NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: Heinrich, Luján Demand Answers on Trump Admin Re-Adding Medical Debt onto Credit Reports

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Senator for New Mexico Ben Ray Luján

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) joined Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D- Mass.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and 24 other Senators in pushing the Trump administration for answers regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) decision to vacate the medical debt rule finalized in January 2025. The letter demands CFPB share any data the agency relied on in deciding to petition a court to vacate the rule and any communications it had with entities during the process that would profit from its decision.

    “On April 30, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) asked a court to vacate the agency’s recently released rule to remove medical debt from consumer credit reports. We write to request the information you relied on in making that determination, including any communications with collection agencies that stand to profit from it,” the Senators said.

    “Medical debt collections information is often inaccurate, and studies show that it is not useful in determining a consumer’s ability to repay other debts…Almost half of all medical bills contain at least one error, and almost half of nonprofit hospitals have routinely and mistakenly billed patients who were eligible for free or discounted care,” they continued.

    At the conclusion of the letter, the Senators emphasize the need for transparency into the agency’s decision-making process.

    “On April 30, the CFPB filed a joint motion with the industry groups that oppose the rule, petitioning the court to vacate it – lining the pockets of corporations off the backs of American consumers. Given the substantial evidence that the CFPB’s rule was well-considered and would help consumers without reducing the accuracy of their credit scores, we write to request that the CFPB make public all information relied on by the agency in its decision to drop the rule, including any communications with the debt collection industry,” the Senators closed.

    Senator Luján has long worked to support Americans facing medical debt. In March 2024, Senator Luján called on CFPB Director Rohit Chopra to eliminate reporting of all medical debt in consumers’ credit reports. In November 2024, Senator Lujánintroduced the Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act to ease the burden on Americans forced into bankruptcy because of unforeseen medical expenses. Senator Luján continues to stand up in defense of New Mexicans by holding the CFPB under President Trump accountable.

    In addition to Senators Heinrich, Lujan, Warnock, Warren, Schumer, and Merkley, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Adam Schiff (D-CA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tina Smith (D-MN), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Angus King (I-ME), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV).

    Read the full letter HERE, and the text is below

    Dear Acting Director Vought,

    On April 30, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) asked a court to vacate the agency’s recently released rule to remove medical debt from consumer credit reports. We write to request the information you relied on in making that determination, including any communications with debt collection agencies that stand to profit from it.

    Medical debt collections information is often inaccurate, and studies show that it is not useful in determining a consumer’s ability to repay other debts. One major credit scoring company, VantageScore, has stopped using medical debt in its newer models entirely. Almost half of all medical bills contain at least one error, and almost half of nonprofit hospitals have routinely and mistakenly billed patients who were eligible for free or discounted care. People often receive collection notices for debts they did not owe, in the wrong amount, or that should have been covered by insurance—but still end up experiencing long-lasting damage to their credit scores.

    Listing medical debt on a person’s credit report drives down their credit score, which hurts their ability to purchase a car, buy a home or rent an apartment, get utility service, start a business, or access other banking services. This has profound effects on families that can last generations. To make matters worse, medical debt is the most common reason debt collectors contact consumers; the debt collection industry makes one-fourth of its annual revenue from health care debt. Including medical debt on credit reports makes consumers more vulnerable to predatory debt collection practices.

    Medical debt on credit reports also blocks working families from access to credit that they would be able to repay.The CFPB found that people who had all their medical debts completely removed from their credit reports experienced an average credit score increase of 20 points, in some cases elevating families into a higher credit score tier.

    In response to growing data that medical debt is not a good indicator of creditworthiness, states across the country have acted to ban the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports. And on January 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule to remove medical debt from consumer credit reports. The rule would remove an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of 15 million Americans, prohibit credit reporting companies from sharing medical debt information with lenders, and bar lenders from considering medical debt in underwriting decisions. It was designed to help the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, by lowering costs and increasing access to affordable credit for working families without affecting the predictive value of their credit reports. The rule would also help reduce the effects of structural racism and other prejudices. People of color are disproportionately harmed by the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports. Meanwhile, adults with a disability and new moms are more than twice as likely to carry medical debt.

    Despite the critical importance of the medical debt rule, on April 30, the CFPB filed a joint motion with the industry groups that oppose the rule, petitioning the court to vacate it—lining the pockets of corporations off the backs of American consumers. Given the substantial evidence that the CFPB’s rule was well-considered and would help consumers without reducing the accuracy of their credit scores, we write to request that the CFPB make public all information relied on by the agency in its decision to drop the rule, including any communications with the debt collection industry, by July 28, 2025. We specifically request that CFPB publicly publish all data about how medical debt relates to key economic indicators, including:

    • Barriers to home and car ownership, including challenges getting loans or not being approved to rent or lease,
    • Paying higher premiums for auto, homeowner’s and other types of insurance,
    • Losing job opportunities as a result of credit reporting on background checks,
    • Obstacles to starting small businesses because of challenges with securing loans,
    • Paying more for everyday services such as household utilities or cell phone contracts

    We are particularly concerned about the outsize impact that medical debt has on the credit scores of seniors, veterans, new parents, people with disabilities, cancer patients and survivors, and small business owners.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garret Martin, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International Service

    Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, right, attends a news conference with EU foreign affairs representative Josep Borrell in Tehran on June 25, 2022. Atta KenareAFP via Getty Images

    The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sent shock waves around the world. It marked a dramatic reversal for the Trump administration, which had just initiated negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. Dispensing with diplomacy, the U.S. opted for the first time for direct military involvement in the then-ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict.

    European governments have long pushed for a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, the reaction in the capitals of Europe to the U.S. bombing of the nuclear facilities was surprisingly subdued.

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Israel’s “right to defend itself and protect its people.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally supportive, arguing that “this is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.” And a joint statement by the E3 – France, the U.K. and Germany – tacitly justified the U.S. bombing as necessary to prevent the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

    Europe’s responses to the Israeli and American strikes were noteworthy because of how little they discussed the legality of the attacks. There was no such hesitation when Russia targeted civilian nuclear energy infrastructure in Ukraine in 2022.

    But the timid reaction also underscored Europe’s bystander role, contrasting with its past approach on that topic. Iran’s nuclear program had been a key focal point of European diplomacy for years. The E3 nations initiated negotiations with Tehran back in 2003. They also helped to facilitate the signing of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which also included Russia, the European Union, China, the U.S. and Iran. And the Europeans sought to preserve the agreement, even after the unilateral U.S. withdrawal in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

    As a scholar of transatlantic relations and security, I believe Europe faces long odds to once again play an impactful role in strengthening the cause of nuclear nonproliferation with Iran. Indeed, contributing to a new nuclear agreement with Iran would require Europe to fix a major rift with Tehran, overcome its internal divisions over the Middle East and manage a Trump administration that seems less intent on being a reliable ally for Europe.

    Growing rift between Iran and Europe

    For European diplomats, the 2015 deal was built on very pragmatic assumptions. It only covered the nuclear dossier, as opposed to including other areas of contention such as human rights or Iran’s ballistic missile program. And it offered a clear bargain: In exchange for greater restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran could expect the lifting of some existing sanctions and a reintegration into the world economy.

    As a result, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 posed a fundamental challenge to the status quo. Besides exiting, the Trump White House reimposed heavy secondary sanctions on Iran, which effectively forced foreign companies to choose between investing in the U.S. and Iranian markets. European efforts to mitigate the impact of these U.S. sanctions failed, thus undermining the key benefit of the deal for Iran: helping its battered economy. It also weakened Tehran’s faith in the value of Europe as a partner, as it revealed an inability to carve real independence from the U.S.

    U.S. President Donald Trump walks past French President Emmanuel Macron, center, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, right, in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025.
    Christian Hartmann/AFP via Getty Images

    After 2018, relations between Europe and Iran deteriorated significantly. Evidence of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism and Iran-linked plots on European soil hardly helped. Moreover, Europeans strongly objected to Iran supplying Russia with drones in support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – and later on, ballistic missiles as well. On the flip side, Iran deeply objected to European support for Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.

    These deep tensions remain a significant impediment to constructive negotiations on the nuclear front. Neither side currently has much to offer to the other, nor can Europe count on any meaningful leverage to influence Iran. And Europe’s wider challenges in its Middle East policy only compound this problem.

    Internal divisions

    In 2015, Europe could present a united front on the Iranian nuclear deal in part because of its limited nature. But with the nonproliferation regime now in tatters amid Trump’s unilateral actions and the spread of war across the region, it is now far harder for European diplomats to put the genie back in the bottle. That is particularly true given the present fissures over increasingly divisive Middle East policy questions and the nature of EU diplomacy.

    Europe remains very concerned about stability in the Middle East, including how conflicts might launch new migratory waves like in 2015-16, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled to mainland Europe. The EU also remains very active economically in the region and is the largest funder of the Palestinian Authority. But it has been more of a “payer than player” in the region, struggling to translate economic investment into political influence.

    In part, this follows from the longer-term tendency to rely on U.S. leadership in the region, letting Washington take the lead in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it also reflects the deeper divisions between EU member nations.

    With foreign policy decisions requiring unanimity, EU members have often struggled to speak with one voice on the Middle East. Most recently, the debates over whether to suspend the economic association agreement with Israel over its actions in Gaza or whether to recognize a Palestinian state clearly underscored the existing EU internal disagreements.

    Unless Europe can develop a common approach toward the Middle East, it is hard to see it having enough regional influence to matter in future negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. This, in turn, would also affect how it manages its crucial, but thorny, relations with the U.S.

    Europe in the shadow of Trump

    The EU was particularly proud of the 2015 nuclear deal because it represented a strong symbol of multilateral diplomacy. It brought together great powers in the spirit of bolstering the cause of nuclear nonproliferation.

    Smoke rises from a building in Tehran after the Iranian capital was targeted by Israeli airstrikes on June 23, 2025.
    Elyas/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Ten years on, the prospects of replicating such international cooperation seem rather remote. Europe’s relations with China and Russia – two key signers of the original nuclear deal – have soured dramatically in recent years. And ties with the United States under Trump have also been particularly challenging.

    Dealing with Washington, in the context of the Iran nuclear program, presents a very sharp dilemma for Europe.

    Trying to carve a distinct path may be appealing, but it lacks credibility at this stage. Recent direct talks with Iranian negotiators produced little, and Europe is not in a position to give Iran guarantees that it would not face new strikes from Israel.

    And pursuing an independent path could easily provoke the ire of Trump, which Europeans are keen to avoid. There has already been a long list of transatlantic disputes, whether over trade, Ukraine or defense spending. European policymakers would be understandably reticent to invest time and resources in any deal that Trump could again scuttle at a moment’s notice.

    Trump, too, is scornful of what European diplomacy could achieve, declaring recently that Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. He has instead prioritized bilateral negotiations with Tehran. Alignment with the U.S., therefore, may not translate into any great influence. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, after all, happened without forewarning for his allies.

    Thus, Europe will continue to pay close attention to Iran’s nuclear program. But, constrained by poor relations with Tehran and its internal divisions on the Middle East, it is unlikely that it will carve out a major role on the nuclear dossier as long as Trump is in office.

    Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the organization, the Transatlantic Policy Center, that he co-directs.

    – ref. Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground – https://theconversation.com/europe-is-stuck-in-a-bystander-role-over-irans-nuclear-program-after-us-israeli-bombs-establish-facts-on-the-ground-260740

    MIL OSI –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Capito Outlines Principles for Crafting the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

    [embedded content]

    To watch Chairman Capito’s opening statement, click here or the image above.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, led a hearing on constructing the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill with stakeholders’ perspectives. In her opening remarks, Chairman Capito reiterated her three principles for crafting this legislation, and how developing a bipartisan proposal in the Senate remains a central priority for the EPW Committee. 

    Below is the opening statement of Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) as delivered.

    “Thank you for joining us this morning and welcome to our three great witnesses that we have. This hearing is second in a two-part series of hearings that we are having to help guide the development of our next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. 

    “Earlier this spring, we held a hearing with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, where he detailed how the Trump administration is administering the current law and described priorities for the next bill. Today, we will hear from new stakeholders on their priorities.

    “My vision for this legislation is simple, but important, we want to improve the movement of people and goods. Our roads and bridges are what connect us to the people and places that matter most in our lives.

    “They help businesses, large and small, create jobs, economic activities, and enable their competitiveness in the global marketplace. For example, my home state of West Virginia is pursuing important projects like Corridor H, to better link our communities to essential services and economic opportunity.

    “This legislation will provide the funding and establishes the policies and programs that enable the improvement of the surface transportation network that we all rely on. 

    “Since the enactment of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Committee has reviewed and conducted oversight on existing programs and policies, and we’ve learned a lot about what is working and what isn’t.

    “The IIJA met a generational level of investment in our surface transportation network, but there have been some challenges in the implementation. We know that the highway formula programs are producing results in communities across the states. We also know there have been some issues getting discretionary grant awards out the door and producing tangible improvements to that network. 

    “When Secretary Duffy appeared before the Committee, he outlined the backlog of more than 3,200 discretionary grant awards without signed grant agreements that he had inherited from the prior administration. I appreciate the Secretary’s ongoing efforts to address this backlog, and I know that the Department of Transportation is making progress on getting those agreements in place. 

    “As a matter of fact, I believe they’ve done over a thousand of those already, they have resolved those. We will apply the lessons learned from the IIJA to shape the next bill and those lessons have led me to three principles.

    “I have discussed these principles at our hearing with the Secretary, but I believe it is important that I reiterate them today.

    “Principle One: Improving the safety – and I want to emphasize safety – safety and reliability of America’s surface transportation network with impactful investments. 

    “In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in the number and scope of federal transportation programs. These programs sometimes have duplicative purposes and project eligibility. This leads to an expensive and time-intensive process to get funding out the door and lessens the impact that the legislation can make.

    “As we craft the next bill, we must prioritize investments that, instead, optimize federal funding and give state partners the confidence to invest over a longer period of time. We should focus on eliminating duplicative programs and increasing funding for the highway formula programs that our states rely on and, as I said earlier, have a proven track record of success.

    “Principle Two: Reforming and modernizing federal programs and policies to create efficiency.

    “We all know that, as currently structured, federal requirements can add red tape that increases costs and slow down the completion of projects. We all want to deliver transportation benefits faster and save money for American taxpayers. To achieve this goal, we need to take a serious look at federal requirements to determine how we can create certainty for the partners who make these projects happen and ensure that the public receives the benefits of these investments quickly.

    “Principle Three: Addressing the variety of surface transportation needs across all states. Obviously, different states have different needs, and I think we’ll hear about that today.

    “I wouldn’t expect West Virginia, with our mountainous peaks and valleys…to prioritize the same transportation projects as other states. We need to avoid top-down mandates from Washington, D.C. and give states the flexibility to address the individual improvements that their communities need.

    “It will take collaboration from my Senate colleagues, the Trump administration, and our stakeholders to complete the bill before the IIJA expires in September of 2026. We must be pragmatic, work in a bipartisan fashion to deliver a bill that sets us up for a productive conversation on this reauthorization effort with our colleagues in the House.

    “I’m really grateful, I know many of you have traveled far, to the witnesses that have joined us today. I look forward to learning about these priorities. This is an excellent opportunity ahead of us to make a pivotal impact in our surface transportation network.

    “Each of us knows how important that network is and the role that it plays in keeping our country’s economy and people on the move. I’m excited to get to work and continue the EPW Committee’s bipartisan tradition of developing legislation that delivers for the American people.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Senate Passes Van Orden Bill to Help Veterans Keep Their Homes

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Derrick Van Orden (Wisconsin 3rd)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Derrick Van Orden (WI-03), Chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, applauded the Senate’s passage of his bill, H.R. 1815 – the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act. 

    This legislation establishes a permanent partial claims program within the VA Home Loan Program, bringing VA in line with other federal agencies that lend money for homes and replacing the fiscally irresponsible Biden administration-era VASP program. Veterans will be permitted to have the same programs non-veterans have available to them through FHA loans, allowing veterans who have fallen behind on their mortgages to receive federal assistance.

    “Under the Biden administration, the VA created the VASP program without consulting Congress, costing the American taxpayers $5.8 billion and endangering the entire VA home loan guarantee program,” said Rep. Van Orden. “The time for faceless bureaucrats to run roughshod over elected officials is over. My bill offers a real solution to help every servicemember and veteran maintain the American Dream of homeownership. I am grateful to my Senate colleagues for passing this important bill, and I look forward to President Trump signing it into law.”

    “The VA Home Loan program has helped millions of veterans achieve the American Dream of owning a home. However, we know that veterans – like all Americans – can fall on hard times and may need a safety net in place to avoid foreclosure on their home. The VA Home Loan Program Reform Act addresses that need head on,” said Chairman Bost. “I want to thank my friend, fellow veteran, and our Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Chairman, Rep. Van Orden, for his strong leadership on this issue on behalf of veterans and their families to modernize the VA Home Loan and create a partial claim program at VA. This is good legislation that will – without question – prevent veteran homelessness and make a real difference in veteran’s day-to-day lives. I look forward to seeing President Trump sign it into law.”

    Read the bill text here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Urges DOJ to Swiftly Implement RECA for Radiation Survivors

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)
    Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), urging the Department to prioritize implementation of the expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Senator’s expansion provision revives RECA for survivors, allows tens of thousands of new claimants to receive life-saving assistance—including those across Missouri—and protects the program for years to come.
    “I write to ensure prompt implementation of the reauthorized and expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (‘RECA’), as passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Department of Justice plays a central role in administering RECA, and with the enactment of the expanded law, the Department is now responsible for receiving, evaluating, and processing a broader universe of claims. I urge you to devote sufficient manpower and departmental resources for this important work,” wrote Senator Hawley.
    He continued, “It is critical that the Department promptly renews its claims process and application, given that prospective claimants have until December 31, 2027, to submit their paperwork. Timely processing of new claims is both feasible and imperative under the law, especially given the age and health of many claimants. The current RECA statute also explicitly allows the Department to use existing funds and resources to process RECA claims. Congress included this provision to ensure that the Department has sufficient resources to implement RECA fully and without delay.”
    Senator Hawley offered his support in implementing the program, saying, “I will closely monitor the Department’s implementation of the law in the months ahead and respectfully request an update on the Department’s implementation progress by August 1, 2025. I stand ready to work with you and the Department to ensure a fair, efficient, and accessible claims process for new RECA claimants.”
    Read the full letter here or below.  
    Brett ShumateAssistant Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530
    Dear Assistant Attorney General Shumate:
    I write to ensure prompt implementation of the reauthorized and expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“RECA”), as passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. The Department of Justice plays a central role in administering RECA, and with the enactment of the expanded law, the Department is now responsible for receiving, evaluating, and processing a broader universe of claims. I urge you to devote sufficient manpower and departmental resources for this important work.
    As you know, RECA compensates victims and their families who have been exposed to radiation from the federal government’s nuclear programs. Since Congress created the program in 1990, it has provided benefits to tens of thousands of Americans who have developed cancer or other specified diseases after being exposed to radiation from atomic weapons testing or uranium mining, milling, or transporting. Many harrowing tales have emerged for decades after the United States shuttered its test sites and uranium mines, as negligently stored waste continued infiltrating waterways and communities across the country. Now, President Trump and Congress have extended the program to cover more victims and geographic areas.
    It is critical that the Department promptly renews its claims process and application, given that prospective claimants have until December 31, 2027, to submit their paperwork. Timely processing of new claims is both feasible and imperative under the law, especially given the age and health of many claimants. The current RECA statute also explicitly allows the Department to use existing funds and resources to process RECA claim.[1]Congress included this provision to ensure that the Department has sufficient resources to implement RECA fully and without delay.
    I will closely monitor the Department’s implementation of the law in the months ahead, and respectfully request an update on the Department’s implementation progress by August 1, 2025. I stand ready to work with you and the Department to ensure a fair, efficient, and accessible claims process for new RECA claimants.
    Sincerely,
    Josh HawleyUnited States Senator

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Mike Levin Joins Bipartisan Coalition to Reintroduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill: The Dignity Act

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

    July 15, 2025

    Washington, D.C.—Today, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) joined Reps. Veronica Escobar (TX-16) and Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), along with 17 of their colleagues, to reintroduce a historic, bipartisan immigration bill: the Dignity Act of 2025. After more than two years of negotiation, this bill is an updated compromise agreement that addresses legal status and protections for undocumented immigrants, border security, asylum reform, and visa reform.

    Watch Rep. Levin’s remarks here.

    The Dignity Act makes meaningful reforms to several aspects of our immigration system:

    • It grants legal status and protections to undocumented immigrants already living in the United States;
    • It reforms the asylum screening process to provide opportunity for review and access to council;
    • It creates new regional processing centers, so migrants do not have to make the perilous journey to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum;
    • It invests in border security and modernizes our land ports of entry;
    • It mandates accountability for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
    • It provides protections for Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) holders.

    “It’s long past time for Congress to do its job when it comes to immigration reform. Mass deportations are not the answer. Neither is punishing working families or tearing apart communities. We can invest in border security and still uphold our values. We can enforce our laws and still protect families. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive — they’re fundamentally American,” said Rep. Levin “For those who are contributing positively to our society and economy, we need a better process and a realistic path for them to stay in this country. These are our neighbors and our friends. Let’s honor that promise — by protecting Dreamers, improving pathways to legal status, securing the border, and passing the Dignity Act.”

    The last time Congress passed immigration reform was in 1996, which was driven by Republicans and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That bill eliminated several legal immigration pathways, essentially making fewer people eligible for legal status while making more people deportable.

    As we are witnessing historic executive overreach and redirection of resources to our border, it is clear Congress needs to update our immigration laws. And it is not like Congress has not had the opportunity; over the last 10 years, eight major pushes for immigration reform have failed:

    • In 2013, the Senate on a bipartisan basis passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, but House Republicans refused to take up the bill.
    • In 2018, a bipartisan group of Senators advanced the Uniting and Securing America Act to protect Dreamers and provide pathway to citizenship, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • Again in 2018, the Senate tried to advance the United and Securing America Act “Common Sense” Proposal Amendment, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • Yet again in 2018, the Uniting and Securing America Act made it to the Senate floor but was blocked.
    • In 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act, but Senate Republicans blocked it.
    • In 2021, the House again passed the American Dream and Promise Act, but Senate Republicans again blocked it.
    • In 2021 and 2022, the President proposed record funding for more border agents, more asylum officers, more immigration judges, more border technology, and more detention capacity. Republicans in Congress failed to fund these both requests.
    • In 2024, Republican Senator James Lankford (R-OK) led a bipartisan group of senators to fund a border security and foreign aid package, which failed due to significant pushback from Republicans such as Donald Trump.

    “I have seen firsthand the devastating consequences of our broken immigration system, and as a member of Congress, I take seriously my obligation to propose a solution. Realistic, common-sense compromise is achievable, and is especially important given the urgency of this moment. I consider the Dignity Act of 2025 a critical first step to overhauling this broken system,” said Rep. Escobar. “Immigrants – especially those who have been in the United States for decades – make up a critical component of our communities and also of the American workforce and economy. The vast majority of immigrants are hard-working, law-abiding residents; and, despite how maligned they have been by the administration, most Americans recognize that it is in our country’s best interest to find a solution. We can enact legislation that incorporates both humanity and security, and the Dignity Act of 2025 offers a bipartisan, balanced approach that restores dignity to people who have tried to navigate a broken system for far too long. The reintroduction of this legislation includes changes that reflect the challenges in today’s political environment. I’m proud of my bipartisan work with Rep. Salazar, who has been a strong partner on this issue since December 2022. It is our hope that Congress seizes the opportunity to take an important step forward on this issue.”

    “The Dignity Act is a revolutionary bill that offers the solution to our immigration crisis: secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and provide an earned opportunity for long-term immigrants to stay here and work. No amnesty. No handouts. No citizenship. Just accountability and a path to stability for our economy and our future,” said Rep. Salazar.

    The Dignity Act is also cosponsored by Democratic representatives Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Susie Lee (NV-03), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Hilary Scholten (MI-03), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Adam Gray (CA-13), Laura Gillen (NY-04), and Jake Auchincloss (MA-04) and Republican representatives Dan Newhouse (WA-04), Mike Lawler (NY-17), David Valadao (CA-22), Mike Kelly (PA-03), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Gabe Evans (CO-08), Marlin Stutzman (IN-03), Don Bacon (NE-02), and Young Kim (CA-40).

    A summary of the bill can be found here.

    ##

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues FEMA for Cutting Bipartisan Funding for Natural Disasters

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 19 other states in suing the Trump administration over its deadly decision to illegally shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen. Since the 1990s, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to support infrastructure improvements to prepare for natural disasters. These funds have been proven to save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of rebuilding after a disaster strikes. While BRIC has received bipartisan support and funded projects in all 50 states, the administration abruptly and illegally terminated the program earlier this year, jeopardizing billions of dollars intended to help communities prepare for disasters nationwide. With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the termination of the BRIC program and prevent the administration from illegally reallocating its funds.

    “This administration’s decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk,” said Attorney General James. “New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes. This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters.”

    The BRIC program provides financial and technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to implement new measures that protect communities from natural disasters. The program’s grants cover up to 75 percent of a project’s costs, and can rise to 90 percent for small rural communities, making them a critical lifeline. BRIC funding supports the construction of evacuation shelters and flood walls, protections for water and power infrastructure, and improvements to roads and bridges. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding. Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with New York among the states receiving the most BRIC funding. 

    New York has 38 BRIC projects throughout the state totaling over $380 million that are all in jeopardy as a result of the termination of the program. New York City, which is particularly vulnerable to flooding, is expecting to receive BRIC funds for 19 different projects. This includes $50 million for the Central Harlem Cloudburst Flood Mitigation Project, which is designed to provide flood protection measures to over 45,000 city residents vulnerable to flash flooding of the Harlem River. 

    Multiple studies have shown that BRIC funds more than pay for themselves by preventing costly damage during disasters. Each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in post-disaster costs, with some investments saving even more. BRIC program funds have helped avoid over $150 billion in costs and saved lives in communities throughout the country.

    Despite the program’s success and longtime bipartisan support, the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the program in April 2025, diverting over $4 billion out of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation fund and into funds for post-disaster grants. This abrupt termination has jeopardized critical projects throughout the country. Communities have been forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of projects that depend on BRIC funding. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have already spent millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. As a result, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the abrupt termination of BRIC is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has written into law that disaster preparedness is a core part of FEMA’s mission and has appropriated funds for BRIC. Congress has also specified that the executive branch cannot alter this mission or reduce FEMA’s ability to carry out any of its core functions unless the law changes. FEMA also cannot refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the Constitution. In addition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that President Trump’s FEMA administrator and his successor, who carried out BRIC’s termination, were not lawfully appointed to run FEMA and lack the authority to shut down the program.

    With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from spending BRIC funds on other purposes and a permanent injunction to reverse the termination of the BRIC program and require the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program

    Source: US State of California

    Over a billion in funding potentially at stake for California projects to address flooding, wildfires, landslides, drought, and earthquakes

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. From flooding to wildfires to landslides to earthquakes, California is uniquely at risk from natural disasters and the largest beneficiary of this program; already, it has been awarded tens of millions of dollars, and if the program continues, could receive over a billion more for projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a coalition of 19 other states, asks the court to compel FEMA to reverse the unlawful termination of the BRIC program so that communities across the country can protect themselves from natural disasters before they strike.  

    “Nearly thirty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress recognized a simple fact: Preparing for disasters, instead of just reacting to them, saves money and lives,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to. As we continue to build a climate resilient California, we deserve a federal government that is a partner, not a roadblock in our efforts – and that’s exactly what Congress intended.” 

    Across five Presidential administrations, Congress and FEMA have worked together to provide funding through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program so that communities across the nation can invest in projects that reduce harm from natural disasters. The rationale is simple: by proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs. 

    Given the program’s effectiveness in protecting both people and pocketbooks, it is little surprise that it has had broad bipartisan support. The bill codifying the program passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415–2 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent before President Bill Clinton signed it. More recently, during President Trump’s first term, a bipartisan group of legislators overwhelmingly passed a bill by a vote of 398–23 in the House and 93–6 in the Senate that provided the program with an additional funding stream. And in 2021, Congress invested another $1 billion in the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

    In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

    • A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
    • A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
    • A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away. 

    In Texas, where heavy rains turned into devastating floods earlier this month, FEMA was set to provide hundreds of million in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects, including for several flood mitigation projects.

    All that changed when Cameron Hamilton, who the Trump Administration unlawfully installed to act as FEMA’s Administrator, suddenly shut down the program. His unilateral decision to shutter the nation’s largest, most popular, and most cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation program is illegal. Neither Cameron Hamilton nor his successor, David Richardson, were lawfully appointed or qualified to run FEMA, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and statutory requirements. Their purported termination of the BRIC program flatly contravenes Congress’s decision to continue to fund it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse. In their lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition urge the court to reverse FEMA’s unlawful decision to shut down this program – before the devastating impact of this loss of funding results in permanent damage to our communities.  

    Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit.  

    A copy of the lawsuit will be available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Shutting Down Longstanding Disaster Prevention Program

    Source: US State of California

    Over a billion in funding potentially at stake for California projects to address flooding, wildfires, landslides, drought, and earthquakes

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the unlawful termination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. From flooding to wildfires to landslides to earthquakes, California is uniquely at risk from natural disasters and the largest beneficiary of this program; already, it has been awarded tens of millions of dollars, and if the program continues, could receive over a billion more for projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a coalition of 19 other states, asks the court to compel FEMA to reverse the unlawful termination of the BRIC program so that communities across the country can protect themselves from natural disasters before they strike.  

    “Nearly thirty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress recognized a simple fact: Preparing for disasters, instead of just reacting to them, saves money and lives,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yet in the name of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, President Trump and his lackeys have once again jeopardized public safety with their indiscriminate slashing of pre-disaster mitigation funding. We’re taking them to court – not because we want to, but because we have to. As we continue to build a climate resilient California, we deserve a federal government that is a partner, not a roadblock in our efforts – and that’s exactly what Congress intended.” 

    Across five Presidential administrations, Congress and FEMA have worked together to provide funding through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program so that communities across the nation can invest in projects that reduce harm from natural disasters. The rationale is simple: by proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs. 

    Given the program’s effectiveness in protecting both people and pocketbooks, it is little surprise that it has had broad bipartisan support. The bill codifying the program passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415–2 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent before President Bill Clinton signed it. More recently, during President Trump’s first term, a bipartisan group of legislators overwhelmingly passed a bill by a vote of 398–23 in the House and 93–6 in the Senate that provided the program with an additional funding stream. And in 2021, Congress invested another $1 billion in the program through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

    In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

    • A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
    • A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
    • A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away. 

    In Texas, where heavy rains turned into devastating floods earlier this month, FEMA was set to provide hundreds of million in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects, including for several flood mitigation projects.

    All that changed when Cameron Hamilton, who the Trump Administration unlawfully installed to act as FEMA’s Administrator, suddenly shut down the program. His unilateral decision to shutter the nation’s largest, most popular, and most cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation program is illegal. Neither Cameron Hamilton nor his successor, David Richardson, were lawfully appointed or qualified to run FEMA, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and statutory requirements. Their purported termination of the BRIC program flatly contravenes Congress’s decision to continue to fund it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse. In their lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition urge the court to reverse FEMA’s unlawful decision to shut down this program – before the devastating impact of this loss of funding results in permanent damage to our communities.  

    Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Pennsylvania, in filing the lawsuit.  

    A copy of the lawsuit will be available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Sweed Announces Partnership with Mission Green to Advocate for Criminal Justice Reform and Legalize Cannabis

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Sweed, the industry-leading cannabis technology platform, announced today a partnership with Mission Green, the nonprofit organization dedicated to funding social change and providing financial aid for those who are serving prison time for nonviolent cannabis-related offenses. Initiated by Sweed as part of the company’s ongoing efforts to connect cannabis advocacy and reform with the innovative technology driving the future of cannabis retail. Sweed’s partnership with Mission Green and The Weldon Project includes a donation as well as a commitment to further promote and assist the organization’s ongoing efforts to drive criminal justice reform and legalize cannabis.

    Weldon Angelos began his journey for social equity and social justice reform after he was sentenced to a 55-year prison term in 2003 for selling less than $1,000 worth of cannabis. Mr. Angelos was eventually released from prison in 2016 after serving 13 years of his term and was then granted clemency. Following his release, Mr. Angelos launched Mission [GREEN], an initiative dedicated to securing clemency for those currently incarcerated for cannabis-related offences and to create pathways for expungements or pardons.

    “As leaders in the cannabis industry, we view it as our responsibility to contribute in whatever way possible to the ongoing fight for cannabis clemency and policy reform that Weldon and Mission Green have so valiantly and consistently led the way towards,” said Hallie Stahl, Director of Corporate Marketing for Sweed. “This partnership between Sweed and The Weldon Project’s Mission Green initiative leverages the reach and reputation of the Sweed platform to further educate, fundraise, and mobilize the cannabis industry to support those who have suffered so that the industry can flourish. We are immensely proud to be partners with Weldon, and we look forward to working together to make a positive impact on the cannabis industry.”

    The partnership between Sweed and The Weldon Project includes an initial donation to the non-profit organization, as well as the potential for additional fundraising and outreach efforts. Sweed, the leading enterprise cannabis retail technology platform, is empowering licensed cannabis dispensaries across the U.S. to support Mission Green through its built-in round-up donation feature. This capability is made possible by Sweed’s integrated tech stack and customer-facing second screen, which facilitates direct contributions during the purchase experience. Additional partnership activities promoting education of cannabis clemency efforts and policy reform initiatives will also be woven into Sweed events throughout the year.

    “Having a company like Sweed partner with Mission Green is an honor, and we are truly grateful for their commitment to furthering our advocacy efforts,” said Weldon Angelos, Founder of The Weldon Project. “Sweed is a trusted technology leader in cannabis, and to have them leverage their technical capabilities and platform to support our cause is exciting and expected to have a big impact on our reach going forward.”

    For more information on Sweed visit: Sweedpos.com

    For more information on Mission Green visit: ProjectMissionGreen.org

    About Sweed
    Sweed is redefining cannabis retail management with its cohesive platform, seamlessly combining Point of Sale, eCommerce, and Marketing & Loyalty solutions. As the original enterprise-grade platform purpose-built for multi-location scalability, Sweed empowers retailers to efficiently manage sales, customer engagement, marketing, and inventory — all from one system. By delivering a tailored, data-driven experience without relying on external integrations, Sweed enables cannabis retailers to drive growth and deliver exceptional customer experiences. For more information, visit https://sweedpos.com/.

    About Mission Green & The Weldon Project
    Mission [Green] is a national initiative powered by The Weldon Project, which was created to support individuals disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. The Weldon Project was founded by Weldon Angelos, a former music producer sentenced to 55 years in federal prison for a nonviolent cannabis offense. After receiving a full pardon from President Trump in 2020, Weldon works tirelessly towards criminal justice reform and second-chance advocacy.

    Media Contact
    Oak PR
    Raquel@oakpr.com

    The MIL Network –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ showcases Donald Trump’s penchant for visual cruelty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marycarmen Lara Villanueva, PhD Candidate, Department of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

    The United States government recently announced the opening of a massive immigrant detention facility built deep within the Florida Everglades that’s been dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a media briefing that “there is only one road leading in … and the only way out is a one-way flight.”

    For some taking in her remarks, the moment felt dystopian. According to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the facility is surrounded by swamps and alligators and is equipped with more than 200 security cameras, 8,500 metres of barbed wire and a security force of 400 personnel.

    Accounts from some of the first detainees at the facility have shed light on the inhumane conditions. They’ve described limited access to water and fresh air, saying they received only one meal a day and that the lights are on 24/7.

    Apparently designed to be an immigration deterrence and a display of cruelty, Alligator Alcatraz is much more than infrastructure. It is visual policy aimed to stage terror as a message while making Trump’s authoritarian and fascist politics a material reality.

    Contributing to this fascist visual apparatus, AI-generated images of alligators wearing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hats have circulated widely on social media. Some have questioned whether these images were satire or state propaganda.

    A screenshot of a June 2025 Homeland Security post on X, formerly Twitter.

    Surveillance, migration, debilitation

    In a moment of growing right-wing rhetoric and support for anti-immigrant violence, understanding how visual regimes operate, and what they attempt to normalize, is important.




    Read more:
    Nearly 54% of extreme conservatives say the federal government should use violence to stop illegal immigration


    Surveillance and deterrence technologies used along the U.S.–Mexico border for decades were intentionally designed to restrict the movement of undocumented migrants. According to Human Rights Watch, this has resulted in more than 10,000 deaths.

    Since 1994, U.S. Border Patrol has been accused of directing migrants away from urban crossings along the southern border, intentionally funnelling them into harsh and inhospitable terrain like the Sonora Desert.

    The desert serves as a deterrent to prevent immigrants from reaching their destiny. American theorist Jasbir Puar’s concept of debility is useful in making sense of the strategic process whereby the state works not to kill, but to weaken, as a form of slow violence that wears people down over time. The desired outcome is deterrence.

    On the southern U.S. border, severe dehydration and kidney failure can be outcomes of this debilitating process, potentially resulting in disability or death.

    Infrastructures of violence

    Sarah Lopez, a built environment historian and migration scholar in the U.S., describes the architecture of migrant immobilization as existing on a continuum with prison design. She’s highlighted the increasingly punitive conditions of immigration detention facilities, such as small dark cells or the absence of natural light.

    French architect and writer Léopold Lambert explains that architecture isn’t just about buildings, but about how space is used to organize and control people. He coined and developed the term weaponized architecture to describe how spaces are designed to serve the political goals of those in power.

    Colonialism, capitalism and modernity are closely connected, and architecture has played a key role in making them possible. Alligator Alcatraz sits at the intersection of all three, intentionally created to invoke danger and isolation. In other words, it’s cruel by design.

    As Leavitt put it, the facility is “isolated and surrounded by dangerous wildlife and unforgiving terrain.” The Trump administration has essentially transformed land into infrastructure and migrants into disposable threats.

    Terrorizing the marginalized

    State-sanctioned “unforgiving terrains” are not new, and the use of alligators to terrorize people of colour isn’t new either.

    The grotesque history of Black children being used as “alligator bait” in Jim Crow-era imagery is well-documented.

    So when Trump publicly fantasized about alligators eating immigrants trying to escape the new detention centre, it came as no surprise to those familiar with the long racist visual history linking alligators to representations of Black people.

    This logic is redeployed in the form of a racial terror that is made visible, marketable and even humorous in mainstream political discourse.

    Visuality and migration

    “Visuality” is a key term in the field of visual and cultural studies, originally coined by Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle and reintroduced in the early 2000s by American cultural theorist Nicholas Mirzoeff. It can be understood as the socially, historically and culturally constructed ways of seeing and understanding the visual world.

    Visual systems have historically been used to justify western imperial and colonial rule by controlling how people see and understand the world.

    While Alligator Alcatraz is a brand-new detention facility, it draws from a longer visual and spatial history of domination.

    The AI-generated images of alligators wearing ICE hats can be seen as part of a broader visual system that makes racialized violence seem normal, justified and even funny. In this absurd transformation, the alligator is reimagined as a legitimate symbol of border enforcement.

    Migrant death by water

    The spectacle of Alligator Alcatraz, with its swampy inhospitable landscape, cannot be divorced from the long visual history of migrant death by water that’s relied on the circulation of images to provoke outrage — and sometimes state action.

    Examples include the iconic image of Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian child whose lifeless body washed ashore in Turkey in 2015, and the devastating photo of Oscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his two-year-old daughter who both drowned crossing the Rio Grande in 2019.

    These images sparked global concern, but they also reinforced the idea that migrant lives only matter when they end in death — as if borders only become visible when they cause deaths.

    Alligator Alcatraz was built in eight days. The fact that a detention camp — or what some have called a concentration camp — can be assembled almost overnight, while basic human needs like clean drinking water or emergency warning systems go unmet for years, speaks volumes about where political will and government priorities lie.

    Marycarmen Lara Villanueva 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. ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ showcases Donald Trump’s penchant for visual cruelty – https://theconversation.com/alligator-alcatraz-showcases-donald-trumps-penchant-for-visual-cruelty-260566

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Burlison Announces Hearing on Advancing Nuclear Energy

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Eric Burlison (R-Missouri 7th District)

    WASHINGTON—Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs Chairman Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) today announced a hearing titled “The New Atomic Age: Advancing America’s Energy Future.” The hearing will examine advancements made in nuclear power technology and the importance of making small and micro modular reactors (SMRs and MMRs) commercially viable and available. Members will also evaluate supply chain challenges that limit access to nuclear fuel and discuss what Congress can do to grow and strengthen American energy.

    “America is at risk of falling behind in the global energy race—and that should concern every one of us. The hard truth is that excessive regulations and red tape from previous administrations have stifled private-sector innovation, preventing us from fully unleashing America’s energy potential. Fortunately, the Trump Administration is implementing common-sense policies designed to redefine power generation and open new pathways to solving our domestic energy challenges. Advanced nuclear reactors will make energy more accessible, more affordable, and more abundant for hardworking Americans. I look forward to hearing from witnesses on how Congress can bolster nuclear energy development and ensure American energy dominance,” said Subcommittee Chairman Burlison.  

    WHAT: Hearing titled “The New Atomic Age: Advancing America’s Energy Future”

    DATE: Tuesday, July 22, 2025

    TIME: 1:00 P.M. ET

    LOCATION: HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitors Center

    WITNESSES:

    Alex Epstein, President and Founder, Center for Industrial Progress  
    Joshua Smith, Energy Policy Lead, Abundance Institute  
     

    BACKGROUND:

    On July 11, 2025, Subcommittee Chairman Burlison and members of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs traveled to Los Angeles County, California, to examine nuclear power reactors and evaluate next steps toward advancing nuclear energy. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Small penises are still the butt of the joke in film and TV

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Cocks, Associate Professor in the Department of English Literature, University of Reading

    Gen V (2023-present), the recent iteration of the wildly successful superhero satire The Boys (2019), thrives on scenes of bodily outrage. One such episode concerns a young woman who is able to shrink – an ability triggered by self-induced vomiting.

    Her boyfriend persuades her to use her powers during sex and we see her touching his penis, which is now taller than she is. We also understand why the boyfriend is so insistent about her transformation: relatively speaking, he has a small penis.

    In Companion (2025), a film about a young man who has an abusive sexual relationship with a self-conscious robot, a small penis is also mocked. When the robot gains autonomy, and has an intelligence boost, she confronts and shames the abusive man, claiming that he is motivated in his violent and controlling behaviour by “a below average-sized penis”.

    What interests me about these works, as a researcher of sexuality and film, is that they are otherwise committed to questioning reductive ideas about the body. Yes, in the universe of The Boys there is undoubted glee at all the exploding heads and superpowered, murderous buttocks, but the keynote is pathos.


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


    The girl who changes her shape through vomiting is arguably representing bulimic experience and there are characters whose superpowers can be understood to negotiate, for example, self-harm and dysmorphia. But when it comes to a man with a small penis, it’s a different story. His body is understood to directly influence both his actions and sense of morality.

    Likewise, in Companion, which is in so many senses a meditation on the fraught relationship between mind and body, the small penis of the young man is understood to be the obvious source of his repressive actions.

    In both cases, the audience is expected to laugh at the abuser because of his small penis. The small penis is framed as both a signifier and cause of abusiveness.

    ‘We are still so medieval about penis size’

    It could be argued that in Companion and Gen V, the small penis itself is not what is being mocked. The men involved in both are young, white and heterosexual. The idea is, perhaps, that mocking those with small penises is acceptable, because in this the creators are really questioning white, heterosexual and male power structures, and that the inadequacy of that power, its mythic nature, is exposed.

    One difficulty in this is that as only power held by men with small penises is mocked, the power of the well endowed, regardless of racial or sexual identity, is naturalised.

    Equally, those people of colour or queer people who have small penises might implicitly be included in the mockery, with the implication that they are somehow the beneficiaries of power structures, misuse this power, and have obvious, biologically rooted motivations in so doing.

    The trailer for Gen V.

    Gen V qualifies the laughter – the girl , talking later to a friend, makes clear that there is nothing wrong in having a small penis, just “don’t be a dick about it”. But the only small-penised character we see is, of course, being “a dick”.

    There have been a number of television shows that focus on penis size, but each explores the pathos of having a large penis: Hung (2009), The Hard Times of RJ Berger (2010), Sex Education (2019). Imagine an equivalent concerning a character with a small – or even simply not large – penis.

    As journalist Caitlin Moran wrote in a 2023 Guardian article introducing her book, What About Men:

    We are still so medieval about penis size that we see male genitalia as being inimical to a man’s soul. Remember when Stormy Daniels told the world that Donald Trump’s penis was ‘smaller than average – a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart’. And we were all like: ‘Yes, it makes sense the horrible man has a small, weird mushroom penis.’ The whole world joined in on that one.

    Let us instead question the relationship between biology and destiny. And let this action be taken not to frame heterosexual white men as a disadvantaged group, but for the good of us all. Our bodies are ours to negotiate, with ourselves, and with our significant others, as well as those others that find in them indifference, or more troubling affects.

    As Gen V and Companion suggest, in recent science fiction stories that otherwise reimagine the body, the small penis can only be imagined as shameful. It is taken to be an obvious motivation for abusive behaviour. Such an understanding helps no one. As the science fiction genre is especially well placed to question common-sense ideas about the human and its form, it would be a good place to begin.

    Neil Cocks 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. Small penises are still the butt of the joke in film and TV – https://theconversation.com/small-penises-are-still-the-butt-of-the-joke-in-film-and-tv-256748

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Bazaarvoice Holiday Shopping 2025 Report: 47% of Today’s Smart, Selective Holiday Shoppers Are Buying Early to Avoid Price Increases

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    AUSTIN, Texas, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bazaarvoice, Inc., the leading platform for authentic ratings and reviews and social commerce solutions, today released its latest holiday shopping study based on a survey of more than 8,000 global shoppers. The results revealed that in a challenging economy shoppers are scrutinizing value, options, and convenience. They are starting to holiday shop earlier, seeking out sales and free shipping, and opting for budget-friendly brands. 

    “Holiday shopping is here,” said Doug Straton, CMO at Bazaarvoice. “Shoppers are shopping earlier, prioritizing value, and turning to the trusted voices of their peers to guide their decisions – via reviews, social posts and other types of user-generated content. As the lines between content, commerce, and community continue to blur, it’s clear that authenticity, convenience, and trust remain key for holiday retail success.”

    Global survey highlights include:

    • Holiday shoppers are getting smarter and more strategic: 38% of all shoppers start holiday shopping before October, just 9% start in December. Almost half (47%) say they’re buying early to avoid price increases, while the other half (51%) say they wait for major sales like Black Friday. When it comes to shipping, price trumps speed as 48% said they would buy another product to qualify for free shipping, while only 21% said they would do the same to qualify for faster shipping. Lastly, affordable options rule, with nearly 45% actively seeking value, budget-friendly brands/low-cost alternatives.
    • Social media is no longer just a search engine, it’s a checkout: Compared to 2024, holiday purchases on social media jumped nine points, while the number of shoppers discovering gifts on social media dropped 16 points. Social platforms are successfully converting their discovery advantage into a direct sales channel.
    • Omnichannel experiences are a shopper’s expectation: Shoppers no longer think in channels, they expect seamless journeys. While 74% are planning to buy holiday gifts online, 53% will still do in-store shopping in some capacity in 2025. Over half (56%) of those 18-34 favor online shopping, while 49% of those 35-54 value in-store experiences. 
    • Content creators are shoppers’ holiday shopping north star: Trust in creator recommendations for the holidays increased by 30% compared to last year. Shoppers are becoming less focused on the product and more focused on who’s recommending it. Those 18-34 are most open to influencer recommendations, with 55% preferring micro influencers or their friends/family over mega influencers.
    • Authenticity is still very valued: Shoppers who are checking reviews for authenticity while holiday shopping is up from 40% last year to 50% this year. On the flip side, acceptance of AI-generated social content declined from 33% to 20% year-over-year. 

    To see more about the report, visit Bazaarvoice’s Holiday Headquarters. 

    Research methodology
    The research was commissioned by Bazaarvoice and conducted in March 2025 by Savanta among over 8,000 consumers in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, and Canada. 

    About Bazaarvoice
    Bazaarvoice is reshaping how brands and retailers connect with consumers by putting the consumer voice first, which includes ratings and reviews. With an end-to-end, commerce-empowered omni-channel content solutions and analytics platform, Bazaarvoice helps 14,000+ brands and retailers inform consumer decisions consistently and at scale at every stage of the shopper journey, on every platform where shoppers live. 2.5B shoppers use the Bazaarvoice Network on a monthly basis.

    Founded in 2005, Bazaarvoice is headquartered in Austin, Texas, with offices in North America, Europe, Australia, and India. For more information, visit www.bazaarvoice.com.

    Press Contact
    Lauren Venticinque
    Lauren.venticinque@bazaarvoice.com

    The MIL Network –

    July 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Coast Guard seizes over 240,000 pounds of cocaine, doubling amount interdicted over previous year

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: Coast Guard seizes over 240,000 pounds of cocaine, doubling amount interdicted over previous year

    strong>WASHINGTON – The U

    S

    Coast Guard announced that it has seized 242,244 pounds of cocaine since the start of President Trump’s administration on January 20th

    This is a more than 100% increase over the cocaine seized under the previous administration over the same period in 2024

    Since just 1

    2 grams of cocaine can be lethal, the Coast Guard has seized over 91 million potentially lethal doses — enough to kill the entire population of the states of California, Texas, and New York combined

    This milestone comes after President Trump ordered a surge of Coast Guard resources to America’s maritime border on his first day in office, tripling the number of forces along the U

    S

    southern border and maritime approaches

     
    “The U

    S

    southern border is an interconnected system, and as illegal migration and smuggling become harder across the southwest land border, cartels may try different routes,” said Coast Guard Acting Commandant Adm

    Kevin Lunday

    “Our message to the cartels is this: We own the sea, not you

    Using every capability at our disposal, the Coast Guard will prevent threats from reaching our borders

    ” 
    “Thanks to the heroic and diligent work of the men and women of the U

    S

    Coast Guard, these drugs will never hit American streets to poison our communities and destroy American families,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin

    “Securing our maritime borders is critical to making America safe again

    Under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, the Coast Guard is getting the resources and support it needs to fulfill its mission like never before

    ”
    Under the President’s leadership, Secretary Noem is implementing Force Design 2028, a full-scale effort to transform the Coast Guard into a more agile, capable, and responsive force

    This effort will make the Coast Guard even more effective maritime force, empowering it to crack down on the international drug trade and keep deadly drugs like cocaine and fentanyl out of American communities

    80 percent of all US-bound drugs are seized on the high seas, and the Coast Guard is the primary force charged with interdicting those drugs and breaking up international maritime drug smuggling rings

     
    For more information about the Coast Guard, visit www

    uscg

    mil

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: TRUMP Frenzy Live on HTX! Limited-Time Event Features 100,000 USDT Prize Pool

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

     

    PANAMA CITY, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — HTX, a leading global cryptocurrency exchange, announces the launch of its TRUMP Trading Extravaganza, a comprehensive campaign designed to capitalize on the surging interest surrounding the TRUMP token. This initiative follows significant developments, including Justin Sun’s recent acquisition of $100 million in $TRUMP. As reported by CoinDesk on July 10, Justin Sun, founder of TRON DAO and Advisor to HTX, has publicly affirmed his strong belief in TRUMP’s global narrative potential and committed to driving its widespread adoption across Asian markets. This strategic push is underpinned by the TRON ecosystem’s ongoing development of a future-proof global settlement layer, which provides robust support for stablecoins and fosters on-chain liquidity for prominent assets, including TRUMP.

    Capitalizing on recent market momentum, including Bitcoin’s sustained record-breaking performance and strengthening on-chain consensus, HTX’s TRUMP Trading Extravaganza provides diverse opportunities for users to engage with and potentially profit from the burgeoning TRUMP trend. Running until July 26 at 07:00 (UTC), the event features spot and futures trading competitions, Earn products, and lucky draws. With a total prize pool of 100,000 USDT, rewards are distributed across two main activities.

    Activity 1: Join TRUMP Trading Competition to Split 40,000 USDT

    The growing trading frenzy around TRUMP has prompted HTX to launch a dedicated TRUMP trading competition. Registered participants who achieve a cumulative spot trading volume (TRUMP/USDT) ≥ 500 USDT or a cumulative futures trading volume (TRUMPUSDT) ≥ 5,000 USDT will be eligible to share a 40,000 USDT prize pool. Rewards will be distributed based on overall trading volume rankings, with the champion on the leaderboard winning an exclusive 8,000 USDT. The top 10 traders are guaranteed substantial rewards, each receiving thousands of USDT.

    To participate, users must click the “Register Now” button, as only trading data after registration will be included in the reward calculation.

    Activity 2: TRUMP Earn Offers 20% APY and 60,000 USDT Bonus

    Beyond trading, HTX provides a flexible and convenient option for users seeking stable returns. The TRUMP Flexible product allows users to earn limited-time high yields with ease.

    • Up to 20% APY within your reach.
    • Minimum subscription of just 0.1 TRUMP.
    • Flexible subscription and redemption for optimal liquidity.
    • 60,000 USDT APY bonus distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Furthermore, HTX will randomly select five lucky users to receive a 50% APY Booster Coupon for USDD, enhancing their potential returns.

    Early Participation Grants Priority Access to Wealth Opportunities

    TRUMP has rapidly emerged as one of the most talked-about crypto assets, drawing widespread global attention fueled by the compelling narrative surrounding the 2024 U.S. election. It has consistently dominated trending topics across major social media platforms, achieving a remarkable convergence of escalating market value and intense public interest. Demonstrating keen market foresight, HTX quickly responded to these trends by being among the first to list TRUMP at the start of its market surge. With renewed enthusiasm for this “political meme token,” HTX’s TRUMP event will continue to empower users with valuable wealth-creation opportunities. The synergy of political developments and market sentiment is creating an undeniable “TRUMP Storm”, which is expected to drive a vibrant new cycle for meme coins.

    Participate now, ride the wave of this exciting trend, and reap the rewards of the TRUMP Frenzy with HTX!

    About HTX

    Founded in 2013, HTX has evolved from a virtual asset exchange into a comprehensive ecosystem of blockchain businesses that span digital asset trading, financial derivatives, research, investments, incubation, and other businesses.

    As a world-leading gateway to Web3, HTX harbors global capabilities that enable it to provide users with safe and reliable services. Adhering to the growth strategy of “Global Expansion, Thriving Ecosystem, Wealth Effect, Security & Compliance,” HTX is dedicated to providing quality services and values to virtual asset enthusiasts worldwide.

    To learn more about HTX, please visit HTX Square or https://www.htx.com/, and follow HTX on X, Telegram, and Discord. For further inquiries, please contact glo-media@htx-inc.com.

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

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

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at:
    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/8a846c64-73cc-4aaa-b3d2-18e21f3490f2

    The MIL Network –

    July 16, 2025
  • Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    An $8 billion trial by Meta Platforms shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders kicks off on Wednesday over claims that they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

    Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to be one of the first witnesses to take the stand in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.

    The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, and former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix.

    A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.

    The case began in 2018, following revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s successful U.S. presidential campaign in 2016.

    The FTC fined Facebook $5 billion in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data.

    Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion.

    In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as “extreme” and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica’s deceit.

    Meta, which is not a defendant, declined to comment. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.

    The lawsuit is considered the first of its kind to go to trial which alleges board members consciously failed to oversee their company. This is often described as the hardest claim to prove in Delaware corporate law.

    Boeing’s current and former board members settled a case with similar claims in 2021 for $237.5 million, the largest ever in an alleged breach of oversight lawsuit. The Boeing directors did not admit to wrongdoing.

    In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company’s stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1 billion.

    Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading.

    McCormick is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes.

    (Reuters)

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI China: Trump says to slap 10% tariffs on smaller countries

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he planned to place over 10 percent tariffs on smaller countries, not least those in Africa and the Caribbean.

    “We’ll probably set one tariff for all of them,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. It could be “a little over 10 percent tariff” on goods from at least 100 nations, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying.

    Trump had just announced a deal with Indonesia earlier in the day. Under the deal, Indonesia will pay a 19 percent tariff on all goods exported to the United States, while U.S. exports to Indonesia are to be free of tariff- and non-tariff barriers.

    The president had recently sent letters to leaders of several countries, including some major trading partners of the United States, announcing tariffs of 20-50 percent to be introduced starting Aug. 1.

    Trump also said he would “probably” announce tariffs on pharmaceutical drugs at the “end of the month.”

    MIL OSI China News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI China: Pentagon orders half of National Guard to leave Los Angeles

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

    The U.S. Department of Defense on Tuesday ordered 2,000 of the roughly 4,000 California National Guard members deployed in the Los Angeles area to return to their home commands.

    “Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” said Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell in a statement, announcing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to scale back the deployment.

    The “federal protection mission” had achieved its immediate goals, the statement said.

    It was not specified how soon the service members would leave, while some officials said units would redeploy “in an orderly manner”. The California National Guard confirmed it had begun contacting commanders to arrange transportation for soldiers whose assignments are ending.

    The Trump administration federalized around 4,000 California National Guard members and dispatched about 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area in June after large-scale protests erupted over immigration enforcement raids in the area.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass sharply criticized the deployment, arguing that the heavy military presence aggravated tensions rather than restored calm. Both officials reiterated on Tuesday that complete control of public-safety operations should be returned to state and local agencies at once.

    “Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state,” Newsom said in a post on X. “End this theater and send everyone home.”

    At a press conference Tuesday evening, Bass said the troops were “deployed unnecessarily” and “used as props” by the Trump administration. “I am hoping that this is the beginning of a complete withdrawal,” she said as quoted by the Los Angeles Times.

    Even after the drawdown, some 2,000 Guard troops and all 700 Marines will remain in the Los Angeles area. Their responsibilities include protecting federal buildings and assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their operations.

    MIL OSI China News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI China: Russia rejects Trump’s ultimatum on Ukraine

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

    Russia on Tuesday rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s 50-day ultimatum to agree to an Ukraine ceasefire, dismissing the threat of “severe tariffs” as unacceptable.

    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov emphasized that Moscow favors a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict and is ready to negotiate.

    “However, if this is not met with a proper response, if we cannot reach our set goals through diplomacy, then the special military operation will go on,” he continued.

    He said Moscow’s position is unshakable. “We expect Washington and NATO to take this seriously.”

    Trump on Tuesday denied earlier allegations that he encouraged Kiev to strike deep into Russian territory, saying that he isn’t taking sides in the conflict and advised Ukraine “shouldn’t target Moscow” with long-range weapons.

    Just one day before the clarification, Trump said at the Oval Office that the United States will send weapons to Ukraine through NATO, and threatened “severe tariffs” targeting Russia if a ceasefire deal is not reached in 50 days.

    He said some of the first Patriot missile systems could arrive in Ukraine “within days.”

    The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the weapon deliveries as evidence that NATO countries are not interested in peace.

    U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Trump’s reference to 100 percent secondary tariffs meant “economic sanctions.”

    Meanwhile, Ukraine’s parliament on Tuesday voted to extend the country’s wartime status and military mobilization for another 90 days, through Nov. 5. Lawmakers also approved a temporary withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, an international treaty that prohibits the use of anti-personnel landmines.

    MIL OSI China News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: The BRICS + summit in Brazil raises the banner of multilateralism

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Wednesday, 16 July 2025

    Alexandre Brum – BRICS Brasil

    by Cosimo GrazianiRio de Janeiro (Agenzia Fides) – On July 6 and 7, the annual summit of the so-called BRICS countries took place in Rio de Janeiro. This forum of states was founded in 2009 and has grown in recent years to include eleven countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. This year’s meeting was preceded by a series of events that affected its members and fueled expectations about its implementation, most notably the brief conflict between Israel and Iran, in which the United States intervened on the side of the Jewish state. However, expectations of a clear stance on this and other issues were dashed. The geopolitical actor that best took advantage of the international visibility associated with the summit was the host country, Brazil, which organized events such as the G20 summit last year, assumed the presidency of MERCOSUR, and will host the next UN climate conference. This series of events, which also included the organization of the BRICS Summit, enabled the Brazilian government to reaffirm its international stance in favor of multilateralism. Multilateralism was also the first topic addressed by Brazilian President Lula in his introductory speech. Luiz Inàcio Lula da Silva specifically criticized the threat to the progress made in recent years by organizations such as the United Nations. The Brazilian president explicitly mentioned the setbacks on issues such as climate and trade, in the latter case a not-so-disguised allusion to Donald Trump’s tariff policy.The topics of multilateralism and tariffs were mentioned in the summit’s final declaration, along with health, artificial intelligence, climate change, and the promotion of peace and security. Criticism was also directed at Israel’s actions in the Middle East and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. These accusations were also extended to the 5% increase in military spending ordered by NATO countries: Lula particularly criticized the lack of investment for peace. At the same time, little was said about the war in Ukraine. What caused a stir during the summit was the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping: the former likely to avoid embarrassing Brazil in connection with the international arrest warrant issued against the Russian president by the International Criminal Court; the latter officially had other concurrent commitments. Analysts’ eyes were on the summit because of its increasing importance for the so-called Global South. The organization now represents a large portion of the world’s population and an equally large share of global GDP—37% to be precise. The decisions of this group clarify whether and how the Global South will be able to exert a similar importance in global governance as the G7 countries, or even replace the G20 summit in its importance, the only forum that currently offers countries in this category the opportunity to gain visibility and significance in global scenarios. Compared to the G20, the BRICS forum is composed exclusively of countries that seek to relativize the influence of Western and developed countries. Whether this succeeds will depend on whether the member countries manage to negotiate common positions on key issues and achieve some form of political or economic integration. Regarding the latter, all BRICS members agree in proposing and advocating de-dollarization and the replacement of the US dollar with individual states’ currencies in trade transactions.The problem is that not everyone is ready for this transition, which would mean distancing themselves from Washington: countries like Russia and China are strongly in favor of it, while others like Saudi Arabia, due to their ongoing relations with Washington, do not accept such a prospect. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether US President Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on the group’s countries as they move away from the dollar will become reality. If so, the reactions of individual states to such a threat will be a true test of their loyalty to the group. Overall, it can be said that the results of the summit were mixed and that the only country that stood out somewhat more was Brazil as the organizer, because it was able to promote the main points of its foreign policy, starting with the call for multilateralism. It is premature to say that the group does not have what it takes to become an alternative to the West. However, many analysts believe that the overly diverse interests of its members will hinder the organization’s development. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the BRICS members have reached their 17th summit and that a “hard core” has emerged within the organization, in which Russia and China play a key role in finding an alternative approach to the world’s problems, different from that of the ruling groups in many Western countries. All these elements indicate that the path toward an organization of the Global South could gain weight in international relations and surpass the role played by the G20 so far. (Agenzia Fides, 16/7/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: The BRICS + summit in Brazil raises the banner of multilateralism

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Wednesday, 16 July 2025

    Alexandre Brum – BRICS Brasil

    by Cosimo GrazianiRio de Janeiro (Agenzia Fides) – On July 6 and 7, the annual summit of the so-called BRICS countries took place in Rio de Janeiro. This forum of states was founded in 2009 and has grown in recent years to include eleven countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. This year’s meeting was preceded by a series of events that affected its members and fueled expectations about its implementation, most notably the brief conflict between Israel and Iran, in which the United States intervened on the side of the Jewish state. However, expectations of a clear stance on this and other issues were dashed. The geopolitical actor that best took advantage of the international visibility associated with the summit was the host country, Brazil, which organized events such as the G20 summit last year, assumed the presidency of MERCOSUR, and will host the next UN climate conference. This series of events, which also included the organization of the BRICS Summit, enabled the Brazilian government to reaffirm its international stance in favor of multilateralism. Multilateralism was also the first topic addressed by Brazilian President Lula in his introductory speech. Luiz Inàcio Lula da Silva specifically criticized the threat to the progress made in recent years by organizations such as the United Nations. The Brazilian president explicitly mentioned the setbacks on issues such as climate and trade, in the latter case a not-so-disguised allusion to Donald Trump’s tariff policy.The topics of multilateralism and tariffs were mentioned in the summit’s final declaration, along with health, artificial intelligence, climate change, and the promotion of peace and security. Criticism was also directed at Israel’s actions in the Middle East and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. These accusations were also extended to the 5% increase in military spending ordered by NATO countries: Lula particularly criticized the lack of investment for peace. At the same time, little was said about the war in Ukraine. What caused a stir during the summit was the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping: the former likely to avoid embarrassing Brazil in connection with the international arrest warrant issued against the Russian president by the International Criminal Court; the latter officially had other concurrent commitments. Analysts’ eyes were on the summit because of its increasing importance for the so-called Global South. The organization now represents a large portion of the world’s population and an equally large share of global GDP—37% to be precise. The decisions of this group clarify whether and how the Global South will be able to exert a similar importance in global governance as the G7 countries, or even replace the G20 summit in its importance, the only forum that currently offers countries in this category the opportunity to gain visibility and significance in global scenarios. Compared to the G20, the BRICS forum is composed exclusively of countries that seek to relativize the influence of Western and developed countries. Whether this succeeds will depend on whether the member countries manage to negotiate common positions on key issues and achieve some form of political or economic integration. Regarding the latter, all BRICS members agree in proposing and advocating de-dollarization and the replacement of the US dollar with individual states’ currencies in trade transactions.The problem is that not everyone is ready for this transition, which would mean distancing themselves from Washington: countries like Russia and China are strongly in favor of it, while others like Saudi Arabia, due to their ongoing relations with Washington, do not accept such a prospect. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether US President Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on the group’s countries as they move away from the dollar will become reality. If so, the reactions of individual states to such a threat will be a true test of their loyalty to the group. Overall, it can be said that the results of the summit were mixed and that the only country that stood out somewhat more was Brazil as the organizer, because it was able to promote the main points of its foreign policy, starting with the call for multilateralism. It is premature to say that the group does not have what it takes to become an alternative to the West. However, many analysts believe that the overly diverse interests of its members will hinder the organization’s development. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the BRICS members have reached their 17th summit and that a “hard core” has emerged within the organization, in which Russia and China play a key role in finding an alternative approach to the world’s problems, different from that of the ruling groups in many Western countries. All these elements indicate that the path toward an organization of the Global South could gain weight in international relations and surpass the role played by the G20 so far. (Agenzia Fides, 16/7/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine and welcomes vital US contribution: UK Statement to the OSCE

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Speech

    UK reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine and welcomes vital US contribution: UK Statement to the OSCE

    UK Military Advisor, Lt Col Joby Rimmer, says the UK, alongside the US and international partners, remains committed to providing the economic, diplomatic, and military tools Ukraine needs to defend itself.

    Madame Chair, the United Kingdom reaffirms its unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to defend its people and sovereignty against the Russian government’s escalating campaign of aggression. We remain resolute in our commitment to ensuring Ukraine has the tools and support it needs to prevail – diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

    The urgency of this support was underscored by the most recent Russian attacks. On the night of 11-12 July, Russia launched 597 drones and 26 cruise missiles across Ukraine in a 10-hour assault. The attacks killed at least two civilians and injured over 20 others, with damage reported from Kharkiv to Lviv. Just days earlier, Kyiv endured a combined drone, ballistic, and cruise missile strike that damaged six districts and left multiple civilians injured.

    These attacks mark a grim trend. Eight of the largest attacks of the war have been launched by Russia in the last two months. Russia launched ten times more missile and drone strikes in June 2025 than in June 2024. The impact on civilians has been appalling. According to the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), June 2025 saw the highest civilian toll since the war began, with 232 killed and 1,343 injured, driven by a surge in long-range missile and drone strikes reaching far beyond the front lines. From December to May, the UN estimates that civilian casualties increased by 37% from the same period the previous year. Even more horrific is the alleged use of drones armed with enhanced warheads containing up to 90kg of metal shrapnel, designed to maximise civilian casualties. As President Zelenskiiy’s aide Andrii Yermak warned, the alleged use of these shrapnel-packed warheads marks an appalling new chapter in the war.

    The growing frequency and intensity of these attacks underscore the urgent need for enhanced air defence support for Ukraine. We welcome President Trump’s decision to enable NATO Allies to purchase US military equipment vital for Ukraine to defend itself and protect civilians, including Patriot systems. The UK is pleased to be co-chairing, with Germany, a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting next week, to ensure that Ukraine gets the military support it needs to defend itself against Russia’s brutal attacks.

    Finally, on 10 July, the United Kingdom was proud to co-chair the fourth meeting of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ alongside President Macron, bringing together representatives from 38 countries, including over 30 heads of state and government. This gathering was a powerful demonstration of unity and a clear signal to Moscow that our support for Ukraine is enduring, coordinated, and intensifying. We welcome the presence of a US delegation at the meeting for the first time, and President Trump’s announcement that the US will impose sanctions if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. We call upon the Russian Federation to abandon their maximalist objectives in Ukraine, agree to a full and unconditional ceasefire as Ukraine did five months ago, and engage in meaningful peace talks. Together with our partners we will continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia until a just and lasting peace is reached.

    The UK will continue to stand firm with our Allies and Partners, to ensure Ukraine’s defence, uphold international law and secure a future of peace and stability in Europe – principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, including the inviolability of frontiers, territorial integrity of states, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Thank you, Madame Chair.

    Updates to this page

    Published 16 July 2025

    Invasion of Ukraine

    • UK visa support for Ukrainian nationals
    • Move to the UK if you’re coming from Ukraine
    • Homes for Ukraine: record your interest
    • Find out about the UK’s response

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: David Robie: New Zealand must do more for Pacific and confront nuclear powers

    Rongelap Islanders on board the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior travelling to their new home on Mejatto Island in 1985 — less than two months before the bombing. Image: ©1985 David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    He accused the coalition government of being “too timid” and “afraid of offending President Donald Trump” to make a stand on the nuclear issue.

    However, a spokesperson for New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Pacific that New Zealand’s “overarching priority . . . is to work with Pacific partners to achieve a secure, stable, and prosperous region that preserves Pacific sovereignty and agency”.

    The spokesperson said that through its foreign policy “reset”, New Zealand was committed to “comprehensive relationships” with Pacific Island countries.

    “New Zealand’s identity, prosperity and security are intertwined with the Pacific through deep cultural, people, historical, security, and economic linkages.”

    The New Zealand government commits almost 60 percent of its development funding to the region.

    Pacific ‘increasingly contested’
    The spokesperson said that the Pacific was becoming increasingly contested and complex.

    “New Zealand has been clear with all of our partners that it is important that engagement in the Pacific takes place in a manner which advances Pacific priorities, is consistent with established regional practices, and supportive of Pacific regional institutions.”

    They added that New Zealand’s main focus remained on the Pacific, “where we will be working with partners including the United States, Australia, Japan and in Europe to more intensively leverage greater support for the region.

    “We will maintain the high tempo of political engagement across the Pacific to ensure alignment between our programme and New Zealand and partner priorities. And we will work more strategically with Pacific Governments to strengthen their systems, so they can better deliver the services their people need,” the spokesperson said.

    The cover of the latest edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior. Image: Little Island Press

    However, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, writing in the prologue of Dr Robie’s book, said: “New Zealand needs to re-emphasise the principles and values which drove its nuclear-free legislation and its advocacy for a nuclear-free South Pacific and global nuclear disarmament.”

    Dr Robie added that looking back 40 years to the 1980s, there was a strong sense of pride in being from Aotearoa, the small country which set an example around the world.

    “We took on . . . the nuclear powers,” Dr Robie said.

    “And the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was symbolic of that struggle, in a way, but it was a struggle that most New Zealanders felt a part of, and we were very proud of that [anti-nuclear] role that we took.

    “Over the years, it has sort of been forgotten”.

    ‘Look at history’
    France conducted 193 nuclear tests over three decades until 1996 in French Polynesia.

    Until 2009, France claimed that its tests were “clean” and caused no harm, but in 2010, under the stewardship of Defence Minister Herve Morin, a compensation law was passed.

    From 1946 to 1962, 67 nuclear bombs were detonated in the Marshall Islands by the US.

    The 1 March 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, the largest nuclear weapon ever exploded by the United States, left a legacy of fallout and radiation contamination that continues to this day. Image: Marshall Islands Journal

    In 2024, then-US deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell, while responding to a question from RNZ Pacific about America’s nuclear legacy, said: “Washington has attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment.”

    However, Dr Robie said that was not good enough and labelled the destruction left behind by the US, and France, as “outrageous”.

    “It is political speak; politicians trying to cover their backs and so on. If you look at history, [the response] is nowhere near good enough, both by the US and the French.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: David Robie: New Zealand must do more for Pacific and confront nuclear powers

    Rongelap Islanders on board the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior travelling to their new home on Mejatto Island in 1985 — less than two months before the bombing. Image: ©1985 David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    He accused the coalition government of being “too timid” and “afraid of offending President Donald Trump” to make a stand on the nuclear issue.

    However, a spokesperson for New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Pacific that New Zealand’s “overarching priority . . . is to work with Pacific partners to achieve a secure, stable, and prosperous region that preserves Pacific sovereignty and agency”.

    The spokesperson said that through its foreign policy “reset”, New Zealand was committed to “comprehensive relationships” with Pacific Island countries.

    “New Zealand’s identity, prosperity and security are intertwined with the Pacific through deep cultural, people, historical, security, and economic linkages.”

    The New Zealand government commits almost 60 percent of its development funding to the region.

    Pacific ‘increasingly contested’
    The spokesperson said that the Pacific was becoming increasingly contested and complex.

    “New Zealand has been clear with all of our partners that it is important that engagement in the Pacific takes place in a manner which advances Pacific priorities, is consistent with established regional practices, and supportive of Pacific regional institutions.”

    They added that New Zealand’s main focus remained on the Pacific, “where we will be working with partners including the United States, Australia, Japan and in Europe to more intensively leverage greater support for the region.

    “We will maintain the high tempo of political engagement across the Pacific to ensure alignment between our programme and New Zealand and partner priorities. And we will work more strategically with Pacific Governments to strengthen their systems, so they can better deliver the services their people need,” the spokesperson said.

    The cover of the latest edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior. Image: Little Island Press

    However, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, writing in the prologue of Dr Robie’s book, said: “New Zealand needs to re-emphasise the principles and values which drove its nuclear-free legislation and its advocacy for a nuclear-free South Pacific and global nuclear disarmament.”

    Dr Robie added that looking back 40 years to the 1980s, there was a strong sense of pride in being from Aotearoa, the small country which set an example around the world.

    “We took on . . . the nuclear powers,” Dr Robie said.

    “And the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was symbolic of that struggle, in a way, but it was a struggle that most New Zealanders felt a part of, and we were very proud of that [anti-nuclear] role that we took.

    “Over the years, it has sort of been forgotten”.

    ‘Look at history’
    France conducted 193 nuclear tests over three decades until 1996 in French Polynesia.

    Until 2009, France claimed that its tests were “clean” and caused no harm, but in 2010, under the stewardship of Defence Minister Herve Morin, a compensation law was passed.

    From 1946 to 1962, 67 nuclear bombs were detonated in the Marshall Islands by the US.

    The 1 March 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, the largest nuclear weapon ever exploded by the United States, left a legacy of fallout and radiation contamination that continues to this day. Image: Marshall Islands Journal

    In 2024, then-US deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell, while responding to a question from RNZ Pacific about America’s nuclear legacy, said: “Washington has attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment.”

    However, Dr Robie said that was not good enough and labelled the destruction left behind by the US, and France, as “outrageous”.

    “It is political speak; politicians trying to cover their backs and so on. If you look at history, [the response] is nowhere near good enough, both by the US and the French.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    July 16, 2025
  • Iran parliament rules out resumption of US talks until preconditions are met

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran’s parliament said the country should not resume nuclear negotiations with the United States until preconditions are met, in a statement reported on Wednesday by Iranian state media.

    “When the U.S. use negotiations as a tool to deceive Iran and cover up a sudden military attack by the Zionist regime (Israel), talks cannot be conducted as before. Preconditions must be set and no new negotiations can take place until they are fully met,” the statement said.

    The statement did not define the preconditions, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has previously said there should be guarantees there will be no further attacks against Tehran.

    Israel and the U.S. launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last month, saying that they were part of a programme geared towards developing nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains that its nuclear programme is purely for civilian purposes.

    Tehran and Washington had held five rounds of indirect negotiations mediated by Oman prior to the 12-day air war, with U.S. demands that Tehran drop its domestic uranium enrichment programme reaching a dead end.

    Last week, Araqchi reiterated Tehran’s position that it would not agree to a nuclear deal that prevents it from enriching uranium and would refuse to discuss extra-nuclear topics such as its ballistic missile programme.

    U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he was in no rush to negotiate with Iran as its nuclear sites were now “obliterated”, but the U.S., in coordination with three European countries, has agreed to set the end of August as the deadline for a deal.

    French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Tuesday that Paris, London and Berlin would trigger the United Nations sanctions snapback mechanism, which would reimpose international sanctions on Iran, by the end of August if there is no concrete progress regarding an agreement.

    (Reuters)

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Russia: US to Launch Section 301 Investigation into Brazil

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

    NEW YORK, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced Tuesday that it will launch an investigation into Brazil’s trade policies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    The investigation, ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, will focus on “Brazil’s attacks on U.S. social media companies and other unfair trade practices that harm American businesses, workers, farmers, and technologists,” the agency said in a statement, citing U.S. trade negotiator Jamison Greer.

    The investigation will aim to determine “whether the actions, policies, and practices of the Brazilian government relating to digital commerce and electronic payment services, unfair, preferential tariffs, interference in the fight against corruption, intellectual property protection, market access for alcohol, and illegal logging are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce,” the statement said. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Malcolm Turnbull on Australia’s ‘dumb’ defence debate

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

    The Albanese government remains in complicated territory on the international stage. It has to tread carefully with China, despite the marked warming of the bilateral relationship. It is yet to find its line and length with the unpredictable Trump administration.

    Meanwhile, with the new parliament meeting for the first time next week, the federal Opposition remains in a tough spot, still reeling from a brutal election defeat. The Liberals have an untested leader and uncertainty over what policies they will keep and which they will scrap, with their future commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 yet to be reconfirmed.

    Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has personally navigated the highs and lows of these issues, and joins the podcast today.

    On AUKUS and national security, Turnbull says the debate has “never been dumber”.

    The fundamental problem with our debate about national security is a profound lack of patriotism, because not enough people are putting Australia first. I mean I’m not saying that our politicians should be like Donald Trump, in terms of his bravado and braggadocio – you know all that sort of stuff he goes on with – but they should be like Trump in the sense of putting Australia first.

    You know Donald Trump expects other countries to stand for themselves. Who is the foreign leader that is an ally that he respects the most? [Israel’s Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu. Bibi Netanyahu stands up for himself and brutally. And brutally. I mean, Netanyahu’s attitude is, if you’re in the Middle East, if you’re weak, you’re roadkill.

    On defence spending, Turnbull calls a proper review on what Australia needs, rather then spending a certain percent on defence.

    We’ve got to have a proper examination of what capabilities we need, and what capabilities we can afford. The point about submarines is, if you’re going have a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines – they’re literally the most expensive defence platforms in the world – then you’ve got to work out what else you need and then what that’s going to cost you. That will come to quite a lot more than [the current] 2% of GDP, I would estimate.

    Turnbull also warns of a “reckless” degree of “delusion” in Canberra about the risk of not getting nuclear-powered submarines from the US.

    On global affairs, Turnbull says the Albanese government has performed well in a time of uncertainty.

    It’s complicated, but they’re managing this disrupted global environment well. The directions they’re going in are correct. The need plainly is to strengthen partnerships, alliances, relations with countries other than the United States.

    […] There’s a degree of anxiety about China because we don’t share the same political values. It clearly wants to displace the United States as the hegemon in this region […] I think the government and certainly most Australians would recognise that the days of American primacy in this region are over and the outcome for us that we want to have is, as [a former Japanese prime minister] Shinzo Abe used to say, a free and open Indo-Pacific, a balance between the two powers. Indeed as [Foreign Minister] Penny Wong said, a region where no one dominates, nobody is dominated.

    On Albanese’s failure to meet yet with the US president, Turnbull says it doesn’t matter “a huge amount”.

    It is very important for the prime minister of Australia to have a good personal relationship with Donald Trump. It really is. When I was prime minister, my relationship with him got off to a very stormy start, but it was a very good one, because by standing up to his bullying, I won his respect.

    […] When he does meet with Trump, it’s got to be in a situation where he can have an extended discussion, where it’s a substantive meeting and they can really get to know each other. So I think it’s not just the timing of the meeting, but the quality of the meeting.

    On the Liberal Party, Turnbull is pessimistic about its chances of moderating its views, even with Sussan Ley, generally regarded as centrist, as leader,

    [Ley’s] problem, even if she was centrist, and even if was genuine about moving the party back to the centre, I would question whether she can do it. Because there are not many moderates left in the party room in Canberra. How many moderates are left in the branches anymore? Has there been a sort of self-sorting now? Essentially the party […] has moved off into that right wing.

    […] The leader has a lot of authority. However, there is the right wing of the party and you cannot separate it from the right-wing media. From the Murdoch media in particular, they’re joined at the hip. I mean, they’re almost the same thing. They operate in the context of the Liberal Party almost like terrorists. Or like terrorists in this sense: they don’t kill people or blow things up, but they basically are prepared to burn the joint down if they don’t get what they want. I mean, I experienced that.

    Despite reservations, Turnbull says quotas for women are the only way to the Liberal party to where it wants to be.

    Everything else has been tried and it’s failed […] My view is that the party has got to say, well, we recognise this is contrary to grassroots tradition. But unless we do something fairly draconian and directive, then we’re not going to be able to get to the parity of men and women that we want, that we’ve said we wanted for years, and which the electorate clearly prefers.

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

    – ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Malcolm Turnbull on Australia’s ‘dumb’ defence debate – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-malcolm-turnbull-on-australias-dumb-defence-debate-261178

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    July 16, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Australia: Doorstop – UTAS, Sydney campus

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Thanks very much for coming along this morning. 

    I’m here at the University of Tasmania’s campus right here in the heart of Sydney training the next generation of nurses and paramedics. And a couple of weeks ago we kicked off for the first time paid prac. That’s financial support. 

    Paid prac is financial support for teaching students, for nursing students, for midwifery students and for social work students to provide them with a little bit of financial help while they do the practical part of their training, with the practical part of their university degree. 

    Placement poverty is a real thing. As we developed the Universities Accord, one of the things that leapt out time after time talking to students was the financial challenges that come with doing the practical part of your university degree. And students over there in the background mentioned it to me just a minute ago. One student told me that she had to delay or extend her degree for a year just because of the financial challenges of doing your prac and having enough money to put food on the table, to pay your bills. This is one of a whole suite of recommendations in the Universities Accord that we’re implementing. 

    Another thing that came out of the Universities Accord was the reform that is needed to our HECS system, or what we used to call HECS – what we now call HELP – to student debt. Next week I’ll introduce two pieces of legislation into the Federal Parliament. The first cuts students debt by 20 per cent and the second one will cut funding to child care centres that aren’t up to scratch. 

    On the first bill, this is something that we promised the Australian people during the election campaign – that we would cut the student debt of 3 million Australians by 20 per cent. It’s worth something in the order of $16 billion dollars. And for the average Australian with a student debt it will cut their debt by more than $5,500. It will take a lot of weight off the shoulders of a lot of young Australians who are just out of uni, just getting started, just getting on their feet looking to move out of home or save up to get a mortgage. That money taken off their HECS bill will make a world of difference. 

    And the other bill that we’ll introduce next week, as I said, will cut funding from child care centres that aren’t up to scratch. This is something that we promised in the last week of Parliament before the election was called. We did that in response to the revelations that came out of the Four Corners exposé earlier this year about abuse and neglect in child care centres. 

    The truth is that if we want real reform in early education and care, if we want every child care centre to pay attention to safety, to give it the priority that it needs and deserves, then the most powerful weapon the Federal Government has to wield here is money. Child care centres don’t work, don’t operate without the child care subsidy. It represents about 70 per cent of the funding that runs a child care centre. 

    The purpose of this legislation isn’t to shut child care centres down, it’s to raise standards up. What it will do is set conditions on centres that if they don’t meet the sort of standards that parents expect and that our kids deserve, then funding will be suspended or removed entirely. And, as I said, the purpose of this is not to shut centres down but to lift standards up. It’s just one of the things that we need to do to improve the safety of children in our child care centres. 

    Today I’m also releasing this document, which is a roadmap of some of the key reforms that we will roll out in education over the next 12 months. It doesn’t set out everything, but it sets out some of the key reforms, including this legislation to cut student debt by 20 per cent, including this legislation to cut funding to child care centres that aren’t up to scratch. But this year we will also introduce legislation to improve the integrity of the international education system and legislation to permanently establish an Australian Tertiary Education Commission. That and much more that’s needed to make our education system better and fairer and safer. 

    Happy to take some questions. 

    JOURNALIST: Minister, on child care, when can we expect to see a national child care worker register up and running, and what’s the process from here to establish that? 

    CLARE: It’s a good question. I was asked this question this morning. Work is already underway on that. States and territories have agreed that we need one and we need to accelerate the work to stand that up. 

    The first steps are what the states are taking now – Victoria has already said that it will augment its existing teacher register to include the educators that work in their centres. They think that they can do that over the course of the next few months. What we want to do is see all states build that up and then join it up. So that work is underway with states at the moment as well as the federal authority that’s responsible in this area, called ACECQA. 

    JOURNALIST: You have acknowledged that the government has been too slow on child care reform. Who’s the minister responsible for that, and who do you hold responsible for the fact that it has been slow? 

    CLARE: I’ve been pretty blunt. I’ve said that, yes, action has been taken but more action is needed and it needs to happen quicker. I don’t think Australian parents are interested in excuses here. They want action. And action requires all levels of government to work together and the industry to join in as well. 

    Have a look at the revelations today that another 800 children have to get tested, blood tests and urine tests. Think about the anxiety that mums and dads are going through today, think about the trauma that kids are going to have to go through with all of that testing. 

    Now, the company that runs those centres should have known where this bloke was and when he was working there. The Victorian Government is working as quickly as they can to track all of this down. But it highlights to me the importance of having a national database or a national register like the one you just asked in the previous question so you can track people down when they cross borders, when they move centres. 

    JOURNALIST: And what point do you think it would become – you know, that particular case, that person moved around a lot. At what point do you think it would become suspicious if someone within the system was moving around a lot? 

    CLARE: So conscious this is a live investigation, so let’s pose this question in general terms. 

    JOURNALIST: Yeah. 

    CLARE: If we build this register the right way it helps us to identify or prompt red flags when somebody is moving for the wrong reasons. There’ll be some times people who will move between centre and centre because they’re labour hire, but there may be instances where people are moving from centre to centre because they’re quietly being moved on. 

    If the system works the way it needs to work, when something is not right, the police are called and the regulator comes in. And, if necessary, the centre is shut down. 

    JOURNALIST: We’re hearing some parents demand that centres only have female staff. What do you think of that? 

    CLARE: I think you might have asked me this question, Fiona, last week, there’s a bit of media about this. Have a look at the Four Corners evidence that shows that this is not just a problem with blokes. It’s a problem with women as well. We’ve had royal commissions. We’ve had the child safety review that I commissioned after that serial paedophile was arrested and convicted in Queensland. We know what we need to do here. In none of those reports did they recommend this. What they’re recommending is that register, they’re recommending national mandatory safety training so that the 99.9 per cent of people who work in our centres who are good, honest, hard-working people who love our kids and care for them and educate our kids have the skills they need to identify the person that’s up to no good, and things like CCTV so that we can deter bad people from doing bad things and help police when bad things happen. There’ll be individual centres that will talk to mums and dads about the way in which they operate in the system. But just cutting blokes out of it all together is not going to be the solution. 

    JOURNALIST: Is it discrimination, Minister? 

    CLARE: I don’t think there’s any example of any other profession in the country where it’s gender specific. The more important point I want to stress here is if we’re serious here about making sure that our kids are looked after and they’re safe, just identifying one gender is not the way to do it. 

    JOURNALIST: And also just on a follow-up on this matter, parents have naturally lost confidence in the system because of what’s happened. Some parents are now opting for in-home care where grandparents or relatives look after kids. Would you ever envisage a situation where the government might subsidise something like that, where parents or grandparents got paid to look after their grandchildren or – 

    CLARE: That’s not something the government is considering. 

    What we want to make sure of is that the system is as safe as it needs to be. We want it to be affordable, we want it to be accessible, but most important of all we want our kids to be as safe as they possibly can be. 

    Now, this is an essential service for mums and dads. There’s more than a million mums and dads out there today who are watching this, it might be in their own workplace. They might be working from home, but they know how important this is. They can’t live the lives that they’re living without this. But it’s also important for their kids, too. It’s providing them with the building blocks for the education they’re yet to have. 

    If you ask principals and teachers at schools, they’ll tell you that they can identify the kids when they first arrive at primary school that have been in early education and care, whether it’s sitting up straight, whether it’s listening or whether it’s having those literacy and numeracy fundamentals. All of those things make them ready to learn. 

    Now, at the moment there’s lots of kids in early education and care, but there’s some that are still missing out because they’re from really poor and disadvantaged backgrounds. And they start school already behind. So, we’ve got to make the system better. We’ve got to make the system fairer. But, most importantly, we need to make the system safer. 

    JOURNALIST: Do you support Jillian Segal’s policies to withhold funding from universities if they fail to stop or address antisemitism? 

    CLARE: So, we’re considering Jillian Segal’s report, the Special Envoy on antisemitism. I won’t respond today to those recommendations. But there are things that we are already doing in this space. I need to underline the point that there is no place for the poison of antisemitism in our universities. 

    JOURNALIST: So, you won’t say whether you support – 

    CLARE: Hang on. 

    JOURNALIST: Sorry. 

    CLARE: There’s no place for the poison of racism in all of its ugly and obnoxious forms in our universities or anywhere else. I’m not going to say today what our response to that recommendation will be. What I will say is we’ve taken a number of steps already. We’ve established a National Student Ombudsman for the first time so students that make complaints to their universities that are unheard have an independent person to complain to. And that ombudsman is up and running right now. 

    Second is TEQSA, who is the higher education regulator, already has powers in this area, whether it’s to put conditions on universities or to apply to a court to impose fines on universities. There’s an open question about the powers that TEQSA has today and whether they should be changed. That’s something that is being considered right now as part of a broader review of university governance. 

    The other thing I would say is that I don’t intend to look at this report in isolation. But next month the Government will receive a report from the Special Envoy in Combating Islamophobia, and so we wait to see what his recommendations will be. And broader than that, I’ve asked the Race Discrimination Commissioner to conduct a review of racism in our universities. The fact is it exists in our universities in all its ugly forms – ask Indigenous students, ask Islamic students, ask Asian students, ask international students, ask the people who work in our universities of different backgrounds, and they’ll tell you that it is real and that action is needed. 

    Before we consider those recommendations to their final conclusion, I want to look at the recommendations of the Special Envoy on Islamophobia, and I also want to see the work of the Race Discrimination Commissioner. 

    JOURNALIST: Just on that same topic, does that mean you probably won’t expect the Government’s response to those recommendations, including funding, until after those reports come down? And there were also some specific mentions of social media and growing antisemitism amongst young people because of social media. Would you back an awareness campaign or the report’s recommendation of a project to support trusted voices to publicly refute antisemitic views? 

    CLARE: That’s a little outside my portfolio. I’d make the general point that social media plays a role here. It’s not the only reason, but one of the benefits of removing access to social media for young people under the age of 16 might be that less of this poison enters the ears and eyeballs of our young Australians. 

    On your first question, we expect to see that report from the Special Envoy on Islamophobia next month. We’ll get the report from the Race Discrimination Commissioner later this year. But I do think I need to look at all of those reports that might make different recommendations here. I want to tackle racism in whatever form it comes. 

    JOURNALIST: So, it would be a holistic response, not just addressing antisemitism? 

    CLARE: There are recommendations in that report that apply to education. There’s recommendations that apply to other parts of government as well. 

    JOURNALIST: So, it won’t be accepted in full, the recommendations? 

    CLARE: I didn’t say that. Don’t put words in my mouth. 

    JOURNALIST: At the same time, then? 

    CLARE: I’m saying that we’re considering it carefully. We’ve got to consult as part of that. I want to see what the Special Envoy on Islamophobia has to say as well. I think that’s fair. I think that’s the right thing to do. But it’s not just antisemitism and it’s not just Islamophobia – ask Indigenous kids at university today and they’ll say, “well, don’t forget me.” 

    JOURNALIST: So next month we’ll expect – 

    CLARE: Next month, we’ll receive the report from the Special Envoy on Islamophobia. 

    JOURNALIST: And then you’ll hand down – or you’ll say whether you adopt the recommendations? 

    CLARE: Next month we’ll receive the report from the Special Envoy on Islamophobia. Later this year, we’ll get the report from the Race Discrimination Commissioner, which will look at this across the board. 

    JOURNALIST: And I do have just one more on funding and then we can go back to child care. But there have been some comparisons of this funding issue to the Trump administration, what we’ve seen with Harvard and Columbia University. Is that really something that a Labor Government would consider doing – removing funding from a public institution? So, isn’t that kind of a gross overreach, as some people have said? 

    CLARE: I’ll make no comment on that. Have a look at my previous answer. I made the point that TEQSA, the regulator, has powers here already. They’re different in kind to what’s being recommended in this report. But they enable TEQSA to go in and either put conditions on a university or to penalise them, to apply to a court to issue fines. There’s an open question about the role that TEQSA plays here. They’re already playing an important role in helping universities to lift their standards. I mentioned a couple of pieces of work that are ongoing in Government at the moment. There’s a separate piece of work on improving the governance of our universities generally. You would have seen reports today from chancellors, which I welcome, about how do we improve the way in which decisions are made about the remuneration of vice chancellors. That makes sense on its face to me, but that body that’s doing that work about the governance of our universities will present its recommendations to Government in October of this year. 

    JOURNALIST: On that, can I just ask you – this is a bit outlandish – but do you think VCs are overpaid? 

    CLARE: Well –

    JOURNALIST: Given that 

    CLARE: My answer to that is that I think it makes sense – I think it makes a lot of sense, the decisions around the pay of vice-chancellors to be considered by the Remuneration Tribunal. That’s what chancellors have suggested today. When you think about it, public universities are largely funded by public funds. Politicians’ salaries are set by the Remuneration Tribunal. So are the salaries of judges and public servants. But I will wait to see that report, which we’ll get in a couple of months, about reforms to the governance of universities, not just salaries of vice‑chancellors but also what more we need to do in areas of wage theft and making sure that everybody who works in universities are properly paid. And then broader reforms that they’re considering about the councils, the senates, the boards of universities, how they operate, who are represented on them, to make sure that our universities are fit for the future.

    Our universities are incredibly important and they’re going to be more important tomorrow than they are today, just like TAFEs. When I was a kid less than 10 per cent of people had a university degree. Now it’s almost 50 per cent. We know that by the middle of this decade even more kids will go on to uni and more will go on to TAFE, and we’ve got to make sure that our whole tertiary education system is set up for them. And this is part of it. 

    JOURNALIST: Oh, hi Minister Clare, just back to child care, we learned yesterday that accused paedophile Joshua Brown worked at an additional four daycare centres, bringing the total now to 23. My question is: does the casualised nature of the workforce pose risks to children? And how will a centralised system for monitoring workers that you have planned actually work? 

    CLARE: This question gives me an opportunity to talk about the pay rise that’s rolling out for child care workers now. My older cousin has worked in the sector for 30 years. I remember when my eldest was first in child care I said, “how do I pick a good centre?” And she said, “find a place where the team has been there forever. Where they’re permanent and where they love working there and they all know each other, and they all know the kids.” Right. One of the benefits of paying people more is more people want to do the job. And we’ve seen already with the start of the rollout of the 15 per cent pay rise, more people applying to work in the sector and drop in vacancies. That’s going to help with that balance about permanency as well as casual workers. 

    I really do worry that with all of the horror that mums and dads are experiencing that people who work in this sector are just as angry and just as horrified with what they’re seeing and that a lot of people are feeling like there’s a target on their back and that they might not want to work here. We need good people in this sector more than ever, and this pay rise is one part of that. 

    In terms of how the register will work, that’s something that my Department is working with state and territory departments on right now. We’ve agreed that we need to do it. We’re working on the system and how it should work. I talked about setting it up and joining it up. And this will be one of the things that’s considered when education ministers meet for a standalone meeting on child safety next month. 

    JOURNALIST: Can I ask one more question about the Segal recommendations? 

    CLARE: Sure. 

    JOURNALIST: Former Labor Minister Ed Husic today came out and sort of told the Government not to be too heavy-handed, is how he put it, in responding to the antisemitism crisis. Do you have any thoughts on that? And do you think the report enacted in full would be too heavy-handed? 

    CLARE: It may be an opportunity to say that Ed’s a great bloke and he’s one of my best mates, and I take his counsel and advice all the time. And I think you can see from my answer today that this is something that we’re going to give careful consideration to, having a look at it not in isolation but having a look at racism in all its ugly forms across our universities and across our community.

    JOURNALIST: Is this something that you think that federal resources should be used to police, when it comes to universities and how they deal with these things? 

    CLARE: Sorry, Fi, just explain a little. 

    JOURNALIST: Is it – so when we’re talking about universities dealing with antisemitism and other related issues, should federal resources be used to monitor how they’re going with that? 

    CLARE: They already are. They already are. When you think about the decision that I made and that I got states to agree to set up the student ombudsman, it was very much about that. It wasn’t just about that. All of the horrific evidence that came to me when I first got this position about the sexual assault and harassment of particularly female students in our universities, in particular, in student accommodation, made me believe that action was required, and action was taken. And that’s why that ombudsman was set up. 

    That involves, I think more than $50 million dollars of taxpayer money, Commonwealth money, to set that agency up, to set that ombudsman up. And we’ve given that ombudsman real teeth so that when she makes a recommendation universities have to implement it. There’ll be legislation I’ll re-introduce into the parliament around that as well when parliament returns. 

    The investment that we’ve made to ask the Race Discrimination Commissioner to conduct a review into respect at unis, into racism in our universities, I think is evidence that I do believe the Commonwealth has a role here to make sure that our universities are safe places too, that many don’t feel afraid to go to uni. We want more people to want to study at uni. These are places where people study, work and live. They’ve got to be as safe as they possibly can be. There is no place for any type of racism in our country, whether it’s in our unis or anywhere else. 

    JOURNALIST: Dom, anything from you? 

    JOURNALIST: Yes, thank you. Just want to go back to the HECS stuff. 

    CLARE: Sure, mate. 

    JOURNALIST: And ask: with the introduction of the legislation next week, after that, when can we expect the next tranche of university reforms from the Accord? Do you have – is HECS still the focus of that tranche in terms of, you know, how it’s indexed, some other tweaks that can be made, will that be looked at soon? 

    CLARE: Thanks for the question. It’s an opportunity for me to explain in a little bit more detail the bill that will go in next week. 

    Number one, it will cut student debt by 20 per cent, but it will also make structural changes to the way HECS, or student debt operates. It will increase the amount of money you have to earn before you start paying off HECS from 54,000 to I think it’s about $67,000. 

    So, in other words, you don’t start paying off your university degree until your degree starts to pay off for you. And it makes an even more important structural change to the way in which you pay off the debt. It will effectively reduce the amount that you have to pay off each and every year when you’re on a low income. 

    So, the best way to explain that is if you’re on an income of $70,000 today, when this legislation passes it will reduce the minimum amount you have to repay every year by about $1,300. So that’s a real cost of living benefit for a lot of people that are on very modest incomes. 

    JOURNALIST: Just a two-parter then, still on HECS: in terms of has any modelling been done that by raising that people are worse off in the long term? For example, less payments equals more money that then gets indexed each year, so if you don’t reach that threshold, you know, for three more years, you’ve got a higher HECS debt that gets indexed and it kind of compounds? 

    CLARE: Okay, that’s an important opportunity to make the point that this is a minimum repayment. There is nothing that stops or will stop people from making additional repayments if they choose to do so.

    JOURNALIST: And then the indexation – sorry, just to clarify – the indexation I was referring to was how HECS, the money gets taken out every month, but then it gets only subtracted, I think, from the debt at the end of each year, or in June or something like that. So, indexation is applied. 

    CLARE: Okay. 

    JOURNALIST: Is that what you’re looking at as well? Is that part of the next tranche? 

    CLARE: So, in last year’s budget we announced part 1 of our response to the Universities Accord. This is a blueprint for the next decade. It’s a big report with a lot of recommendations. We have implemented now in part or in full about 31 of those recommendations. But over the – in part with the support of the Tertiary Education Commission, which has now been established in an interim reform a week or so ago, we will now look at other recommendations in that report and what the next steps need to be in reforming our higher education system, in making it better and fairer. And in the report, I released today, it touches on some of those things. 

    One of them, which is not the sexiest thing – it won’t make the front page of the paper – but it’s a structural change which is going to be very important is changing the way we fund our universities. That will start from January of next year. And the introduction for the first time ever of real needs-based funding for our universities. 

    Last year I struck agreements with every state and territory to fix the funding of our public schools on a needs-basis, like David Gonski said we should all those years ago. Now we want to apply the same sort of model to our universities, so funding follows the students and more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, from the outer suburbs of our cities, from our regions who need more support to not just start a degree but finish a degree get it. 

    JOURNALIST: And that includes the Jobs Ready Graduate Scheme? 

    CLARE: That’s something we’re asking ATEC to have a look at. All right. Thank you.

    ENDS

    MIL OSI News –

    July 16, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 41 42 43 44 45 … 227
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress