricane season is getting underway.

    “We’ve all been talking about bottlenecks, in fact, in the Department and elsewhere throughout the government. In fact, last month, Senator Cruz warned about the growing backlog of contracts awaiting approval at the Department of Commerce.  He warned that NOAA alone has 5,700 contracts set to expire this year. And it’s been reported in the press that you are insisting on personally reviewing every commerce contract over $100,000,” Reed asked.

    Secretary Lutnick admitted: “That is true.”

    Reed responded: “Well, that seems to be something that is not particularly efficient. And that results in the 5,700 contracts just in NOAA. So again, if you can’t find reliable support to do those reviews, I think you’re wasting your time, frankly.”

    To achieve costs savings and efficiently achieve its diverse missions, NOAA operations rely on a significant number of contractors.  While every Administration carefully reviews each contract to ensure it is an effective use of taxpayer dollars, what sets the Trump Administration apart is its own inefficiency and bureaucratic bottleneck that slows the reviews down to the point where the work in the contract either can’t be done or is approved at the last second and could raise costs in the long run.

    This is not a red state or blue state issue.  In addition to Senators Cruz and Reed, several other Senators – including Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK) — have raised concerns in recent months about missing or delayed funding, according to Politico.

    During the hearing, Reed pressed Lutnick about when the backlog of contract reviews would be completed and Lutnick, surprisingly, claimed there are no more NOAA contracts he needs to review:

    SEN. REED: Well, let’s go ahead and get those 5,700 contracts done. This weekend?

    SEC. LUTNICK: There are not, under any circumstances, any contracts in there. There are none.

    SEN. REED: How about this weekend?

    SEC. LUTNICK: None. 

    SEN. REED: Can you get it done this weekend? Work overtime with the gang and get it done?

    SEC. LUTNICK: There are no contracts waiting for me, and if there were, I’ll be there all night tonight, making sure they get turned out with my team, teaching my team how to do it.

    Noting that the Trump Administration has proposed drastic cuts to NOAA, slashing the agency’s annual budget from the current level of $6.1 billion down to $4.5 billion next year, and eliminating NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Reed quoted longtime NOAA researcher Craig McLean, who served as NOAA’s top scientist during the first Trump Administration, and warned that the drastic cuts Secretary Lutnick is backing would “take us back to the 1950s in terms of our scientific footing and the American people” if enacted.

    Lutnick’s claim that the National Weather Service budget would remain unimpacted is undermined by steep cuts to other areas of NOAA, such as technology, research, and satellites that would grossly undercut the agency’s climate, weather, and ocean capabilities.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Putin tells Trump Russia has to respond to Ukrainian attacks

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed Wednesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin told him that Moscow would “have to respond” to the massive Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia’s strategic air bases days ago.

    Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social account that he finished a phone call with Putin and discussed the attacks on June 1. It was the first time the U.S. president publicly talked about the operation that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky touted being directed by himself.

    “We discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides… President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields,” Trump wrote.

    He said the Wednesday call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes, noting “It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace.”

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: President Donald J. Trump Signs Travel Restrictions Executive Order

    Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

    “We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen… That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others.” –President Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_1F7PxVT40

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Restricting The Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    class=”has-text-align-center”>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
    During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld.  In Executive Order 14161 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), I stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes. 
    I also stated that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.  More importantly, the United States must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States.  The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.
    I directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f).  After completing that process, the Secretary of State determined that a number of countries remain deficient with regards to screening and vetting.  Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals. 
    As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people.  I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks.  Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety.
    Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts.  Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts.  But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations.  I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation.
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.  I therefore hereby proclaim the following:
    Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other national security or public-safety threats.  Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy.  These protocols enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat, and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the United States.
    (b)  Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States.  Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information.  It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share their identity and threat information with the immigration screening and vetting systems of the United States.
    (c)  Section 2(b) of Executive Order 14161 directed the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, within 60 days of the date of that order, to jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, a report identifying countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)).
    (d)  On April 9, 2025, the Secretary of State, with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, presented the report described in subsection (c) of this section, recommending that entry restrictions and limitations be placed on foreign nationals of several countries.  The report identified countries for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full suspension of admissions and countries that warrant a partial suspension of admission.
    (e)  In evaluating the recommendations from the Secretary of State and in determining what restrictions to impose for each country, I consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, appropriate Assistants to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  I considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals.  And I further considered various factors, including each country’s screening and vetting capabilities, information sharing policies, and country-specific risk factors — including whether each country has a significant terrorist presence within its territory, its visa-overstay rate, and its cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals. 
    I also considered the different risks posed by aliens admitted on immigrant visas and those admitted on nonimmigrant visas.  Persons admitted on immigrant visas become lawful permanent residents of the United States.  Such persons may present national security or public-safety concerns that may be distinct from those admitted as nonimmigrants.  The United States affords lawful permanent residents more enduring rights than it does to nonimmigrants.  Lawful permanent residents are more difficult to remove than nonimmigrants, even after national security concerns arise, which increases the costs and aggravates the dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals.  And although immigrants are generally subject to more extensive vetting than nonimmigrants, such vetting is far less reliable when the country from which someone seeks to emigrate maintains inadequate identity-management or information-sharing policies or otherwise poses risks to the national security of the United States.
    I reviewed these factors and assessed these goals, with a particular focus on crafting country-specific restrictions.  This approach was designed to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances.  The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are, in my judgment, necessary to prevent the entry or admission of foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United States.  The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are necessary to garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.
    (f)  After reviewing the report described in subsection (d) of this section, and after accounting for the foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives of the United States, I have determined to fully restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 12 countries:  Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.  These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants.
    (g)  I have determined to partially restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 7 countries:  Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.  These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants. 
    (h)  Sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation describe some of the identity-management or information-sharing inadequacies that led me to impose restrictions.  These inadequacies are sufficient to justify my finding that unrestricted entry of nationals from the named countries would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  Publicly disclosing additional details on which I relied in making these determinations, however, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States, and many such details are classified.
    Sec. 2.  Full Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.  The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to the categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers described in section 5 of this proclamation:
    (a)  Afghanistan
    (i)   The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan.  Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Afghanistan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (b)  Burma
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent.  Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Burma as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (c)  Chad
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent.  According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent.  The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws.  
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (d)  Republic of the Congo
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of the Republic of the Congo as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (e)  Equatorial Guinea
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Equatorial Guinea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (f)  Eritrea
    (i)   The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea.  Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals.  Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Eritrea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (g)  Haiti
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent.  Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.  This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats.  As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (h)  Iran
    (i)   Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.
    (i)  Libya
    (i)   There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya.  The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (j)  Somalia
    (i)   Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects.  A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory.  The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven.  Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations.  Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States.  The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement.  Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (k)  Sudan
    (i)   Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Sudan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (l)  Yemen
    (i)   Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  The government does not have physical control over its own territory.  Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active United States military operations.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    Sec. 3.  Partial Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.
    (a)  Burundi
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Burundi as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Burundi to the extent permitted by law.
    (b)  Cuba
    (i)    Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States.  Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Cuba to the extent permitted by law.
    (c)  Laos
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent.  Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Laos as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Laos to the extent permitted by law.
    (d)  Sierra Leone
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent.  Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Sierra Leone as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Sierra Leone to the extent permitted by law.
    (e)  Togo
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Togo as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Togo to the extent permitted by law.
    (f)  Turkmenistan
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Turkmenistan as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Turkmenistan to the extent permitted by law.
    (g)  Venezuela
    (i)    Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Venezuela as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B‑1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Venezuela to the extent permitted by law.
    Sec. 4.  Scope and Implementation of Suspensions and Limitations.  (a)  Scope.  Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any exceptions made pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the suspensions of and limitations on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:
    (i)   are outside the United States on the applicable effective date of this proclamation; and
    (ii)  do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date of this proclamation.
    (b)  Exceptions.  The suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall not apply to:
    (i)     any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
    (ii)    any dual national of a country designated under sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a country not so designated;
    (iii)   any foreign national traveling with a valid nonimmigrant visa in the following classifications:  A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6;
    (iv)    any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State;
    (v)     immediate family immigrant visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5) with clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g., DNA);
    (vi)    adoptions (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4);
    (vii)   Afghan Special Immigrant Visas;
    (viii)  Special Immigrant Visas for United States Government employees; and
    (ix)    immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
    (c)  Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made for certain individuals for whom the Attorney General finds, in her discretion, that the travel by the individual would advance a critical United States national interest involving the Department of Justice, including when individuals must be present to participate in criminal proceedings as witnesses.  These exceptions shall be made only by the Attorney General, or her designee, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    (d)  Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made case-by-case for individuals for whom the Secretary of State finds, in his discretion, that the travel by the individual would serve a United States national interest.  These exceptions shall be made by only the Secretary of State or his designee, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee.
    Sec. 5.  Adjustments to and Removal of Suspensions and Limitations.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director for National Intelligence, devise a process to assess whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented.  Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, describing his assessment and recommending whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented.
    (b)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately engage each of the countries identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation on measures that must be taken to comply with United States screening, vetting, immigration, and security requirements.
    (c)  Additionally, and in light of recent events, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide me an update to the review of the practices and procedures of Egypt to confirm the adequacy of its current screening and vetting capabilities.
    Sec. 6.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of this proclamation.
    (b)  In implementing this proclamation, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
    (c)  No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.
    (d)  This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CAT).  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT, consistent with the laws of the United States.
    Sec. 7.  Severability.  It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, foreign policy, and counterterrorism interests of the United States.  Accordingly:
    (a)  if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
    (b)  if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.
    Sec. 8.  Effective Date.  This proclamation is effective at 12:01 am eastern daylight time on June 9, 2025.
    Sec. 9.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty‑five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand, Markey Slam Republican Plan To Rescind Over $1 Billion In Federal Funding For The Corporation For Public Broadcasting

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand

    Today, U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Ed Markey led a group of 29 senators in slamming a Republican attempt to rescind $1.07 billion in already-allocated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds local public broadcasting stations across the country.  The $1.07 billion represents 100% of CPB’s funding through September 2027. This move follows President Trump’s executive order directing cuts to federal funding for PBS and NPR.  

    “Following the White House’s request to rescind $1.07 billion in federal funding for CPB, we write to express our strong opposition to any rescission of funding for public broadcasting and prohibitions of direct and indirect funding to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio,” wrote the senators. “This funding is essential to the functioning of the public media system and the communities they serve, and any cuts in funding would have detrimental effects on local stations, which rely on this funding to provide critical services to millions of Americans across the country. Public broadcasting is an essential service that should be protected, not decimated. For this reason, we request that you prioritize maintaining and continuing funding for CPB.”

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports over 1,500 local public television and radio stations that provide free, high-quality programming to millions of households across America. It provides young children who don’t get the chance to attend preschool with educational content that helps them learn to read; airs highly trusted nightly news programming; and shares critical public safety information during emergencies. Local public television stations also provide extensive coverage of local government and elections and host candidate debates, helping Americans stay connected with their elected leaders. Because public television and radio relies heavily on federal funding to operate, particularly in rural communities, losing this funding would force many of these stations to reduce much of their programming or, in some cases, close their doors.

    In addition to Senators Gillibrand and Markey, the letter was also signed by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).  

    The full text of the letter is available here or below:  

    Dear Majority Leader Thune,

    Federal investment in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) supports over 1,500 local and regional public television and radio stations that provide free, high-quality programming to millions of households across the country. Following the White House’s request to rescind $1.07 billion in federal funding for CPB, we write to express our strong opposition to any rescission of funding for public broadcasting and prohibitions of direct and indirect funding to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, as outlined in the Executive Order titled, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” released on May 1, 2025. This funding is essential to the functioning of the public media system and the communities they serve, and any cuts in funding would have detrimental effects on local stations, which rely on this funding to provide critical services to millions of Americans across the country.

    Our public broadcasting system is a unique American institution that is deeply embedded in our communities and a critical source of lifesaving public safety services, accurate information, and educational programming. The vast majority of the federal funding CPB receives is allocated to local radio and television stations across the country. These cuts will have an immediate and significant impact for stations in rural communities that heavily rely on CPB funding to provide critical services and could likely result in the elimination of programming or outright closure of stations in areas already faced with limited connectivity.

    According to Northwestern University, 55 million people in the United States have no or only one source of local news, and rural counties are far more likely to lose their local news outlets. This number could increase if the two-year advance appropriation for public media is not upheld, resulting in the drastic reduction or complete elimination of free, high-quality local programming. This is especially concerning given the importance of public broadcasting during public emergencies, such as natural disasters, transportation accidents, national security threats, or public safety matters. CPB funds are essential to ensuring that the broadcast infrastructure remains robust and operational in disaster situations, especially scenarios in which local public broadcasters serve as the only source of information for those who need a lifeline. Any cuts in funding will have drastic consequences for communities in need.

    And there is much more to their public safety services in addition to the critical local information they broadcast. Public television’s interconnection technology, which connects local public television stations to PBS, is also one of the backbone pathways for the delivery of our nation’s Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) services – enabling cell phone subscribers to receive geotargeted emergency text alerts no matter where they are in the country. A cut to public broadcasting funding would put this lifesaving service and its nationwide footprint at risk.

    Public television has also pioneered cutting edge technology that helps first responders communicate with each other over the broadcast spectrum without the need for mobile service or broadband. This datacasting technology and public television’s public safety partnerships is already helping with early earthquake warning and has been proven effective in a wide range of scenarios where broadband or cellular service are limited, including rural search and rescue, overwater communications, large event crowd control and more. But this is only possible if stations serving rural and remote areas with limited broadband are healthy and continue operating as they are today.

    On the education front, public television’s early childhood education services ensure that every family has access to high-quality, non-commercial educational content regardless of their ability to pay for such services. This is essential for over 50 percent of three and four-year old children who do not attend formal preschool.

    If funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is eliminated or rescinded, the impact would be devastating. Millions of people across the country whose stations rely on CPB funding for a significant percentage of their budget would be at risk of losing access to public television’s services. These are services that nobody else in the media world is providing, but it’s exactly the work for which public broadcasting was created, and they are delivering to our communities every day.  

    Public broadcasting is an essential service that should be protected, not decimated. For this reason, we request that you prioritize maintaining and continuing funding for CPB.

    We appreciate your consideration of this request and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Coons, Whitehouse, colleagues demand answers from Justice Dept. on decision to shutter specialized unit for cracking down on global drug crime

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and several of their colleagues sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi questioning the Department of Justice’s plan to end the successful Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program. 

    “As the Department’s website notes, OCDETF ‘is the centerpiece of the Attorney General’s strategy to combat transnational-organized crime and to reduce the availability of illicit narcotics in the nation.’ OCDETF oversees coordination of thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to implement a national strategy to dismantle transnational drug cartels, the financial networks that support them, and the flow of drugs from these cartels into the United States,” wrote the senators.

    The OCDETF program is the largest anti-crime task force in the country. In just the past two months, OCDETF resources have been used to secure prison sentences for two individuals operating a clandestine fentanyl lab in South Carolina and to take down three prolific Chinese money launderers who have pled guilty to laundering tens of millions of dollars in drug proceeds. Many OCDETF investigations target the cartels’ financial networks, an often-overlooked component of the U.S. strategy to combat drug-trafficking organizations. In Fiscal Year 2023, OCDETF investigations resulted in forfeitures and seizures totaling more than $423 million. 

    Reporting from Bloomberg revealed that the Trump administration plans to eliminate the OCDETF program, including its support for specialized investigators and prosecutors. Such a decision would kneecap America’s ability to dismantle cartels trafficking illicit fentanyl.

    “We seek to fully understand the Department’s plans to cease OCDETF operations. We also seek to ensure that the federal government continues to have a coordinated strategy for working with state and local stakeholders to investigate and hold accountable transnational criminal organizations operating in, or financing the operations of organizations that operate in, the United States,” added the senators.

    The senators requested answers to the following questions by June 13, 2025:

    1. How many cases has OCDETF led, or supported with funds, intelligence, or other resources, that disrupted fentanyl traffickers’ production, distribution, financing, or money laundering networks?
    2. Does the Department intend to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations?  If so, please specify how. 
    3. If the Department intends to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations:
      1. Why is the department choosing to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations?
      2. How will the department ensure that ongoing OCDETF investigations and prosecutions continue uninterrupted?
      3. According to GAO, “OCDETF cases must have a financial component” to facilitate the targeting of financial networks underpinning drug trafficking organizations. How will the Department ensure that OCDETF-enabled inter-agency coordination on investigations into the financial networks of fentanyl traffickers and transnational criminal organizations continues uninterrupted?
      4. How will the department ensure that federal, state, and local law enforcement relying on OCDETF’s Fusion Center intelligence products are not hampered by a cessation or reduction of OCDETF operations? 
      5. Does the department intend to designate another entity to coordinate investigations and prosecutions of transnational criminal organizations, unrelated to low-level offenders?  If so, which entity?

    In addition to Senators Coons and Whitehouse, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

    The text of the letter is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Hochul Speaks at Axios AI + NY Summit

    Source: US State of New York

    arlier today, Governor Kathy Hochul participated in Axios AI+ NY Summit fireside chat with Ina Fried.

    VIDEO: The event is available to stream on YouTube here and TV quality video is available here (h.264, mp4).

    AUDIO: The Governor’s remarks are available in audio form here.

    PHOTOS: The Governor’s Flickr page will post photos of the event here.

    A rush transcript of the Governor’s remarks is available below:

    Ina Fried, Axios: Next up, we are joined by a governor who’s putting AI front and center of her tech policy agenda. Please welcome New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Thanks so much. First off, I think we’re both big sports fans, although I think yours are more concentrated in Buffalo than my teams.

    Governor Hochul: I love all my New York teams. All the ones that play in New York in particular.

    Ina Fried, Axios: We have a very lively crowd.

    Governor Hochul: We can annex the Meadowlands and bring them back home for anybody’s paying attention. I think I’m going to run on that.

    Ina Fried, Axios: We just have to annex the Meadowlands.

    Governor Hochul: Trump can take Canada. I should at least be able to get the Meadowlands right.

    Ina Fried, Axios: You focused a lot on bringing high tech jobs to New York, not just AI but CHIPS. I think there was another announcement today, Global Foundries is going to increase its investment by another $3 billion. Talk about those efforts, but also in the context of what’s coming with AI. I mean, if the predictions are right, we had the Anthropic founder, Dario Amodei, saying, this could be half of jobs over a few years. Is it enough to just have incentives to bring high tech jobs here? If generative AI eliminates this many jobs, is even retraining feasible? Like what do we really need?

    Governor Hochul: No, it’s all in the realm of possibility. I want New York to be the home of innovation. We always have that. All the great inventions, all the technological revolutions that proceed. IBM is home here. Micron will soon find its way here, and that’s 50,000 jobs in upstate New York. I’m from Buffalo, as you may have figured out from the first question. That’s a lot. That’s for an economy that you see based on manufacturing and building. And my dad and grandpa were steelworkers and now my dad left a steel plant and started a tech company back in the sixties.

    So I’m hardwired to be part of an economy that’s devoted to risk. The people are willing to go out there and do something that’s quite unprecedented, but also the returns are very high. So I want New York to be that place that people look to as they already are. I mean, we have over 2,000 AI startups right now, but your question is, will these new jobs of manufacturing semiconductors, for example, and others, will that replace the jobs that can be lost?

    It does not have to be that way. AI can increase productivity dramatically. So why can’t we harness that to be the most productive nation on the planet — that we can have more output and use human capital in the ways that have not been harnessed before? Because people are too busy working on an assembly line in the past. Let’s take that talent and refocus it on innovation.

    We have a workforce, for example, of over 188,000. I have a plan to train 100,000 New York State employees. Train them in the uses of AI, how it can supplement us, how we can be more responsive to the public. I’m not looking to eliminate their jobs. I want them to have a better — have people have a better customer experience when they come into a DMV or other offices.

    So I see great potential here, and I leaned hard into this. We will talk about Empire AI I presume, but this is something that’s so natural. I’m very competitive. I’m proud that New York City is now the number one destination for new tech jobs. I mean, that’s us. I won’t name any other cities or what coast they’re on.

    Ina Fried, Axios: Before I came here, I left a few AI companies in San Francisco to come here.

    Governor Hochul: Anybody not a New Yorker here? I’m just pointing it out. This is the smartest people on the planet. They’re here and they’re saying they’re New Yorkers. So, just an observation.

    Ina Fried, Axios: Obviously as a sports fan, it’s hard to beat home field advantage. So jobs is obviously one big piece of this, but another is making sure that society is ready to adapt and use it safely. I want to broaden out, but one place to start — we had a conversation with Aura, which is a startup that’s working on, how do we make this safe for kids and families? And obviously that’s something you’ve also been focused on.

    How do you see the role of AI in education? You’ve had some bills around phone use, around deep fakes among students. How do we make sure that kids are learning the technology they need to be learning, but also protected from chatbots that might increase addiction and that sort of thing. What else do we need?

    Governor Hochul: No. New York State is nation-leading when it comes to protecting our children — and I can go into the details because we enacted these last year against a lot of opposition.

    But I said to the big tech companies that were saying, “Well, we were able to kill this in some other states. We plan on killing it in New York.” I said, “Why don’t you get out of the courtroom and come into my conference room and we’ll talk about this.” There is a path forward, but I know all of you have kids.

    And I’m sure you want someone to be looking out for them. Well, I’m New York State’s first Mom Governor, and I look out for all the kids. So that’s where I approach this from is what we can do to protect our children, but not unnecessarily constrained what AI is all about and the potential.

    So we did this, but I’ll tell you what’s most concerning is what Washington did — their House Republicans just did a few days ago — and if this gets through the Senate, it says that no state or municipality can regulate any form of artificial intelligence for the next decade.

    So that means my ban on sexual exploitation of young girls on social media and using AI and the fact that there are these AI undressing sites. In the first half of 2024, there were 16 sites that had 200 million views. I mean, this is what’s going on to our kids, our girls sitting in high schools, and we have to stop that.

    And so I have a whole list of reforms — I encourage every other state to undertake it because right now I am not holding my breath that Washington will have the courage to stand up and do what’s right, which really should be a nationwide policy to protect our children. We’ll keep at it. And I’m concerned. We’ll see the Trump administration in court, once again, because — and this is a real growth industry for lawyers, right? I’m getting sued, I’m suing them, and I’m a lawyer too, I’d probably make more money on the other side, but I like what I do.

    Ina Fried, Axios: So what I hear from the tech companies all the time is, “Oh, we’re fine with regulation, we just don’t want a patchwork of regulation. We don’t want different regulations in 50 states.” Are they being genuine when they say that or do they just not want regulation?

    Governor Hochul: Well, then here’s what we’ll do. We’ll let you work with New York State as we did. We’ll be the gold standard. I was just with a room full of crypto leaders yesterday. I said, “You want to do virtual currency in New York because we’ll have the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We always do things to make sure it’s protecting our citizens, our consumers, our viewers, and we’ll always have the highest standards. So come join us, and then you can create it here with us and other states can replicate it. So I’m happy to do that.

    As a former member of Congress — really happy I’m not there right now — I know that this is really Washington’s responsibility, because it’s hard for companies to have a different policy they have to adhere to in 50 different states. That is not ideal.

    Ina Fried, Axios: So if we don’t want 50 regulations and Congress seemingly is not gonna do anything, could you work with other states?

    Governor Hochul: Oh yeah. Yeah.

    Ina Fried, Axios: Is there efforts already in that regard there?

    Governor Hochul: Yeah, there’s a democratic governor’s organization that is more forward thinking in this space, and we do work together, we share ideas. But our legislation is just one-year-old now, and I’m sure they want to see the — our law is one-year-old, the regulations are following, so there’s a little bit of work to do. But that’s exactly what we do, we share best practices.

    Ina Fried, Axios: So as we’ve alluded to, there’s a bunch of individual policies in place in New York, laws that have passed around things like kids’ privacy, deepfake porn. One thing New York doesn’t have is a real comprehensive statewide privacy law, similar to Washington and some other states. Does New York need a privacy bill?

    Governor Hochul: We’re looking at that as well. What we focused on primarily were kids right off the bat, and even with respect to social media algorithms, we are the first state in the nation to ban social media companies from bombarding our kids with algorithms throughout the day, and really many times taking them to a dark place. I mean, if a young person is contemplating suicide and they put in “suicide” and it comes back with — not resources and support and uplifting messages to make them think differently, it tells them how to commit suicide. So when we have triggering words like that that show up, we have our police alerted to that and others who are alerted to this.

    So this is what we’re focusing on, how to send out the warning signals of what can be done. But privacy is very important to us as well. We’ll get to that, I just need to take care of the kids first.

    Ina Fried, Axios: And on that front, you mentioned social media. That’s obviously been a huge concern for a long time is the impact that’s having on our kids. It seems like the next thing down the road is AI companions, where they’re not talking to a real person, but they’re talking to an AI companion. What should that relationship — should kids not be talking to AI companions at all?

    Governor Hochul: We have in our law, and I don’t know that other states have done this, that there has to be some warning or indication over and over that this is not a real person. This is not a real person. We have that in our laws now. We did that already just to give that young person just a reality check.

    And I can’t stop the whole phenomenon from happening, but the stories that have been coming out, not just the 14-year-old in Florida who committed suicide, but the New York Times did quite a story about all the different relationships. And adults can make their own decisions, kids are very impressionable, and those are the ones that we have to take the extra measure to protect.

    And we should not get any opposition from these companies at all. I mean, tell them it’s bad for your image to be standing up against a mom and protecting kids. I mean, just don’t even go there. It’s just not worth the fight.

    Ina Fried, Axios: So every now and then, folks who have been coming to this conference for a while know, I very occasionally give out a magic wand and allow someone to— if you could wave this magic wand and have the ideal regulation in place, what would it look like? So I’m going to let you borrow — you can’t keep it — borrow my magic wand.

    If you could wave your wand and have some ideal legislation in place around how AI can be embraced safely, what would be part of that package?

    Governor Hochul: Part of that would be that there’s a lot of education of people. People do not understand this gap between virtual reality and reality, and I’m afraid that’s something that a lot of kids are falling into.

    So, I would want to make sure that all your personal information is protected. What we did last year was our Child Protection Act — you cannot sell data collected on kids, anyone under 18; you cannot amass this data based on their preferences, where they’re going — you can no longer send algorithms to them; you can no longer sell that to other people. I think that’s something adults are entitled to as well. Those are some of the privacy protections. You can’t be capturing all this personal data and monetizing it. So that’s an area I think we should be focused more on and get some cooperation from the companies.

    Ina Fried, Axios: I know you leave a bunch of the court battles to your very active Attorney General — I get emails from her on a practically daily basis of what she’s challenging the White House on. What are the things that have happened in the first few months of the Trump administration that have you personally most concerned? What are the fights that you want more people to take up?

    Governor Hochul: You do not have enough time.

    Ina Fried, Axios: We got three minutes.

    Governor Hochul: God. I mean, my latest fight was to save offshore wind. They literally, on April 16, pulled the plug on a 10 year, $5 billion project from a company called Equinor from Norway, which will be powering 500,000 homes in Brooklyn with renewable energy. That is a big win for our climate, our renewable energy efforts, and to meet our climate goals. On April 16, the Secretary of Interior gave them a stop work order. The project was going to be stopped a few weeks ago. They’re losing $50 million a week.

    I went down to the White House; I had long conversations; I had more phone calls; and I’m proud to say we saved not just renewable energy, but 1,500 clean energy jobs in the process. So, that’s the most recent. They’re attacking congestion pricing every single month on the 21st — I get, basically, a hostage letter that if you don’t turn off the cameras, we’re going to kidnap you or whatever it is and I usually take it, and do a social media of it, and throw it away — here we go.

    So we’re fighting on that, but also on other areas about my rights to — we just had a win in court on that, where they’re threatening to withhold federal dollars. Anytime they don’t like something you do, whether it’s the State of Maine — my friend Janet Mills was subjected to this; we were together in the White House when she got harassed — they threatened withholding federal dollars. We just got a temporary restraining order from them threatening to withhold our federal dollars when it came. So that’s — I can’t keep it all straight.

    We litigated birthright citizenship. We’re going to have a lot of complicated challenges with the immigration issue. I have to testify before the House Oversight Committee on that very issue next week — really looking forward to that. You see who’s on that committee? Check it out. And, by the way, it’s someone who said, “I didn’t even read the bill. No, it’s a thousand pages.” Use ChatGPT to figure it out — right?

    They’re claiming they did not know that there was a 10 year ban on any social media. I mean, I’m sorry, any AI.

    Ina Fried, Axios: AI.

    Governor Hochul: “Oh, I didn’t know.” You voted for it. Just ask GPT. Anything I should worry about in here?

    Ina Fried, Axios: All right. I would love to keep the —

    Governor Hochul: Just some humble advice for them.

    I would love to keep the conversation going. Unfortunately, I know you have somewhere to go and we’re almost out of time. I have a quick question that I think only you can answer. So, I love buffalo sauce, but I don’t really like the bones.

    Ina Fried, Axios: Do boneless wings count?

    Governor Hocul: There’s chicken fingers.

    Ina Fried, Axios: That’s what my 12-year-old likes.

    Governor Hocul: Okay, chicken fingers are close enough, no one will mock you out, but the damning thing — if you ever eat chicken wings with ranch dressing, you’ll be barred from the entire region. Just don’t go. Just —

    Ina Fried, Axios: All right.

    Governor Hocul: Take it from me, everybody. That’s your pro-tip today. All right, so you heard it here: the Meadowlands is now part of New York, boneless wings are okay, but don’t you dare put them in ranch.

    Ina Fried, Axios: Thank you so much, Governor Hochul.

    Governor Hocul: Thank you.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: James Altucher: “America Just Hit the AI Reset Button”

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    BALTIMORE, June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a new briefing, tech entrepreneur and bestselling author James Altucher reveals a development he says will “change America forever.”

    At the center of it is Project Colossus — a classified supercomputer initiative led by Elon Musk’s xAI — and backed by sweeping support from President Donald Trump.

    A Presidential Reversal with Massive Implications

    Altucher says the shift began with one of Trump’s first presidential actions in 2025.

    “In one of his FIRST acts as President… Donald Trump overturned Executive Order #14110.”

    This decision reversed Biden-era restrictions on AI research, which Altucher claims had “prevented us from unleashing its true power.”

    “Trump also announced the LARGEST AI investment in history… Stargate… a massive, AI data center and infrastructure project.”

    Hidden Inside a Warehouse in Memphis

    Altucher’s report reveals a facility in Tennessee that, until now, has gone largely unnoticed.

    “Right here, inside this warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee… lies a massive supercomputer Musk calls ‘Project Colossus.’”

    “It contains not just one or two… but 200,000 units of Nvidia’s all-powerful AI chips… making it the most advanced AI facility known to man.”

    “The fastest supercomputer on the planet.” — Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO

    July 1: “When It All Changes”

    According to Altucher, time is short. A critical update to Colossus is imminent.

    “That’s when I predict Elon could announce a major update to this new AI project. One that some say will essentially 10X its power – overnight.”

    Altucher refers to this moment as a “second wave” of AI — what he calls:

    “Artificial Superintelligence.”

    “This second wave… will rival all of the great innovations of the past. Electricity… the wheel… even the discovery of fire.”

    A Warning… and a Milestone

    Altucher closes his briefing with a quote from Vladimir Putin to stress the stakes:

    “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” — Vladimir Putin

    He believes Project Colossus may determine whether America leads — or falls behind — in the AI race.

    About James Altucher

    James Altucher is a computer scientist, entrepreneur, and bestselling author. A pioneer in AI since the 1980s, he previously worked on IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer and developed early AI trading systems on Wall Street. His latest research uncovers critical breakthroughs in AI infrastructure and the political forces accelerating its rise.

    Media Contact:
    Derek Warren
    Public Relations Manager
    Paradigm Press Group
    Email: dwarren@paradigmpressgroup.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERALTHE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
    SUBJECT:       Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby directed:
    Section 1.  Background.  The President of the United States, as the unitary head of the executive branch, holds tremendous power and responsibility through his signature:  words on paper can become the law of the land, individuals are appointed to some of the highest offices in Government, national policies can be created or eliminated, and prisoners can go free.  In sum, the Nation is governed through Presidential signatures.
    In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that former President Biden’s aides abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority.  This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history.  The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.  
    For years, President Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline.  The Department of Justice, for example, concluded that, despite clear evidence that Biden had broken the law, he should not stand trial owing to his incompetent mental state.  Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline during his Presidency were even “worse” in private, and those closest to him “tried to hide it” from the public.  To do so, Biden’s advisors during his years in office severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, and they scripted his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors, all to cover up his inability to discharge his duties. 
    Notwithstanding these well-documented issues, the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any administration in United States history.  For instance, just 2 days before Christmas in 2024, the White House announced that Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.
    Although the authority to take these executive actions, along with many others, is constitutionally committed to the President, there are serious doubts as to the decision making process and even the degree of Biden’s awareness of these actions being taken in his name. 
    The vast majority of Biden’s executive actions were signed using a mechanical signature pen, often called an autopen, as opposed to Biden’s own hand.  This was especially true of actions taken during the second half of his Presidency, when his cognitive decline had apparently become even more clear to those working most closely with him.
    Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.
    Sec. 2.  Investigation.  (a)  The Counsel to the President, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant executive department or agency (agency), shall investigate, to the extent permitted by law, whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.  This investigation shall address:
    (i)    any activity, coordinated or otherwise, to purposefully shield the public from information regarding Biden’s mental and physical health;
    (ii)   any agreements between Biden’s aides to cooperatively and falsely deem recorded videos of the President’s cognitive inability as fake;
    (iii)  any agreements between Biden’s aides to require false, public statements elevating the President’s capabilities; and
    (iv)   the purpose of these activities, including to assert the authorities of the President.
    (b)  The Counsel to the President shall also investigate, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant agency, the circumstances surrounding Biden’s supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office. This investigation shall address:
    (i)   the policy documents for which the autopen was used, including clemency grants, Executive Orders, Presidential memoranda, or other Presidential policy decisions; and
    (ii)  who directed that the President’s signature be affixed.
    Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restricts the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    COMBATING TERRORISM THROUGH COMMON SENSE SECURITY STANDARDS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation to protect the nation from foreign terrorist and other national security and public safety threats from entry into the United States.
    Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14161, issued on January 20, 2025, titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” national security agencies engaged in a robust assessment of the risk that countries posed to the United States, including regarding terrorism and national security.
    In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the United States through entry restrictions.
    The Proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries found to be deficient with regards to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
    The Proclamation partially restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 7 countries who also pose a high level of risk to the United States: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
    The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories, and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests.
    SECURING OUR BORDERS AND INTERESTS: The restrictions and limitations imposed by the Proclamation are necessary to garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.
    It is the President’s sacred duty to take action to ensure that those seeking to enter our country will not harm the American people.
    After evaluating a report submitted by the Secretary of State, in coordination with other cabinet officials, President Trump has determined that the entry of nationals from certain countries must be restricted or limited to protect U.S. national security and public safety interests.
    The restrictions are country-specific in order to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances.
    Some of the named countries have inadequate screening and vetting processes, hindering America’s ability to identify potential security threats before entry.
    Certain countries exhibit high visa overstay rates, demonstrating a disregard for U.S. immigration laws and increasing burdens on enforcement systems.
    Other countries lack cooperation in sharing identity and threat information, undermining effective U.S. immigration vetting.
    Some countries have a significant terrorist presence or state-sponsored terrorism, posing direct risks to U.S. national security.
    Several countries have historically failed to accept back their removable nationals, complicating U.S. efforts to manage immigration and public safety.
    MAKING AMERICA SAFE AGAIN: President Trump is keeping his promise to restore the travel ban and secure our borders.
    President Trump: “We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.”
    In his first term, President Trump successfully implemented a travel ban that restricted entry from several countries with inadequate vetting processes or significant security risks.
    The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban, ruling that it “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” and noting that it is “expressly premised on legitimate purposes.”
    This Proclamation builds on President Trump’s first-term travel ban, incorporating an updated assessment of current global screening, vetting, and security risks.
    JUSTIFICATION FOR FULL SUSPENSION BY COUNTRY
    Afghanistan
    The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan.  Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B1/B2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.
    Burma
    According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent.  Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.
    Chad
    According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent.  According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent.  The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for U.S. immigration laws.  
    Republic of the Congo
    According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.
    Equatorial Guinea
    According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.
    Eritrea
    The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals.  Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.
    Haiti
    According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent.  Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.  This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats. As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States. 
    Iran
    Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Libya
    There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya.  The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.
    Somalia
    Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects.  A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory.  The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven.  Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations.  Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States.  The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement.  Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.
    Sudan
    Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent. 
    Yemen
    Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  The government does not have physical control over its own territory.  Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active U.S. military operations.
    JUSTIFICATION FOR PARTIAL SUSPENSION BY COUNTRY (Immigrants and Nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J Visas)
    Burundi
    According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent. 
    Cuba
    Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States.  Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.
    Laos
    According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent.  Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Sierra Leone
    According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent.  Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Togo
    According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent. 
    Turkmenistan
    According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent. 
    Venezuela
    Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Directs Review of Certain Presidential Actions

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    INVESTIGATING EXECUTIVE ACTIONS UNDER BIDEN’S PRESIDENCY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing an investigation into who ran the United States while President Biden was in office.
    The Memorandum directs an investigation into whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.
    The Memorandum also mandates an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Biden’s purported execution of the numerous executive actions during his final years in office, examining policy documents signed with an autopen, who authorized its use, and the validity of the resulting Presidential policy decisions.
    QUESTIONING WHO WIELDED THE EXECUTIVE POWER DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: The combined nature of Biden’s documented cognitive decline and the repeated use of an autopen raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of his actions.
    Reports indicate that, for years, Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline.
    For example, although the Department of Justice found that Biden had violated the law by willfully retaining and disclosing classified materials, it ultimately concluded that Biden was unfit to stand trial given his incompetent mental state.

    Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline were reportedly even “worse” in private, with those closest to him attempting to conceal it from the public.
    Biden’s advisors severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, scripting his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors.

    Despite Biden’s cognitive deficiencies, the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any Administration in U.S. history.
    Just two days before Christmas in 2024, Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.

    The authority to take these executive actions is constitutionally reserved for the President, yet the Biden White House used an autopen to execute the vast majority of Biden’s executive actions, particularly during the second half of his Presidency.
    RESTORING PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: President Trump believes Americans deserve answers as to whether President Biden signed these documents, and if not, who signed them, and under what circumstances.
    President Trump: “And you know what, they ought to find out who was using that autopen. Because whoever that person was, he or she was like the President of the United States … I think a President should sign it, not use an autopen. And we’re going to find out whether or not he knew what the hell he was doing. … So I think it’s something that we should really look at because that’s so important.”
    President Trump: “The real question – who ran the autopen, OK? Who ran the autopen? Because the things that were signed were signed illegally, in my opinion.”
    Since returning to office, President Trump has held numerous open-press signing events where the American public can witness President Trump’s signature and knowledge regarding the matters in question with their own eyes.
    Even the legacy media admits that President Trump is on track to becoming the most-accessible President in modern history.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restricts Foreign Student Visas at Harvard University

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    RESTRICTING FOREIGN STUDENT VISAS AT HARVARD: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation to safeguard national security by suspending the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. 
    The Proclamation suspends the entry into the United States of any new Harvard student as a nonimmigrant under F, M, or J visas.
    It directs the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing F, M, or J visas for current Harvard students who meet the Proclamation’s criteria.
    The Proclamation does not apply to aliens attending other U.S. universities through the Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) and exempts aliens whose entry is deemed in the national interest.
    HARVARD HAS A DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF CONCERNING FOREIGN TIES AND RADICALISM:
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries take advantage of easy access to American higher education to steal information, exploit research and development, and spread false information.
    The University has seen a drastic rise in crime in recent years, while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus.
    Harvard has failed to provide sufficient information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about foreign students’ known illegal or dangerous activities, reporting deficient data on only three students.
    Harvard is either not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.
    Harvard has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries, receiving more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, hosted Chinese Communist Party paramilitary members and partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization.
    The Chinese Communist Party has sent thousands of mid-career and senior bureaucrats to study at U.S. institutions, with Harvard University considered the top “party school” outside the country. Xi Jinping’s own daughter attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the early 2010s.

    Harvard has failed to adequately address violent anti-Semitic incidents on campus, with many of these agitators found to be foreign students.
    Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.
    These concerns have compelled the Federal government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.
    HOLDING HARVARD ACCOUNTABLE: President Trump wants our institutions to have foreign students, but believes that the foreign students should be people that can love our country.  
    President Trump: “The students? Well, we want to have great students here. We just don’t want students that are causing trouble. We want to have students. I want to have foreign students.”
    President Trump: “We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can’t get in because we have foreign students there. But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country.”
    President Trump: “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    class=”has-text-align-center”>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
    Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation’s institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee.  That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution’s compliance and commitment to following Federal law.  Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others.
    The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions’ good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the relevant regulatory frameworks.  This is for crucial national-security reasons.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries and competitors take advantage of easy access to American higher education to, among other things, steal technical information and products, exploit expensive research and development to advance their own ambitions, and spread false information for political or other reasons.  Our adversaries, including the People’s Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States.
    Protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information, when asked, to enable the Federal Government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students.  In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our Nation’s security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information, when asked, about known instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students.  This principle is one reason why SEVP regulations require foreign students to obey Federal and State criminal laws and require universities to keep records about foreign students’ studies in the United States — including records relating to criminal activity by foreign students and resulting disciplinary proceedings — and furnish them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request.
    Crime rates at Harvard University — including violent crime rates — have drastically risen in recent years.  Harvard has failed to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus.  Given these facts, it is imperative, in my judgment, that the Federal Government be able to assess and, if necessary, address misconduct and crimes committed by foreign students at Harvard.
    Despite the risks described above, Harvard University has refused the recent requests of the DHS for information about foreign students’ “known illegal activity,” “known dangerous and violent activity,” “known threats to other students or university personnel,” “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel,” and whether those activities “occurred on campus,” and other related data.  Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions.  Harvard’s actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.  In my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government’s ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law.
    These concerns have compelled the Federal Government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.  When a university refuses to uphold its legal obligations, including its recordkeeping and reporting obligations, the consequences ripple far beyond the campus.  They jeopardize the integrity of the entire United States student and exchange visitor visa system, compromise national security, and embolden other institutions to similarly disregard the rule of law.
    Harvard University has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries.  According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has received more than $150 million in total contributions from foreign governments over the last 5 years, and over $1 billion from foreign sources.  Over the last 10 years, Harvard has received more than $150 million from China alone.  In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a Chinese Communist Party paramilitary organization,” according to a probe by the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.  Harvard researchers have also partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization, according to the same probe.
    Finally, Harvard University continues to flout the civil rights of its students and faculty, triggering multiple Federal investigations.  Harvard’s discrimination against disfavored races in admissions was so blatant that the Supreme Court decision ending the practice nationwide bears Harvard’s name.  Yet even after that Supreme Court decision, Harvard and its affiliated organizations on campus continue to deny hardworking Americans equal opportunities.  Instead of those Americans, Harvard admits students from non-egalitarian nations, including nations that seek the destruction of the United States and its allies, or the extermination of entire peoples.  It is not in the interest of the United States to further compound Harvard’s discrimination against non-preferred races, national origins, shared ancestries, or religions by further reducing opportunities for American students through excessive foreign student enrollment.
    Considering these facts, I have determined that it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University.  Such restrictions are authorized under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), which authorize the President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.  Until such time as the university shares the information that the Federal Government requires to safeguard national security and the American public, it is in the national interest to deny foreign nationals access to Harvard under the auspices of educational exchange.
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.  I hereby proclaim as follows:
    Section 1.  Suspension of Entry.  The entry of any alien into the United States as a nonimmigrant to pursue a course of study at Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(F) or section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or 1101(a)(15)(M), or to participate in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), is suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation.  That suspension and limitation shall expire, absent extension, 6 months after the date of this proclamation.
    Sec. 2.  Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.  (a)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply to aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard University through the SEVP after the date of this proclamation.
    (b)  The Secretary of State shall consider, in the Secretary’s discretion, whether foreign nationals who currently attend Harvard University and are in the United States pursuant to F, M, or J visas and who otherwise meet the criteria described in section 1 of this proclamation should have their visas revoked pursuant to section 221(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(i).
    (c)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States to attend other universities through the SEVP.
    (d)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
    (e)  No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension and limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.
    Sec. 3.  Operational Action to Implement this Order.  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to take all necessary and appropriate action to implement this proclamation.  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall also consider using their respective authorities under the INA to impose limitations on Harvard University’s ability to participate in the SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System.  Any such actions should include an exception for any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
    Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: House Passes Pettersen’s Bill to Expand Access to Treatment, Combat Opioid Epidemic

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Brittany Pettersen (Colorado 7th District)

    Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen’s bill – the Support for Patients and Communities Act – to reauthorize funding for critical prevention, treatment, and recovery substance use disorder (SUD) programs. 

    Pettersen’s own mother struggled with a decades-long battle with addiction after being overprescribed opioids. Inspired by her mom’s struggle, Rep. Pettersen has fought to expand access to treatment to help people like her mother receive the care they need, including passing a bill that directed Colorado to apply for a Section 1115 Waiverto cover residential and inpatient treatment for individuals struggling with addiction. In the first year alone, this waiver increased access to substance use disorder treatment by 60% and 48,000 Coloradans were able to get the care they needed. Colorado also saw a 35% decline in fentanyl-related deaths in this past year. 

    “At a time when the Trump administration is dismantling the agency that oversees treatment and recovery services and is taking away health care from people struggling with addiction, protecting these programs is more important than ever,” said Pettersen. “In my fight to save my mom’s life, I saw how broken our system is, and I’ve been working every day to fix it. Colorado has led the way by expanding treatment and making resources like Narcan widely available. We have to protect that progress and keep fighting to make sure people like my mom have the tools they need to rebuild their lives and live in recovery.” 

    Republicans struck down Pettersen’s amendment to protect Section 1115 Waivers which are currently on the chopping block in Republicans’ budget proposal. Pettersen’s amendment would have allowed states to use downstream savings to calculate budget neutrality for Section 1115 Waivers, or Medicaid Demonstration Programs. Substance use disorder patients who receive the care they need can save states thousands of dollars in the long-term. 

    “While I’m pleased to see this legislation move forward, I’m deeply disappointed that Republicans rejected my amendments to protect Section 1115 Waivers,” said Pettersen. “The disastrous Republican budget would completely decimate the progress we’ve made in combatting the opioid crisis in Colorado and leave people to die without access to the treatment they need to survive.” 

    Specifically, the Support for Patients and Communities Act will:

    • Expand access to naloxone for first-responders and community members; 
    • Provide substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for pregnant and postpartum women;
    • Address SUD workforce shortages by expanding loan repayment programs and fellowship opportunities for healthcare providers; 
    • Increase access to peer-led recovery support services; 
    • Fund Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers; and 
    • Promote the prevention of overdoses through prescription drug monitoring programs. 

    The legislation is endorsed by over 160 vital substance use disorder treatment and recovery organizations, including Faces and Voices of Recovery, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, and Mental Health Colorado.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rosen, Cortez Masto Demand Information on How Trump TSA Firings Are Hurting Nevada

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) are demanding answers from the Trump Administration following a sweeping decision to terminate hundreds of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, including those in Nevada. In a letter to Secretary Noem, the senators condemned the shortsighted firings, raised concerns about their impact on airport safety and Nevada’s tourism economy, and demanded transparency regarding the large number of terminations and the rationale behind them.
    The mass layoffs come at a time when TSA is already under pressure, with Real ID requirements going into effect just last month and airport travel reaching record levels. In 2024, TSA screened over 900 million passengers nationwide, and Las Vegas’s Harry Reid International Airport alone saw more than 58 million travelers — the highest in its history.
    “We are deeply troubled about the false justifications used for these meritless firings, and how, in the wake of Real ID requirements going into effect, this significant loss of staff is impacting the safety of Nevadans, our nation’s security, and the critical work performed at our airports,” wrote the senators.    
    “Moreover, we vehemently object to the Department of Homeland Security’s misguided decision in March to end the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for tens of thousands of frontline TSA employees,” the senators’ letter continued. “The since-terminated, seven-year CBA was signed at a time when TSA employee’s pay lagged behind other government employees and the agency struggled with retention. 
    In the letter, Rosen and Cortez Masto requested specific information from the Trump Administration, including the number of employees terminated in Nevada, their job roles, the impact of Real ID enforcement on staffing needs, and whether those terminated received legally required notice. She urged immediate transparency and action to address this growing security risk.
    The full letter to the Administration can be found HERE.
    Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto have been fighting to support Nevada’s airports and travel industry. They secured $61 million in federal funding for airport improvements in Nevada after helping pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In April 2024, they both announced nearly $28 million in grant funding for Harry Reid International Airport to enhance infrastructure, including runway improvements and safety upgrades. In 2024, Senator Rosen announced $7 million in funding she secured for a terminal expansion project at Reno-Tahoe International Airport. 

    MIL OSI USA News –