Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Budd Votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ToDeliver Historic Tax Cuts for North Carolina Families

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)
    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) released the following statement after voting in support of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, historic legislation that lowers taxes for families, makes America safer and more secure, and unleashes economic growth for the future:
    “I voted in favor of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because the people of North Carolina deserve more of their hard-earned wages, a more secure border, a reinvigorated military, responsible spending reforms for government programs, and a thriving economy. My colleagues and I fought successfully to protect North Carolina’s tobacco growers to help them stay competitive with China. I am also grateful that this bill included my PELL Act, which will help Americans earn in-demand credentials for rewarding careers. I hope my colleagues in the House quickly get this bill on President Trump’s desk because Americans cannot afford the largest tax increase in our nation’s history,” said Sen. Budd. 
    Here’s How the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Directly Benefits North Carolina:
    Provides Unprecedented Tax Relief for Families
    This legislation helps Americans keep more money in their pockets by extending key provisions of President Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Preventing the largest tax increase in American history will save the average North Carolinian $2,474 in 2026.
    Working families will receive significant savings with the increase and permanence of the child tax credit, expanded tax credits for paid leave, enhanced 529 savings accounts, and additional childcare access.
    This legislation lowers taxes for seniors relying on Social Security.
    Gives Workers the Tools They Need to Advance Their Careers
    Sen. Budd fought to have his PELL Act included in this legislation, a provision that expands Pell Grant eligibility for high-quality, short-term workforce programs. This would benefit individuals seeking to advance their careers without long-term debt while also providing American businesses with a broader, better-prepared talent pool ready to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving economy.
    Protects North Carolina Agriculture
    Sen. Budd successfully defended tobacco’s eligibility to receive the “duty drawback,” allowing tobacco manufacturers to receive reimbursement for the tariffs they pay on materials used to produce tobacco products that they ship to international markets. This will protect North Carolina growers and prevent the tobacco market from being flooded with cheaper, lower-quality products from China and Brazil.
    This legislation provides serious tax relief for North Carolina farmers by raising the death tax exemption, ensuring family farms can be passed down to future generations, rather than being broken up and sold.
    Unlocks Economic Growth & American Manufacturing
    This legislation will create a renaissance in American manufacturing by delivering full expensing for companies that build new factories and invest in equipment and machinery. This will help create new, good-paying jobs.
    By enhancing the small business deduction and making it permanent, small businesses will be able to hire more workers.
    Increasing deductions for small businesses’ equipment and property will quickly help businesses grow.
    Reduces Government Spending to Preserve & Protect Government Programs
    This legislation contains the first structural reforms to address waste, fraud, and abuse in key government programs like SNAP and Medicaid in over three decades. Slowing the rate of exponential cost increases will result in significant deficit savings and will preserve and protect these programs for future generations.
    Invests in America’s National Defense
    Sen. Budd helped secure funding to boost manufacturing capacity for the next generation of the F-15, the F-15EX, which will sustain the training mission at Seymour Johnson far into the future. 
    This legislation also includes significant funding to enhance America’s air superiority by preventing the retirement of the F-15E aircraft flying out of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. 
    America’s troops deserve a pay raise. This legislation increases pay and allowances while making improvements to housing, healthcare, childcare, and education.
    This legislation makes generational investments in our military readiness that will protect the American homeland and deter our adversaries by boosting America’s missile defense by building the “Golden Dome.”
    Sen. Budd worked to secure investments to improve housing at Fort Bragg and Seymour Johnson and funds for restoration and modernization at Camp Lejeune.
    This legislation creates new production lines to scale innovative, cost-effective munitions, so we are no longer shooting $4M missiles at $50,000 drones.
    This legislation makes the largest ever investment in the Coast Guard’s history, which will purchase more than 40 new helicopters and six new C-130J aircraft, which will be serviced at the Aviation Technical Training Center in Elizabeth City. The legislation also funds 17 new icebreakers to protect American interests and 21 new cutters to combat drug runners and human traffickers.
    Keeps America’s Border Secure
    While President Trump’s policies have resulted in a dramatic drop-off of illegal immigration, this legislation also boosts America’s border security by surging funding for 3,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new ICE agents. The One Big Beautiful Bill also increases funding to finish President Trump’s border wall.
    Ushers in Next-Generation Technologies
    This legislation includes funding for the transformational air traffic control modernization project underway at the FAA. This will quickly update aging and failing technologies to keep Americans safe in the sky.
    This legislation makes a historic amount of spectrum available for commercial use, which will create new jobs and unleash the next generation of wireless technology. This will ensure America remains the premier destination for innovation and help unleash a new area of advanced manufacturing. This will also make the internet faster & more dependable across the country through commercial success stories like 5G, 6G, wi-fi, and private networks using CBRS.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Sanctuary City Policies In Los Angeles, California

    Source: US State of North Dakota

    Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council over policies that Los Angeles enacted shortly after President Donald J. Trump’s reelection to interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.

    Not only are Los Angeles’s “sanctuary city” policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Los Angeles’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to the recent lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe that it required the federal government to deploy the California National Guard and the United States Marines to quell the chaos.

    “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level – it ends under President Trump.”

    “Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not. By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City’s unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end.”

    On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws, policies, and practices. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in New York and New Jersey.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: PENSACOLA MAN INCARCERATED FOR NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING & FIREARM POSSESSION

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Marcus Devon Rayford, 42, of Pensacola, Florida was sentenced to 60 months in prison after previously pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The sentence was announced by John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida.

    U.S. Attorney Heekin said: “I applaud the substantial efforts of our state and federal law enforcement partners to investigate, arrest, and help bring this drug trafficker to justice. These offenses are not victimless crimes; the victims are the members of our community who experience the addiction and violence that too often follows from drug traffickers flooding our streets with this poison. President Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi promised to Take Back America with the aggressive pursuit of drug traffickers victimizing our communities, and that is exactly what my office will continue to do.”

    In January 2024, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives initiated a criminal investigation into an armed drug trafficking organization in Pensacola, Florida. The investigation revealed that Marcus Rayford was a key member within the organization with law enforcement observing him distributing firearms and narcotics on numerous occasions.  In December 2024, state and federal law enforcement executed a search warrant at Marcus Rayford’s residence and located five firearms, cocaine base, cocaine, fentanyl, marijuana, and heroin. 

    These sentences were the result of a joint investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Escambia County Sherriff’s Office, Pensacola Police Department, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey M. Tharp prosecuted the case.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America (https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1393746/dl?inline) a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

    The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access available public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: The Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Sanctuary City Policies In Los Angeles, California

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council over policies that Los Angeles enacted shortly after President Donald J. Trump’s reelection to interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.

    Not only are Los Angeles’s “sanctuary city” policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Los Angeles’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to the recent lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe that it required the federal government to deploy the California National Guard and the United States Marines to quell the chaos.

    “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level – it ends under President Trump.”

    “Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not. By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City’s unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end.”

    On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws, policies, and practices. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in New York and New Jersey.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Bipartisan Warren, Scott (Fla.) Letter Questions Biden Defense Secretary’s Decision to Launch Lobbying Firm

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    July 01, 2025
    Austin publicly promised Warren in 2021 he would not become a lobbyist after leaving government service
    “When our highest-ranking government officials and military officers treat their positions as steppingstones to personal enrichment, they corrupt the very institution they swore to defend.” 
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote to former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin seeking an explanation and further information on his recent decision to start a strategic advisory firm. Austin had publicly promised Senator Warren during his 2021 confirmation process that he would not become a lobbyist after his government service ended. 
    On June 3, 2025, Politico reported that Austin was launching Clarion Strategies, along with other former Biden defense and national security officials, to help clients “navigate geopolitical upheaval…, advancements in defense technology…, [and] global trade shifts and emerging alliances among U.S. adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and China.” This new venture undermines his promises to Senator Warren to “ensure that the public has no reason to question my impartiality” and “[had] no intent to be a lobbyist.” 
    “The revolving door between the Pentagon and K Street has been spinning for years during both Democratic and Republican administrations. In your case, this move is particularly disappointing because you made a clear promise during your nomination hearing to uphold the public trust,” wrote the senators. 
    Austin’s pledges helped secure similar commitments from other defense nominees, including Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu, and Under Secretary of the Army Gabriel Camarillo. 
    Austin appears to have found a loophole by serving as an “adviser” rather than a registered lobbyist. 
    “[That] undermines the very purpose of the promise that you made to the American people: to close the revolving door of government officials cashing in on their public service by lobbying, advising…” wrote the lawmakers.
    The senators demanded clarity on Austin’s new role by July 14, 2025, including whether he’ll register to lobby on behalf of any company; if any current or prospective clients have contracts with the Defense Department; if he’ll work on behalf of any foreign government; if he’ll recuse from any matters involving any companies he worked with as Defense Secretary; and whether any clients would benefit from his security clearance. 
    As leaders of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, Senators Warren and Scott held a hearing on the dangers of the revolving door. Both have also introduced legislation to tackle the revolving door, with Senator Warren introducing the Department of Defense Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act and Senator Scott introducing the Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust (BLAST) Act to ban members of Congress from lobbying.
    Senator Warren has long sought to protect servicemembers and national security by pushing defense nominees to resolve their conflicts of interest: 
    In May 2025, Senator Warren pressed Mr. Michael Obadal, nominee for Under Secretary of the Army, on his refusal to divest from major defense contractors.
    In April 2025, Senator Warren secured a commitment from Lieutenant General John D. Caine, President Trump’s nominee to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to work for any major defense contractors—or companies affected by his official actions—after leaving government service. 
    In March 2025, ahead of his confirmation vote, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Deputy Defense Secretary Nominee Stephen Feinberg, urging him to recuse himself from all matters related to Ligado Networks, which has a pending $39 billion lawsuit against the DoD. 
    In March 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Mr. Emil Michael, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, with concern over his history of inappropriate behavior at work, his attacks on journalists and public accountability, and his ties to technology companies that may seek contracts with the Department of Defense. 
    In February 2025, ahead of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Mr. Stephen Feinberg, nominee for Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, pressing him to explain his “serious conflicts of interest” and his track record of mismanagement.
    In January 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Mr. Michael Duffey, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment of the Department of Defense, ahead of his confirmation hearing, with serious concerns about his record, which include violating the law, disregarding Congressional authority, and his involvement in Project 2025. 
    In January 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Mr. Pete Hegseth, nominee for Secretary of the Department of Defense, regarding his ethics conflicts ahead of the Senate’s consideration of his nomination. Mr. Hegseth’s household’s ownership of stock in several defense contractors and his unwillingness to commit to the same post-employment restrictions he previously advocated for were particularly troubling for a prospective Secretary of Defense.
    In March 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren secured ethics commitments from Douglas Schmidt, ahead of his confirmation to be the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) for the Department of Defense.
    In July 2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren secured a commitment from General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., President Biden’s nominee to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to become a defense industry lobbyist or receive compensation from a defense contractor for four years after leaving government service. 
    In June 2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren and representative Andy Kim reintroduced the Department of Defense Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, to limit the influence of contractors on the military, constrain foreign influence on retired senior military officers, and assert greater transparency over contractors and their interaction with DoD.
    In July 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren secured agreements to four-year recusals from former clients’ and employers’ party matters from then-Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall and then-USD(R&E) Heidi Shyu.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Zinke’s Statement on Public Land Sales Removal from the Senate Reconciliation Bill “We defended our San Juan Hill”

    Source:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, a provision selling millions of acres of public lands was removed from the Senate Reconciliation Bill, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Congressman Zinke had expressed unequivocal opposition to the provision and joined five of his House colleagues in sending a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson stating, “If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no.”

     Congressman Ryan Zinke issued the following statement in response to the removal of the provision:

     TR would be proud. Bully! We defended our San Juan Hill, and we won.

     The SEALs taught me to Never Quit and to always rely on my teammates. Both were keys to our public lands victory. We always had backup plans, and we had the greatest coalition of support I’ve seen. Public lands are not red or blue, they are red, white and blue. They belong to all of us whether we’re from Massachusetts or Montana.

     I greatly appreciate the work of my colleagues in the House and Senate who were leaders either publicly or behind closed doors, particularly Senators Sheehy, Daines, Crapo, Risch, Chairman Simpson, and Speaker Johnson. And Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum who made it clear that mass land sales was not the Trump agenda. They are the Rough Riders.

     I look forward to voting for President Donald J. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill (again) to deliver historic tax cuts for Montanans, strengthen social safety net programs, secure the border for good, and get our country back on track to fiscal sanity.

     Next mission, appropriations!

     Last month, after unrelenting effort from Congressman Ryan Zinke (MT-01), a similar provision selling more than 450,000 acres of public land was stripped from the House version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,”. The House passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” without public land sales and with Congressman Zinke’s vote.

     Read more about Congressman Zinke removing public land sales from the House Reconciliation Bill here.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman Hosts Roundtable With Young New Yorkers Impacted by Gun Violence

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Firearms are Leading Cause of Death for America’s Youth 

     

    More Than 17,000 Children and Teenagers Shot Each Year, 4,000 Will Die 

     

    Pictures and Video Available Here 

    NEW YORK, N.Y. — Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today hosted a roundtable with seven young people whose lives and communities have been impacted by gun violence and who have become passionate advocates for change. The participants shared their experiences with gun violence in New York City and discussed the policies they hope to see championed in the fight to end gun violence.  

    “The gun violence epidemic is uniquely American and entirely preventable with commonsense gun regulations and resourced community-based prevention and intervention organizations,” Congressman Dan Goldman said. “The brave young people who shared their stories with me today can help us tackle the root causes of this epidemic. While Trump and the GOP continue to roll back gun safety regulations and grants, we must aggressively push to invest in the grassroots efforts already making a difference on the ground.” 

    Roundtable participants joined Congressman Goldman to discuss the toll of gun violence in New York City, sharing both their own personal experiences as well as those of their communities. The conversation also highlighted how young advocates want their elected officials to take stronger action– by investing in community resources and enacting commonsense gun safety legislation. 

    Gun violence is the leading cause of death for American youth. More than 17,000 children are shot each year, with over 4,000 young Americans dying tragic and preventable deaths.  Communities of color are particularly impacted by gun violence. Black children and teens are 20 times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than their white peers.  

    Young people exposed to gun violence often suffer long-lasting physical, psychological, and emotional trauma. These experiences increase the risk of substance abuse, mental health disorders, and even the perpetuation of violent behavior, creating a tragic cycle of violence that affects future generations. The economic toll of these cycles is staggering, with youth violence costing an estimated $122 billion each year in medical expenses, lost employment opportunities, and diminished quality of life due to injury. 

    Evidence-based, community-driven programs have had great success in curbing violence at the local level. For example, Chicago’s Youth Violence Prevention Center reduced local homicides by 17% in one year, even as the city’s overall homicide rate increased. 

    As a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Congressman Goldman has been a leading advocate in the fight against gun violence.  

    This month, Congressman Goldman jointly introduced the ‘Firearm Destruction Licensure Act’ alongside Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA). This legislation would close a gun loophole that is allowing firearms designated for destruction to be sold back into American communities and potentially into the hands of bad actors. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wasserman Schultz on Trump’s Tour of DeSantis Everglades Internment Camp

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

    DeSantis’ internment camp puts decades of massive restoration and billions of dollars in Everglades investments at risk. It desecrates the tribal lands it sits upon and wastes hundreds of millions of state funding at a grossly inflated cost.

    Washington DC – U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) released the following statement on President Trump’s planned tour of the costly Gov. DeSantis Everglades prison camp for immigrants:

    “DeSantis’ internment camp puts decades of massive restoration and billions of dollars in Everglades investments at risk. It desecrates the tribal lands it sits upon and wastes hundreds of millions of state funding at a grossly inflated cost. When hurricanes bear down on these flimsy structures at a sacred, environmentally sensitive location, it will either produce costly evacuation boondoggles, or grisly mass casualties. With two million Floridians about to lose health care, Trump and Republicans badly need this wasteful, dangerous, mass misery distraction.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Washington State leads lawsuit against Department of Education’s mental health funding cuts

    Source: Washington State News

    SEATTLE — A coalition of 16 state attorneys general, led by Washington, filed a lawsuit late Monday against the U.S. Department of Education for illegally cutting congressionally approved funding for mental health programs in K-12 schools.

    After the tragic deaths of 19 students and 2 teachers during a mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, a bipartisan Congress appropriated $1 billion in order to permanently bring 14,000 mental health professionals into the schools that needed it the most. The programs have delivered. According to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), grantees served nearly 775,000 students and hired nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals during the first year of funding. NASP also found a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement based on data from sampled programs.

    The Department of Education awarded grants spanning a five-year project period and makes yearly decisions to continue each grant’s funding. As required by its regulations, the Department of Education considered the grantee’s performance when deciding whether to continue funding.

    On April 29, 2025, the Department of Education sent boilerplate notices to grantees claiming On April 29, the Department of Education sent boilerplate notices to grantees claiming that their grants now conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and funding would be discontinued. The Department of Education’s non-continuation decision means that students in at least three educational service districts in Washington, which cover 90 school districts in the northwest part of the state, may no longer have access to critical mental health services starting this fall.

    “School-based mental health programs can be a literal life saver for our students,” Attorney General Nick Brown said. “The Department of Education’s decision threatens the safety and well-being of our youth.”

    The attorneys general filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Department of Education’s funding cuts violate the  Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution. The attorneys general ask a federal judge to rule the funding cuts are illegal and seek an injunction rescinding the non-continuation decision.

    Joining the Washington State Attorney General’s Office in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

    The complaint can be found here.

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties.

    Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News

  • Trump to discuss Gaza, Iran with Netanyahu at Monday meeting

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he will discuss the situations in Gaza and Iran when he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House next week, adding that he hopes to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza soon.

    Trump plans to meet Netanyahu on Monday. A senior Israeli official, Ron Dermer, has been in Washington this week holding talks ahead of the meeting.

    Trump and Netanyahu worked together on a military operation against Iran’s nuclear sites in June that culminated with American B-2 bombing raids. Trump said the strikes “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear capability, although there remains a debate about the degree of damage done to the Iranian nuclear program.

    Trump said he is hopeful that a ceasefire-for-hostages agreement can be achieved next week between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas militants in Gaza.

    “We hope it’s going to happen. And we’re looking forward to it happening sometime next week,” he told reporters as he departed the White House for a day trip to Florida. “We want to get the hostages out.”

    Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms.

    The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

    Gaza’s health ministry says Israel’s post-Oct. 7 military assault has killed over 56,000 Palestinians. The assault has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza’s entire population and prompted accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations.

    A White House official, asked about Dermer’s scheduled meetings and agenda, said: “Ron Dermer visits the White House regularly.”

    “This will continue as President Trump pursues a path to peace for Israel and Gaza,” the official added. The official did not immediately identify the Trump aides Dermer would see during his visit.

    -REUTERS

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaptur and DeLauro Introduce Bill to Rein in Executive Branch Spending Abuses and Uphold Congressional Appropriations Authority

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

    Washington, DC — Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, have introduced H.R. 4230 the Appropriations Compliance and Training Act, legislation to restore accountability to the Executive Branch and ensure that Appropriated taxpayer dollars, enacted by Congress and signed into law, are spent in strict accordance with Congressional direction.
     

    “The Power of the Purse rests with Congress. That is established quite clearly in the Constitution, and it has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court. This Administration has demonstrated time and again a lack of understanding — or worse, deliberate disregard for the direction Congress provides through the Appropriations process,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09). “This is about enforcing the Constitution and safeguarding democracy. We set policy, we provide direction, and we allocate funds. Then, based on those allocations, the Executive Branch must execute — not reinterpret or ignore — what Congress has directed on behalf of the American people. This is not about politics. It is about protecting the constitutional role of Congress, respecting the will of the American people, and ensuring every public dollar is spent lawfully and transparently.”

    “Instead of being laser-focused on the cost-of-living crisis, President Trump is making it worse by illegally stealing resources promised to the American people,” said Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03). “The Trump administration has been lawless from the jump, illegally freezing or taking funding, appropriated in law by Congress, for programs and services across the federal government that help the middle class, the working class, and small businesses and make sure billionaires and big corporations pay taxes. Whether they are a Democrat or a Republican, nobody should be managing American Taxpayers’ hard-earned money if they do not understand the law. This is a common-sense requirement to defend Congress’s power of the purse and reaffirm its constitutional authority over government funding.”

    The bill has already received strong support, with a growing list of cosponsors including Appropriations Committee Members: Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Rep. James Clyburn (SC-06), Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Rep. Betty McCollum (MN-04), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), Rep. Chellie Pingree (ME-02), Rep. Grace Meng (NY-06), Rep. Marc Pocan (WI-02), Rep. Lois Frankel (FL-22), Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Rep. Norma Torres (CA-35), Rep. Ed Case (HI-01), Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25), Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49), Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Rep. Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Rep. Frank Mrvan (IN-01), and Rep. Glenn Ivey (MD-04).

    The Appropriations Compliance and Training Act will require high-ranking federal employees in the Executive Branch to take annual, mandatory training that will ensure their understanding and compliance with Appropriations laws, including the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act. These laws clarify Congress’ power of the purse and prohibits the Executive Branch from spending or withholding funds beyond the explicit direction of Congress. The legislation is meant to make sure that all Executive Branch officials clearly understand their legal responsibilities and the potential consequences of violations. It also includes a review of what Congress has directed, through the Appropriations process, for each agency in that year’s funding law.

    A full copy of the H.R. 4230 the Appropriations Compliance and Training Act can be found by clicking here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senate Republicans Block Duckworth Effort to Protect Veterans and Other Americans from Going Hungry as a Result of Trump’s Big, Beautiful Betrayal

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 30, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) today sought to protect Veterans and many other Americans from going hungry because of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) included in Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” (BBB) that Senate Republicans are rushing to jam through tonight. Duckworth’s effort would have instructed the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee to change the BBB to ensure it would not reduce or terminate SNAP benefits for Veterans, homeless individuals, former foster youth 24 years of age or younger or for parents with children under 18 years of age, but her proposal was blocked by Senate Republicans on a vote of 49-51.

    “Back when I was in high school, my family struggled. We had no money and some days no food, teetering on the brink of homelessness, never sure what tomorrow would bring. I was only elected Senator… I was only able to become an Army pilot… I probably only was able to finish high school because of basic needs programs like SNAP.

    “Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are trying to snatch away these critical safety net programs like health care and SNAP from countless families—including Veterans, homeless people, former foster youth and many other Americans seemingly for no other reason than cruelty for cruelty’s sake—and to give a tax cut to Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies. I’m pissed off that they would look me in the eye on the Senate Floor and then block this critical proposal to help protect so many Americans from going hungry. It’s shameful.”

    In Fiscal Year 2023, an average of 42.2 million individuals—and about 1 in 5 children—in 22.3 million households participated in SNAP each month. Monthly benefits are already insufficient, and averaged only $211.65 per person and $400.15 per household.

    Under current SNAP rules, most adults aged 18 through 54 without children in their household can receive food benefits for just three months in a three-year period unless they show compliance with a 20-hour-per-week work requirement or prove they qualify for an exemption, such as having a disability—though Veterans, homeless individuals and former foster youth 24 years of age or younger have been exempt from those requirements.

    The Senate bill eliminates these exemptions, terminating SNAP benefits for nearly 300,000 people in these populations. In addition, the SNAP program has long exempted parents from work requirements, but the Senate bill eliminates these exemptions for parents with kids over the age of 13.

    Despite those exemptions continuing under even the House-passed BBB, Senate Republicans are seeking to remove them and limit SNAP benefits to these currently-protected populations. The Senate Republican bill would terminate SNAP benefits for at least 2.87 million people—including 1.2 million Veterans—and reduce benefits for tens of millions more.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: As Vote-A-Rama On Republican Budget Betrayal Hits 24 Hours, Luján Standing Strong for New Mexicans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    WATCH: Luján Holds Senate Floor During Midnight Session 

    WATCH: Luján Introduces Amendment to Save SNAP

    Washington, D.C. – As the Senate vote-a-rama on the Republican Budget Betrayal hits 24 hours, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) has been on the Senate floor throughout the night fighting for New Mexicans.

    KEY MOMENTS:

    24 Hour Mark of the Vote-A-Rama: Good morning from the Senate steps. We’ve been voting on amendments for nearly 24 hours straight. Senate Republicans still haven’t called a final vote on their budget betrayal because they don’t have the votes. @SenateDems aren’t backing down. No matter how long this takes.

    Standing Up for New Mexicans in the Dark of Night: It’s almost midnight in Washington and we’re still voting on GOP budget amendments. Senate Republicans are flying completely blind — still scrambling to finalize a bill they’ve been rewriting all day (and for months) to meet President Trump’s demands. This process is messy, but this bill is going to be even messier.

    Standing Up Against the Republican Budget Betrayal With Senator Smith: We’re fighting back against this Republican budget betrayal because it’s downright terrible — and devastating for families in New Mexico, Minnesota, and across the country.

    Leading Charge to Save SNAP: Senator Luján delivered a speech on the Senate floor offering an amendment to the Republican budget bill to save the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – to protect food assistance for kids, seniors, and veterans. All but two Republicans voted to keep these devastating cuts in the bill.

    Highlighting Impacts of Republican Betrayal Bill on New Mexicans: Senator Luján took to the Senate floor to deliver a floor speech detailing how the Republican budget bill would devastate New Mexico’s families, farmers and ranchers, and children and seniors.

    LOCAL COVERAGE:

    Source NM: New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján offered a motion to commit the bill back to committee in order to remove all changes related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. It was rejected following a 49-51 vote, though Alaska Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan and Murkowski voted in favor.

    KSFR: According to Lujan, the bill’s cuts to the Affordable Care Act would take health care away from 17 million Americans. New Mexico’s junior senator argued that the bill would also force rural hospitals and grocery stores to close…and said that it would add three trillion dollars to the national debt.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration over Unlawful Discontinuation of School Mental Health Grant Funding

    Source: US State of California

    $200 million of funding intended to support the mental health and well-being of California students is at risk

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 16 states, in suing the Trump Administration’s Department of Education over their unlawful decision to discontinue grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs, including roughly $200 million awarded to local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities in California. If allowed to stand, starting this fall, many States’ elementary and secondary schools will lose mental health services critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. The Department had awarded this funding to the nation’s high-need, low-income, and rural schools pursuant to its Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) and its School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH). The lawsuit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to safeguard this critical funding, which fosters safe and supportive learning environments, and supports the well-being of our students. 

    “The Trump Administration’s Department of Education is attempting to rip away funding and projects that support the mental health and well-being of our students – it’s not only immoral, it’s unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These mental health programs were established by Congress following a wave of tragic and unacceptable school shootings, and they do critical work to ensure students can not only succeed but thrive. The loss of this funding would cause immense harm to California students, especially in our low-income and rural communities. The California Department of Justice will not stand idly by – we’re once again taking the Trump Administration to court, this time to protect the mental health and well-being of our students.” 

    Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded MHSP in 2018 and SBMH in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. MHSP addresses the shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local educational agencies; and SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools.

    The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working – in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services.

    In California, 44 local education agencies, county offices of education, and universities are set to lose roughly $200 million. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work.

    Despite these successes, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The notices claimed the Department intends to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuance, while destroying projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the States argue is not a legal basis for discontinuation. 

    In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s decision to discontinue funding through a vague boilerplate notice, without any mention of grantees’ performance, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and Separation of Powers. If allowed to stand, the Trump Administration’s unlawful decision to discontinue this funding would cause irreparable harm to States that would be forced to lay off school-based mental health service providers, cutting off much-needed mental health services to their rural and low-income schools. Furthermore, it will harm States’ students who have already benefitted from these Programs, making it more challenging for schools to provide services to students who feel abandoned and distrust mental health resources due to the interruption in services caused by the discontinuation.

    In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

    A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump plays with new media says a lot about him – as it did with FDR, Kennedy and Obama

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sara Polak, University Lecturer in American Studies, Leiden University

    There is a strange and worrying parallel between the breakneck speed at which Donald Trump has operated in the first few months of his presidency and the ever-accelerating pace at which information moves on social media platforms. Where in his first term he used Twitter, now, the 47th US president is using his own platform, TruthSocial, to announce changes of direction that are sometimes so fundamental that they change decades of US policy.

    Social media has become a key tool of governing for Trump’s administration. He uses it both to make announcements and to drum up support for those announcements. His social media posts can move the markets and make or break careers. They can even, it seems, stop wars.

    So when he used TruthSocial to announce a ceasefire between Israel and Iran on June 23, giving the two countries a deadline to stop firing missiles, it appears that neither of the antagonists were fully aware of the situation, given they carried on attacking each other. So an all-caps message followed: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” he posted. “BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!” – adding, just in case anyone had any doubt he was serious: “DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”

    Trump’s use of his TruthSocial platform began as he sought to re-establish himself from the political wilderness after the insurrection of January 6 2021. It has now become a tool of his extreme power and his willingness to use (and abuse) it – globally as well as domestically.


    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.


    He’s the latest in a string of US presidents known for their adroit use of whichever is the medium most guaranteed to connect with the greatest number of people. From Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt’s adept cultivation of print journalists in the early 20th century through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s comforting use of radio as it gained popularity and John F. Kennedy’s mastery of the rising medium of television, presidents have expanded their reach and influence through adept use of media.

    FDR’s “fireside chats”, broadcast on the radio throughout the US in the 1930s, reached an estimated 80% of the population, showing he understood the key media principle of reach. Roosevelt would address his listeners as “my friends” and Americans came to understand them as seemingly intimate conversations with their president.

    FDR dominated the airwaves at a time when many Americans hardly understood the important role that the federal government played in their own lives – and millions of households were only just getting mains electricity (thanks to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936). But radios were becoming a common mass medium and FDR perfectly understood how to use it. If you listen to the fireside chats, FDR may sound patrician – and at times formal – but his tone is also friendly, thoughtful and reassuring.

    In Germany at around the same time, Adolf Hitler’s massive stadium speeches were very effective for people who were in the stadium and being lifted by the intensity of the crowd and all the carefully thought out visual cues. But when broadcast on radio, Hitler had nothing like Roosevelt’s ability to connect with people on a personal level.

    Roosevelt was hardly the first leader – or even the first US president – to speak on the radio. But he was the first to master the medium. He figured out how to use its potential to deliver a key implicit message: that his government should and did take on a central role in people’s lives.

    Equally, John F. Kennedy can be said to have “discovered” political television. Not just as a medium for political campaigns, debates and speeches – but also for putting across to a mass audience his role as the embodiment of American decency, beauty and masculinity: JFK’s White House as Camelot.

    JFK was considered a master of the fast-growing medium of television.

    Both Roosevelt and Kennedy were in several ways physically disabled and lived with chronic illness, yet through the “new medium” of their time were able to project an image of quintessentially American strength and trustworthiness. In part this was their own doing – but it’s also a testament to the power of the media they used for their time.

    Mastering the medium

    These possibilities of a medium used to its best advantage – for example, to be heard around the US, but still to project a sense of intimacy – have become known as the “affordances” of a medium. The medium afforded Roosevelt space to be authentic without showing his disability. Kennedy appeared young, fit and handsome – even when dependent on painkillers.

    When a new medium is introduced, people start to play around with its affordances – and this applies to politicians too. Political leaders who develop a special aptitude for using the new medium to emphasise their unique style can become particularly successful, as has Donald Trump with his use of social media.

    The US president rose to power helped by his adept use of many of Twitter’s attributes – the imposed brevity of his messages, the ease of retweeting, the tendency for other users to “pile on” (and the user anonymity, which tends to encourage pile-ons) to polarise American public debate.

    Trump was forced off Twitter after the Capitol Hill insurrection of January 6 2021. So he came back with his own platform, TruthSocial, where he can also make the rules. And now he uses the platform to make foreign policy, trumpeting his positions (which can change with bewildering speed) on TruthSocial well before they can be announced by the White House press team, which often has to scramble to catch up.

    When Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan penned his famous phrase: “The medium is the message” in his groundbreaking 1964 study, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, he meant to say that media form and content are not as distinct from one another as one might think and that the form of a medium of communication can shape society as much as its content. In Donald Trump’s use of social media, we are seeing this idea at work.

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

    ref. How Trump plays with new media says a lot about him – as it did with FDR, Kennedy and Obama – https://theconversation.com/how-trump-plays-with-new-media-says-a-lot-about-him-as-it-did-with-fdr-kennedy-and-obama-248923

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Europe: AFRICA/DR CONGO – Peace agreement between the Democratic Party and Rwanda: another mockery

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Kinshasa (Agenzia Fides) – “The impression created by the people of Bukavu, exhausted by more than four months of occupation, is one of perplexity and the feeling of being deceived again and again, even if they do not give up hope that something will change on the ground. But what? New reports of killings by the M23 are coming from the city and the province,” said a Church source in Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu, occupied by Rwandan troops and the M23 movement since mid-February (see Fides, 17/2/2025), commenting on the peace agreement signed on June 27 in Washington by Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo under the auspices of the Trump administration (see Fides, 27/6/2025).The agreement provides for the “lifting of Rwandan defense measures” within three months, with the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the neutralization of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), founded by former Hutu leaders, linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and viewed by Kigali as an existential threat.The agreement also contains an economic aspect, which has not yet been specified, but which is said to provide for the exploitation of Congolese natural resources by American companies.”Many people were even willing to lose the country’s natural resources to regain peace, but this remains in question,” the Fides source reports. “Because Rwanda, which occupies and exploits the provinces of North and South Kivu under the guise of the M23, does not seem to be affected by the agreement.So, at the moment, nothing is moving forward. Precisely where change is most needed.” “There is one fundamental change that everyone, except those who have changed their colors, is waiting for: the withdrawal of all Rwandan soldiers, who are to return to their homeland. This is not explicitly stated in the agreement; it only speaks of a cessation of hostilities. Even though it cites UN Resolution 2773, which calls for such a return”.”Upon reading, the text seems to me to be full of pitfalls. Another obvious pitfall is the fact that it mentions six times that the FDLR is to be neutralized. As if this were the real problem. It is a pretext, perhaps to avoid having to say out loud to Rwanda: The king is naked and he attacked an independent country. The FDLR are few in number, are repeatedly repatriated, and are completely unsuitable for an attack on Rwanda. But they are suitable to justify the presence of the Rwandan army in Congo.” “And they demand the disarmament of all militias: including this militia, which is of course often disorganized, sometimes infiltrated by bandits, but which, alone or with the few remaining Congolese soldiers, is blocking the advance of the M23. Meanwhile, the occupying forces continue to murder, rape, and humiliate a population that is now starving. You have to experience these things to feel the humiliation of those who ask why they do not know how to feed their children and the helplessness of those who respond: ‘I’m sorry, but we have no money to give you because the banks are closed,’” the source said. “Another pitfall is the return of refugees. There are hardly any Congolese refugees in Rwanda. Rather, there are hordes of self-proclaimed Rwandan refugees just waiting to enter Congo to settle there and continue to nurture the dream of a Greater Rwanda. It is true that reference is made to traditional institutions: they will have to say whether the person is truly from a particular place or not. We shall see,” the report continues. “And what about economic cooperation with a country that continues to plunder everything it can, crossing the borders of the occupied territories? The prospect, as some say, is that Congo will remain the great mine where people suffer and even die for little money, while Rwanda will be the site of refineries, and the large multinationals and the States that support them will be the big winners. With the blessing of their opportunistic friends, the United States. Is it a coincidence that the word ‘justice’ is not mentioned in the document? What about the millions of victims, the dead and the traumatized survivors, the children deprived of schooling, the young people robbed of their youth, the adults deprived of the vital minimum that makes a person’s dignity?None of this would have happened without the pressure from the Congolese authorities, who create the impression that they betrayed their country and their people in order to stay in power,” the source emphasizes. “Congolese civil society, especially in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, had prepared several clarifying documents and addressed them to the highest authorities, expressing their concerns. This was ignored. Nobel laureate Mukwege had raised his voice with a speech that was initially humanitarian and then political, tackling the root causes of the problems. Yet it was as if no one had said anything. The overall impression is therefore a mockery. It is bad to oppress a people. It is even worse to make them believe that you are helping them,” the source concludes. (Agenzia Fides, 1/7/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: No Tax on Social Security is a Reality in the One Big Beautiful Bill

    Source: US Whitehouse

    Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, the vast majority of senior citizens — 88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits, according to a brand new analysis from the Council of Economic Advisers.

    • A senior who files as a single taxpayer and receives the current average retirement benefit (approx. $24,000) will see deductions that exceed their taxable Social Security income.
    • Married seniors who both receive the average $24,000 Social Security income — a total of $48,000 in annual income — will also see deductions that exceed their taxable Social Security income.

    This amounts to the largest tax break in history for America’s seniors — and makes sure that after years of earning their Social Security, seniors can save more of their money.

    Promises made, promises kept.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Status of the Chagos Archipelago –  Part II: United Kingdom’s Agreement with Mauritius

    Source: US Global Legal Monitor

    The following is a guest post by Clare Feikert-Ahalt, a senior foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress covering the United Kingdom and several other jurisdictions. Clare has written numerous posts for In Custodia Legis, including Revealing the Presence of Ghosts; Weird Laws, or Urban Legends?; FALQs: Brexit Referendum; 100 Years of “Poppy Day” in the United Kingdom; and Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office Spurs Possible Law Change.

    Yesterday’s post described the historic status of the Chagos Archipelago and the United Kingdom’s (UK) power over the territory. Today’s post describes the new agreement, which returns sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and allows for the continued use of the UK-US military base.

    On May 22, 2025, the United Kingdom and Mauritius signed an agreement that “recognis[es] the wrongs of the past” with regards to the Chagos Archipelago. The agreement transfers sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) from the UK to Mauritius, while providing the UK with “rights and authorities [over Diego Garcia] that the United Kingdom requires for the long-term, secure and effective operation of the Base.”

    The agreement, which took over two years and 13 rounds of negotiations to achieve, secures British interests in Diego Garcia, including an area of 12 nautical miles surrounding the island, for 99 years. The agreement provides the UK with the right to access, maintain, and invest in the base, along with the ability to use it for defense purposes. It places a binding obligation on both parties to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. The UK’s secretary of state for defence notes the agreement achieves the “secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems.”

    Any activities on the wider islands of the Chagos Archipelago, such as the construction of any structure, artificial island, sensor, or barrier within 24 nautical miles, must be approved through a joint decision process between the UK and Mauritius, which serves as an “effective veto” of development in the islands surrounding Diego Garcia as the UK does not want other countries, particularly those hostile to the UK, to have a presence near this facility.

    The 99 years can be extended for a further 40 years if both parties agree, and it may be extended again thereafter. The estimated cost to UK for 99 years “is £101 million [annually] and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion” (approximately US$136 million and US$4.6 billion respectively) accounting for approximately 0.2% of the defense budget. The government has stated this is less than the cost of running an aircraft carrier, without aircraft, for a year.

    The agreement provides for the resettlement of the residents of Diego Garcia, known as the Chagossians, on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, with the exception of Diego Garcia. It also provides for the establishment of a trust fund of £40 million (approximately US$54 million) to benefit Chagossians and an annual grant of £45 million (approximately US$61 million) for 25 years to fund projects that promote economic development and welfare in Mauritius. Article 11 of the agreement states that it “constitutes the full and final settlement of all claims by Mauritius in relation to the Chagos Archipelago.”

    The treaty was laid before both Houses of Parliament on May 22, 2025, and either of the Houses of Parliament may object to its ratification until July 3, 3035.

    The Defense Facility on Diego Garcia

    The secretary of state for defence for the UK stated “[t]he importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated” and a government press release announcing the agreement notes that the base is central to both the UK and US’s emergency planning and operations, with the base serving as:

    “a critical logistics hub at a strategic location, with a full range of facilities that acts as a key refueling and resupply station for naval and air operations. This enables power projection and global reach, allowing for rapid and flexible deployment of our forces across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia.”

    While most of the work on, and capabilities of, Diego Garcia are not disclosed, the secretary of state for defence and the UK prime minister have publicly acknowledged that the base supports operations, including those related to counter-terrorism, in the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia. Public statements detail that the base houses:

    • an airfield enabling strike operations and the rapid deployment of the military in this area, “… creat[ing] real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific;”
    • a deep-water port that, among other uses, “supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to [the UK’s] carrier strike group;”
    • advanced communications, which includes management of the electromagnetic spectrum satellite;
    • surveillance capabilities;
    • facilities that support the global operation of GPS, notably one monitoring station and one of four ground antennas;
    • Ground-Base Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System, which “provides situational awareness of objects in Earth’s orbit, helping to track space debris that pose a risk to space systems”; and
    • “three pieces of critical Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty monitoring equipment”, including seismic monitoring equipment that checks for indicators of nuclear testing, helping to secure compliance with the nuclear test ban treaty.

    The presence of the base in the center of the Indian Ocean also helps to safeguard an important trade route, through which “a third of the world’s bulk cargo and two-thirds of global oil shipments are transported.”

    The US Navy describes the facility on Diego Garcia as “the tip of the spear” and states that it “provides logistic support to operational forces forward deployed to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf areas of responsibility in support of national policy objectives.”

    The prime minister stated that the agreement is vital to the UK’s defence and intelligence, and for securing the safety and security of the British people at this time. He stated “… the base was under threat” from legal challenges by Mauritius, and the government believes there is no viable alternative to protect the base and secure the islands surrounding it.

    The prime minister further noted that if the UK disregarded any future legal judgements, “international organisations and other countries would act on them. And that would undermine the operation of the base.” The UK was particularly concerned at the prospect of other countries establishing a presence in the islands surrounding Diego Garcia, or conducting training exercises nearby, which could impact the operation of the base, and that it would be unable to prevent this without an agreement.

    The prime minister has described the base as “one of the most significant contributions we make to our security relationship with the United States.” The UK foreign secretary stated the US was unhappy with the uncertainty created by the situation and “strongly encouraged [the UK] to strike a deal.” It was against this background that negotiations were commenced and the treaty was made.

    Reaction to the Agreement

    The opposition conservative party has been critical of the agreement, stating that the government “prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice” concerning the potential of legal judgments. The opposition further stated that the agreement puts the defense facility at risk due to Mauritius’ ties to Russia and China. The UK shadow secretary of state said in parliament that “[t]he Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege”, noting further that the agreement does not offer any protection to the Chagossians.

    Internationally, the agreement has been backed by the UK’s “Five Eyes” partners, which include the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Japan, India, and the African Union have also welcomed the agreement. US President Donald Trump expressed his support for the agreement and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stated that while the administration is not a party to the agreement, it “remain[s] responsible for operating the U.S. Naval Support Facility on Diego Garcia, which continues to play a vital role in supporting forward-deployed operational forces and advancing security across the region.”

    The US secretary of state stated:

    “The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security.”

    While the agreement has been welcomed by the UK and several of its allies, the United Nations has condemned the agreement, issuing a press release stating:

    “By maintaining a foreign military presence of the United Kingdom and the United States on Diego Garcia and preventing the Chagossian people from returning to Diego Garcia, the agreement appears to be at variance with the Chagossians’ right to return, which also hinders their ability to exercise their cultural rights in accessing their ancestral lands from which they were expelled.”

    The UN has urged the UK to “apply a human rights-based approach in addressing historical injustices against the Chagossian people.”

    Additional Law Library of Congress Resources on the Laws of Mauritius and the UK


    Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mike Shriberg, Professor of Practice & Engagement, School for Environment & Sustainability, University of Michigan

    Invasive Asian carp are spreading up the Mississippi River system and already clog the Illinois River. AP Photo/John Flesher

    In his second term, President Donald Trump has not taken many actions that draw near-universal praise from across the political spectrum. But there is at least one of these political anomalies, and it illustrates the broad appeal of environmental protection and conservation projects – particularly when it concerns an ecosystem of vital importance to millions of Americans.

    In May 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum supporting the construction of a physical barrier that is key to keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. These fish have made their way up the Mississippi River system and could have dire ecological consequences if they enter the Great Lakes.

    It was not a given that Trump would back this project, which had long been supported by environmental and conservation organizations. But two very different strategies from two Democratic governors – both potential presidential candidates in 2028 – reflected the importance of the Great Lakes to America.

    As a water policy and politics scholar focused on the Great Lakes, I see this development not only as an environmental and conservation milestone, but also a potential pathway for more political unity in the U.S.

    A feared invasion

    Perhaps nothing alarms Great Lakes ecologists more than the potential for invasive carp from Asia to establish a breeding population in the Great Lakes. These fish were intentionally introduced in the U.S. Southeast by private fish farm and wastewater treatment operators as a means to control algae in aquaculture and sewage treatment ponds. Sometime in the 1990s, the fish escaped from those ponds and moved rapidly up the Mississippi River system, including into the Illinois River, which connects to the Great Lakes.

    Sometimes said to “breed like mosquitoes and eat like hogs,” these fish can consume up to 40% of their body weight each day, outcompeting many native species and literally sucking up other species and food sources.

    Studies of Lake Erie, for example, predict that if the carp enter and thrive, they could make up approximately one-third of the fish biomass of the entire lake within 20 years, replacing popular sportfishing species such as walleye and other ecologically and economically important species.

    Invasive carp are generally not eaten in the U.S. and are not desirable for sportfishing. In fact, silver carp have a propensity to jump up to 10 feet out of the water when startled by a boat motor. That can make parts of the Illinois River, which is packed with the invasive fish, almost impossible to fish or even maneuver a boat.

    Look out! Silver carp fly out of the water, obstructing boats and hitting people trying to enjoy a river in Indiana.

    The Brandon Road Lock and Dam solution

    Originally, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River were not connected to each other. But in 1900, the city of Chicago connected them to avoid sending its sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city draws its drinking water.

    The most complete way to block the carp from invading the Great Lakes would be to undo that connection – but that would recreate sewage and flooding issues for Chicago, or require other expensive infrastructure upgrades. The more practical, short-term alternative is to modify the historic Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois, by adding several obstacles that together would block the carp from swimming farther upriver toward the Great Lakes.

    The barrier, estimated to cost US$1.15 billion, was authorized by Congress in 2020 and 2022 after many years of intense planning and negotiations. For the first phase of construction, the project received $226 million in federal money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to complement $114 million in state funding – $64 million from Michigan and $50 million from Illinois.

    On the first day of Trump’s second term, however, he paused a wide swath of federal funding, including funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And that’s when two different political strategies emerged.

    A brief documentary explains the construction of a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

    Pritzker vs. Whitmer vs. Trump

    Illinois, a state that has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992, has the most financially at stake in the Brandon Road project because the project requires the state to acquire land and operate the barrier. When Trump issued his order, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, postponed the purchase of a key piece of land, blaming the “Trump Administration’s lack of clarity and commitment” to the project. Pritzker essentially dared Trump to be the reason for the collapse of the Great Lakes ecosystem and fisheries.

    Another Democrat, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a swing state with the most at stake economically and ecologically if these carp species enter the Great Lakes, took a very different approach. She went to the White House to talk with Trump about invasive carp and other issues. She defended her nonconfrontational approach to critics, though she also hid her face from cameras when Trump surprised her with an Oval Office press conference. When Trump visited Michigan, she stood beside him as they praised each other.

    When Trump released the federal funding in early May, Pritzker kept up his adversarial language, saying he was “glad that the Trump administration heard our calls … and decided to finally meet their obligation.” Whitmer stayed more conciliatory, calling the funding decision a “huge win that will protect our Great Lakes and secure our economy.” She said she was “grateful to the president for his commitment.”

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer greets President Donald Trump as he arrives in her state in late April 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    Why unity on carp?

    Whether coordinated or not, the net result of Pritzker’s and Whitmer’s actions drew praise from both sides of the aisle but was little noticed nationally.

    Trump’s support for the project was a rare moment of political unity and an extremely unusual example of leading Democrats being on the same page as Trump. I attribute this surprising outcome to two key factors.

    First, the Great Lakes region holds disproportionate power in presidential elections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backed the eventual winner in every presidential race for the past 20 years. This swing state power has been used by advocates and state political leaders to drive funding for Great Lakes protection for many years.

    Second, Great Lakes are the uniting force in the region. According to polling from the International Joint Commission, the binational body charged with overseeing waterways that cross the U.S.-Canada border, there is “nearly unanimous support (96%) for the importance of government investment in Great Lakes protections” from residents of the region.

    There aren’t any other issues with such high voter resonance, so politicians want to be sure Great Lakes voters are happy. For example, Vice President JD Vance has been particularly vocal about the Great Lakes. And Great Lakes restoration funding was one of the few things in the presidential budget that Democrats and Republicans agreed on.

    Both Pritzker and Whitmer likely had state-based and national motivations in mind and big aspirations at stake.

    Their combined effort has put the project back on track: As of May 12, 2025, Pritzker authorized Illinois to sign the land-purchase agreement he had paused back in February.

    And perhaps the governors have identified a new area for unity in a divided United States: Conservation and environmental issues have broad public support, particularly when they involve iconic natural resources, shared values and popular outdoor pursuits such as fishing and boating. Even when political strategies diverge, the results can bring bipartisan satisfaction.

    Mike Shriberg was previously the Great Lakes Regional Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which entailed being a co-chair (and, for part of the time, Director) of the Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition.

    ref. Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics – https://theconversation.com/invasive-carp-threaten-the-great-lakes-and-reveal-a-surprising-twist-in-national-politics-257707

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mexican flags flown during immigration protests bother white people a lot more than other Americans

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Edward D. Vargas, Associate Professor, School of Transborder Studies, Arizona State University

    Protesters wave the Mexican flag in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a series of raids throughout Los Angeles and Southern California in early June 2025, sparking protests in downtown Los Angeles and other cities, including New York, Chicago and Austin, Texas.

    Some demonstrators expressed growing frustration with ICE by showcasing the Mexican flag, which has become the defining symbol of the protests in Los Angeles.

    The use of the flag has also become the subject of intense debate in the media.

    Some outlets have depicted the flag as symbolizing ethnic pride, solidarity with immigrants and opposition to the Trump administration.

    Others have called it the “perfect propaganda” tool for Republicans and conservatives, some of whom have referred to the Mexican flag as the “confederate banner of the L.A. riots.” They point to its use as evidence of anarchy and a city taken over by immigrants.

    But what do Americans think about protesters waving the Mexican flag, and why?

    Much of our knowledge surrounding this question is based on the 2006 immigrant rights protests across the United States, which occurred in a much less politically polarized era. Additionally, a vast majority of protesters then brought U.S. flags compared with other national flags, including the Mexican flag.

    Research published in 2010 found that even though the public was more likely to be bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag than the U.S. flag, that difference was largely absent once you divided the public into subgroups, including white people, Latinos and immigrants.

    To reexamine public attitudes toward protesters waving the Mexican flag, we conducted an online survey experiment among 10,145 U.S. adults in 2016.

    As political scientists who specialize in Latino politics and immigration-related issues, we tested how exposure to the Mexican flag versus the American flag shaped opinion about protests during Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016.

    We found that even though much of the public continued to be less bothered by the American flag than the Mexican flag, there were also important and perhaps surprising differences in protest attitudes between white Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.

    A demonstrator holds a Mexican flag in front of law enforcement during a protest on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles.
    AP Photo/Wally Skalij

    More or less bothered

    In the study, we randomly divided respondents into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Respondents in the treatment group were shown an image of protesters waving a Mexican flag. Respondents in the control group were shown an image of protesters waving the U.S. flag. After viewing the image, respondents were then asked about the extent to which they supported or were bothered by the protests.

    Overall, 41% of the respondents said they were bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag, and 28% said protesters waving the U.S. flag bothered them.

    Our results show important differences in opinion between racial and ethnic groups.

    White respondents were more likely than any other racial and ethnic group to say they were bothered by protesters waving Mexican flags. Sixty-nine percent of white respondents said they were bothered, 31 percentage points more than the average of nonwhite respondents.

    However, 51% of white respondents were also bothered by the image of protesters waving U.S. flags. By contrast, just 20% of Latinos, 33% of Black Americans and 34% of Asian Americans said they were bothered by protesters waving U.S. flags.

    Put differently, large majorities of nonwhite respondents were supportive of showing U.S. flags at protests despite their more positive views toward Mexican flags.

    What explains racial differences?

    When taking a deeper look at what causes Americans to feel bothered about protesters waving Mexican flags, some clear patterns emerge.

    On average, older Americans were more likely to be bothered relative to younger Americans. This was particularly true for Americans over 40 years of age compared with millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Gen Z respondents, born between 1997 and 2012.

    However, there are some nuances when examining age groups and whether they had attended a protest, march or rally in the previous year.

    Our findings suggest that older Americans who had not engaged in protests were most likely to be bothered when they saw images of protesters waving Mexican flags. Millennials and Gen Z respondents who participated in a protest were least likely to be bothered.

    Given that this issue intersects nationality, race, ethnicity, gender and citizenship status, it’s logical that these factors explained why Americans supported or opposed the use of Mexican flags at immigration protests.

    A woman carrying a flag with details of the United States and Mexican flags walks past members of the United States Marine Corps on June 14, 2025, in Los Angeles.
    Cristopher Rogel Blanquet/Getty Images

    For example, racial minorities who have a stronger sense of ethnic or racial identity were more likely to be supportive of protesters waving Mexican and U.S. flags. In other words, group identity is a strong predictor of support for protests in general, regardless of what flag is being flown.

    However, minorities who lack a sense of ethnic pride and identity were most likely to be upset when they saw others expressing their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

    The reality is that recent immigration protests across the country are the first time many of the Latino youth who are citizens have participated in these types of protests. Anyone under age 22 would not have memory of, or been alive during, the last large pro-immigrant protests in 2006.

    The Mexican flag represents more than nationalistic pride. It represents their parents’ heritage, hard work and their binational experience as Americans engaged in politics.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Mexican flags flown during immigration protests bother white people a lot more than other Americans – https://theconversation.com/mexican-flags-flown-during-immigration-protests-bother-white-people-a-lot-more-than-other-americans-259004

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the US bombed a bunch of metal tubes − a nuclear engineer explains the importance of centrifuges to Iranian efforts to build nuclear weapons

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anna Erickson, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

    An image from Iranian television shows centrifuges lining a hall at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility in 2021. IRIB via APPEAR

    When U.S. forces attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 21, 2025, the main target was metal tubes in laboratories deep underground. The tubes are centrifuges that produce highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons.

    Inside of a centrifuge, a rotor spins in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 revolutions per minute, 10 times faster than a Corvette engine’s crankshaft. High speeds are needed to separate lighter uranium-235 from heavier uranium-238 for further collection and processing. Producing this level of force means the rotor itself must be well balanced and strong and rely on high-speed magnetic bearings to reduce friction.

    Over the years, Iran has produced thousands of centrifuges. They work together to enrich uranium to dangerous levels – close to weapons-grade uranium. Most of them are deployed in three enrichment sites: Natanz, the country’s main enrichment facility, Fordow and Isfahan. Inside of these facilities, the centrifuges are arranged into cascades – series of machines connected to each other. This way, each machine yields slightly more enriched uranium, feeding the gas produced into its neighbor to maximize production efficiency.

    As a nuclear engineer who works on nuclear nonproliferation, I track centrifuge technology, including the Iranian enrichment facilities targeted by the U.S. and Israel. A typical cascade deployed in Iran is composed of 164 centrifuges, working in series to produce enriched uranium. The Natanz facility was designed to hold over 50,000 centrifuges.

    Iran’s early intentions to field centrifuges on a very large scale were clear. At the peak of the program in the early 2010s it deployed over 19,000 units. Iran later scaled down the number of its centrifuges in part due to international agreements such as the since scrapped Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015.

    Legacy of enrichment

    Iran has a long history of enriching uranium.

    In the late 1990s, it acquired a Pakistani centrifuge design known as P-1. The blueprints and some components were supplied via the A.Q. Khan black market network – the mastermind of the Pakistani program and a serious source of nuclear proliferation globally. Today, the P-1 design is known as IR-1. IR-1 centrifuges use aluminum and a high-strength alloy, known as maraging steel.

    About one-third of the centrifuges that were deployed at the sites of the recent strike on June 21 are IR-1. Each one produces on the order of 0.8 separative work units, which is the unit for measuring the amount of energy and effort needed to separate uranium-235 molecules from the rest of the uranium gas. To put this in perspective, one centrifuge would yield about 0.2 ounces (6 grams) of 60%-enriched uranium-235 per year.

    A typical uranium-based weapon requires 55 pounds (25 kilograms) of 90%-enriched uranium. To get to weapons-grade level, a single centrifuge would produce only 0.14 ounces (4 grams) per year. It requires more work to go higher in enrichment. While capable of doing the job, the IR-1 is quite inefficient.

    The author explains the uranium enrichment process to CBS News.

    More and better centrifuges

    Small yields mean that over 6,000 centrifuges would need to work together for a year to get enough material for one weapon such as a nuclear warhead. Or the efficiency of the centrifuges would have to be improved. Iran did both.

    Before the strike by U.S. forces, Iran was operating close to 7,000 IR-1 centrifuges. In addition, Iran designed, built and operated more efficient centrifuges such as the IR-2m, IR-4 and IR-6 designs. Comparing the IR-1 with the latest designs is like comparing a golf cart with the latest electric vehicles in terms of range and payload.

    Iran’s latest centrifuge designs contain carbon fiber composites with exceptional strength and durability and low weight. This is a recipe for producing light and compact centrifuges that are easier to conceal from inspections. According to the international nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, before the strike Iran was operating 6,500 IR-2m centrifuges, close to 4,000 IR-4 centrifuges and over 3,000 IR-6 centrifuges.

    With each new generation, the separative work unit efficiency increased significantly. IR-6 centrifuges, with their carbon fiber rotors, can achieve up to 10 separative work units per year. That’s about 2.8 ounces (80 grams) of 60%-enriched uranium-235 per year. The International Atomic Energy Agency verified that the IR-6 cascades have been actively used to ramp up production of 60%-enriched uranium.

    The most recent and advanced centrifuges developed by Iran, known as IR-9, can achieve 50 separative work units per year. This cuts down the time needed to produce highly enriched uranium for weapon purposes from months to weeks. The other aspect of IR-9 advanced centrifuges is their compactness. They are easier to conceal from inspections or move underground, and they require less energy to operate.

    Advanced centrifuges such as the IR-9 drive up the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation significantly. Fortunately, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that only one exists in testing laboratories, and there is no evidence Iran has deployed them widely. However, it’s possible more are concealed.

    Bombs or talks?

    Uranium enrichment of 60% is far beyond the needs of any civilian use. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran stockpiled about 880 pounds (400 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium before the attack, and it might have escaped intact. That’s enough to make 10 weapons. The newer centrifuges – IR-2m, IR-4 and IR-6 – would need a bit over eight months to produce that much.

    It’s not clear what the U.S. attack has accomplished, but destroying the facilities targeted in the attack and hindering Iran’s ability to continue enriching uranium might be a way to slow Iran’s move toward producing nuclear weapons. However, based on my work and research on preventing nuclear proliferation, I believe a more reliable means of preventing Iran from achieving its nuclear aims would be for diplomacy and cooperation to prevail.

    Anna Erickson receives funding from Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) related to nuclear nonproliferation technologies. She has previously served on the Board of Directors of the American Nuclear Society.

    ref. Why the US bombed a bunch of metal tubes − a nuclear engineer explains the importance of centrifuges to Iranian efforts to build nuclear weapons – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-bombed-a-bunch-of-metal-tubes-a-nuclear-engineer-explains-the-importance-of-centrifuges-to-iranian-efforts-to-build-nuclear-weapons-259883

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US Tightens Policy on Cuba

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    HOUSTON, July 1 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed a memorandum to tighten policies toward Cuba, including restrictions on some financial transactions and travel.

    According to a White House fact sheet, the memo prohibits tourist travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba, requires mandatory records of all travel-related transactions for at least five years and regular compliance audits.

    The Trump administration seeks to end economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government, military, intelligence, and security services.

    The memorandum prohibits direct or indirect financial transactions with entities controlled by the Cuban military, such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA /GAESA/ and its subsidiaries. A growing number of Cubans and entities are now prohibited from doing business with Americans as the decades-long U.S. economic embargo intensifies.

    D. Trump has always taken a tough stance on Cuba. On the first day of his second term, he returned the island nation to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, reversing the decision of his predecessor, Joseph Biden.

    In the final days of his first presidential term in 2021, D. Trump called Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla called the memorandum “criminal behavior that violates the human rights of the entire nation.”

    “The presidential memorandum against Cuba, released today by the US government, intensifies the aggression and economic blockade that punishes the entire Cuban people and is the main obstacle to our development,” Minister X wrote on social media. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: SA, US strengthen working relations

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    SA, US strengthen working relations

    The Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Zuko Godlimpi, has engaged with the Assistant United States Trade Representative responsible for Africa, Connie Hamilton, on the sidelines of the recently held United States of America-Africa Summit in Luanda, Angola.

    The meeting followed the submission by South Africa on a proposed Framework Deal with the US on 20 May 2025, which outlines measures to enhance mutually beneficial trade and investment relations with the US.

    The submission of the Framework Deal was immediately followed by an engagement between President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump in Washington on 21 May 2025.

    The Framework Deal addresses US concerns relating to, among others, non-tariff barriers, trade deficit, and commercial relations though two-way procurement or import of strategic goods. It aims to also resolve long-standing market access issues of interests to both sides, and to promote bilateral investments in a mutually beneficial manner.

    South Africa is also seeking, through the Framework Deal, to have some of the key export products exempted from the Sections 232 duties, including autos and auto parts, and steel and aluminium through tariff rate quotas.

    South Africa is also seeking the maximum tariff application of 10%, as a worst-case situation. The Framework also seeks exemption for small and medium enterprises, counter-seasonal products and products that the US does not have productive capacity for.

    South Africa used the meeting with the US to continue to raise its concerns with the impact of the reciprocal tariffs, especially on African countries. 

    In this regard, one of the key issues that emerged from the meeting is that the US is developing a trade-matters template that will be the basis for its engagements with countries in sub-Saharan Africa. 

    It was advised that the template will be shared as soon as it has gone through the internal approval processes within the US Administration. South Africa welcomed this indication and expressed preparedness to engage with the said template once finalised.

    In view of this development, including the limited time between now and the deadline for the expiry of the 90-day pause, scheduled for 9 July 2025, African countries, including South Africa, have advocated for the extension of the 90-day deadline to enable countries to prepare their proposed Deals in accordance with the new template. 

    “In this regard, we are of the view that South Africa may need to re-submit its Framework Deal in accordance with the new template. It is thus expected that the deadline may be shifted.

    “We urge South African industry to exercise strategic patience and not take decisions in haste, and that government will continue to use every avenue to engage the US government to find amicable solutions to safeguard South African interests in the US market,” said Trade, Industry and Competition Minister, Parks Tau. – SAnews.gov.za

    Edwin

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Forde, Assistant Professor – European Human Rights Law, Dublin City University

    A special tribunal has been established by the international human rights organisation the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Ukrainian government to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine which could be used to hold Vladimir Putin and others to account for the February 2022 invasion and war crimes committed since.

    The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, signed an agreement with CoE secretary general, Alain Berset, on June 25, setting up the special tribunal. Subject to it securing the necessary political backing and budget the tribunal will be established within the framework of the CoE (which is not part of the European Union.

    Work on the first phase of the court could progress in 2026. In his speech to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, Zelensky was cautious in his optimism but stressed that the agreement was “just the beginning”.

    “It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice – including Putin,” he said. He knows, through years of hard experience as he travelled the world seeking help from Ukraine’s allies, that political support can be fleeting.

    A new Nuremberg?

    Inspired by ad hoc courts established after major conflicts such as the Nuremberg tribunal after the second world war or, more recently the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
    in the 1990s, the Ukraine has been established with the aim of holding to account the perpetrators of the first full-scale armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century.

    The prohibition against the crime of aggression is a basic principle of international law, and a key part of the UN charter.

    In principle, the crime of aggression should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the court, that option was ruled out. Similarly, Russia’s veto on the UN security council meant that it would be impossible in practice to practically set up a court under the mandate of the UN – as the ICTY was in 1993.

    The Ukraine special tribunal, which was developed by a Core Group, made up of states plus the EU and the Council of Europe, seeks to fill an obvious accountability gap. If the illegal invasion is left unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent.

    Such impunity would embolden Russia and inspire others with revanchist ambitions, undermining an already shaky international order. The US, which was instrumental in setting up the Core Group under the presidency of Joe Biden, withdrew in March 2025 when Donald Trump took office.

    The statute of the special tribunal sets out that the court will be based on Ukrainian law and will have a strong link to the country’s legal system. Ukraine’s prosecutor-general will play a key role in the proceedings, referring evidence for further investigation by the tribunal. But it will be internationally funded with international judges and prosecutors, and strong cooperation with the International Criminal Court. It is likely to be based in the Hague – although this has yet to be confirmed.

    The need for accountability for the illegal invasion of Ukraine was stressed in a resolution of the UN general assembly in February 2023 as the war headed into its second year. The resolution, which calls for “appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level” to “ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes” was approved by an overwhelming majority of 141 states. Any country in the world can join this core group to support its establishment.

    Holding leaders accountable

    Unlike previous international courts, the caseload is likely to be extremely narrow. There are likely to be dozens of charges rather than hundreds or thousands, which is perhaps reassuring in terms of managing costs.

    The tribunal will focus on those “most responsible” including the so-called “troika”: the president Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin and the minister for foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov. Charges may also be levelled against the leadership of Belarus and North Korea for their role in aiding, abetting and actively participating in the war of aggression. But don’t expect Kim Jong-un or Alexander Lukashenko in the dock anytime soon.

    The Court has opted for a novel approach to a longstanding customary rule by noting that heads of state are not functionally immune from prosecution. But it adds that indictments won’t be confirmed until such time as the suspect is no longer in office.

    Trials can take place in absentia if the accused fails to attend and all reasonable steps taken to apprehend them have failed. But, like the ICC, the court will still rely on states to apprehend and physically transfer indicted individuals in due course. This will inevitably limit the chances of seeing any of the key individuals actually in a court, something that has also dogged the ICC.

    The fact that a tribunal has now been set up is a major development in international criminal justice. But it is now in a sort of purgatory, existing and not existing at the same time. To become operational, another treaty known as an enlarged partial agreement must be signed by interested states. This will have to be ratified by many national parliaments, depending on their constitutions. This process could take years.

    But simply by creating the framework for the tribunal, the Council of Europe has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring accountability. In a further development, the European Court of Human Rights delivers its long-awaited judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia on July 9.

    This concerns “complaints about the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022”. The judgement will add further momentum to these accountability efforts.

    Symbolic as it may seem, this week’s agreement creates a real opportunity for the international community to send a message that impunity for international aggression is intolerable – not just for the victims, but for all who believe in the rule of law.

    Andrew Forde is affiliated with Dublin City University (Assistant Professor, European Human Rights Law). He is also, separately, affiliated with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Commissioner).

    ref. New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion – https://theconversation.com/new-special-tribunal-for-ukraine-will-pave-the-way-for-holding-russian-leaders-to-account-for-the-invasion-260022

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tony Robert Walker, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University

    Negotiations toward a global, legally binding plastics treaty are set to resume this summer, with the United Nations Environment Programme announcing that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastic pollution will reconvene in August.

    The committee was established to develop an international legally binding instrument — known as the plastics treaty — to end plastic pollution, one of the fastest-growing environmental threats.




    Read more:
    Here’s how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis


    Globally, 40 per cent of plastics production goes into the production of single-use plastic packaging, which is the single largest source of plastic waste and is a threat to wildlife and human health. Without meaningful action, global plastic waste is projected to nearly triple by 2060, reaching an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes.

    As the world prepares for another round of talks, Canada’s own plastic problem reveals what’s at stake, and what’s possible for the future.

    Canada’s plastic problem

    Canada is no exception to the global plastic crisis. Nearly half (47 per cent) of all plastic waste in Canada comes from the food and drink sector, contributing 3,268 million tonnes annually. Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve.

    Most of Canada’s plastic — except for plastic bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) — are uneconomical or difficult to recycle because of the complexity of mixed plastics used in our economy. As a result, 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste — equivalent to the weight of 24 CN Towers — end up in landfills every year.

    This is not a trivial problem, as Ontario is projected to run out of landfill space by 2035. Plastic pollution poses growing risks to both urban and rural infrastructure.

    In addition to landfill overflow, around one per cent of Canada’s plastic waste leaks into the environment. In 2016, this was 29,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. Once in the environment, plastics disintegrate into tiny particles, called microplastics (small pieces of plastic less than five millimetres long).

    We drink those tiny microplastic particles in our tap water, and eat them in our fish dinners. Some are even making their way into farmland.

    Plastics are everywhere, including inside us

    More than 93 per cent of Canadians have expressed concerns over single-use plastics used in food packaging and have supported government bans. There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in the environment, in our food and in us.

    Growing evidence indicates that plastics can cause harmful health effects in humans and animals. Microplastics and smaller nanoplastics (less than one micron in length) have been found in humans, including infants and breast milk. They can cause metabolic disorders, interfere with our immune and reproductive systems and cause behavioural problems.

    These health problems may be caused by chemicals added to plastics, including single-use plastics, of which 4,200 chemicals have been identified as posing a hazard to human and ecosystem health.

    It is for these reasons that the Canadian government introduced a ban on single-use plastics in 2022 as part of a plan to reach zero plastic waste in Canada by 2030.

    The decision was based extensive public and industry consultation, as well as decades of data on plastic pollution gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. This data shows the most common plastic litter items found in the environment across Canada, known as the “dirty dozen” list.

    Six of these items were included in the federal ban. Three eastern Canadian provinces had already implemented single-use plastic bag bans before the federal government, with little to no public or industry opposition. Prince Edward Island was the first Canadian province to implement a province-wide plastic bag ban in July 2019, closely followed by Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in October 2020.

    The politics of plastic

    Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, debates around plastic pollution are becoming increasingly politicized.

    In February in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to “stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within federal buildings.”

    Trump told reporters at the White House: “I don’t think plastic is going to affect a shark very much, as they’re munching their way through the ocean.” Almost 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have reported, however, that more than 4,000 species have ingested or been entangled by plastic litter.

    In Canada, plastic has also become a political flashpoint. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would scrap the federal government’s ban on single-use plastics and bring back plastic straws and grocery bags. He argued the government’s ban was about “symbolism” rather than “science,” saying, “the Liberals’ plastics ban is not about the environment, it’s about cost and control.”

    His promise would have harmed Canadians by dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that plastics in our bodies are linked to health impacts. Legislation to ban single-use plastics can be highly effective, ranging from 33 to 96 per cent reductions in plastic waste and pollution in the environment, depending on the policy and jurisdiction.

    Canada’s single-use plastics ban is a great example of evidence-based policymaking. The latest data from the conservation group Ocean Wise shows there was a 32 per cent drop in plastic straws found on Canadian shorelines in 2024 compared to the previous year.

    Science-based policies are needed

    It is indisputable that growing plastic production is directly related to plastic pollution in the environment and in human beings. Increasing plastic pollution is a global threat to human and ecosystem health, regardless of borders and political affiliation.

    As negotiators gear up for another round of talks to finalize a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution, the need for policies that are supported by scientific evidence is more urgent than ever.

    Future generations deserve a healthy and sustainable planet. The path towards a healthy and sustainable planet requires supporting action based on scientific evidence, not misinforming people with catchy phrases and political rhetoric.

    Tony Robert Walker receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Research Nova Scotia. He is also a non-remunerated member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

    Miriam L Diamond receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Future Earth, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. She is affiliated with the University of Toronto, serves as a paid expert for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, and has non-remunerated positions with the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (Vice-Chair), is a member of the Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and sits on the board of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

    ref. Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire – https://theconversation.com/plastics-threaten-ecosystems-and-human-health-but-evidence-based-solutions-are-under-political-fire-256764

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Somaliland’s 30-year quest for recognition: could US interests make the difference?

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Aleksi Ylönen, Professor, United States International University

    More than three decades after unilaterally declaring independence from Somalia, Somaliland still seeks international recognition as a sovereign state. Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement, the breakaway state has built a relatively stable system of governance. This has drawn increasing interest from global powers, including the United States. As regional dynamics shift and great-power competition intensifies, Somaliland’s bid for recognition is gaining new currency. Aleksi Ylönen has studied politics in the Horn of Africa and Somaliland’s quest for recognition. He unpacks what’s at play.


    What legal and historical arguments does Somaliland use?

    The Somali National Movement is one of the main clan-based insurgent movements responsible for the collapse of the central government in Somalia. It claims the territory of the former British protectorate of Somaliland. The UK had granted Somaliland sovereign status on 26 June 1960.

    The Somali government tried to stomp out calls for secession. It orchestrated the brutal killing of hundreds of thousands of people in northern Somalia between 1987 and 1989.

    But the Somali National Movement declared unilateral independence on 18 May 1991 and separated from Somalia.

    With the collapse of the Somali regime in 1991, the movement’s main enemy was gone. This led to a violent power struggle between various militias.

    This subsided only after the politician Mohamed Egal consolidated power. He was elected president of Somaliland in May 1993.

    Egal made deals with merchants and businessmen, giving them tax and commercial incentives to accept his patronage. As a result, he obtained the economic means to consolidate political power and to pursue peace and state-building. It’s something his successors have kept up with since his death in 2002.

    What has Somaliland done to push for recognition?

    Successive Somaliland governments continue to engage in informal diplomacy. They have aligned with the west, particularly the US, which was the dominant power after the cold war, and the former colonial master, the UK. Both countries host significant Somaliland diaspora communities.

    The US and the UK have for decades flirted with the idea of recognising Somaliland, which they consider a strategic partner. However, they have been repeatedly thrown back by their respective Somalia policies. These have favoured empowering the widely supported Mogadishu government to reassert its authority and control over Somali territories.

    This Somalia policy has been increasingly questioned in recent years, in part due to Mogadishu’s security challenges. In contrast, the Hargeisa government of Somaliland has largely shown it can provide security and stability. It has held elections and survived as a state for the last three decades, though it has faced political resistance and armed opposition.




    Read more:
    Somaliland elections: what’s at stake for independence, stability and shifting power dynamics in the Horn of Africa


    As new global powers rise, Somaliland administrations have pursued an increasingly diverse foreign policy, with one goal: international recognition.

    Hargeisa hosts consulates and representative offices of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Taiwan, the UK and the European Union, among others.

    The government has also engaged in informal foreign relations with the United Arab Emirates. The Middle Eastern monarchy serves as a business hub and a destination of livestock exports. Many Somalilanders migrate there.

    Somaliland maintains representative offices in several countries. These include Canada, the US, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Taiwan. Hargeisa has alienated China because it has collaborated with Taiwan since 2020. Taiwan is a self-ruled island claimed by China.

    On 1 January 2024, Somaliland’s outgoing president Muse Bihi signed a memorandum of understanding with Ethiopian prime minister Abiy Ahmed for increased cooperation. Bihi implied that Ethiopia would be the first country to formally recognise Somaliland. The deal caused a sharp deterioration of relations between Addis Ababa and Mogadishu.

    Abiy later moderated his position and, with Turkish mediation, reconciled with his Somalia counterpart, President Hassan Mohamud.

    What’s behind US interest in Somaliland?

    The US, like other great powers, has been interested in Somaliland because of its strategic location. It is on the African shores of the Gulf of Aden, across from the Arabian Peninsula. Its geographical position has gained currency recently as Yemeni Houthi rebels strike maritime traffic in the busy shipping lanes. Somaliland is also well located to curb piracy and smuggling on this global trade route.

    The US Africa Command set up its main Horn of Africa base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti in 2002. This followed the 11 September 2001 attacks.




    Read more:
    Somaliland’s quest for recognition: UK debate offers hint of a sea change


    In 2017, China, which had become the main foreign economic power in the Horn of Africa, set up a navy support facility in Djibouti. This encouraged closer collaboration between American and Somaliland authorities. The US played with the idea of establishing a base in Berbera, which hosts Somaliland’s largest port.

    With Donald Trump winning the US presidential election in 2024, there were reports of an increased push for US recognition of Somaliland. This would allow the US to deepen its trade and security partnerships in the volatile Horn of Africa region.

    Since March 2025, representatives of the Trump administration have engaged in talks with Somaliland officials to establish a US military base near Berbera. This would be in exchange for a formal but partial recognition of Somaliland.

    What are the risks of US recognition of Somaliland?

    Stronger US engagement with Somaliland risks neglecting Somalia.

    Mogadishu depends on external military assistance in its battle against the advancing violent Islamist extremist group, Al-Shabaab. It also faces increasing defiance from two federal regions, Puntland and Jubaland.

    US recognition would reward Hargeisa for its persistent effort to maintain stability and promote democracy. However, it could encourage other nations to recognise Somaliland. This would deliver a blow to Somali nationalists who want one state for all Somalis.

    Aleksi Ylönen is affiliated with the Center for International Studies, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, and is an associate fellow at the HORN International Institute for Strategic Studies.

    ref. Somaliland’s 30-year quest for recognition: could US interests make the difference? – https://theconversation.com/somalilands-30-year-quest-for-recognition-could-us-interests-make-the-difference-255399

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

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

    ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI