Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What Canada could learn from the tragic consequences of the Texas flash flood

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon McBean, Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography and Environment, Western University

    On July 4, a horrific flash flood occurred in central Texas, mainly impacting Kerr County. The heavy rain started at about 3 a.m., resulting in rainwater surging down mountain slopes, causing the waters in the Guadalupe River to rise by eight metres very quickly.

    At least 132 people have been confirmed dead as of July 14; most of them were in Kerr County. The area is under renewed flood warnings as heavy rains threaten to continue.

    In recognition of the scope of this tragedy, it’s important to determine why it happened. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that a special session of the state legislature will be held in late July to investigate the emergency response.

    Acting to reduce impacts

    Local Texas officials are facing questions over their actions in the hours — and years — before the flood. In recent years, multiple efforts in Kerr County to build a more substantial flood warning system have faltered or been abandoned due to budget concerns.

    In 2015, a deadly Memorial Day flood in Kerr County rekindled debate over whether to install a flood monitoring system and sirens that would alert the public to evacuate when the river rose to dangerous levels. Some officials, cognizant of a 1987 flood that killed eight people on a church camp bus, thought it should be done, but the idea ran into opposition.

    Some residents and elected officials opposed the installation of sirens, citing the cost and noise that they feared would result from repeated alarms. As a result, Kerr Country did not have emergency sirens that could have warned residents about the rising waters.

    Critical warnings

    The critical challenge for communicating flash floods is ensuring that early warnings reach vulnerable populations. Unlike slow-onset river floods, flash floods leave very limited time for reaction. This makes accurate short-term forecasting and community preparedness essential.

    The U.S. National Weather Service issued its first public warning about the flooding in Kerr County at 1:14 a.m. on July 4, warning of life-threatening flash flooding, with subsequent warnings triggering alerts.

    Floodwaters surged dramatically as the Guadalupe River rose nearly eight metres in about 45 minutes. The 4:03 a.m. warning instructed residents to “Move to higher ground now! This is an extremely dangerous and life-threatening situation.”

    The warnings were disseminated at night through emergency management systems and television and radio stations, but many people, including hundreds of children at summer camps, did not receive them.

    Government agencies at all levels need to work together to ensure that residents of impacted areas move effectively to outside of the flood area or at least to higher elevation areas or safe buildings.

    CBC News covers the flood warnings issued during the Texas floods.

    Societal impacts

    The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Assessment for 10-year periods ranked extreme weather events as the highest global risk in both the 2024 and 2025 assessments. Floods are a very important extreme weather event.

    The U.S. National Centers for Environmental Information published its review of events for the period 1980-2024. Tropical cyclones were the costliest weather and climate disasters, followed by: droughts, wildfires and flooding, which had an average cost of US$4.5 billion per event. The number of billion-dollar inland flood events has increased in the U.S.

    Note that the dollar costs of these events in these assessments do not include the many societal impacts, including mental trauma and other health impacts.

    Terminations at U.S. agencies

    There have been major reductions in the staffing and budgetary support of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Services, which is part of NOAA.




    Read more:
    Terminations at U.S. government agencies that monitor extreme weather events will have negative effects


    The impacts of these reductions on the weather and flood forecasts that would have alerted Texans on July 4 are not yet clear. At the time of writing, the website for the National Weather Services office for Austin/San Antonio, which covers the region that includes hard-hit Kerr County, shows six of 27 positions are listed as vacant. One important vacancy is that of the key manager responsible for issuing warnings and co-ordinating with local emergency management officials.

    The U.S. government has also reduced the funding for research on weather systems, including floods. There have also been reductions in the funding support for scientific analyses of how climate change will affect the severity of storms.

    Deep funding cuts to NOAA may result in the termination of both the National Severe Storms Lab and the Cooperative Institute for Severe and High-Impact Weather Research and Operations at the University of Oklahoma, which will have a highly negative impact on the understanding of storms.




    Read more:
    Trump’s budget cuts are adding to risk in life-threatening floods and emergencies


    Canadian floods

    The Canadian Severe Storms Laboratory was established in 2024 at Western University to conduct leading research on severe weather in Canada.

    Flooding is the most common and costly disaster in Canada. In the past decade, floods have averaged nearly $800 million in insured losses annually.

    Over time, the potential for extreme rainfall events is increasing. Heavy rainfall events and their ensuing flood risks are increasing because of warmer temperatures.

    Canadian data shows that climate change is driving increasingly severe and frequent floods.

    Is Canada prepared?

    Flooding will only get worse in the future, and government action is needed to manage this growing risk. One of the ways in which Canada isn’t prepared is that most flood-risk maps are out of date, with some being decades old.

    While Environment and Climate Change Canada issues weather watches and warnings for things like tornadoes, severe thunderstorms and rainfall, it doesn’t provide flood forecasts.

    Most provinces argue that water resources are natural resources and are therefore under provincial jurisdiction. This means that weather forecasts across the country are provided by the Meteorological Service of Canada, while flood forecasts are produced by each of the provinces.

    It is important to take actions to address adaptation and climate resilience that consider future floods and their impacts. Federal, provincial and territorial governments will need to work together to avoid tragedies.

    Gordon McBean has received funding from the Canadian funding agencies (SSHRC, NSERC) for academic research in the past. He has received funding for research from Western University including one grant that has not yet been completed and from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction to participate in scientific meetings and conferences.

    ref. What Canada could learn from the tragic consequences of the Texas flash flood – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-could-learn-from-the-tragic-consequences-of-the-texas-flash-flood-260755

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Better Straws Act to Codify President Trump’s Agenda

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22)

    Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Better Straws Act to restore consumer freedom and eliminate burdensome federal mandates on everyday products. This bill codifies President Trump’s Executive Order 14208, which bans the federal requirement for paper straws and protects Americans’ right to choose practical, affordable alternatives, such as plastic straws. 

    “Soggy paper straws that disintegrate mid-sip are not just an inconvenience; they’re a symbol of how far the Left is willing to go to impose its radical climate agenda. Paper straws often cost more, function worse, and can carry a larger carbon footprint than plastic straws. The Better Straws Act upholds President Trump’s commitment to common sense by banning federally mandated paper straws and putting consumers back in charge,” said Congresswoman Tenney.  

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Young Kim Holds Hearing on Breaking China’s Chokehold on Critical Mineral Supply Chains 

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Young Kim (CA-39)

    Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Representative Young Kim (CA-40), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, delivered opening remarks at a subcommittee hearing titled, “Breaking China’s Chokehold on Critical Mineral Supply Chains.” 

    Watch her remarks HERE or read her opening statement below. 

    Good afternoon and welcome to the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee’s hearing titled, “Breaking China’s Chokehold on Critical Mineral Supply Chain.” I want to thank our witnesses for joining us this afternoon.  

     Critical minerals—lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and others—are the building blocks of modern technology, powering electric vehicles, microchips, and advanced defense systems. Global demand for these minerals is surging, with lithium demand alone growing nearly 30% annually from 2021 to 2024, driven by rising electric vehicle battery production. 

     Yet, the People’s Republic of China or PRC controls 92% of global rare earth element processing and dominates the manufacturing of battery and magnet components. This chokehold, reinforced by China’s tens of billions in global mining investments and tactics like price manipulation and export restrictions, poses a direct threat to the United States and our allies.   

     While the U.S. possesses significant mineral resources, domestic production alone cannot meet the speed or scale of this demand. U.S. mines face high operational costs and significant regulatory burdens. It often takes decades to permit a new mine in America. Moreover, the federal government lacks the financial capacity to fully subsidize the level of investment needed to drive large-scale private sector expansion of domestic production. Relying solely on domestic solutions is insufficient; we need a bold, global strategy to secure resilient, diversified supply chains free from Chinese control. 

    The current geopolitical landscape offers an opportune window to act. Recent developments, such as President Trump’s critical minerals agreement with Ukraine and the U.S.-facilitated peace deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo, open new opportunities to access vital resources. We’ve also seen coordination like the recently announced Quad critical minerals initiative underscore the importance of critical minerals to broader regional engagement. As the administration renegotiates trade relationships, we can strengthen partnerships with allies to build non-Chinese supply chains, enhancing both economic and national security. 

     Today’s hearing will explore these challenges and opportunities. We will examine how to build a proactive global strategy to establish supply chains free from Chinese dominance. Our goal is clear: to ensure the United States and its allies have secure, reliable access to the critical minerals that will define the future of technology and security. I look forward to a productive discussion. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    15 July 2025

    Contact: Jin Choi

    Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44), a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health, sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy following up on comments and commitments the Secretary made related to Alzheimer’s disease research at the House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing on “The Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget” on Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

    The National Institute of Health (NIH) funds 35 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) across the country. Since the start of the Trump Administration and DOGE’s attacks on critical research, 13 ADRCs have experienced funding reductions of $65 million in 2025. Currently, another 14 ADRCs are up for renewal in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.

    The letter clarifies the facts about the status of federally-funded Alzheimer’s research after Secretary Kennedy suggested that what the Congresswoman shared about these cuts was untrue.

    “It’s extremely disappointing that our nation’s top health official was unaware of devastating cuts to research that prevents access to clinical trials and other critical services for people living with devastating Alzheimer’s and their caregivers,” said Rep. Barragán. “I urge Secretary Kennedy to honor his words and ensure full funding of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers up for renewal in 2026. These Centers are funded with bipartisanship support in Congress. This should be a non-partisan priority. Families battling Alzheimer’s can’t afford funding delays, conspiracy theories, or ideological budgets. They need answers, treatments, and hope now.”

    The letter also urges a commitment in writing following an exchange during the hearing when Congresswoman Barragán asked Secretary Kennedy to commit to fully funding the 14 ADRCs up for renewal in FY26, and the Secretary responded that is something he was willing to work together on.

    About Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers

    Established in 1984 as NIH Centers of Excellence, the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCS) are conducting research and translating scientific advances into improved diagnosis and care for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. ADRCs have supported access to over 325 clinical trial opportunities between 2017 and 2022, provided evaluations and diagnoses for nearly 30,000 individuals living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment since 2005, and offered a range of supportive and informational resources, including referrals to clinical trials, for ADRC research participants living with dementia and their caregivers as well as for professional providers. Although each Center has its own area of research emphasis, the ADRCs work together as a network to enhance research, sharing new research ideas, approaches, diseases, and samples.

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    15 July 2025

    Contact: Jin Choi

    Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44), a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health, sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy following up on comments and commitments the Secretary made related to Alzheimer’s disease research at the House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing on “The Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget” on Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

    The National Institute of Health (NIH) funds 35 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) across the country. Since the start of the Trump Administration and DOGE’s attacks on critical research, 13 ADRCs have experienced funding reductions of $65 million in 2025. Currently, another 14 ADRCs are up for renewal in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.

    The letter clarifies the facts about the status of federally-funded Alzheimer’s research after Secretary Kennedy suggested that what the Congresswoman shared about these cuts was untrue.

    “It’s extremely disappointing that our nation’s top health official was unaware of devastating cuts to research that prevents access to clinical trials and other critical services for people living with devastating Alzheimer’s and their caregivers,” said Rep. Barragán. “I urge Secretary Kennedy to honor his words and ensure full funding of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers up for renewal in 2026. These Centers are funded with bipartisanship support in Congress. This should be a non-partisan priority. Families battling Alzheimer’s can’t afford funding delays, conspiracy theories, or ideological budgets. They need answers, treatments, and hope now.”

    The letter also urges a commitment in writing following an exchange during the hearing when Congresswoman Barragán asked Secretary Kennedy to commit to fully funding the 14 ADRCs up for renewal in FY26, and the Secretary responded that is something he was willing to work together on.

    About Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers

    Established in 1984 as NIH Centers of Excellence, the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCS) are conducting research and translating scientific advances into improved diagnosis and care for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. ADRCs have supported access to over 325 clinical trial opportunities between 2017 and 2022, provided evaluations and diagnoses for nearly 30,000 individuals living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment since 2005, and offered a range of supportive and informational resources, including referrals to clinical trials, for ADRC research participants living with dementia and their caregivers as well as for professional providers. Although each Center has its own area of research emphasis, the ADRCs work together as a network to enhance research, sharing new research ideas, approaches, diseases, and samples.

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    15 July 2025

    Contact: Jin Choi

    Rep. Barragán Follows Up on Exchange with HHS Secretary Kennedy on Alzheimer’s Research During Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44), a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health, sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy following up on comments and commitments the Secretary made related to Alzheimer’s disease research at the House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee Hearing on “The Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget” on Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

    The National Institute of Health (NIH) funds 35 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) across the country. Since the start of the Trump Administration and DOGE’s attacks on critical research, 13 ADRCs have experienced funding reductions of $65 million in 2025. Currently, another 14 ADRCs are up for renewal in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.

    The letter clarifies the facts about the status of federally-funded Alzheimer’s research after Secretary Kennedy suggested that what the Congresswoman shared about these cuts was untrue.

    “It’s extremely disappointing that our nation’s top health official was unaware of devastating cuts to research that prevents access to clinical trials and other critical services for people living with devastating Alzheimer’s and their caregivers,” said Rep. Barragán. “I urge Secretary Kennedy to honor his words and ensure full funding of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers up for renewal in 2026. These Centers are funded with bipartisanship support in Congress. This should be a non-partisan priority. Families battling Alzheimer’s can’t afford funding delays, conspiracy theories, or ideological budgets. They need answers, treatments, and hope now.”

    The letter also urges a commitment in writing following an exchange during the hearing when Congresswoman Barragán asked Secretary Kennedy to commit to fully funding the 14 ADRCs up for renewal in FY26, and the Secretary responded that is something he was willing to work together on.

    About Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers

    Established in 1984 as NIH Centers of Excellence, the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCS) are conducting research and translating scientific advances into improved diagnosis and care for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. ADRCs have supported access to over 325 clinical trial opportunities between 2017 and 2022, provided evaluations and diagnoses for nearly 30,000 individuals living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment since 2005, and offered a range of supportive and informational resources, including referrals to clinical trials, for ADRC research participants living with dementia and their caregivers as well as for professional providers. Although each Center has its own area of research emphasis, the ADRCs work together as a network to enhance research, sharing new research ideas, approaches, diseases, and samples.

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Inflation Remains Right on Target Under President Trump

    Source: US Whitehouse

    “Every month since President Trump took office, core inflation — the best measure of inflation — has beat or matched expectations. The data proves that President Trump is stabilizing inflation and the Panicans continue to be wrong about tariffs raising prices.” — White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt


    Under President Donald J. Trump, America continues to beat back inflation after years of Biden-induced price hikes.

    Here’s what you need to know from the latest Consumer Price Index:

    • June data confirms inflation is right on track. The annualized rate of inflation is below the year-earlier pace, showing that prices are right on track.
    • Core inflation beat expectations for another month. Since President Trump took office, core inflation has tracked at just 2.1% — levels not seen since the first Trump Administration, when prices were low and stable — and has come in below or at economists’ expectations every single month.
    • Wage growth remains strong under President Trump. Real wages for production and nonsupervisory workers are up 1.3% over last year.
    • Prices for everyday Americans continue to fall. Prices for new and used vehicles and airfares fell last month, while annualized shelter inflation dropped to its lowest in nearly four years — with prices for gas, fuel oil, energy commodities, hotels, airfare, public transportation, and fresh vegetables all down over last year.

    Here’s what they’re saying:

    • CNBC’s Rick Santelli: “Inflation is going to ebb and flow. If we want to really isolate it in terms of what this Administration is doing or Liberation Day, I would benchmark it to the beginning of the year. January and February reads being warmer gives you a lot of information that some of the policies have not been detrimental in boosting inflation.”
    • CNBC’s Rick Santelli: “The death of the labor market has been greatly exaggerated based on recent data, and I think that all in all, the inflation numbers — they’re pretty respectable here.”
    • Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo: “You’ve got to look at this report as another victory for President Trump, who has focused on reigning in inflation — and that’s what we’re seeing from this report again.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: With Republican “Big Beautiful Betrayal” Now Law, Shaheen Discusses Cuts to Food Assistance, Clean Energy that Will Exacerbate the Cost-of-Living Crisis

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    (Nashua, NH) – Today, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) hosted discussions with Granite State leaders to highlight the disastrous impacts of the Republican budget legislation, which is now law, on New Hampshire. Shaheen met with Granite State nonprofit leaders in Manchester, and local officials and business leaders in Nashua, to discuss cuts to food assistance and clean energy included in the legislation. You can view photos from both events here.
    In Manchester, Shaheen visited the New Hampshire Food Bank for a roundtable discussion with Granite State nonprofit leaders on the impact of Republican cuts to food assistance.
    “This bill that President Trump and Congressional Republicans jammed through Congress cuts health care and food assistance for millions of Americans in order to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest,” said Senator Shaheen. “It’s going to raise costs for families in New Hampshire at a time when Granite Staters are already fighting to stretch every dollar. I’m grateful to the leaders and community members who shared their stories today and I’ll continue working with them to minimize the harm from this legislation.”
    According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the cuts put food assistance benefits for thousands of Granite Staters at risk and will cost the state of New Hampshire between $8 million and $23 million per year.
    Later in Nashua, Shaheen toured Pennichuck Solar Farm with city officials, business leaders and advocates and discussed how the Republican legislation will drive up energy costs in New Hampshire.
    “The Republican budget bill eliminates commonsense, forward-looking clean energy and energy efficiency tax credits that help municipalities and working families use less energy and lower their energy costs,” said Senator Shaheen. “Nashua has been a leader in investing in clean energy projects that have already helped them lower their electricity bills and save taxpayer dollars, but thanks to the Republican megabill future projects are now at risk.”
    The City of Nashua has made significant investments in clean energy, utilizing federal incentives to support solar projects and reduce municipal electricity costs. The Republican legislation, which eliminates several longstanding bipartisan clean energy and energy efficient tax credits, has put future solar plans at risk.
    During the Senate “Vote-A-Rama” process, Shaheen forced a vote on her amendment to preserve four longstanding bipartisan consumer energy efficiency and clean energy tax credits that lower energy costs for families, make housing more affordable, protect American jobs and help give businesses the certainty they need to thrive. All but two Senate Republicans—Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)—voted to block Shaheen’s amendment.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump voices disappointment with Putin, grows impatient

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

    U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be losing patience with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, voicing disappointment on Monday just hours after threatening “severe tariffs” against Russia.

    “I’m disappointed in him, but I’m not done with him. But I’m disappointed in him,” Trump told BBC in an interview.

    A few hours earlier, during a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump warned, “We’re going to be doing very severe tariffs” if a ceasefire agreement on Ukraine is not reached within 50 days.

    U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick clarified later that Trump actually meant “economic sanctions” when he threatened “secondary tariffs” against Russia, The Washington Times reported.

    Trump also told Rutte that the United States would supply weapons to Ukraine through NATO, including Patriot missile systems, with deliveries starting soon.

    In a post on X following a phone call with Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed gratitude for Trump’s “willingness to support Ukraine” and hailed their strong relationship.

    This is not the first time Trump has expressed disappointment with Putin over the Ukraine crisis, despite claiming he has a good relationship with the Russian leader. In early July, after a phone conversation with Putin, Trump told reporters, “I didn’t make any progress with him today at all,” adding, “I’m not happy about that.”

    Trump, who promised during his campaign to end the conflict in Ukraine within 24 hours, has held several conversations with Putin since taking office. However, his efforts to pressure the Russian leader have yet to yield a ceasefire. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump expressed disappointment with V. Putin

    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

    WASHINGTON, July 15 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to be losing patience with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, expressing frustration on Monday just hours after threatening to impose “harsh tariffs” on Russia.

    “I’m disappointed in him, but I’m not done with him. But I’m disappointed in him,” Trump said in an interview with the BBC.

    Hours earlier, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, the US president warned that the US would impose very tough tariffs if a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine was not reached within 50 days.

    US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick later clarified that Trump actually meant “economic sanctions” when he threatened “secondary tariffs” against Russia, The Washington Times reports.

    After a telephone conversation with D. Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed gratitude to the US President on the X social network for his “willingness to support Ukraine” and welcomed their strong relations. –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

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How 17M Americans enrolled in Medicaid and ACA plans could lose their health insurance by 2034

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Simon F. Haeder, Associate Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M University

    The millions of people losing insurance include many who get coverage through the ACA marketplace. sesame/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    The big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, will cut government spending on health care by more than US$1 trillion over the next decade.

    Because the final version of the legislation moved swiftly through the Senate and the House, estimates regarding the number of people likely to lose their health insurance coverage were incomplete when Congress approved it by razor-thin margins. Nearly 12 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage by 2034 due to this legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    However, the number of people losing their insurance by 2034 could be even higher, totaling more than 17 million. That’s largely because it’s likely that at least 5 million Americans who currently have Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance will lose their coverage once subsidies that help fund those policies expire at the end of 2025. And very few Republicans have said they support renewing the subsidies.

    In addition, regulations the Trump administration introduced earlier in the year will further increase the number of people losing their ACA marketplace coverage.

    As a public health professor, I see these changes, which will be phased in over several years, as the first step in a reversal of the expansion of access to health care that began with the ACA’s passage in 2010. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million when President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law. All told, the changes in the works could eliminate three-quarters of the progress the U.S. has made in reducing the number of uninsured Americans following the Affordable Care Act.

    Millions will lose their Medicaid coverage

    The biggest number of people becoming uninsured will be Americans enrolled in Medicaid, which currently covers more than 78 million people.

    An estimated 5 million will eventually lose Medicaid coverage due to new work requirements that will go into effect nationally by 2027.

    Work requirements target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than other people enrolled in the program.

    Medicaid applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old will need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service.

    When these rules have been introduced to other safety net programs, most people lost their benefits due to administrative hassles, not because they weren’t logging enough hours on the job. Experts like me expect to see that occur with Medicaid too.

    Other increases in the paperwork required to enroll in and remain enrolled in Medicaid will render more than 2 million more people uninsured, the CBO estimates.

    And an additional 1.4 million would lose coverage because they may not meet new citizenship or immigration requirements.

    In total, these changes to Medicaid would lead to more than 8 million people becoming uninsured by 2034.

    Many of those who aren’t kicked out of Medicaid would also face new copayments of up to US$35 for appointments and procedures – making them less likely to seek care, even if they still have health insurance.

    The new policies also make it harder for states to pay for Medicaid, which is run by the federal government and the states. They do so by limiting the taxes states charge medical providers, which are used to fund the states’ share of Medicaid funding. With less funding, some states may try to reduce enrollment or cut benefits, such as home-based health care, in the future.

    Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well.

    A supporter of the Affordable Care Act stands in front of the Supreme Court building on Nov. 10, 2020.
    Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    ACA marketplace policies may cost far more

    The new law will also make it harder for the more than 24 million Americans who currently get health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplace plans to remain insured.

    For one, it will be much harder for Americans to purchase insurance coverage and qualify for subsidies for 2026.

    These changes come on the heels of regulations from the Trump administration that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will lead to almost 1 million people losing their coverage through the ACA marketplace. This includes reducing spending on outreach and enrollment.

    What’s more, increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Given Republican opposition, it seems unlikely that those subsidies will be extended.

    Not extending the subsidies alone could mean premiums will increase by more than 75% in 2026. Once premiums get that unaffordable, an additional 4.2 million Americans could lose coverage, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

    With more political uncertainty and reduced enrollment, more private insurers may also withdraw from the ACA market. Large insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth have already raised concerns about the ACA market’s viability.

    Should they exit, there would be fewer choices and higher premiums for people getting their insurance this way. It could also mean that some counties could have no ACA plans offered at all.

    Ramifications for the uninsured and rural hospitals

    When people lose their health insurance, they inevitably end up in worse health and their medical debts can mount. Because medical treatments usually work better when diagnoses are made early, people who end up uninsured may die sooner than if they’d still had coverage.

    Having to struggle to pay the kinds of high medical bills people without insurance face takes a physical, mental and financial toll, not just on people who become uninsured but also their families and friends. It also harms medical providers that don’t get reimbursed for their care.

    Public health scholars like me have no doubt that many hospitals and other health care providers will have to make tough choices. Some will close. Others will offer fewer services and fire health care workers. Emergency room wait times will increase for everyone, not just people who lose their health insurance due to changes in Trump’s tax and spending package.

    Rural hospitals play a crucial role in health care access.

    Rural hospitals, which were already facing a funding crisis, will experience some of the most acute financial pressure. By one estimate, more than 300 hospitals are at risk of closing.

    Children’s hospitals and hospitals located in low-income urban areas also disproportionately rely on Medicaid and will struggle to keep their doors open.

    Republicans tried to protect rural hospitals by designating $50 billion in the legislative package for them over 10 years. But this funding comes nowhere near the $155 billion in losses KFF expects those health care providers to incur due to Medicaid cuts. Also, the funding comes with a number of restrictions that could further limit its effectiveness.

    What’s next

    Some Republicans, including Sens. Mike Crapo and Ron Johnson, have already indicated that more health care policy changes could be coming in another large legislative package.

    They could include some of the harsher provisions that were left out of the final version of the legislation Congress approved. Republicans may, for example, try to roll back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

    Moving forward, spending on Medicare, the insurance program that primarily covers Americans 65 and older, could decline too. Without any further action, the CBO says that the law could trigger an estimated $500 billion in mandatory Medicare cuts from 2026 to 2034 because of the trillions of dollars in new federal debt the law creates.

    Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid. And yet, it’s possible that the Trump administration will issue executive orders that further reduce what the federal government spends on health care – and roll back the coverage gains the Affordable Care Act brought about.

    Portions of this article first appeared in a related piece published on June 13, 2025.

    Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.

    ref. How 17M Americans enrolled in Medicaid and ACA plans could lose their health insurance by 2034 – https://theconversation.com/how-17m-americans-enrolled-in-medicaid-and-aca-plans-could-lose-their-health-insurance-by-2034-260664

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How universities can keep protests from turning violent: 3 lessons from the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampments

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matthew J. Mayhew, Professor of Higher Education, The Ohio State University

    Pro-Palestinian supporters march outside Columbia University in September 2024. AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

    In spring 2024, pro-Palestinian student encampments that began at Columbia and Harvard spread to university campuses throughout the U.S. as Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack. At least 100 campuses had encampments for at least a few days during this period.

    While some campuses erupted in violence, others remained peaceful and didn’t experience the open conflict that led to congressional hearings, university presidents losing their jobs and repercussions that are continuing to be felt today.

    What made the difference?

    In spring 2024, Ohio State University’s College Impact Laboratory, where we all work, surveyed universities to learn more about whether their campuses experienced protests, what happened and how they handled them. Part of our goal was to understand how spiritual leaders played a role, if any, in managing the protests. We’ve been analyzing the data ever since. The results from those who responded point to several lessons universities could learn from to avoid violence in future protests.

    Campuses are a critical arena for activism

    Campus protests have long been a defining feature of social and political change in the U.S. From the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s to the student-led climate strikes of recent years, higher education institutions have served as a critical space for activism.

    Often, these protests reflect broader societal tensions, and how universities respond has played a significant role in shaping their outcomes.

    Historically, protests have been most likely to escalate when students feel unheard. In contrast, institutions that adopt proactive strategies, such as facilitating conversations or including students in decision-making, often experience better outcomes.

    A George Washington University student carries a Palestinian flag at a student encampment protesting the Israel-Hamas war in May 2024.
    AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

    Snapshot of the pro-Palestinian protests

    As our survey data shows, the pro-Palestinian protests illustrate this dynamic.

    To gather data, the College Impact Laboratory sent questionnaires to administrators at the 329 universities that participate in our Interfaith Spiritual, Religious and Secular Campus Climate Index, also known as the INSPIRES Index, as well as hundreds of colleges and universities in our recruitment database.

    In all, 35 schools responded to our 23-question survey. Of those, we found that most protests were led by students, half lasted less than a week, and the vast majority were nonviolent. Fifteen did not have protests, while the rest did. While the number of institutions that participated in this survey is relatively small, it does give us key insights into what schools were thinking.

    Half of the campuses with protests reported law enforcement involvement – either campus police or city officers – with 20% experiencing physical altercations between protesters and police. Other disruptive actions such as academic interruptions, vandalism, physical violence and doxxing were reported with varying frequencies.

    Protests at campuses that participated in our survey peaked during April and May 2024, with 70% of them experiencing demonstrations in these months.

    Here are three takeaways from the survey, suggesting steps universities can take before and during future protests to avoid escalation:

    1. Involve students in guidelines for engagement – early

    At every surveyed institution that reported protests, students were at the forefront of organizing and leading these efforts.

    Yet, despite this clear student leadership, about one-third of institutions said they didn’t consult with students to establish guidelines for engagement. Those that did invited representatives from student organizations or student government officers into the policymaking process to determine what protocols would be followed to manage protests and keep them peaceful.

    On campuses where administrators didn’t engage with student leaders, tensions tended to escalate, and protests disrupted the institutions for weeks, often after police were called in or curfews were imposed.

    While many of the protests lasted only one to seven days, we found that institutions that opened lines of communication early between administration and student protest leaders were more likely to deescalate tensions quickly. In contrast, campuses where administrators did not engage early on saw protests lasting weeks or involving greater disruptions.

    Also, institutions that engaged early with student leaders were less likely to face stronger demands, such as calls for administrators to be fired, divestment from Israeli companies or calls to defund the campus police.

    Our survey results suggest it’s important for administrators to engage with students early to establish clear guidelines to make it less likely future protests spiral into violence.

    2. Communicate openly, often and before protests

    Discussion of difficult topics, such as the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, shouldn’t wait until protests break out to begin. We found that every school in our survey that proactively supported dialogue between Jews and Muslims – before the war broke out – didn’t see violence result from the protests.

    Dialogue isn’t just a strategy for preventing protests from spiraling out of control; it is fundamental to intergroup learning in higher education. These events create safe spaces for students − whether Arab, Jewish, Palestinian or members of different ethnic or religious groups − to engage with classmates with different points of view.

    But even once protests begin, dialogue can help. When institutions engaged in dialogue, during or as a result of a protest, the protests were less likely to involve violence. At half of the campuses that participated in our survey and experienced protests, protests were ended peacefully through dialogue.

    Brown, for example, modeled the power of institutional listening in its response to its April 2024 encampment. Rather than escalating tensions, university leaders engaged directly with student activists, resulting in a peaceful resolution and a commitment to bring the students’ divestment proposal to a formal vote in October. It ultimately failed to pass the board of directors.

    Demonstrators unfurl a banner on a lawn after an encampment protesting the Israel-Hamas war was taken down at Brown University on April 30, 2024, in Providence, R.I.
    AP Photo/David Goldman

    3. Involve relevant groups in decision-making

    Most administrators in our survey, as they considered how to engage with protesters, reached out to relevant student groups such as those that focus on Jewish and Muslim students to better understand their perspectives.

    However, only 28% consulted a religious or spiritual life office staff member on campus.

    Religious or spiritual life staff are present on both private and public campuses and may include university-employed multifaith chaplains, interfaith coordinators or directors of spiritual life. Unlike student-led religious groups, these professionals often serve as liaisons to the religious and nonreligious communities represented on campus.

    The focus of such roles on serving students from all worldviews positions them as key resources for deescalation through community outreach, support and two-way communication. Additionally, these professionals have valuable expertise in religious pluralism and community relationships. This experience helps them to advise administrators on policy and potential courses of action in times of tension.

    Consulting with university staff with a focus on religion or spiritual life makes particular sense given the nature of the protests and how religion is intertwined, but our data suggests they may be underutilized more broadly for their expertise in navigating tensions related to competing worldviews.

    Proactive engagement with these leaders not only helps campuses navigate an immediate crisis but demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and respect for different groups’ perspectives.

    Leading by example

    Put another way, our research suggests institutions can avoid the negative outcomes of protests by embodying the traits commonly associated with universities, such as showing mutual respect, fostering democratic debate and engaging in critical thinking even on divisive issues. Engaging from a mindset of goodwill with student leaders shows administrators value student voices and are willing to work collaboratively toward solutions.

    But when campuses ignore peaceful protests or refuse to engage with student leaders, they risk turning manageable situations into prolonged crises.

    At a time when divisions run deep, we believe campuses that lead by example by embracing dialogue and engaging student activists before, during and after protests take place are not only likely to see less violence, but are likely to help heal America’s great divides.

    Matthew J. Mayhew receives grant funding for various research projects from the National Science Foundation, the ECMC Foundation, the Templeton Religion Trust, the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, and Pew Charitable Trusts. Currently, Dr. Mayhew leads the College Impact Laboratory at The Ohio State University. He is the Principal Investigator for the INSPIRES Index project and is the current editor of the Digest of Recent Research.

    Renee L. Bowling works for the College Impact Lab at The Ohio State University that produces the INSPIRES Index and serves as Chair of NASPA’s Spirituality and Religion in Higher Education Knowledge Community.

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

    ref. How universities can keep protests from turning violent: 3 lessons from the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampments – https://theconversation.com/how-universities-can-keep-protests-from-turning-violent-3-lessons-from-the-2024-pro-palestinian-encampments-252278

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: A law from the era of Red Scares is supercharging Trump administration’s power over immigrants and noncitizens

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Tichenor, Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon

    The Trump administration detained former Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, center, for more than two months and is seeking to revoke his lawful permanent resident status. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

    Nativism, the idea that government must guard native-born Americans from various threats posed by immigrants, has a long history in the United States.

    Today, the Trump administration is citing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a restrictive measure written by nativist members of Congress decades ago when fears of communism were rampant, to sharply restrict the rights of noncitizens.

    Under this law, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, federal agencies have arrested and detained noncitizens associated with pro-Palestinian protests, reintroduced immigrant registration requirements, and imposed a new travel ban that affects 19 nations.

    Since the 1950s, Congress has removed some of this sprawling federal law’s most discriminatory features, such as racist national origins quotas. But other key provisions remain on the books. Now they are the primary legal basis for some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial immigration crackdowns.

    Author and reporter Clay Risen discusses parallels between anticommunist fears in the 1950s and the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies.

    Foreign policy trumps free speech

    In March 2025, the White House invoked the McCarran-Walter Act to justify arresting and deporting Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. Officials pointed to Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the law, which states that any “alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

    This has been tried only once before. In 1995, the Clinton administration unsuccessfully sought to use the provision to deport a former Mexican official, Mario Ruiz Massieu, to face charges in his homeland for extortion and obstructing a murder investigation. Ruiz Massieu was later indicted in the U.S. on money laundering charges and died by suicide shortly before his arraignment.

    The Trump administration cited the same provision to justify detaining Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk in March. Ozturk came under government scrutiny because she co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper criticizing the university’s position on the Israel-Gaza war.

    Surveillance footage of a terrified Ozturk being arrested by masked Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents on a street in Somerville, Massachusetts, drew criticism from government officials and civil liberties advocates. In response, Secretary of State Marco Rubio alleged that Ozturk had harmed U.S. interests by supporting “movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus.”

    Khalil and Ozturk both were released after weeks in detention, pending final resolution of their cases. Their lawyers argue that their clients’ treatment violates free speech protections and that the defendants were punished for expressing their political beliefs.

    Monitoring noncitizens

    The McCarran-Walter Act also authorizes intrusive registration and tracking requirements for noncitizens who remain in the U.S. for 30 days or longer.

    On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to enforce an “alien registration requirement.” The agency issued a final rule in April requiring all noncitizens over the age of 14 to register and be fingerprinted. Parents or guardians must register noncitizen children under age 14. The rule also requires adult noncitizens to carry “evidence of registration” at all times.

    Such policies aren’t new. Noncitizen registration was codified in the Alien Registration Act of 1940, on the eve of U.S. entry into World War II. The law was designed to regulate the foreign-born population and encourage eligible noncitizens to join the U.S. armed forces. Its requirements were written into the McCarran-Walter Act.

    After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which targeted noncitizen males age 16 or older from 25 Muslim-majority countries. It required registrants to submit biometric information, check in regularly with immigration authorities and use specific ports of entry for travel.

    The Obama administration suspended this system in 2011 and permanently dismantled it in 2016.

    Today, Trump administration officials say they are simply enforcing long-standing legal authority. A federal judge agreed, ruling on April 10 that the Homeland Security Department could require noncitizens to register and carry documentation.

    The Trump administration says it will strictly enforce a long-standing requirement for immigrants in the country more than 30 days to register with the federal government.

    Travel bans redux

    On June 2, Trump announced a new travel ban on foreign nationals from 12 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The ban draws its authority from the McCarran-Walter Act. Two days later, Trump claimed the same legal discretion to exclude Harvard University’s international students from the U.S.

    During his first term, Trump invoked these sections of the law to justify a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld this action in 2018 by a 5-4 vote in Trump v. Hawaii. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the travel ban was well within broad powers over immigration granted to the president under the McCarran-Walter Act. He added that the court had “no view on the soundness of the policy.”

    Trump’s new ban is more carefully crafted than earlier versions and more likely to withstand legal challenges. But his efforts to use the McCarren-Walter Act to ban international students from attending Harvard University face stiff legal headwinds.

    On May 22, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem notified Harvard officials that the agency was revoking the school’s certification to participate in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which grants visas to international students to come to the U.S. In a June 4 proclamation, the White House claimed that foreign students at Harvard had behaved in ways that threatened U.S. national security.

    A federal judge in Boston quickly blocked the revocation, holding that it violated core constitutional free speech rights. “The government’s misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration’s own views, threaten these rights,” wrote Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

    The latest step came on July 9, when the Trump administration subpoenaed Harvard for information on its foreign students, including their disciplinary records and involvement in campus protests.

    Broad power over noncitizens

    Ironically, congressional sponsors of the McCarran-Walter Act were at odds with the White House when the law was enacted in 1952. They overrode a veto by President Harry S. Truman, who thought the law’s nativist ideas were unfitting for a nation of immigrants and global defender of democracy.

    However, the expansive executive powers created by this law have endured largely unaltered over time, through waves of immigration reform.

    Now they are a boon to the Trump administration’s ambitious immigration crackdown. It’s a telling reminder that repressive old laws can come back to life – even when they don’t reflect the current views of many Americans.

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

    ref. A law from the era of Red Scares is supercharging Trump administration’s power over immigrants and noncitizens – https://theconversation.com/a-law-from-the-era-of-red-scares-is-supercharging-trump-administrations-power-over-immigrants-and-noncitizens-255307

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How 17M Americans enrolled in Medicaid and ACA plans could lose their health insurance by 2034

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Simon F. Haeder, Associate Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M University

    The millions of people losing insurance include many who get coverage through the ACA marketplace. sesame/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    The big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, will cut government spending on health care by more than US$1 trillion over the next decade.

    Because the final version of the legislation moved swiftly through the Senate and the House, estimates regarding the number of people likely to lose their health insurance coverage were incomplete when Congress approved it by razor-thin margins. Nearly 12 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage by 2034 due to this legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    However, the number of people losing their insurance by 2034 could be even higher, totaling more than 17 million. That’s largely because it’s likely that at least 5 million Americans who currently have Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance will lose their coverage once subsidies that help fund those policies expire at the end of 2025. And very few Republicans have said they support renewing the subsidies.

    In addition, regulations the Trump administration introduced earlier in the year will further increase the number of people losing their ACA marketplace coverage.

    As a public health professor, I see these changes, which will be phased in over several years, as the first step in a reversal of the expansion of access to health care that began with the ACA’s passage in 2010. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million when President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law. All told, the changes in the works could eliminate three-quarters of the progress the U.S. has made in reducing the number of uninsured Americans following the Affordable Care Act.

    Millions will lose their Medicaid coverage

    The biggest number of people becoming uninsured will be Americans enrolled in Medicaid, which currently covers more than 78 million people.

    An estimated 5 million will eventually lose Medicaid coverage due to new work requirements that will go into effect nationally by 2027.

    Work requirements target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than other people enrolled in the program.

    Medicaid applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old will need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service.

    When these rules have been introduced to other safety net programs, most people lost their benefits due to administrative hassles, not because they weren’t logging enough hours on the job. Experts like me expect to see that occur with Medicaid too.

    Other increases in the paperwork required to enroll in and remain enrolled in Medicaid will render more than 2 million more people uninsured, the CBO estimates.

    And an additional 1.4 million would lose coverage because they may not meet new citizenship or immigration requirements.

    In total, these changes to Medicaid would lead to more than 8 million people becoming uninsured by 2034.

    Many of those who aren’t kicked out of Medicaid would also face new copayments of up to US$35 for appointments and procedures – making them less likely to seek care, even if they still have health insurance.

    The new policies also make it harder for states to pay for Medicaid, which is run by the federal government and the states. They do so by limiting the taxes states charge medical providers, which are used to fund the states’ share of Medicaid funding. With less funding, some states may try to reduce enrollment or cut benefits, such as home-based health care, in the future.

    Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well.

    A supporter of the Affordable Care Act stands in front of the Supreme Court building on Nov. 10, 2020.
    Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    ACA marketplace policies may cost far more

    The new law will also make it harder for the more than 24 million Americans who currently get health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplace plans to remain insured.

    For one, it will be much harder for Americans to purchase insurance coverage and qualify for subsidies for 2026.

    These changes come on the heels of regulations from the Trump administration that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will lead to almost 1 million people losing their coverage through the ACA marketplace. This includes reducing spending on outreach and enrollment.

    What’s more, increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Given Republican opposition, it seems unlikely that those subsidies will be extended.

    Not extending the subsidies alone could mean premiums will increase by more than 75% in 2026. Once premiums get that unaffordable, an additional 4.2 million Americans could lose coverage, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

    With more political uncertainty and reduced enrollment, more private insurers may also withdraw from the ACA market. Large insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth have already raised concerns about the ACA market’s viability.

    Should they exit, there would be fewer choices and higher premiums for people getting their insurance this way. It could also mean that some counties could have no ACA plans offered at all.

    Ramifications for the uninsured and rural hospitals

    When people lose their health insurance, they inevitably end up in worse health and their medical debts can mount. Because medical treatments usually work better when diagnoses are made early, people who end up uninsured may die sooner than if they’d still had coverage.

    Having to struggle to pay the kinds of high medical bills people without insurance face takes a physical, mental and financial toll, not just on people who become uninsured but also their families and friends. It also harms medical providers that don’t get reimbursed for their care.

    Public health scholars like me have no doubt that many hospitals and other health care providers will have to make tough choices. Some will close. Others will offer fewer services and fire health care workers. Emergency room wait times will increase for everyone, not just people who lose their health insurance due to changes in Trump’s tax and spending package.

    Rural hospitals play a crucial role in health care access.

    Rural hospitals, which were already facing a funding crisis, will experience some of the most acute financial pressure. By one estimate, more than 300 hospitals are at risk of closing.

    Children’s hospitals and hospitals located in low-income urban areas also disproportionately rely on Medicaid and will struggle to keep their doors open.

    Republicans tried to protect rural hospitals by designating $50 billion in the legislative package for them over 10 years. But this funding comes nowhere near the $155 billion in losses KFF expects those health care providers to incur due to Medicaid cuts. Also, the funding comes with a number of restrictions that could further limit its effectiveness.

    What’s next

    Some Republicans, including Sens. Mike Crapo and Ron Johnson, have already indicated that more health care policy changes could be coming in another large legislative package.

    They could include some of the harsher provisions that were left out of the final version of the legislation Congress approved. Republicans may, for example, try to roll back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

    Moving forward, spending on Medicare, the insurance program that primarily covers Americans 65 and older, could decline too. Without any further action, the CBO says that the law could trigger an estimated $500 billion in mandatory Medicare cuts from 2026 to 2034 because of the trillions of dollars in new federal debt the law creates.

    Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid. And yet, it’s possible that the Trump administration will issue executive orders that further reduce what the federal government spends on health care – and roll back the coverage gains the Affordable Care Act brought about.

    Portions of this article first appeared in a related piece published on June 13, 2025.

    Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.

    ref. How 17M Americans enrolled in Medicaid and ACA plans could lose their health insurance by 2034 – https://theconversation.com/how-17m-americans-enrolled-in-medicaid-and-aca-plans-could-lose-their-health-insurance-by-2034-260664

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How universities can keep protests from turning violent: 3 lessons from the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampments

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matthew J. Mayhew, Professor of Higher Education, The Ohio State University

    Pro-Palestinian supporters march outside Columbia University in September 2024. AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

    In spring 2024, pro-Palestinian student encampments that began at Columbia and Harvard spread to university campuses throughout the U.S. as Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack. At least 100 campuses had encampments for at least a few days during this period.

    While some campuses erupted in violence, others remained peaceful and didn’t experience the open conflict that led to congressional hearings, university presidents losing their jobs and repercussions that are continuing to be felt today.

    What made the difference?

    In spring 2024, Ohio State University’s College Impact Laboratory, where we all work, surveyed universities to learn more about whether their campuses experienced protests, what happened and how they handled them. Part of our goal was to understand how spiritual leaders played a role, if any, in managing the protests. We’ve been analyzing the data ever since. The results from those who responded point to several lessons universities could learn from to avoid violence in future protests.

    Campuses are a critical arena for activism

    Campus protests have long been a defining feature of social and political change in the U.S. From the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s to the student-led climate strikes of recent years, higher education institutions have served as a critical space for activism.

    Often, these protests reflect broader societal tensions, and how universities respond has played a significant role in shaping their outcomes.

    Historically, protests have been most likely to escalate when students feel unheard. In contrast, institutions that adopt proactive strategies, such as facilitating conversations or including students in decision-making, often experience better outcomes.

    A George Washington University student carries a Palestinian flag at a student encampment protesting the Israel-Hamas war in May 2024.
    AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

    Snapshot of the pro-Palestinian protests

    As our survey data shows, the pro-Palestinian protests illustrate this dynamic.

    To gather data, the College Impact Laboratory sent questionnaires to administrators at the 329 universities that participate in our Interfaith Spiritual, Religious and Secular Campus Climate Index, also known as the INSPIRES Index, as well as hundreds of colleges and universities in our recruitment database.

    In all, 35 schools responded to our 23-question survey. Of those, we found that most protests were led by students, half lasted less than a week, and the vast majority were nonviolent. Fifteen did not have protests, while the rest did. While the number of institutions that participated in this survey is relatively small, it does give us key insights into what schools were thinking.

    Half of the campuses with protests reported law enforcement involvement – either campus police or city officers – with 20% experiencing physical altercations between protesters and police. Other disruptive actions such as academic interruptions, vandalism, physical violence and doxxing were reported with varying frequencies.

    Protests at campuses that participated in our survey peaked during April and May 2024, with 70% of them experiencing demonstrations in these months.

    Here are three takeaways from the survey, suggesting steps universities can take before and during future protests to avoid escalation:

    1. Involve students in guidelines for engagement – early

    At every surveyed institution that reported protests, students were at the forefront of organizing and leading these efforts.

    Yet, despite this clear student leadership, about one-third of institutions said they didn’t consult with students to establish guidelines for engagement. Those that did invited representatives from student organizations or student government officers into the policymaking process to determine what protocols would be followed to manage protests and keep them peaceful.

    On campuses where administrators didn’t engage with student leaders, tensions tended to escalate, and protests disrupted the institutions for weeks, often after police were called in or curfews were imposed.

    While many of the protests lasted only one to seven days, we found that institutions that opened lines of communication early between administration and student protest leaders were more likely to deescalate tensions quickly. In contrast, campuses where administrators did not engage early on saw protests lasting weeks or involving greater disruptions.

    Also, institutions that engaged early with student leaders were less likely to face stronger demands, such as calls for administrators to be fired, divestment from Israeli companies or calls to defund the campus police.

    Our survey results suggest it’s important for administrators to engage with students early to establish clear guidelines to make it less likely future protests spiral into violence.

    2. Communicate openly, often and before protests

    Discussion of difficult topics, such as the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, shouldn’t wait until protests break out to begin. We found that every school in our survey that proactively supported dialogue between Jews and Muslims – before the war broke out – didn’t see violence result from the protests.

    Dialogue isn’t just a strategy for preventing protests from spiraling out of control; it is fundamental to intergroup learning in higher education. These events create safe spaces for students − whether Arab, Jewish, Palestinian or members of different ethnic or religious groups − to engage with classmates with different points of view.

    But even once protests begin, dialogue can help. When institutions engaged in dialogue, during or as a result of a protest, the protests were less likely to involve violence. At half of the campuses that participated in our survey and experienced protests, protests were ended peacefully through dialogue.

    Brown, for example, modeled the power of institutional listening in its response to its April 2024 encampment. Rather than escalating tensions, university leaders engaged directly with student activists, resulting in a peaceful resolution and a commitment to bring the students’ divestment proposal to a formal vote in October. It ultimately failed to pass the board of directors.

    Demonstrators unfurl a banner on a lawn after an encampment protesting the Israel-Hamas war was taken down at Brown University on April 30, 2024, in Providence, R.I.
    AP Photo/David Goldman

    3. Involve relevant groups in decision-making

    Most administrators in our survey, as they considered how to engage with protesters, reached out to relevant student groups such as those that focus on Jewish and Muslim students to better understand their perspectives.

    However, only 28% consulted a religious or spiritual life office staff member on campus.

    Religious or spiritual life staff are present on both private and public campuses and may include university-employed multifaith chaplains, interfaith coordinators or directors of spiritual life. Unlike student-led religious groups, these professionals often serve as liaisons to the religious and nonreligious communities represented on campus.

    The focus of such roles on serving students from all worldviews positions them as key resources for deescalation through community outreach, support and two-way communication. Additionally, these professionals have valuable expertise in religious pluralism and community relationships. This experience helps them to advise administrators on policy and potential courses of action in times of tension.

    Consulting with university staff with a focus on religion or spiritual life makes particular sense given the nature of the protests and how religion is intertwined, but our data suggests they may be underutilized more broadly for their expertise in navigating tensions related to competing worldviews.

    Proactive engagement with these leaders not only helps campuses navigate an immediate crisis but demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and respect for different groups’ perspectives.

    Leading by example

    Put another way, our research suggests institutions can avoid the negative outcomes of protests by embodying the traits commonly associated with universities, such as showing mutual respect, fostering democratic debate and engaging in critical thinking even on divisive issues. Engaging from a mindset of goodwill with student leaders shows administrators value student voices and are willing to work collaboratively toward solutions.

    But when campuses ignore peaceful protests or refuse to engage with student leaders, they risk turning manageable situations into prolonged crises.

    At a time when divisions run deep, we believe campuses that lead by example by embracing dialogue and engaging student activists before, during and after protests take place are not only likely to see less violence, but are likely to help heal America’s great divides.

    Matthew J. Mayhew receives grant funding for various research projects from the National Science Foundation, the ECMC Foundation, the Templeton Religion Trust, the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, and Pew Charitable Trusts. Currently, Dr. Mayhew leads the College Impact Laboratory at The Ohio State University. He is the Principal Investigator for the INSPIRES Index project and is the current editor of the Digest of Recent Research.

    Renee L. Bowling works for the College Impact Lab at The Ohio State University that produces the INSPIRES Index and serves as Chair of NASPA’s Spirituality and Religion in Higher Education Knowledge Community.

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

    ref. How universities can keep protests from turning violent: 3 lessons from the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampments – https://theconversation.com/how-universities-can-keep-protests-from-turning-violent-3-lessons-from-the-2024-pro-palestinian-encampments-252278

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Egypt Values President Trump’s Statement to Resolve Conflicts & End Wars

    Source: APO


    .

    Egypt values the statement by President Donald Trump, which demonstrates the seriousness of the United States—under President Trump’s leadership—in exerting efforts to resolve conflicts and end wars.

    Egypt reaffirms its confidence in President Trump’s ability to address complex challenges and to advance peace, stability, and security across the globe, whether in Ukraine, the Palestinian territory, or Africa.

    Egypt also appreciates President Trump’s keenness on reaching a just agreement that safeguards the interests of all parties regarding the Ethiopian Dam, as well as his recognition of the Nile as a source of life for Egypt. 

    Egypt reaffirms its support for President Trump’s vision of establishing just peace, security, and stability for all countries in the region and around the world.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Presidency of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How 1860s Mexico offered an alternative vision for a liberal international order

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Long, Professor of International Relations, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

    The Execution of Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, June 19, 1867 Edouard ManetWikimedia Commons

    In 1867, the world’s most powerful statesmen, including Austria’s Emperor Franz Josef, France’s Napoleon III and US secretary of state, William H. Seward, petitioned the Mexican government to spare the life of a condemned man.

    Mexico’s ragtag army and militias had just humbled France, then Europe’s preeminent land power. The costly six-year campaign drained the French treasury and eroded Napoleon III’s domestic support. Napoleon’s ambition to transform Mexico into a client empire under a Vienna-born, Habsburg archduke, crowned Maximilian I, ended in spectacular failure.

    After his defeat, Maximilian was brought before a Mexican military tribunal. European monarchs regarded the prisoner as their peer, but Mexican liberals convicted him as a piratical invader, usurper and traitor. Despite indignant appeals from European courts, President Benito Juárez refused to commute his sentence. The would-be emperor was executed by firing squad.


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


    The controversy went beyond one monarch’s fate. It crystallised a clash between opposed visions of global order — as Peru’s president Ramón Castilla said at the time, it was a “war of the crowns against liberty caps”.

    Today, world politics are in flux. The so-called liberal international order, nominally grounded in multilateralism, open markets, human rights and the rule of law, is facing its gravest crisis since the second world war. Former advocates such as the United States now openly flout international law and undermine the very norms they once championed. China remains ambivalent, while Russia unabashedly hastens the order’s unravelling.

    More broadly, the old post-second world war order appears out of step with the global south and with widespread anger over double standards exposed by the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran.
    Amid today’s crises, a world order arranged for and by the great powers looks both insufficient and doomed to lack legitimacy. Reordering will require support from diverse actors, including states across the global south.

    1860s: a turbulent decade

    The 1860s were a turbulent, although often overlooked, moment of global reordering. Technological shifts – the telegraph, electricity, steamships and railways – appeared as disruptive then as AI does today. Combined with shifting power dynamics, these transformations accelerated imperial expansion. Yet the rules of the emerging order remained uncertain, even among the imperial powers themselves.

    In Europe, networks of dynastic rule still carried weight in international politics. Under growing pressure, the ancien régime sought to reinvent and reassert itself. The old empires often justified their expansion by promising to bring order and progress to supposedly backward peoples. But that “civilising mission” clashed with a worldview emerging from Spanish America – where countries had thrown off colonial rule to establish independent republics.

    As we wrote in a recent article in American Political Science Review, Spanish American diplomats articulated a republican vision of international order centred on the protection of weaker states from domination by great powers.

    Fending off Europe’s empires

    Divided by civil conflict, Mexico became an easy target for European empires. Mexico’s Liberal party had regained power but faced internal dissent and crippling foreign debt. Britain, France and Spain formed a coalition to invade and demand repayment. France, however, had more ambitious designs.

    Exploiting the distraction of the US civil war, Napoleon III dreamed of transforming Mexico into a Latin stronghold against Yankee expansion. Best of all, Napoleon thought the scheme would turn a profit. A stable Mexican empire could repay the costs of the intervention – with interest – by increasing production from the country’s famed silver mines. Meanwhile, France would gain a receptive market for its exports and a grateful geopolitical subordinate.

    Maximilian, a young Austrian prince of the house of Hapsburg, somewhat naively accepted the offer to rule a distant and unfamiliar land. He dreamed of regenerating Mexico through a liberal monarchy while reviving his family’s declining dynasty.

    Led by Juárez, Mexico’s liberals fiercely resisted Maximilian’s rule. While militarily Juárez was consistently on the defensive, he remained diplomatically proactive. The Juaristas encouraged US sympathies that proved decisive after the end of the civil war. They also enjoyed solidarity – though limited material support – from other Spanish American republics. Although the monarchies of Europe all recognised Maximilian as Mexican emperor, Juárez’s defiance became a rallying point for liberals and republicans in Europe.

    Hero to the liberals: a monument to Juárez in central Mexico City.
    Hajor~commonswiki, CC BY-ND

    Vision of a new order

    Beyond stoking sympathies, Juárez and his followers offered trenchant critiques of unequal international rules and practices cloaked in liberal guise.

    First, the “republican internationalism” of Mexico’s Juaristas stood in direct opposition to European liberals’ “civilising mission”. Latin American republicans rejected the notion that progress could be imposed on their countries from abroad – though some echoed civilising rhetoric toward their own non-white populations, who like in the US were subject to campaigns of violence and dispossession that stretched from northern Mexico to the Patagonia. Many Latin American liberals likewise remained silent about empire elsewhere.

    Second, the Juarista vision placed popular sovereignty, not dynastic ties, at the heart of legitimate statehood. These ideas drew on Mexico’s independence tradition and the principles enshrined in the 1857 constitution. European intervention, in this view, aimed to suppress popular rule in the Americas and extend the reaction against the failed revolutions of 1848, which had seriously threatened the old order when they raged across Europe.

    Third, popular sovereign states were equal under international law, regardless of power, wealth, or internal disorder. Sovereign equality also underpinned Latin America’s strong commitment to non-intervention. Liberal writer and diplomat Francisco Zarco, a close confidante of Juárez, condemned frequent European economic justifications for intervention as the work of “smugglers and profiteers who wrap themselves in the flags of powerful nations”.

    Finally, Mexican liberals called for an international system premised on republican fraternity, drawing on aspirations for cooperation that went back to liberator Simón Bolívar. The independence leader and committed republican convened a conference in 1826, hoping that a confederation of the newly independent Spanish American states would “be the shield of our new destiny”.

    Similar arguments for an international order that advances non-domination still resonate in the global south today. The Mexican experience also underscores that the architects of international order have never come exclusively from the global north – and those who shape its future will not either.

    Tom Long receives support from UK Arts and Humanities Research Council grant AH/V006622/1, Latin America and the peripheral origins of the 19th-century international order.

    Carsten-Andreas Schulz receives support from UK Arts and Humanities Research Council grant AH/V006622/1, Latin America and the peripheral origins of the 19th-century international order.

    ref. How 1860s Mexico offered an alternative vision for a liberal international order – https://theconversation.com/how-1860s-mexico-offered-an-alternative-vision-for-a-liberal-international-order-260228

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: TRUMP: Swinney meeting with extremist President is out of step with Scotland’s values

    Source: Scottish Greens

    Later this month when convicted criminal Donald Trump visits Scotland he will meet with SNP First Minister John Swinney in a move described as “out of step with Scotland’s values” by the Scottish Greens.

    The US President was found guilty of 34 felonies in 2023 relating to falsified business records, after he paid $130,000 in hush money to cover up an affair with an American porn star. Trump also has dozens of sexual assault allegations against him dating back to the 1970’s. Since his return to power he has pursued a dangerous and increasingly far right agenda.

    The Scottish Greens have long called for an investigation into Donald Trump’s finances in Scotland through an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO).

    A UWO is a power held by the Scottish Government to investigate the finances of politically active individuals who have gained wealth through suspicious means. Given Donald Trump’s Menie Estate golf course, which he is set to visit this month, was cited in one of his felony charges, it’s now clearer than ever that a UWO must be used.

    Scottish Greens Co-Leader Patrick Harvie MSP said:

    “Donald Trump is a convicted criminal and political extremist, there can be no excuses for trying to cosy up to his increasingly fascist political agenda.

    “We’ve all watched in recent months as the US President has sent troops to threaten their own citizens on the streets of Los Angeles, kidnapped innocent people under the guise of mass deportations and now they are constructing a concentration camp in Florida.

    “This is a man who has a complete lack of respect for human rights and democracy in America, and whose climate denial threatens everyone around the world.

    “The SNPs decision to meet with this convicted felon is a tragic one, and is out of step with Scotland’s values. Appeasing political extremists like Trump won’t save us from his misinformation and toxic rhetoric. His Vice President has already attacked our parliament by lying to international media about a bill passed by Scottish Green MSP Gillian Mackay.

    “If the Scottish Government won’t make it clear to Trump, then I’m sure the people of Scotland on the streets protesting his every move will make it loud and clear. Donald Trump is not welcome here.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • India’s trade deficit narrows to $18.78 billion in June

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    India’s trade deficit narrowed to $18.78 billion in June, down from $21.88 billion in May, according to data released by the Commerce and Industry Ministry on Tuesday.

    Merchandise exports remained nearly flat at $35.14 billion in June compared to $35.16 billion in the same month last year. Imports, however, declined by 3.71 per cent to $53.92 billion from $56 billion a year ago.

    In the services sector, India recorded an estimated surplus of $15.62 billion for June, with services exports at $32.84 billion and imports at $17.58 billion.

    Combined exports of merchandise and services stood at $67.98 billion in June, while combined imports were $71.50 billion, resulting in a net trade deficit of $3.51 billion for the month.

    Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal recently said that global conflicts and economic uncertainties are impacting Indian exports. The government, he added, is working closely with exporters to address issues related to shipping and insurance.

    The trade numbers come as India continues negotiations with the US and other partners to secure favourable market access. The US has been pushing for wider access for its agricultural and dairy products — a sensitive issue for India due to its impact on the livelihoods of small farmers.

    India is also seeking an exemption from former US President Donald Trump’s 26 per cent tariffs by aiming to conclude an interim trade deal. Simultaneously, India is pushing for tariff concessions on its labour-intensive exports, including textiles, leather and footwear.

    Trump has announced that his administration will begin notifying trading partners about tariff rates as early as Friday, even as last-stage talks continue with countries including India to avoid higher US duties.

    Meanwhile, India’s trade performance in Q3 FY25 (October–December 2024) reflected cautious resilience amid global geopolitical tensions, according to a quarterly report by NITI Aayog released on Monday. Merchandise exports in that quarter rose 3 per cent year-on-year to $108.7 billion.

    The report also highlighted a sharp rise in exports of aircraft, spacecraft and parts, which entered the top ten export categories with over 200 per cent annual growth driven by demand from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the Czech Republic.

    India’s high-tech merchandise exports, led by electrical machinery and arms and ammunition, have maintained steady momentum since 2014, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 10.6 per cent.

    — IANS

  • MIL-OSI China: EU proposes new countermeasures amid trade dispute with US

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

    This photo taken on Oct. 4, 2024 shows the European Commission building in Brussels, Belgium. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The European Union (EU) has proposed a new round of tariffs on U.S. goods worth 72 billion euros (84 billion U.S. dollars), amid the ongoing trade dispute between the world’s largest economy and its biggest trading partner.

    EU trade ministers met in Brussels on Monday following U.S. President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement over the weekend of new tariffs on the bloc. Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s trade chief, said after the meeting that it was “very obvious from the discussions today, the 30 percent is absolutely unacceptable.”

    He said that the commission was sharing proposals with the 27 members “for the second list of goods accounting for some 72 billion euros (84 billion dollars) worth of U.S. imports. They will now have a chance to discuss it. This does not exhaust our toolbox and every instrument remains on the table.”

    Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the foreign minister of Denmark, which recently assumed the EU presidency, said the bloc views the new tariff as “absolutely unacceptable and unjustified” and is prepared to respond if talks with Washington fail to produce a viable outcome.

    “We are committed to continuing working with the United States on a negotiated outcome,” he said, adding that the agreement has to be “mutually acceptable” on both sides.

    In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Saturday morning, Trump announced a 30 percent tariff on the EU as of Aug. 1, blaming the bloc for causing “long-term, large, and persistent Trade Deficits.”

    “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from reciprocal,” he wrote in the letter. “The EU will allow complete, open Market Access to the United States, with no Tariff being charged to us, in an attempt to reduce the large Trade Deficit.”

    In response to Trump’s latest deadline, the EU decided to postpone retaliatory counter tariffs on 21 billion euros (24.5 billion dollars) of U.S. goods that had been due to kick in at midnight on Monday until Aug. 1.

    The EU is open to trade talks with the United States for an agreement before the deadline, but won’t rule out taking countermeasures, said Von der Leyen.

    “We remain ready to continue working towards an agreement by Aug. 1,” the EU leader said in a statement. “At the same time, we will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required.”

    The proposed tariff threatens to take a heavy toll on the EU economy. An analysis by the Milan-based Institute for International Political Studies suggested that Italy would be among the EU countries most affected by the U.S. tariffs.

    Under a 30-percent duty scenario, Germany’s GDP would contract by an estimated 0.5 percent compared to a no-tariff baseline, while Italy’s GDP would shrink by approximately 0.36 percent, said the think tank.

    On Monday, the Association for the Development of Industry in the Mezzogiorno (SVIMEZ) released its estimate of the impact of the U.S. tariffs on Italy’s exports, projecting a reduction of nearly one-fifth in export volume and a loss of 12.4 billion euros (14.48 billion U.S. dollars) in trade once the tariffs take effect.

    SVIMEZ also warned of broader macroeconomic consequences, estimating a 0.5-percent reduction in Italy’s GDP in 2026 and the potential loss of up to 150,000 jobs, including some 13,000 in the country’s southern regions.

    “Our government is in close contact with the European Commission and all parties involved in the tariff negotiations,” said Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in a statement.

    “A trade war within the West would make us all weaker in the face of global challenges we are addressing together. Europe has the economic strength to protect its interests and reach a fair agreement,” she said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: EU proposes new countermeasures amid trade dispute with US

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

    This photo taken on Oct. 4, 2024 shows the European Commission building in Brussels, Belgium. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The European Union (EU) has proposed a new round of tariffs on U.S. goods worth 72 billion euros (84 billion U.S. dollars), amid the ongoing trade dispute between the world’s largest economy and its biggest trading partner.

    EU trade ministers met in Brussels on Monday following U.S. President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement over the weekend of new tariffs on the bloc. Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s trade chief, said after the meeting that it was “very obvious from the discussions today, the 30 percent is absolutely unacceptable.”

    He said that the commission was sharing proposals with the 27 members “for the second list of goods accounting for some 72 billion euros (84 billion dollars) worth of U.S. imports. They will now have a chance to discuss it. This does not exhaust our toolbox and every instrument remains on the table.”

    Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the foreign minister of Denmark, which recently assumed the EU presidency, said the bloc views the new tariff as “absolutely unacceptable and unjustified” and is prepared to respond if talks with Washington fail to produce a viable outcome.

    “We are committed to continuing working with the United States on a negotiated outcome,” he said, adding that the agreement has to be “mutually acceptable” on both sides.

    In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Saturday morning, Trump announced a 30 percent tariff on the EU as of Aug. 1, blaming the bloc for causing “long-term, large, and persistent Trade Deficits.”

    “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from reciprocal,” he wrote in the letter. “The EU will allow complete, open Market Access to the United States, with no Tariff being charged to us, in an attempt to reduce the large Trade Deficit.”

    In response to Trump’s latest deadline, the EU decided to postpone retaliatory counter tariffs on 21 billion euros (24.5 billion dollars) of U.S. goods that had been due to kick in at midnight on Monday until Aug. 1.

    The EU is open to trade talks with the United States for an agreement before the deadline, but won’t rule out taking countermeasures, said Von der Leyen.

    “We remain ready to continue working towards an agreement by Aug. 1,” the EU leader said in a statement. “At the same time, we will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required.”

    The proposed tariff threatens to take a heavy toll on the EU economy. An analysis by the Milan-based Institute for International Political Studies suggested that Italy would be among the EU countries most affected by the U.S. tariffs.

    Under a 30-percent duty scenario, Germany’s GDP would contract by an estimated 0.5 percent compared to a no-tariff baseline, while Italy’s GDP would shrink by approximately 0.36 percent, said the think tank.

    On Monday, the Association for the Development of Industry in the Mezzogiorno (SVIMEZ) released its estimate of the impact of the U.S. tariffs on Italy’s exports, projecting a reduction of nearly one-fifth in export volume and a loss of 12.4 billion euros (14.48 billion U.S. dollars) in trade once the tariffs take effect.

    SVIMEZ also warned of broader macroeconomic consequences, estimating a 0.5-percent reduction in Italy’s GDP in 2026 and the potential loss of up to 150,000 jobs, including some 13,000 in the country’s southern regions.

    “Our government is in close contact with the European Commission and all parties involved in the tariff negotiations,” said Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in a statement.

    “A trade war within the West would make us all weaker in the face of global challenges we are addressing together. Europe has the economic strength to protect its interests and reach a fair agreement,” she said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: President Xi Jinping tells Albanese China ready to ‘push the bilateral relationship further’

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

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has told Anthony Albanese China stands ready to work with Australia “to push the bilateral relationship further”, in their meeting in Beijing on Tuesday.

    During the meeting, Albanese raised Australia’s concern about China’s lack of proper notice about its warships’ live fire exercise early this year.

    The prime minister later told journalists Xi had responded that “China engaged in exercises, just as Australia engages in exercises”.

    The government’s proposed sale of the lease of the Port of Darwin, now in the hands of a Chinese company, was not raised in the discussion.

    On Taiwan, Albanese said he had “reaffirmed […] the position of Australia in support for the status quo”.

    This was the fourth meeting between Xi and Albanese. The prime minister is on a six-day trip to China, accompanied by a business delegation. He is emphasising expanding trade opportunities with our biggest trading partner and attracting more Chinese tourists, whose numbers are not back to pre-pandemic levels.

    Albanese has come under some domestic criticism because this trip comes before he has been able to secure a meeting with United States President Donald Trump.

    In his opening remarks, while the media were present, Xi said the China-Australia relationship had risen “from the setback and turned around, bringing tangible benefits to the Chinese and Australian peoples”.

    “The most important thing we can learn from this is that a commitment to equal treatment, to seeking common ground while sharing differences, pursuing mutually beneficial cooperation, serves the fundamental interests of our two countries and two peoples.

    “No matter how the international landscape may evolve, we should uphold this overall direction unswervingly,” he said.

    “The Chinese side is ready to work with the Australian side to push the bilateral relationship further and make greater progress so as to bring better benefits to our two peoples.”

    Responding, Albanese noted Xi’s comments “about seeking common ground while sharing differences. That approach has indeed produced very positive benefits for both Australia and for China.

    “The Australian government welcomes progress on cooperation under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has its 10th anniversary year. As a direct result, trade is now flowing freely to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides, and Australia will remain a strong supporter of free and fair trade.”

    Albanese told the media after the meeting his government’s approach to the relationship was “patient, calibrated and deliberate”.

    “Given that one out of four Australian jobs depends on trade and given that China is overwhelmingly by far the largest trading partner that Australia has, it is very much in the interest of Australian jobs, and the Australian economy, to have a positive and constructive relationship with China.

    “Dialogue is how we advance our interests, how we manage our differences, and we guard against misunderstanding.

    “President Xi Jinping and I agreed dialogue must be at the centre of our relationship. We also discussed our economic relationship, which is critical to Australia. We spoke about the potential for new engagement in areas such as decarbonisation”.

    Xi did not bring up China’s complaints about Australia’s foreign investment regime.

    Albanese said he raised the issue of Australian writer Yang Jun, who is incarcerated on allegations of espionage, which are denied.

    Premier Li Qiang was hosting a banquet for Albanese on Tuesday night.

    An editorial in the state-owned China Daily praised the Albanese visit, saying it showed “the Australian side has a clearer judgement and understanding of China than it had under previous Scott Morrison government”.

    “The current momentum in the development of bilateral relations between China and Australia shows that if differences are well managed, the steady development of ties can be guaranteed , even at a time when the political landscape of the world is becoming increasingly uncertain and volatile,” the editorial said.

    Australian journalists had a brush with Chinese security, when they were taking shots of local sights in Beijing. Security guards surrounded them and told them to hand over their footage. The incident was resolved by Australian officials.

    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. President Xi Jinping tells Albanese China ready to ‘push the bilateral relationship further’ – https://theconversation.com/president-xi-jinping-tells-albanese-china-ready-to-push-the-bilateral-relationship-further-261094

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • China’s economy slows as consumers tighten belts, US tariff risks mount

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    China’s economy slowed less than expected in the second quarter in a show of resilience against U.S. tariffs, though analysts warn that weak demand at home and rising global trade risks will ramp up pressure on Beijing to roll out more stimulus.

    The world’s No. 2 economy has so far avoided a sharp slowdown in part due to policy support and as factories took advantage of a U.S.-China trade truce to front-load shipments, but investors are bracing for a weaker second half as exports lose momentum, prices continue to fall, and consumer confidence remains low.

    Policymakers face a daunting task in achieving the annual growth target of around 5% – a goal many analysts view as ambitious given entrenched deflation and weak demand at home.

    Data on Tuesday showed China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew 5.2% in the April-June quarter from a year earlier, slowing from 5.4% in the first quarter, but just ahead of analysts’ expectations in a Reuters poll for a rise of 5.1%.

    “China achieved growth above the official target of 5% in Q2 partly because of front loading of exports,” said Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management.

    “The above target growth in Q1 and Q2 gives the government room to tolerate some slowdown in the second half of the year.”

    On a quarterly basis, GDP grew 1.1% in April-June, the National Bureau of Statistics data showed, compared with a forecast 0.9% increase and a 1.2% gain in the previous quarter.

    Investors are closely watching for signs of fresh stimulus at the upcoming Politburo meeting due in late July, which is likely to shape economic policy for the remainder of the year.

    Beijing has ramped up infrastructure spending and consumer subsidies, alongside monetary easing. In May, the central bank cut interest rates and injected liquidity as part of broader efforts to cushion the economy from U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    Some analysts believe the government could ramp up deficit spending if growth slows sharply.

    Market reaction to the data was largely muted, with China’s blue-chip CSI300 Index .CSI300 reversing course to trade down 0.1%, while Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng .HSI cut gains to trade up 0.7%.

    HOUSEHOLDS PRESSURED

    Separate June activity data also released on Tuesday underlined the pressure on consumers. While industrial output rose 6.8% year-on-year last month – the fastest pace since March, retail sales growth slowed down to 4.8%, from 6.4% in May and hitting the lowest since January-February.

    Indeed, the headline GDP numbers held little sway for most households including 30-year-old doctor Mallory Jiang, in the southern tech hub Shenzhen, who says she and her husband both had pay cuts this year.

    “Both our incomes as doctors have decreased, and we still don’t dare buy an apartment. We are cutting back on expenses: commuting by public transport, eating at the hospital cafeteria or cooking at home. My life pressure is still actually quite high.”

    China observers and analysts say stimulus alone may not be enough to tackle entrenched deflationary pressures, with producer prices in June falling at their fastest pace in nearly two years.

    Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the GDP data “probably still overstate the strength of growth.”

    “And with exports set to slow and the tailwind from fiscal support on course to fade, growth is likely to slow further during the second half of this year.”

    Data on Monday showed China’s exports regained some momentum in June as factories rushed out shipments to capitalise on the fragile tariff truce between Beijing and Washington ahead of a looming August deadline.

    TARIFF, PROPERTY HEADWINDS

    The latest Reuters poll projected GDP growth to slow to 4.5% in the third quarter and 4.0% in the fourth, underscoring mounting economic headwinds as Trump’s global trade war leaves Beijing with the tough task of getting households to spend more at a time of uncertainty.

    China’s 2025 GDP growth is forecast to cool to 4.6% – falling short of the official goal – from last year’s 5.0% and ease even further to 4.2% in 2026, according to the poll.

    China’s property downturn remained a drag on overall growth despite multiple rounds of support measures, with investment in the sector falling sharply in the first six months, while new home prices in June tumbled at the fastest monthly pace in eight months.

    China’s top leaders pledged to push forward urban village renovation and quicken a new property development model, state media reported Tuesday.

    Fixed-asset investment also grew at a slower-than-expected 2.8% pace in the first six months year-on-year, from 3.7% in January-May.

    The softer investment outturn reflected the broader economic uncertainty, with China’s crude steel output in June falling 9.2% from the year before, as more steelmakers carried out equipment maintenance amid seasonally faltering demand.

    “Q3 growth is at risk without stronger fiscal stimulus,” said Dan Wang, China director at Eurasia Group in Singapore.

    “Both consumers and businesses have turned more cautious, while exporters are increasingly looking overseas for growth.”

    (Reuters)

  • China’s economy slows as consumers tighten belts, US tariff risks mount

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    China’s economy slowed less than expected in the second quarter in a show of resilience against U.S. tariffs, though analysts warn that weak demand at home and rising global trade risks will ramp up pressure on Beijing to roll out more stimulus.

    The world’s No. 2 economy has so far avoided a sharp slowdown in part due to policy support and as factories took advantage of a U.S.-China trade truce to front-load shipments, but investors are bracing for a weaker second half as exports lose momentum, prices continue to fall, and consumer confidence remains low.

    Policymakers face a daunting task in achieving the annual growth target of around 5% – a goal many analysts view as ambitious given entrenched deflation and weak demand at home.

    Data on Tuesday showed China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew 5.2% in the April-June quarter from a year earlier, slowing from 5.4% in the first quarter, but just ahead of analysts’ expectations in a Reuters poll for a rise of 5.1%.

    “China achieved growth above the official target of 5% in Q2 partly because of front loading of exports,” said Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management.

    “The above target growth in Q1 and Q2 gives the government room to tolerate some slowdown in the second half of the year.”

    On a quarterly basis, GDP grew 1.1% in April-June, the National Bureau of Statistics data showed, compared with a forecast 0.9% increase and a 1.2% gain in the previous quarter.

    Investors are closely watching for signs of fresh stimulus at the upcoming Politburo meeting due in late July, which is likely to shape economic policy for the remainder of the year.

    Beijing has ramped up infrastructure spending and consumer subsidies, alongside monetary easing. In May, the central bank cut interest rates and injected liquidity as part of broader efforts to cushion the economy from U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    Some analysts believe the government could ramp up deficit spending if growth slows sharply.

    Market reaction to the data was largely muted, with China’s blue-chip CSI300 Index .CSI300 reversing course to trade down 0.1%, while Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng .HSI cut gains to trade up 0.7%.

    HOUSEHOLDS PRESSURED

    Separate June activity data also released on Tuesday underlined the pressure on consumers. While industrial output rose 6.8% year-on-year last month – the fastest pace since March, retail sales growth slowed down to 4.8%, from 6.4% in May and hitting the lowest since January-February.

    Indeed, the headline GDP numbers held little sway for most households including 30-year-old doctor Mallory Jiang, in the southern tech hub Shenzhen, who says she and her husband both had pay cuts this year.

    “Both our incomes as doctors have decreased, and we still don’t dare buy an apartment. We are cutting back on expenses: commuting by public transport, eating at the hospital cafeteria or cooking at home. My life pressure is still actually quite high.”

    China observers and analysts say stimulus alone may not be enough to tackle entrenched deflationary pressures, with producer prices in June falling at their fastest pace in nearly two years.

    Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the GDP data “probably still overstate the strength of growth.”

    “And with exports set to slow and the tailwind from fiscal support on course to fade, growth is likely to slow further during the second half of this year.”

    Data on Monday showed China’s exports regained some momentum in June as factories rushed out shipments to capitalise on the fragile tariff truce between Beijing and Washington ahead of a looming August deadline.

    TARIFF, PROPERTY HEADWINDS

    The latest Reuters poll projected GDP growth to slow to 4.5% in the third quarter and 4.0% in the fourth, underscoring mounting economic headwinds as Trump’s global trade war leaves Beijing with the tough task of getting households to spend more at a time of uncertainty.

    China’s 2025 GDP growth is forecast to cool to 4.6% – falling short of the official goal – from last year’s 5.0% and ease even further to 4.2% in 2026, according to the poll.

    China’s property downturn remained a drag on overall growth despite multiple rounds of support measures, with investment in the sector falling sharply in the first six months, while new home prices in June tumbled at the fastest monthly pace in eight months.

    China’s top leaders pledged to push forward urban village renovation and quicken a new property development model, state media reported Tuesday.

    Fixed-asset investment also grew at a slower-than-expected 2.8% pace in the first six months year-on-year, from 3.7% in January-May.

    The softer investment outturn reflected the broader economic uncertainty, with China’s crude steel output in June falling 9.2% from the year before, as more steelmakers carried out equipment maintenance amid seasonally faltering demand.

    “Q3 growth is at risk without stronger fiscal stimulus,” said Dan Wang, China director at Eurasia Group in Singapore.

    “Both consumers and businesses have turned more cautious, while exporters are increasingly looking overseas for growth.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: V. Zelensky held telephone conversations with the US President and NATO Secretary General

    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

    Kyiv, July 15 /Xinhua/ — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Telegram on Tuesday night that he had telephone conversations with US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

    According to V. Zelensky, during the conversation with the head of the White House, issues such as strengthening the air defense system of Ukraine, etc. were raised.

    The parties also agreed to call each other more often and continue to coordinate their steps.

    During the conversation with M. Rutte, V. Zelensky thanked the allies for their willingness to provide Ukraine with additional Patriot air defense systems. According to him, the United States, Germany and Norway are working together on this issue.

    Separately, the NATO Secretary General informed V. Zelensky about the details of his talks with D. Trump and cooperation between Europe and the United States to increase support for Ukraine. –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

  • Trump sued by US states over withholding $6.8 billion for schools

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a move by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold about $6.8 billion in congressionally approved federal funding for K-12 schools.

    Attorneys general or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget threw schools nationwide into chaos by unconstitutionally freezing funding for six programs approved by Congress.

    The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children; recruitment and training of teachers; English proficiency learning; academic enrichment; and after-school and summer programs.

    The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

    The government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the lawsuit said. Instead, the Education Department notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programs by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

    An OMB spokesperson at the time cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB also raised objections to the use of the grant money to support scholarships for immigrant students and lessons that involved LGBTQ themes.

    The Democratic-led states said the sweeping funding freeze has disrupted school systems, resulting in summer school and after-school programs being canceled or put at risk and the halting of other initiatives with little time for school districts to fill in the holes left in their budgets.

    The states say the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by disregarding Congress’ sole authority over spending and ran afoul of federal administrative law by freezing the funds without any reasoned explanation.

    The states also say the administration failed to abide by procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress unless certain steps are followed.

    The lawsuit follows a series of other cases Democratic-led states and others have filed challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to freeze or terminate federal funding for programs out of line with Trump’s agenda.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump sued by US states over withholding $6.8 billion for schools

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a move by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold about $6.8 billion in congressionally approved federal funding for K-12 schools.

    Attorneys general or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget threw schools nationwide into chaos by unconstitutionally freezing funding for six programs approved by Congress.

    The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children; recruitment and training of teachers; English proficiency learning; academic enrichment; and after-school and summer programs.

    The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

    The government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the lawsuit said. Instead, the Education Department notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programs by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

    An OMB spokesperson at the time cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB also raised objections to the use of the grant money to support scholarships for immigrant students and lessons that involved LGBTQ themes.

    The Democratic-led states said the sweeping funding freeze has disrupted school systems, resulting in summer school and after-school programs being canceled or put at risk and the halting of other initiatives with little time for school districts to fill in the holes left in their budgets.

    The states say the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by disregarding Congress’ sole authority over spending and ran afoul of federal administrative law by freezing the funds without any reasoned explanation.

    The states also say the administration failed to abide by procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress unless certain steps are followed.

    The lawsuit follows a series of other cases Democratic-led states and others have filed challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to freeze or terminate federal funding for programs out of line with Trump’s agenda.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump sued by US states over withholding $6.8 billion for schools

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a move by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold about $6.8 billion in congressionally approved federal funding for K-12 schools.

    Attorneys general or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget threw schools nationwide into chaos by unconstitutionally freezing funding for six programs approved by Congress.

    The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children; recruitment and training of teachers; English proficiency learning; academic enrichment; and after-school and summer programs.

    The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

    The government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the lawsuit said. Instead, the Education Department notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programs by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

    An OMB spokesperson at the time cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB also raised objections to the use of the grant money to support scholarships for immigrant students and lessons that involved LGBTQ themes.

    The Democratic-led states said the sweeping funding freeze has disrupted school systems, resulting in summer school and after-school programs being canceled or put at risk and the halting of other initiatives with little time for school districts to fill in the holes left in their budgets.

    The states say the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by disregarding Congress’ sole authority over spending and ran afoul of federal administrative law by freezing the funds without any reasoned explanation.

    The states also say the administration failed to abide by procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress unless certain steps are followed.

    The lawsuit follows a series of other cases Democratic-led states and others have filed challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to freeze or terminate federal funding for programs out of line with Trump’s agenda.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump sued by US states over withholding $6.8 billion for schools

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a move by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold about $6.8 billion in congressionally approved federal funding for K-12 schools.

    Attorneys general or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget threw schools nationwide into chaos by unconstitutionally freezing funding for six programs approved by Congress.

    The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children; recruitment and training of teachers; English proficiency learning; academic enrichment; and after-school and summer programs.

    The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

    The government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the lawsuit said. Instead, the Education Department notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programs by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

    An OMB spokesperson at the time cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB also raised objections to the use of the grant money to support scholarships for immigrant students and lessons that involved LGBTQ themes.

    The Democratic-led states said the sweeping funding freeze has disrupted school systems, resulting in summer school and after-school programs being canceled or put at risk and the halting of other initiatives with little time for school districts to fill in the holes left in their budgets.

    The states say the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by disregarding Congress’ sole authority over spending and ran afoul of federal administrative law by freezing the funds without any reasoned explanation.

    The states also say the administration failed to abide by procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress unless certain steps are followed.

    The lawsuit follows a series of other cases Democratic-led states and others have filed challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to freeze or terminate federal funding for programs out of line with Trump’s agenda.

    (Reuters)

  • Trump sued by US states over withholding $6.8 billion for schools

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a move by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold about $6.8 billion in congressionally approved federal funding for K-12 schools.

    Attorneys general or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget threw schools nationwide into chaos by unconstitutionally freezing funding for six programs approved by Congress.

    The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children; recruitment and training of teachers; English proficiency learning; academic enrichment; and after-school and summer programs.

    The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

    The government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the lawsuit said. Instead, the Education Department notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programs by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

    An OMB spokesperson at the time cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB also raised objections to the use of the grant money to support scholarships for immigrant students and lessons that involved LGBTQ themes.

    The Democratic-led states said the sweeping funding freeze has disrupted school systems, resulting in summer school and after-school programs being canceled or put at risk and the halting of other initiatives with little time for school districts to fill in the holes left in their budgets.

    The states say the administration violated the U.S. Constitution by disregarding Congress’ sole authority over spending and ran afoul of federal administrative law by freezing the funds without any reasoned explanation.

    The states also say the administration failed to abide by procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from unilaterally refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress unless certain steps are followed.

    The lawsuit follows a series of other cases Democratic-led states and others have filed challenging the administration’s sweeping efforts to freeze or terminate federal funding for programs out of line with Trump’s agenda.

    (Reuters)