Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: Markey, Cantwell File Amendment to Strip 5-Year AI Moratorium from GOP Reconciliation Bill as Opposition to Blackburn-Cruz “Compromise” Grows

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Washington (June 30, 2025) – As opposition to the new Blackburn-Cruz five-year AI moratorium “compromise” continues to grow, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation filed an amendment to strip the entire provision from the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
    “The Blackburn-Cruz so-called compromise is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Senator Edward J. Markey. “Despite Republican efforts to hide the true impact of the AI moratorium, the language still allows the Trump administration to use federal broadband funding as a weapon against the states and still prevents states from protecting children online from Big Tech’s predatory behavior. Republicans are selling out our kids and local communities — all to line the pockets of Big Tech billionaires. I am proud to partner with Ranking Member Cantwell on an amendment to strip this dangerous language.”
    “The Blackburn-Cruz amendment does nothing to protect kids or consumers,” Sen. Cantwell said earlier today. “It’s just another giveaway to tech companies. This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids. And when Howard Lutnick has the authority to force states to take this deal or lose all of their BEAD funding, consumers will find out just how catastrophic this deal is.”
    While the “compromise” language adds child safety and other “generally applicable laws” to its list of purported exemptions, the standard is so vague that Big Tech companies would challenge nearly every consumer protection, kids online safety or privacy protection law in court as “overly burdensome.” It would also impact the thousands of pending lawsuits against social media companies’ harmful algorithms.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Markey, Rep. Titus Announce Legislation to Advance LGBTQ+ Rights Globally

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Bill Text (PDF)

    Washington (June 30, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today joined Representative Dina Titus (NV-01) to announce the introduction of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (GLOBE) Act, legislation that would reaffirm U.S. leadership in advancing the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals around the world.

    “This Pride Month, we must continue to advocate for freedom and equality – regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation – for every person, in the U.S. and around the world,” said Senator Markey. “With bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on the rise, we must push back on discriminatory practices and strive to protect and improve the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals everywhere.”

    “No person should suffer from discrimination because of who they are or whom they love,” said Representative Titus. “Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. is failing to protect the rights of LGBTQI people at home and abroad. This bill will help restore our role in promoting LGBTQI rights around the world and punishing regimes that persecute people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Through his executive orders and DEI initiative, President Trump has attacked fundamental human rights and the dignity of the LGBTQI community. The GLOBE Act counters this by outlining a vision for U.S. leadership in the protection of LGBTQI rights globally.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.).

    Senator Markey previously introduced the GLOBE Act in 2023. Recently, Senator Markey co-sponsored the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act that would push back against the Trump administration’s attempts to target the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals nationwide.

    Senator Markey also joined his colleagues in delivering a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pressing the Trump administration on their retreat from longstanding efforts to promote human rights and democracy worldwide.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Markey, Rep. Titus Announce Legislation to Advance LGBTQ+ Rights Globally

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Bill Text (PDF)

    Washington (June 30, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today joined Representative Dina Titus (NV-01) to announce the introduction of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (GLOBE) Act, legislation that would reaffirm U.S. leadership in advancing the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals around the world.

    “This Pride Month, we must continue to advocate for freedom and equality – regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation – for every person, in the U.S. and around the world,” said Senator Markey. “With bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on the rise, we must push back on discriminatory practices and strive to protect and improve the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals everywhere.”

    “No person should suffer from discrimination because of who they are or whom they love,” said Representative Titus. “Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. is failing to protect the rights of LGBTQI people at home and abroad. This bill will help restore our role in promoting LGBTQI rights around the world and punishing regimes that persecute people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Through his executive orders and DEI initiative, President Trump has attacked fundamental human rights and the dignity of the LGBTQI community. The GLOBE Act counters this by outlining a vision for U.S. leadership in the protection of LGBTQI rights globally.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.).

    Senator Markey previously introduced the GLOBE Act in 2023. Recently, Senator Markey co-sponsored the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act that would push back against the Trump administration’s attempts to target the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals nationwide.

    Senator Markey also joined his colleagues in delivering a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pressing the Trump administration on their retreat from longstanding efforts to promote human rights and democracy worldwide.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Kids should be encouraged to talk back – 5 tips for teaching them critical thinking skills

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Heidi Matisonn, Senior Lecturer in Bioethics, The EthicsLab, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town

    Teaching kids to think critically sets them up well for life. eli_asenova

    Whenever school holidays loom, many parents find themselves caught in an emotional tug-of-war: on the one hand, relief at bidding farewell to homework battles, bedtime struggles, and the lamenting of lost lunchboxes; on the other, terror at the daunting prospect of a barrage of “whys” and “buts” from their relentless interrogators. To avoid logic-defying arguments and endless debates, it is often not long before they find themselves playing the ultimate parental trump card: “because I said so”.

    As a parent, I can relate. But I’m also a moral philosopher with almost two decades of teaching experience. In philosophy classes, students who question ideas – and sometimes, in doing so, challenge authority – are praised. Why isn’t the same true for children? Is a child who questions their parents “being cheeky”? Or are they flexing the mental muscles that are necessary for their intellectual growth and ability to navigate the world?

    The job of a moral philosopher is to grapple with ideas about right and wrong, good and bad, seeking to answer the ultimate question: “how ought we to live?” While we use a range of strategies to tackle these fundamental ethical questions, one of the most important tools at our disposal is critical thinking.

    Critical thinking is the ability to analyse and evaluate information and arguments in a clear, rational and objective manner. When we are confronted with information, critical thinking requires us to consider why this person is saying that. What could be their motive? Is there a different possible explanation?

    I’m not suggesting that the goal is to raise argumentative children. Rather, as philosopher, strategic thinker and author Peter Facione explains, it is to nurture inquisitive minds that can interpret, analyse, evaluate and infer from information. In other words, parents should raise their children to be curious, critical thinkers who question everything, even if this means they question us in the process.

    How can parents teach critical thinking at home? Here are my five top tips:

    1. Ask open-ended questions and encourage children to do the same.

    2. Provide children with opportunities to make decisions and solve problems rather than doing it for them.

    3. Discuss the reasoning behind rules and decisions you make for them.

    4. Encourage children to consider alternative perspectives rather than just their own.

    5. Model critical thinking by thinking aloud when approaching problems.

    Thinking about our thinking

    Critical thinking requires metacognition: thinking about our thinking.

    Reflecting on our own views gives us a chance to recognise that they too should be scrutinised and evaluated. If we choose to be vegan, for example, is it because we care about reducing harm to animals, the environment, or both; or because it’s fashionable to be vegan? Once we’ve worked out our reasons for something, we can then evaluate whether these are “good” reasons or not.

    Critical thinking also means evaluating other people’s reasons. This requires us to be open to others’ points of view – including our children’s – rather than being blinded by our own biases. At the same time, to be a critical thinker is to take seriously the fact that everyone “has an agenda” (which may not be explicit) and we should therefore not take everything at face value. We can teach our children to be critical thinkers by getting them to consider the quality of the evidence presented for a position.

    Put simply, parents and caregivers can promote critical thinking in children by encouraging them to ask questions, challenge assumptions and explore alternative perspectives. Critical thinking requires us not to passively accept everything we read, hear and see but rather to question, evaluate and make judgments.

    Here’s what that might look like in practice.

    A practical example

    Add a side of critical thinking to make vegetables more palatable.
    FAMILY STOCK/Shutterstock

    Let’s say your child asks why she needs to eat vegetables.

    You could respond by saying “That’s a good question. What do you think? Why do you suppose we eat vegetables?” This encourages the child to start thinking about the issue herself.

    She replies: “Because you said I have to.”

    To get her to think about whether there are reasons beyond parental authority that may be important, you might want to ask: “Is that the only reason? Let’s think about it some more. Do you know anyone else who thinks we should eat vegetables?”

    Then, to encourage her to explore alternatives, you could ask: “What do you think would happen if we never ate any vegetables? What if we only ate sweets instead?”

    It might also be useful to do some research with your child, to introduce the idea of seeking evidence and reliable information. You could suggest that the two of you look up some facts about what vegetables do for our bodies.

    Finally, you could pose the original question back to your child, giving her a chance to synthesise what she’s learnt and form her own conclusion.

    Throughout the process, you are guiding your child to question, think about, and arrive at a reasoned understanding, rather than simply accepting a statement at face value.

    Other resources

    Does this sound daunting? Relax – it’s not all up to you.

    Many schools incorporate critical thinking skills across their curricula. Some excellent programmes have been implemented in schools around the world. One example is Philosophy for Children (P4C), developed by educator and philosopher Matthew Lipman in the 1970s. This approach uses structured discussions about open-ended questions and can be used to develop critical thinking skills in children as young as six.

    I also like the work of Critical Thinking Consortium (TC2), a Canadian organisation which provides resources and professional development to help educators embed critical thinking in their teaching. Project Zero is another good resource. This research group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education has developed several thinking routines and frameworks, such as “visible thinking” and “artful thinking”.

    You could also advocate for your child’s school to introduce critical thinking skills into their curricula. Schools could partner with university philosophy departments to offer classes for low or no cost as a community engagement or social responsibility initiative.

    Ultimately, whether children are exposed to these skills at home or at school, the key is to create an environment where questioning, reasoning, and exploring ideas are encouraged and valued. The goal is to make critical thinking a natural part of the way we interact with our children so that it becomes a natural part of the way they interact with the world.

    Heidi Matisonn 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. Kids should be encouraged to talk back – 5 tips for teaching them critical thinking skills – https://theconversation.com/kids-should-be-encouraged-to-talk-back-5-tips-for-teaching-them-critical-thinking-skills-238125

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Johnson Releases Statement After Advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson
    WASHINGTON – On Saturday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released the following statement after voting in favor of the motion to proceed to Cal. #107, H.R.1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
    “Biden and the Democrats left behind enormous messes that we are trying to clean up – an open border, wars, and massive deficits. After working for weeks with President Trump and his highly capable economic team, I am convinced that he views this as a necessary first step and will support my efforts to help put America on a path to fiscal sustainability.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Johann Kirsten, Director of the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University

    When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern.

    Disappointingly, the televised meeting was horrifying to watch as it was based on misrepresenting the reality of life in South Africa.

    Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump’s statement: “But Blacks are not farmers.”

    In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture.

    Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage.

    The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump’s statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa.

    South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives.

    The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa’s farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are “large-scale”, and not all black farmers are “small-scale”, “subsistence” or “emerging”. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale.

    This is important so that one doesn’t view South Africa’s agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn’t mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active.

    The facts

    In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers’ organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump’s claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa’s agriculture, accounting for 4% of the US$13.7 billion exports in 2024.

    When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump’s response was disturbing, to say the least: “But Blacks are not farmers”. This requires an immediate fact check.

    We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump’s silly statement.

    As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of one million rands (US$55,500) qualify for VAT registration.

    We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making.

    Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2,879,638 households out of South Africa’s total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes.

    Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307,000 (US$17,000). This translates into 57,592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40,122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report.

    If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms.

    There are, however, 2,610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million (US$1.2 million per annum) which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757,000 farm workers in 2017.

    Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242,221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43,891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.)

    Let’s consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132,700 households, of whom 93,000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true.

    We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers’ share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount.

    It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers’ share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa.

    Let’s get these facts straight and promote them honestly.

    Wandile Sihlobo is the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) and a member of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).

    Johann Kirsten 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. Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong – https://theconversation.com/most-south-african-farmers-are-black-why-trump-got-it-so-wrong-257668

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 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

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 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

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Alessandro Ghio, Research professor in Accounting, ESCP Business School

    In March 2025, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a leading accreditation body, revised its guiding principles. This included removing the phrase “diversity and inclusion” from its accreditation standards and replacing it with the more neutral “community and connectedness”. The decision emerged amid a shifting legal and political climate in the United States, following a wave of executive orders and legislative efforts aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public institutions.

    For years, diversity and inclusion have been central to how business schools engage with and signal social responsibility, shaping policies on faculty hiring, student recruitment and curricula. The AACSB change is more than a semantic adjustment – it reflects growing pressure on institutions to retreat from politically sensitive terrain.

    Now, business schools – many of which once celebrated DEI as a strategic and ethical imperative – are being forced to re-evaluate. Will they continue to invest in inclusion, or quietly abandon it under mounting institutional and political scrutiny? The answer will have global consequences, not just for higher education, but for the kind of leadership business schools claim to cultivate.

    Accreditation bodies: shaping business schools’ strategies

    The AACSB’s shift could have a significant impact on how business schools engage with diversity. As higher education institutions have embraced neoliberal, market-driven models, fuelled by students’ consumer-like expectations, external validation from accreditation bodies has become essential. Only 136 institutions (about 1% of all business schools) worldwide hold “triple accreditation” – accreditation by the AACSB, EFMD Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA). This status allows business schools to signal their elite standing and adherence to high international standards – and to charge higher tuition.

    Accreditation offers tangible benefits, including use of prestigious logos, membership in exclusive networks, mutual recognition of academic credits, student exchange opportunities, and access to shared resources and best practices. These benefits shape strategic decisions, as business schools prioritise accreditation to maintain their reputation and competitiveness to attract high-paying students.

    Many institutions even have associate or deputy deans dedicated to fulfilling accreditation requirements. Among these requirements has been the long-standing “diversity checkbox”, which required schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. AACSB was not alone in this focus: AMBA, another leading accreditation body that specialises in MBA programmes, annually recognises schools for their diversity efforts and initiatives promoting inclusion.

    Accreditation pressures are compounded by the influence of business school rankings, another powerful driver of institutional priorities. Rankings such as the Financial Times’ business school list include diversity-related indicators, such as gender balance in classrooms, representation of women among faculty, and international faculty diversity. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Best Schools Diversity Index placed US universities George Washington, Howard and Morgan State at the very top in 2024. While these institutions don’t typically rank highly in overall MBA rankings, the diversity index offered them visibility and a competitive edge to attract prospective students.

    With accreditation bodies and business school rankings shaping institutional identities, a key question emerges: will business schools continue to prioritise diversity if structural incentives erode, or will it quietly disappear from the agenda?

    Diversity at a crossroads

    While the language of diversity has become commonplace in business school messaging – “we place inclusion and diversity at the heart of everything we do”; we “engage with DE&I strategically, practically – and of course via forefront research”; we [“want] to encourage and contribute to the conversation on diversity for and with all the students” – many institutions have gone beyond rhetoric, implementing concrete policies to promote diversity across student bodies, faculty recruitment and course content.

    In France, the grandes écoles – often criticised for perpetuating social elitism, as highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – have introduced targeted admission pathways for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In the UK, business schools have begun auditing faculty diversity, particularly in terms of race and ethnicity. In Germany, where women professors remain underrepresented, ongoing efforts seek to address persistent gender imbalances in academic positions.

    These initiatives were not developed in a vacuum. Accreditation standards and external recognition gave institutions the legitimacy and incentive to act. Diversity became part of the strategic fabric – an ethical development, yes, but also a business case aligned with the values that accreditation and rankings rewarded.

    Now, with a major accreditation body stepping back and public discourse increasingly polarised, that alignment is beginning to fracture. In the US, federal support for diversity-related research is shrinking. Facing pressure from the Department of Education to end diversity initiatives or risk losing funding, some universities have already taken action by alternately moving to close DEI offices; removing references to DEI from websites, policies and official materials; or even cancelling a planned celebration of International Women’s Day.
    At least two US schools have either severed or planned to sever links with the PhD Project, a programme founded in 1994 that is devoted to “increasing the number of brilliant educators from all communities”. In Europe, some institutions may quietly reduce their commitments, no longer seeing DEI as worth the political or institutional risk.

    The dilemma is no longer about how to advance diversity – but whether to defend it at all. Business schools must decide: is diversity still central to their mission, or just another line item to be dropped when the pressure mounts?

    If business schools are serious about their social mission, they must continue investing in diversity – not as a symbolic gesture, but as a structural commitment. Diversity, equity and inclusion are not peripheral concerns; they are embedded in frameworks like the Principle of Responsible Management Education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5: Gender Equality; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities) – benchmarks that many institutions cite as central to their values. More than 30 Nordic business schools, all members of AACSB, recently issued a joint statement that diversity remains a core value for them.

    Diversity and knowledge

    Beyond institutional mandates, diversity is foundational to the production of credible knowledge. In Why Trust Science? (2019), historian Naomi Oreskes argues that while “diversity does not heal all epistemic ills”, it plays a crucial role in identifying blind spots and challenging groupthink. Drawing on feminist theorists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino, she shows how epistemic communities that are diverse – and critically engaged – are better positioned to identify and correct biases. In more homogeneous groups, dominant assumptions often go unchallenged, leading to structural oversights that undermine both knowledge and legitimacy.

    At a time when trust in academic institutions is eroding, ensuring diverse perspectives is not just desirable – it is necessary. For business schools, which train future leaders and decision-makers, the stakes are especially high.

    This is a moment not to retreat from diversity, but to reclaim it. Rather than treating it as a politicized liability, schools can reassert it as a core academic and democratic value – a way of remaining relevant, rigorous and responsible. And in a climate where “woke” has become a catch-all insult, schools also have an opportunity to reclaim the term – not as provocation, but as a return to its original meaning: a principled alertness to social realities and structural injustice. The LGBTQI+ community’s reclamation of “queer” as a term of empowerment and resistance against societal norms can point the way.

    By reinforcing their commitment to diversity, business schools can help deepen critical inquiry, rebuild public trust in science and ultimately equip their students for leadership in this fractured world – which they will need to understand in all its complexity.

    Alessandro Ghio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively – https://theconversation.com/business-schools-are-facing-challenges-to-their-diversity-commitments-they-must-reinforce-them-to-train-leaders-effectively-252988

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Alessandro Ghio, Research professor in Accounting, ESCP Business School

    In March 2025, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a leading accreditation body, revised its guiding principles. This included removing the phrase “diversity and inclusion” from its accreditation standards and replacing it with the more neutral “community and connectedness”. The decision emerged amid a shifting legal and political climate in the United States, following a wave of executive orders and legislative efforts aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public institutions.

    For years, diversity and inclusion have been central to how business schools engage with and signal social responsibility, shaping policies on faculty hiring, student recruitment and curricula. The AACSB change is more than a semantic adjustment – it reflects growing pressure on institutions to retreat from politically sensitive terrain.

    Now, business schools – many of which once celebrated DEI as a strategic and ethical imperative – are being forced to re-evaluate. Will they continue to invest in inclusion, or quietly abandon it under mounting institutional and political scrutiny? The answer will have global consequences, not just for higher education, but for the kind of leadership business schools claim to cultivate.

    Accreditation bodies: shaping business schools’ strategies

    The AACSB’s shift could have a significant impact on how business schools engage with diversity. As higher education institutions have embraced neoliberal, market-driven models, fuelled by students’ consumer-like expectations, external validation from accreditation bodies has become essential. Only 136 institutions (about 1% of all business schools) worldwide hold “triple accreditation” – accreditation by the AACSB, EFMD Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), and Association of MBAs (AMBA). This status allows business schools to signal their elite standing and adherence to high international standards – and to charge higher tuition.

    Accreditation offers tangible benefits, including use of prestigious logos, membership in exclusive networks, mutual recognition of academic credits, student exchange opportunities, and access to shared resources and best practices. These benefits shape strategic decisions, as business schools prioritise accreditation to maintain their reputation and competitiveness to attract high-paying students.

    Many institutions even have associate or deputy deans dedicated to fulfilling accreditation requirements. Among these requirements has been the long-standing “diversity checkbox”, which required schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. AACSB was not alone in this focus: AMBA, another leading accreditation body that specialises in MBA programmes, annually recognises schools for their diversity efforts and initiatives promoting inclusion.

    Accreditation pressures are compounded by the influence of business school rankings, another powerful driver of institutional priorities. Rankings such as the Financial Times’ business school list include diversity-related indicators, such as gender balance in classrooms, representation of women among faculty, and international faculty diversity. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Best Schools Diversity Index placed US universities George Washington, Howard and Morgan State at the very top in 2024. While these institutions don’t typically rank highly in overall MBA rankings, the diversity index offered them visibility and a competitive edge to attract prospective students.

    With accreditation bodies and business school rankings shaping institutional identities, a key question emerges: will business schools continue to prioritise diversity if structural incentives erode, or will it quietly disappear from the agenda?

    Diversity at a crossroads

    While the language of diversity has become commonplace in business school messaging – “we place inclusion and diversity at the heart of everything we do”; we “engage with DE&I strategically, practically – and of course via forefront research”; we [“want] to encourage and contribute to the conversation on diversity for and with all the students” – many institutions have gone beyond rhetoric, implementing concrete policies to promote diversity across student bodies, faculty recruitment and course content.

    In France, the grandes écoles – often criticised for perpetuating social elitism, as highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – have introduced targeted admission pathways for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In the UK, business schools have begun auditing faculty diversity, particularly in terms of race and ethnicity. In Germany, where women professors remain underrepresented, ongoing efforts seek to address persistent gender imbalances in academic positions.

    These initiatives were not developed in a vacuum. Accreditation standards and external recognition gave institutions the legitimacy and incentive to act. Diversity became part of the strategic fabric – an ethical development, yes, but also a business case aligned with the values that accreditation and rankings rewarded.

    Now, with a major accreditation body stepping back and public discourse increasingly polarised, that alignment is beginning to fracture. In the US, federal support for diversity-related research is shrinking. Facing pressure from the Department of Education to end diversity initiatives or risk losing funding, some universities have already taken action by alternately moving to close DEI offices; removing references to DEI from websites, policies and official materials; or even cancelling a planned celebration of International Women’s Day.
    At least two US schools have either severed or planned to sever links with the PhD Project, a programme founded in 1994 that is devoted to “increasing the number of brilliant educators from all communities”. In Europe, some institutions may quietly reduce their commitments, no longer seeing DEI as worth the political or institutional risk.

    The dilemma is no longer about how to advance diversity – but whether to defend it at all. Business schools must decide: is diversity still central to their mission, or just another line item to be dropped when the pressure mounts?

    If business schools are serious about their social mission, they must continue investing in diversity – not as a symbolic gesture, but as a structural commitment. Diversity, equity and inclusion are not peripheral concerns; they are embedded in frameworks like the Principle of Responsible Management Education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5: Gender Equality; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities) – benchmarks that many institutions cite as central to their values. More than 30 Nordic business schools, all members of AACSB, recently issued a joint statement that diversity remains a core value for them.

    Diversity and knowledge

    Beyond institutional mandates, diversity is foundational to the production of credible knowledge. In Why Trust Science? (2019), historian Naomi Oreskes argues that while “diversity does not heal all epistemic ills”, it plays a crucial role in identifying blind spots and challenging groupthink. Drawing on feminist theorists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino, she shows how epistemic communities that are diverse – and critically engaged – are better positioned to identify and correct biases. In more homogeneous groups, dominant assumptions often go unchallenged, leading to structural oversights that undermine both knowledge and legitimacy.

    At a time when trust in academic institutions is eroding, ensuring diverse perspectives is not just desirable – it is necessary. For business schools, which train future leaders and decision-makers, the stakes are especially high.

    This is a moment not to retreat from diversity, but to reclaim it. Rather than treating it as a politicized liability, schools can reassert it as a core academic and democratic value – a way of remaining relevant, rigorous and responsible. And in a climate where “woke” has become a catch-all insult, schools also have an opportunity to reclaim the term – not as provocation, but as a return to its original meaning: a principled alertness to social realities and structural injustice. The LGBTQI+ community’s reclamation of “queer” as a term of empowerment and resistance against societal norms can point the way.

    By reinforcing their commitment to diversity, business schools can help deepen critical inquiry, rebuild public trust in science and ultimately equip their students for leadership in this fractured world – which they will need to understand in all its complexity.

    Alessandro Ghio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively – https://theconversation.com/business-schools-are-facing-challenges-to-their-diversity-commitments-they-must-reinforce-them-to-train-leaders-effectively-252988

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

    Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

    Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

    There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

    With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.




    À lire aussi :
    Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively


    Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

    Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

    Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

    Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.




    À lire aussi :
    Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights


    The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

    The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

    Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

    The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

    The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

    The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.




    À lire aussi :
    A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’


    In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

    Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

    Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

    Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

    ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

    Ali Mamouri 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. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University

    In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.

    Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.

    At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.

    Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.

    Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:

    1. Threats to Canada’s sovereignty

    In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.

    Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.

    The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.

    Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?




    Read more:
    How political party data collection may turn off voters


    Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection?
    (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL

    2. Threats to Canada’s future

    Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.

    Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.

    For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.




    Read more:
    A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits


    In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.

    University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.

    Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.

    But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.

    3. Secret personal data collection

    Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.

    If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.

    4. Data can be dangerous in the wrong hands

    Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.

    Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”

    Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?

    What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?

    What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?

    OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.

    If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.

    Strengthening democracy

    Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.

    The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.

    Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.

    Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.

    ref. 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-bill-c-4s-threats-to-canadian-privacy-and-sovereignty-259331

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

    Residents of Los Angeles will need to get used to federally controlled National Guard troops operating on their streets. Due to a ruling from an appeals court on June 19, United States President Donald Trump now has broad authority to deploy military forces in American cities.

    This is a troubling development. All presidents have held in their grasp extraordinary powers to deploy military troops domestically. But Trump stands apart with his apparent keen interest in manufacturing false emergencies to exploit extraordinary power.

    An 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act restricts using the military for domestic law enforcement. The broader principle being challenged by Trump’s actions in L.A. is the norm of the military not being allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian governance.

    Injunctions and appeals

    Five months into Trump’s presidency, L.A. has been targeted for aggressive immigration enforcement. In their pluralistic city where dozens of languages and nationalities peacefully co-exist, some Angelenos believe the city is experiencing an attack on its most essential social fabric.

    On June 7, Trump acted under United States Code Title 10 provisions to take over command and control of California’s National Guard. Federalized military forces were deployed.

    The objective was to counter what Trump argued was a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. In fact, these “rebellions” were largely peaceful protests in downtown L.A.

    On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted an injunction restraining the president’s use of military force in L.A. The court order supported Gov. Gavin Newsom’s contention that Trump overstepped his authority.

    On June 19, a decision from a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction.

    What this means at the moment is that Trump does not have to return control of the troops to Newsom. California has options to continue litigation by asking the Federal Appeals Court to rehear the matter, or perhaps directly asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

    Moving toward authoritarianism

    Trump’s June 7 memorandum facilitating his move to overrule Newsom’s authority and seize control of 2,000 National Guard troops was based on the president defining his own so-called emergency.

    He claimed incidents of violence and disorder following aggressive immigration enforcement amounted to a form of rebellion against the U.S.

    As Trump flexes his emergency power might, his second term has been called the 911 presidency. He has used extraordinary emergency powers at a pace well beyond his predecessors, pressing the limits to address his administration’s supposed sense of serious perils overtaking the nation.

    Issues arise when the level of actual danger locally is not at all representative of what the president suggests is a full-scale national emergency. For example, demonstrations over immigration raids occupied only a tiny parcel of real estate in L.A.’s huge metropolitan area. A Los Angeles-based rebellion against the U.S. was not occurring.

    As dissent over aggressive immigration enforcement actions grew, localized clashes with law enforcement did occur. Mutual aid surged into Los Angeles, where neighbouring California law enforcement agencies acted to assist one another. The law enforcement challenges never rose to the level of the governor of California requesting additional federal support.

    Shortly after the federal government took over the California National Guard, Newsom said the move was purposefully inflammatory.

    In addition to declaring dubious emergencies to amass power, stoking violence is a characteristic of authoritarian rulers. Creating fear, division and feelings of insecurity can lead to community crises. Trump did not need to wait for a crisis; it seems he simply invented one.

    No guardrails

    The expression “out of kilter” comes to mind as Trump inches closer to invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. If so, the situation will look quite similar in practice to what is happening now in Los Angeles.

    Five years ago, Trump flirted with invoking the Insurrection Act during Black Lives Matter unrest in Washington, D.C., in and around Lafayette Park.

    As recent L.A. protests intensified, Trump stated: “We’re going to have troops everywhere.”

    Currently, there are few guardrails in place to prevent a rogue president from misusing the military in domestic civilian affairs. Trump has been coy about whether he would tap into the greater powers available to him under the Insurrection Act.

    Real emergencies presenting existential threats to America do persist. Nuclear proliferation, climate change and pandemics need serious leaders. But politically exploiting last-resort emergency laws designed to provide options to deal with genuine existential threats — not to weaponize them against protesters demonstrating against public policy — is absurd.

    Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    ref. Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities – https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-ruling-grants-donald-trump-broad-powers-to-deploy-troops-to-american-cities-258894

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Wilkinson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of British Columbia

    Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April’s federal election.

    Mark Carney’s new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history.

    Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation.




    Read more:
    Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump’s trade war — but it’s important not to take national pride too far


    Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed.

    For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin.




    Read more:
    This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about ‘land back’


    What is a nation?

    Both perspectives — and the public discussion of Canada’s national identity more generally — remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve.

    In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together.

    In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities,” since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens.

    These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community.

    There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers.

    Nations vs. states

    A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase “the people” is often used as a synonym for the national community.

    While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state.

    In Canada, there is the Québécois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada’s national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments — from Confederation onward — to build the society that Canadians live in today.

    The character of a particular nation is not fixed.

    The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence.

    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community’s past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better.

    Patriotism vs. nationalism

    A distinction is sometimes drawn between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell.

    For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one’s nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one’s nation.

    Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as “liberal nationalism.”

    The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress.

    In 1867, George-Étienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a “political nationality.” He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity.

    More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy.

    Cartier’s concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead.

    Reshaping Canadian identity

    In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada’s post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada’s national identity.




    Read more:
    40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada


    Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the “deux nations” origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out.

    As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada’s national identity wasn’t nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples.

    The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada’s identity. Canada’s national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community.

    This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time — including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada.

    In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada’s political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation — and it’s work worth doing.

    Eric Wilkinson 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. Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-how-canadian-nationalism-is-evolving-with-the-times-and-will-continue-to-do-so-259352

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark 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. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Paul Hamilton, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

    The recent resurgence of Canadian nationalism is a response to explicit threats made by United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to make Canada the 51st American state.

    Canadian flag sales have skyrocketed, informal and formal boycotts of American goods are continuing and Canadians are being urged to stay home and spend their vacation dollars domestically. Even in Québec, pro-Canadian sentiments are evident. Canadian nationalism is back.




    Read more:
    Is Trump’s assault on Canada bringing Québec and the rest of the country closer together?


    Yet only a decade ago, the newly elected Justin Trudeau labelled Canada the first “post-national nation” in an interview with The New York Times. In essence, the prime minister suggested, Canada was moving beyond nationalism to some new phase of social identity. Nationalism, like a step in the launch of a spacecraft, would be jettisoned now that it was a vestigial and outdated feature of Canadian society.

    As we argue in a recently presented paper to be published soon, Canadians are nowhere near either a homogeneous, popularly held identity, nor are they “beyond nationalism” as if it were an outdated hairstyle.

    Instead, Canadian steps toward a united, widely held nationalism continue to be stymied by both substantial constitutional issues (Québec, western alienation, Indigenous aspirations to self-determination) but also by battles over banal symbols of national identity. Canadians are, in the words of journalist Ian Brown, “a unity of contradictions.”

    The importance of symbols

    In his influential book, Banal Nationalism, British social science scholar Michael Billig highlighted the role of symbols like stamps, currency and flags to identify barely noticed transmitters of national consciousness.

    Writing in 1995, at a time of ethnic nationalist resurgence in the former Yugoslavia, Billig contrasted the understated, reserved nationalism of citizens of established states like Canada with the dangerous, passionate expressions of nationalism in the Balkans.

    This genteel nationalism is barely noticed much of the time, but proposals to alter national symbols arouse debate — like during the great Canadian flag debate of the mid-1960s — and expose deep emotional attachments. Canadians, too, are nationalists.

    But they’re also citizens of a liberal democracy where nationalistic narratives compete to define and unite the nation. Societies evolve and generational change can lead to new symbols reflecting changing values. The historical episodes of discontent pertaining to national symbols show how Canadian society has evolved since its drift away from Britain after the Second World War.

    During the flag debate, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said Canada needed a new flag that would present a united nation rather than a confusing amalgamation of different people. Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker, on the other hand, argued Canada should be “all Canadian and all British” during the debate, adding that any Canadian who disagreed should “be denounced.”

    The leaders could not agree, with Diefenbaker opting for something like the status quo and Pearson for a complete redesign that would represent all Canadians, regardless of national heritage. In a 1964 La Presse article on the debate, columnist Guy Cormier crudely voiced Québec’s concerns that Pearson’s handling of the flag debate was an attempt to “artificially inseminate” his agenda on the province. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reported on the debate, declaring that “tinkering with a nation’s flag is sort of like playing volleyball with a hornets nest.”

    Mountie symbolism

    As Canada became increasingly more multicultural in the 1980s, another symbol became the centre of controversy. A Sikh entering the RCMP wanted to be able to wear a turban instead of the traditional Stetson.

    Despite government and RCMP support, public opinion was mixed. Racist lapel pins were sold with the message “Keep the RCMP Canadian” as some argued the old uniform should remain and that new recruits should adapt to it.

    While few Canadians knew much about the design and history of the RCMP uniform, almost all Canadians consider it an iconic representation of Canada. Changes to it represent a threat to some, inclusion for others.

    Changes to the anthem, passport

    Changes to O Canada, the national anthem, have been proposed over the past decades. Recently, a more inclusive version was drafted, changing “in all thy sons command” to “all of us command.”

    Conservative MPs and some television pundits argued the change wasn’t necessary and the anthem doesn’t belong to a political party. Opponents argued that most people aren’t offended by the anthem’s lyrics, the anthem wasn’t broken and was not in need of fixing. Ultimately, the change was made, with great praise from some and vexation from others.

    Removing images of the late Terry Fox in 2023 from the Canadian passport, a document few think about until checking its expiry date before a vacation, caused significant uproar.

    Other images from Canadian history were also removed, but Fox’s removal was most notable since he was someone most Canadians consider the embodiment of a Canadian hero.

    The response to these changes ranged from mild — with those arguing that Canada needs more Terry Fox, not less, — to furious, as some accused Trudeau of being out of touch with Canadians and a “fault finder-in-chief.”

    Far from trivial, these arguments over national symbols reveal how deeply some Canadians are attached to them. The nature of Canadian identity and nationalism will continue to be dated and contested. In that respect, Canadians are no different than the citizens of any other country.

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

    ref. Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-symbols-take-centre-stage-in-debates-about-canadian-nationalism-259847

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on speaking softly and carrying a big stick. He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.


    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.


    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.


    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie 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 f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representatives Norma Torres and Brad Schneider Reintroduce the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

    June 30, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Norma J. Torres (CA-35) and Brad Schneider (IL-10) reintroduced the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act, legislation aimed at curbing illegal gun trafficking and reducing gun violence. The bill would require federally licensed firearms dealers to report the sale of two or more long guns—such as AR-15s or AK-47s—to the same individual within a five-day period.

    In 2022, law enforcement officials reported that the shooter from the Uvalde school shooting– which claimed the lives of 19 children and 2 teachers– purchased two AR platform rifles within a three-day period from a federally authorized dealer. In the United States, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens. Every year, 22,000 children and teens are shot and killed or wounded, and approximately 3 million are exposed to gun violence. In 2024 alone, there were  503 mass shootings, resulting in more than 16,725 deaths and 31,646 injuries. 

    “Just this month, I sat with young students in my district— who should be thinking about school, friends, and their futures—but instead, are advocating for a call to action against gun violence,” said Congresswoman Norma Torres. “Their voices, stories and their courage stay with me every day. This bill is a commonsense step to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America. That is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. Yet, Republicans in Congress continue to block meaningful reforms, and the Trump Administration is making it easier for dangerous individuals to access deadly weapons. I refuse to stand by as our communities suffer and families are torn apart. I’ll keep fighting with everything I have to close deadly loopholes, strengthen background checks, and finally ban assault weapons.”

    Mass shootings do not have to be inevitable—commonsense policies like requiring a report on the sale of two or more long guns in a 5-day period will help prevent tragedies and save lives,” said Rep. Schneider. “I’m proud to join Rep. Torres to introduce this bill and help address our senseless epidemic of mass shootings.”

    The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is supported by numerous gun safety and public interest organizations, including: March for Our Lives, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, National Education Association, and Amnesty International. 

    “There’s nothing unpredictable about gun violence in this country. When assault-style rifles are bought in bulk with no oversight, tragedy is often just days away. Young people have been sounding the alarm, and this bill answers that call with real, preventative action. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is common sense. We thank Reps. Torres and Schneider for stepping up, and we condemn anyone who stands in the way. A vote against this bill isn’t about gun rights. It’s a choice to look away while innocent people are murdered.” Jackie Corin, Executive Director of March For Our Lives

    “When individuals purchase multiple firearms in quick succession, it is often a sign of tragedy to come. Bulk firearms purchases are a strong indicator of gun trafficking or that guns will be used in criminal activity. It is essential that we require licensed gun dealers to report sales of multiple firearms, not just handguns, so we can better identify potential gun trafficking and cut off the supply of firearms that fuel transnational cartels and violence in our communities. Brady applauds Congresswoman Torres for introducing the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act and for her continued commitment to freeing America from gun violence.” Mark Collins, Director of Federal Policy, Brady: United Against Gun Violence

    “Requiring gun dealers to report bulk purchases of long guns is a commonsense step to help prevent gun trafficking and mass shootings. In many instances, individuals intent on causing harm have purchased multiple firearms within days of committing an attack. This bill provides law enforcement with a critical tool to identify patterns of suspicious activity and intervene before tragedy strikes. We applaud Congresswoman Torres for her leadership in modernizing how we detect and respond to potential threats.”  Vanessa Gonzalez, Vice President of Government & Political Affairs at GIFFORDS

    One of the most glaring red flags for a mass shooting is someone stockpiling semi-automatic weapons in a matter of days — but too often, this flag goes unnoticed,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We applaud Congresswoman Torres for introducing common-sense legislation to require gun dealers to speak up when they notice a seller stocking up on weapons of war.”

    Currently, a federal firearms licensee (e.g., a gun dealer) must report multiple sales or dispositions of pistols or revolvers to the same person within five business days- however, this requirement excludes reporting requirements for long guns, which include assault style rifles and shotguns. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act changes the requirement so federal firearms licensees must report multiple sales or dispositions of all firearms to the same person within five business days.

    Bill text

    The legislation is also cosponsored by Representatives: Barragán (CA-44), Cleaver (MO-5), DeGette (CO-01), Foushee (NC-04), García (IL-04), Goldman (NY-10), Johnson (GA-04), Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Lynch (MA-08), Neguse (CO-02), Norton (DC), Peters (CA-50), Pettersen (CO-07), Scanlon (PA-05), Schakowsky (IL-09), Smith (WA-09), Stansbury (NM-01), Swalwell (CA-14), Torres (NY-15), Vargas (CA-52), Velázquez (NY-07). 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Republicans Are Ripping People Off, Plunging Country Into Energy Crisis To Cut Taxes For Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – During a debate on the Republican tax bill, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) condemned the bill’s provisions to gut clean energy which will raise people’s energy bills by more than a hundred dollars starting next year and make blackouts and power outages more common across the country.

    “This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages,” said Senator Schatz. “And for what? It’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.”

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    There are a lot of people in this chamber and across the country who, on a non-ideological basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can invest with certainty and predictability. So let’s look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of this bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade.

    Now, there was a time, and I lived through it as a politician, there was a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue for that climate action because it is a planetary emergency and there were tradeoffs. And people on the other side said, “look, as we try to take action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can’t create shortages, we can’t increase prices, we can’t impede economic progress.” All that has flipped.

    This bill will create shortages. This bill will impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices. The 500GW less energy in the next decade is pretty much exactly the amount of energy that we’re going to need to meet rising demand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.

    And you don’t have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist. And I love clean energy, and I’m an environmentalist. But you don’t have to care about the climate. I think you should. You don’t have to care about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of supply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in decades, largely not exclusively, but largely because of AI data centers. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is with wind and solar, not oil and gas, even nuclear and geothermal are going to take a while.

    That is not just a political talking point or a preference of mine. It’s just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a years-long backlog. It’s also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last year came from solar and storage. It’s growing, it’s cheap, it works. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline waiting to be hooked up.

    So the idea that we’re going to kill the only energy that can be brought online in the short run, the very same week that half the country was meeting, melting in a record heat wave which left tens of thousands without power is beyond absurd.

    Let’s talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically, it creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in order to claim the clean energy tax credits. Remember, these clean energy tax cuts are federal law. They’re on the books. So when you have a federal statute, it is not unreasonable as an investor to say, look, I got this tax credit. I’m going to get X number, X percent back for my initial investment. And you do the pro forma, you do the underwriting. And you figure out that the thing pencils out. And now what they’re saying is that you got to be operational in 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or tried to do an extension – nothing gets built in 60 days. Certainly not a clean energy project, and it has to be placed in service. What does placed in service mean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have to have a power purchase agreement through your public service commission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in place in the next 60 days after enactment, or you get nothing.

    So imagine you’re a company investing in a solar battery storage project. You’ve already put money down, you’ve secured land and a power purchase agreement, and you’re working on permits. And when you started the project, the tax code said you could claim a credit to cover the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you’re out of luck. On average, a project takes four years to go through the full process. So even if you’ve already started that progress, you now have very, very little time to get it done. We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. And so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is going to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable proposition is the most dangerous part of this. I don’t know that we’ve ever, through federal law, made a big subsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry. And then halfway through that process, said, never mind. We didn’t mean that. You’re stuck.

    According to the Edison Electric Institute. And by the way, I can guarantee you this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever quote the Edison Electric Institute. That’ll cost people, not companies, people, ratepayers $60 billion in this decade alone. Your electric bills are about to go up. A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way. It is really unclear in the current version of the bill what the renewable energy industry even looks like, if it were passed today.

    An owner of a solar company in Montana, worried that the credits disappearing would force them to lay off half of his workers. He says, “Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase somehow. The practical energy needs are undeniable, so we can get past our disagreements and about phraseology. We realize that electrons, watts, amps, it’s all cheaper.” A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said, “I don’t look at what we do as green or blue or red. An electron doesn’t have a color.” And that’s the point. Electrons don’t have color. Wanting cheap, abundant energy is not woke. Wanting a livable planet for today and for future generations is not radical and wanting reliable power and to avoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project. But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the states that have benefited the most from these investments are Republican states.

    According to estimates, nearly three quarters of clean energy manufacturing facilities are located in Republican states. It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means Republicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican bill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their homes and businesses. Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs, and at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand that even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.

    Here’s a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year, “As our conference has long believed, and all of the above energy approach combined with a robust, advanced manufacturing sector will help support the United States position as a global energy leader. Countless American companies are utilizing sector wide energy tax credits, many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable sources alike.” And it goes on, “As energy demand continues to skyrocket. Any modifications that inhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risks sparking an energy crisis risks sparking an energy crisis.” 21 House Republicans are worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress. It goes on. “This is especially true for energy credits with direct pass through benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would increase utility bills the very next day – would increase utility bills the very next day.”

    This is not me, progressive Senator from the state of Hawai‘i, who has made a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House Republicans saying, like, “we’re going to create a crisis here. Maybe we shouldn’t pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us. If we’re all out here talking about all of the above. Why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?” Just because someone wants a talking point? People are literally going to lose their jobs immediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very challenging place to make major investments in, immediately upon enactment. The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment, and prices will go up pretty much right away as well.

    A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote, “For the first time, state and local governments, as well as essential nonprofit community organizations such as houses of worship, hospitals and schools, can access the same clean energy tax credits as the private sector through elective pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling infrastructure, and charging stations for local government fleets. After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1200 organizations, including 500 state and local governments are already accessing these incentives. We are excited about these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty in our communities as it would prevent us from accessing those important benefits.”

    You know, I grew up to understand Republicans were for avoiding unintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too quickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people could rely upon. This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself as energy policy. And what’s going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs and pay tons more for electricity.

    The building trades unions called this bill “the biggest job killing bill in the history of this country.”  And they go on. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.” I’ve been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our friends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends and labor about how important that project was to them, and how it was in tension with some of our climate goals.

    But listen to what they say. It is the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey, or Sheldon Whitehouse, or Martin Heinrich, or Rep Ocasio-Cortez, or any climate advocate. This is the building trades, and they’re saying this is the biggest job killer, perhaps, perhaps in American history. We actually don’t have to do this.

    The impetus behind this bill was essentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from expiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that’s what happens. And we were there for our own version of this, our own BBB, our own Build Back Better. And everybody in your party piles on with something new. And then the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass, because everybody’s got their hobbyhorse and somebody’s hobbyhorse is not just to have an all of the above energy strategy, but to go out of your way to kill clean energy.  It doesn’t matter that it’s going to raise prices. It doesn’t matter that it’s going to kill jobs.

    People at all levels, in the public and private sectors across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, which is this is a bad bill for regular people, for the economy and for the planet. One of the great things about our climate Bill was that it made what was good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy become became eminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to consumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn’t like the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal political, economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.

    And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct. But we’ve paved a new path, and we decided, look, there’s enough technology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that we can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower prices, and we can do it in such a way that blue states and red states, urban rural, suburban all benefit. Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it will hurt their constituents. And in doing so, we’re virtually guaranteeing China’s dominance in clean energy for decades to come. Because if you’re a China, you cannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly forfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the future because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the pre-industrial age.

    This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages. And for what? Partially, it’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires. But even kicking more than 16 million people off of health care coverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt was not enough.

    People voted for Donald Trump for all sorts of reasons, but no one voted for higher energy bills. No one voted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air and water. No one, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or independent, wants that. I want to be clear this fight is far from over. This fight over this bill is far from over.

    But even if this bill passes, it will set us back. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote, and that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous administration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and made changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has setbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.

    States like Hawai‘i will continue to do everything that they can to protect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without us, because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply not an option. But make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in the years and decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Department of Defense agrees: it’s time for Trump’s militarization of Los Angeles to end

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

    What you need to know: As President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles continues to hamstring crucial firefighting resources in California, new reporting indicates top military officials are asking the Secretary of Defense to return troops to firefighting operations as Governor Newsom has urged.

    SACRAMENTO – According to new reporting by the Associated Press, the top military commander overseeing troops illegally deployed to Los Angeles is asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to return 200 of those troops to firefighting operations – echoing Governor Gavin Newsom’s continued pleas. 

    With fires popping up across the state and red flag conditions in the forecast, the California National Guard’s (CalGuard) critical firefighting crews – known as Task Force Rattlesnake – are operating at just 40% capacity. Eight of 14 teams have been diverted to Los Angeles as part of President Trump’s illegal – and highly inefficient – federalization of the Guard. 

    We’re glad to see the top military commander overseeing Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles agree: it’s time to pull back National Guard troops and get them back to their critical firefighting duties. President Trump: listen to your military leaders, and stop the political theater.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Joint Task Force Rattlesnake is made up of over 300 California National Guard (CalGuard) members, who work at the direction of CAL FIRE to help fight and prevent fires. The President’s illegal federalization of the Guard has already impacted firefighting efforts, leaving CAL FIRE to step in to fill the gaps left by the Guard’s understaffing. 

    The National Guard impact is on top of the Trump administration’s dangerous cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which also threatens the safety of communities across the state. The U.S. Forest Service has lost 10% of all positions and 25% of positions outside of direct wildfire response – both of which are likely to impact wildfire response this year. 

    President Trump’s unlawful deployment has also slashed California’s National Guard fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32% — undermining public safety and weakening border fentanyl seizure operations.

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

    Despite the strain caused by President Trump, California stands ready to protect communities. As part of the state’s ongoing investment in wildfire resilience and emergency response, CAL FIRE has significantly expanded its workforce over the past five years by adding an average of 1,800 full-time and 600 seasonal positions annually – nearly double that from the previous administration. Over the next four years and beyond, CAL FIRE will be hiring thousands of additional firefighters, natural resource professionals, and support personnel to meet the state’s growing demands.

    This builds on consecutive years of intensive and focused work by California to confront the severe ongoing risk of catastrophic wildfires, and Governor Newsom’s emergency proclamation signed in March to fast-track forest and vegetation management projects throughout the state. Additionally, to bolster the state’s ability to respond to fires, Governor Newsom recently announced that the state’s second C-130 Hercules airtanker is ready for firefighting operations, adding to the largest aerial firefighting fleet in the world. 

    New, bold moves to streamline state-level regulatory processes builds long-term efforts already underway in California to increase wildfire response and forest management in the face of a hotter, drier climate. A full list of California’s progress on wildfire resilience is available here.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom is issuing an extension to his executive order making it easier for survivors of the LA firestorms to retain temporary shelter. The order helps continue to boost temporary housing supply by extending the amount of time…

    News What you need to know: Californians are urged to practice common sense and safety when using fireworks to celebrate this Fourth of July. People who resort to using illegal fireworks will be held accountable. SACRAMENTO – With Fourth of July celebrations set to go…

    News ✅ CUMPLIDO: Reducción de impuestos para jubilados militares ✅ CUMPLIDO: Pre-kinder universal para todos ✅ CUMPLIDO: Ampliación de programas antes y después de clases y cursos de verano ✅ CUMPLIDO: Alimentación escolar gratuita para todos los niños ✅ CUMPLIDO:…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Administrator Loeffler Pens Op-Ed in Support of One Big Beautiful Bill

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), published an op-ed in Fox News – highlighting how President Donald J. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill will benefit America’s 34 million small businesses. Her piece underscores specific provisions of the legislation that will drive Main Street job creation, growth, and prosperity – including making the 199A Pass-Through Deduction permanent, eliminating tax on tips and overtime, incentivizing the return of Made in America, bringing more able-bodied Americans back into the workforce, and cutting red tape.

    This month, Administrator Loeffler has traveled to Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, and North Carolina to meet with small business owners and highlight the urgent need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill – to protect working- and middle-class job creators from the largest tax hike in American history.

    Read the op-ed or view excerpts below:

    “Since February, I’ve traveled across the country meeting with small business owners in nearly every sector – from family farms and factory floors to the Main Street cornerstones of restaurants and retailers. Their message is clear: they don’t want bailouts, bigger tax bills or bureaucracy. They want a tax code that enables them to plan for the long term, puts more money in their pockets, and rewards – not punishes – work, entrepreneurship and growth. This bill delivers on all three.”

    “The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” prevents the largest tax hike in history. It makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, including the Section 199A deduction – leaving more capital in the hands of America’s 34 million small business owners to hire, expand and reinvest in their operations. This provision alone is projected to create 1 million new jobs on Main Street and generate $750 billion in economic activity over the next decade.”

    “Unlike his predecessor, Trump has never lost sight of those who drive the American economy. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a reflection of his commitment to working families and small businesses. It delivers real tax relief, trims Washington overreach, rewards work and puts small businesses back where they belong – at the center of America’s success story.  Congress should act without delay. Small businesses are ready to keep building, hiring and innovating – this time with most in Washington finally behind them.”

    # # #

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration
    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of entrepreneurship. As the leading voice for small businesses within the federal government, the SBA empowers job creators with the resources and support they need to start, grow, and expand their businesses or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Trump Is Delivering Historic Permitting Wins Across the Federal Government

    Source: US Whitehouse

    ACCOMPLISHING PERMITTING REFORM IN RECORD TIME:  Today, President Donald J. Trump delivered on his promise to fix a broken permitting system, ensuring that burdensome Federal environmental reviews cannot be weaponized to stall the growth of the American economy or halt energy infrastructure construction.

    • The White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), coordinated a historic effort to dramatically reduce the burdens of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance across the Federal government so that America can get back to building again.
    • In consultation with CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers updated their respective NEPA implementing procedures to  simplify this overly burdensome process and ensure efficient and timely environmental reviews.
    • These historic reforms:
      • Implement deadlines and page limits on environmental reviews required under recent amendments to NEPA, in order to expedite infrastructure development and reduce costs.
      • Provide clarification that NEPA does not apply to every action that a Federal agency takes, but only to Federal actions where the agency has sufficient control and discretion to take environmental effects into account.
      • Ensure simple and expeditious processes to create categorical exclusions (CEs), adopt other agencies’ CEs to minimize repetitive NEPA analyses, and focus their attention on actions with truly significant environmental effects.

    CUTTING UNNECESSARY RED TAPE: All three branches of the Federal government have recently directed reforms to the NEPA process: President Trump, in his Unleashing American Energy Executive Order; the United States Congress, in its BUILDER Act amendments as part of the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its recent landmark decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.

    • NEPA directs all agencies to maintain their own, agency-level NEPA implementing procedures.
    • Most of those procedures had not been modernized to reflect any of the recent reforms. Some agencies were still using outdated NEPA regulations from the 1980s.
    • Under President Trump’s leadership, the endless cycle of regulatory back-and-forth and excessive environmental reviews that produced little benefit for the American people has come to a halt.
    • Federal agencies are cutting unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in record time by implementing the unmistakable direction from all three branches of the Federal government. 

    BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: The Trump Administration has taken decisive action to reform, modernize, and expedite the Federal environmental review, eliminating unnecessary delays that are holding back the growth of secure and reliable infrastructure projects across the Nation.

    • On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, which called for unleashing American energy dominance through efficient permitting.
      • The E.O. directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite and simplify the permitting process – and propose rescinding CEQ’s regulations.
      • CEQ responded to President Trump’s direction by rescinding its NEPA regulations, creating a clear path for agencies to expeditiously reform their own NEPA procedures and allow America to build again.
      • President Trump’s action to restore CEQ to its core statutory mission of coordinating and consulting, providing guidance to Federal agencies as they revise their NEPA procedures, will ensure timely reviews and consistency across agencies and enable CEQ to coordinate this monumental deregulatory effort.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Making New York Safer During Gun Violence Awareness Month

    Source: US State of New York

    [embedded content]

    [embedded content]

    New York State Office of Victim Services Director Bea Hanson said, “Communities across New York State are experiencing record-low incidents of gun violence, but some communities still experience more gun violence than others. And we know that even one victim is one too many. All survivors, their families and communities need continued support, increased access to services, and expanded programs that focus on both prevention and intervention. OVS is proud to support the work of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and remains committed to ensuring that all survivors have the resources they need to recover and thrive. We thank Governor Hochul for prioritizing public safety and for her unwavering support to continue reducing gun violence in all our communities.”

    State Senator Zellnor Myrie said, “At a time when the Trump Administration is rolling back efforts to stop gun violence nationwide, New York continues to lead the way. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention will coordinate efforts among localities and community groups, collect and share data on best practices, and help organizations on the front lines of this fight weather the storms coming from Washington. Our community deserves a whole-of-government approach to ending gun violence, and I am proud to have led the effort to establish OGVP alongside Assemblymember Monique Chandler-Waterman and advocates who are fighting for public safety.”

    State Senator Nathalia Fernandez said, “Gun violence has cut too many lives short — and the current administration has turned their backs on us by closing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. By codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in New York, we’re saying that our right to safety, community, and to life itself is worth defending. I thank Governor Hochul for not only responding to gun violence, but also investing in the infrastructure to prevent it.”

    Assemblymember Monique Chandler-Waterman said, “We are at a pivotal moment in time with these vital investments of securing in state stature the NYS Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This office will be rooted in data collection, public education, wrap-around services, community collaboration, providing funding to local anti-violence groups and effective coordination between agencies and stakeholders. We are taking a bold step toward ending gun violence and addressing the trauma that continues to devastate our communities. While also codifying a new term called mass gun violence that will activate this office to coordinate resources to impacted communities. Thank you to the Governor for prioritizing our survivors, community members and anti-violence community based organizations on the ground doing this important work. As the co-chair of the NYS Anti-Gun Violence Subcommittee of the NYS Black Puerto Rican Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus I am proud of the movement we’ve made here in New York that will serve as a model for states across the country—especially at a time when federal funding for comprehensive, preventative approaches to gun violence is being slashed. Deepened financial investments will ensure long-term support to address this public health crisis in a real and lasting way. This is a step in the right direction and I will continue to advocate for more investments until the day we can say not another loved one was murdered due to gun violence.”

    State Senator Jamaal T. Bailey said, “Codifying the State Office of Gun Violence Prevention is about building a lasting commitment to saving lives. As we see a decline in shootings, we cannot grow complacent. Now is the time to double down, to institutionalize the progress we’ve made and ensure our strategies are permanent, proactive, and rooted in community. This Office will serve as a centralized hub for prevention, coordination, and innovation to keep the voices of those most impacted at the center of the conversation. Thank you to Senator Zellnor Myrie and Assembly Member Monique Chandler-Waterman for sponsoring the bill. I thank Governor Kathy Hochul, Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie for their continued leadership and their partnership in making public safety a priority for every neighborhood across the State of New York.”

    State Senator Kristen Gonzalez said, “As the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans cut funding for violence prevention and dismantle offices to address this crisis our state is showing leadership. Every New Yorker including my constituents deserves to be safe. The codification of a state Office of Gun Violence Prevention will ensure this important initiative can carry on in future administrations and that we can more intentionally track and address this public health emergency. I’m grateful to my colleagues who worked on this legislation and the issue and the Governor for including it in our state budget.”

    State Senator Leroy Comrie said, “Gun violence is a public health crisis that demands a united, data-driven response. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention into law and look forward to increased investment in the Crisis Management Services providers who do this work everyday, from Southeast Queens to East Buffalo. With CMS organizations involved at every level, this office will help ensure we’re not only addressing violence when it happens, but working to prevent it in the first place.”

    Assemblymember Michaelle Solages said, “While Washington turns its back, New York is stepping up. Governor Hochul, our State Legislature, and local advocates are proving what real action looks like. By making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent, we are saving lives and supporting communities that have been marginalized for too long. The drop in shootings shows this approach works and we will keep going until every New Yorker feels safe.”

    Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz said, “Following alarming spikes of gun violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, New York State has seen a steady decrease in gun violence during the last few years. Many of the investments we’re making, including providing funding for the establishment of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and expanding the duties of the Division of Criminal Justice Services to include gun violence intervention and prevention strategies, will contribute towards our continued success in addressing gun violence. Legislation has also been a key factor contributing to the decline of gun violence, including my law requiring a person who seeks to obtain a gun license or purchase a firearm to be made aware of the dangers of ownership, including the increased risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and unintentional deaths of others while and making them aware of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. I look forward to continuing to work with my partners in government in reaching our ultimate goal of eradicating the scourge of gun violence in our state.”

    Assemblymember Yudelka Tapia said, “Gun violence has devastated too many families in the Bronx and across New York State. By making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent, our state is making it clear that we will not turn our backs on the communities most impacted by this crisis. This office will strengthen violence interruption efforts, increase access to youth programs, and provide long-term support to grassroots organizations working on the frontlines.”

    “By codifying the State’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we’re increasing the impact of our efforts to mitigate gun crimes in New York and working directly with the communities most affected by gun violence to fundamentally change the way we address and combat this public health crisis across our state.”

    Governor Kathy Hochul

    Assemblymember Nikki Lucas said, “I am in support of the establishment of an Office of Gun Violence. Members of my district like New Yorkers across our state, hold accountable government to provide Public Safety services for all. The Office of Gun Violence is another crucial step that protects all New Yorkers including families, domestic violence survivors, police officers, incarcerated individuals along with providing critical psychological testing for candidates in need. I am happy to stand with Governor Hochul along with my colleagues in government who have worked to make this a reality.”

    Assemblymember Brian Cunningham said, “We’ve seen gun violence go down in my district because prevention works. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention, now formally established in the state budget, will expand that impact by coordinating funding, supporting local groups, and improving accountability. Communities most affected by gun violence deserve strategic, evidence-based solutions, and the Governor’s work here positions New York to deliver them.”

    Assemblymember Landon Dais said, “Here in the Bronx, we have unfortunately seen Gun violence devastate too many families for far too long. The formal establishment of New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention is a critical step in making sure our communities get the resources, coordination, and support they deserve. As a father of two young boys growing up in the Bronx, I recognized the need for a holistic approach to ending gun violence. One that does not only criminalize but finds our youth something to do and prevents them from picking up guns in the first place. I commend Governor Hochul for her commitment to real, lasting solutions because every New Yorker, from the South Bronx to upstate, deserves to feel safe where they live, work, and raise their families.”

    Assemblymember George Alvarez said, “I applaud Governor Hochul on her successful efforts to significantly reduce gun violence over the past year. It’s been my honor to work alongside the Governor and my colleagues in the State legislature to make our communities safer. In the face of declining support for gun safety at the Federal level, I congratulate the Governor on making permanent the Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP). The time is now for New York to take such measures to protect our residents against the ravages of guns on our streets.”

    Assemblymember John Zaccaro, Jr. said, “I was proud to support legislation in this year’s budget that would codify the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and applaud the Governor’s dedication and leadership combating gun violence in our cities. New York State continues to set the benchmark for success in the battle to address the gun epidemic and the numbers don’t lie. Shootings are down 21% in New York City and gun involved homicides are the lowest on record. As we forge ahead, New York will continue to lead with an emphasis on keeping our communities safe.”

    Assemblymember Chantel Jackson said, “As someone who has seen firsthand the pain gun violence inflicts on our communities, I commend Governor Hochul for formalizing New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This is not just policy, this is about protecting lives, uplifting neighborhoods, and ensuring families can feel safe in their own homes. The data speaks for itself, we’re shown that when we invest in prevention, support our communities, and take a comprehensive approach, we save lives. New York is showing the nation what it means to prioritize public safety, and I am proud to stand alongside this effort.”

    Queens Borough President Donovan Richards Jr. said, “Gun violence has claimed far too many lives and torn apart far too many families across our city. As someone whose career was kick-started by the loss of a close friend to gun violence, I’m proud to work alongside Governor Hochul and all our city and community partners to drive down shootings and save lives in our neighborhoods. From building a new 116th Precinct to addressing the root causes of crime to now codifying the state’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we are delivering on a data-driven, community-based approach to gun violence that keeps New York neighborhoods and families safe. The work is never over, however, and these tireless efforts will continue uninterrupted.”

    New York City Council Member Keith Powers said, “Gun violence is a heartbreaking public health crisis. I’m proud that New York has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country, which are critical to keeping our communities safe. The state’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention leads the way on ensuring guns don’t get into the hands of those who could do harm, and I am glad that it is now a codified part of our state’s efforts to curb violence from firearms.”

    Embedded Flickr Album

    New York City Council Member Kevin C. Riley said, “As a Council Member representing communities deeply impacted by gun violence, I commend Governor Hochul for making the Office of Gun Violence Prevention permanent in New York State law. This office strengthens our ability to invest in life-saving, community-based solutions that address the root causes of violence. We know that public safety is about more than policing; it is about prevention, healing, and opportunity. I look forward to continuing this critical work alongside our state partners to protect our neighborhoods and uplift our youth.”

    New York City Council Member Carlina Rivera said, “New York and our nation continue to face the public health crisis of gun violence. Too many residents still live in fear, and we must double down on comprehensive policies, investments, and community partnerships to stop the violence. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying New York’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention into law, a vital step that will strengthen coordination and expand proven prevention strategies.”

    New York City Council Member Rita Joseph said, “As a mother, an educator, and a proud representative of a community that has felt the devastating impact of gun violence, I wholeheartedly support Governor Hochul’s announcement to formalize the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This is the kind of bold, compassionate leadership we need—one that recognizes that public safety means investing in prevention, healing, and community. I look forward to working in partnership with the state to ensure that our young people can grow up in neighborhoods free from the threat of gun violence.”

    District Attorneys Association of the State of New York President and Rensselaer County District Attorney Mary Pat Donnelly said, “New York State’s prosecutors appreciate Governor Hochul’s commitment to curbing gun violence in our State. My own county, Rensselaer, is one of the 21 counties that are part of the Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative that focuses on the reduction of firearm-related homicides and shootings in communities outside of New York City. The support from this program and others led by the Division of Criminal Justice Services has been successful in reducing gun violence and in enhancing gun-involved crime reduction strategies. Along with my fellow District Attorneys and our larger law enforcement community, I look forward to continued partnerships with our state related to tackling gun crimes and supporting victims of those crimes.”

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr., said, “While shootings are down 69% in Manhattan compared to this time in 2021, we will not take our eye off the ball. Permanently codifying the Office of Gun Violence Prevention is an important measure to ensure a coordinated response across all corners of the State, and the perfect way to close out gun violence awareness month. I thank Governor Hochul for her steadfast commitment to combatting gun violence.”

    Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said, “Gun violence reached a record low in Brooklyn last year, but we cannot take that progress for granted. A dedicated Office of Gun Violence Prevention will give New York the tools to better coordinate responses, support communities, and develop data-driven strategies to save lives. I commend the Legislature for passing this important and proactive public safety legislation, and I applaud Governor Hochul for signing it into law.”

    Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark said, “One shooting victim is too many so anything we can do to prevent gun violence must be done. Governor Hochul’s strategies to reduce the harm and heartbreak in our community are concrete steps. But efforts must be made to improve opportunities for our youth and to stop the flow of firearms so they do not get into the hands of children.”

    Richmond County District Attorney Michael E. McMahon said, “Although recorded shootings are at a historic low so far this year on Staten Island – one shooting is one shooting too many, and law enforcement needs all the help it can get to eradicate the scourge of gun violence from our communities. From taking nearly 800 firearms off our streets through our gun buyback partnership with the NYPD to implementing precision prosecution in the courtroom, the men and women of my office are committed to removing illegal firearms from our communities and holding those who dare use these dangerous weapons accountable under the law. However, more must be done to prevent acts of gun violence and protect New Yorkers from its deadly consequences. I commend Governor Hochul for codifying the New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention and for her continued commitment to keeping Staten Islanders and all New Yorkers safe from the threat of gun violence.”

    Newly released data comes from the 28 police departments outside of New York City participating in the state’s Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative. Cities including Albany, Buffalo and Rochester all reported double-digit reductions in both shooting incidents involving injury and the number of individuals shot. In May 2025, four individuals were killed by gun violence across these jurisdictions, down from 13 in May 2024.

    To build on this progress, OGVP will launch a statewide safe storage public awareness campaign and make $5 million available for community-based organizations to provide safe spaces for youth mentorship, mental health services, and recreational programming in the coming months. The awareness campaign will promote responsible gun ownership and distribute free gun locks to help prevent firearm-related injuries and deaths, especially among children and teens.

    About the Office of Gun Violence Prevention
    The New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP), housed within the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), leads a coordinated statewide approach to preventing gun violence. Its mission is to build a comprehensive, equity-driven public health model that addresses the root causes of violence by strengthening communities and public systems. OGVP plays a central role in New York’s broader violence prevention ecosystem, partnering with the Department of Health (DOH), the Office of Children and Family Services (OFCS), the Office of Mental Health (OMH), the Office of Victim Services (OVS), and State and local stakeholders across New York, including the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD), and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). Visit the Office of Gun Violence Prevention webpage to learn more.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Kehoe Takes Action on FY26 State Operating Budget Bills

    Source: US State of Missouri

    JUNE 30, 2025

     — Delivering on his promise to present Missourians with a reasonable, conservative budget that continues to secure Missouri’s future, today Governor Mike Kehoe signed the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) state operating and capital improvement budget bills. Governor Kehoe’s action to deliver a $50.8 billion budget includes 208 vetoes, totaling nearly $300 million in general revenue, and 32 expenditure restrictions, totaling $211 million in general revenue.

    The budget sent to the Governor’s Office added 450 items and nearly $775 million in additional spending beyond the Governor’s original budget recommendation. This excessive spending requires decisive action, particularly when combined with reduced pandemic federal dollars, broad tax cuts that benefit Missourians, and the undeniable need for extraordinary emergency disaster relief.

    “We appreciate the work of the General Assembly in getting this budget to my desk,” said Governor Kehoe. “While we exercised veto authority to rein in unsustainable spending, we are proud to support funding for smart policies advancing our shared vision of a safer, stronger, and more prosperous Missouri. We believe this budget reflects our commitment to limited government, fiscal discipline, and a long-term vision to support public priorities.”

    Approved Budgetary Spending

    Prioritizing Public Safety

    In his inaugural State of the State Address, Governor Kehoe emphasized that securing Missouri’s future begins with public safety. The FY26 budget includes critical law enforcement and crime prevention tools, training, and resources:

    • $10 million in new funding to assist local communities who prioritize public safety with equipment and training needs through the Blue Shield Program.
    • $7 million investment for fentanyl testing in wastewater systems at schools.
    • $2 million in support for the Missouri sheriff’s retirement system.

    For more public safety budget highlights, click here.

    Emphasizing Economic Development

    Missouri’s economy is driven by investing in initiatives that create jobs, enhance infrastructure, and provide critical support to families and businesses. By addressing needs such as rural roads, childcare access, and career-technical training, we foster innovation, strengthen communities, and ensure that Missouri remains a competitive and thriving state for all:

    • $91 million for rural road improvements.
    • $10 million to offer grant funding opportunities to support partnerships between employers, community partners, and the childcare industry to make more childcare slots available for Missouri families.
    • $11 million in new funding to address equipment, space, and operational needs of career and technical centers across the state.

    For more economic development budget highlights, click here.        

    Bolstering Agriculture

    Missouri’s agriculture industry is the backbone of the state’s economy, feeding and clothing not just Missourians, but the world. To ensure the continued growth and resilience of this vital sector, Governor Kehoe is committed to investing in critical infrastructure, modernizing facilities, and supporting animal health initiatives. The FY26 budget includes:

    • $55 million in bonding for Missouri State Fair facilities.
    • $800,000 in ongoing funding for Missouri FFA.
    • $330,871 to increase Missouri’s inspection and production capacity in the meat and poultry industry.

    For more agriculture budget highlights, click here.

    Strengthening Education

    Governor Kehoe believes that funding our state’s education system ensures every student has the opportunity to achieve their full potential while preparing Missouri’s future workforce for success. The legislature approved the following education spending:

    • $376.6 million to support the state’s full reimbursement of transportation costs to school districts, including $15 million in new funding.
    • $50 million in general revenue funding to bolster the Empowerment Scholarship Account program.
    • $33.4 million to ensure all teachers are paid at least the statutory minimum.

    For more education budget highlights, click here.

    Budget Vetoes & Expenditure Restrictions

    The Missouri FY26 state operating budget is approximately $50.8 billion, including $15.4 billion in general revenue. In the FY26 budget approved by the General Assembly, nearly $775 million in new general revenue spending was added above the Governor’s budget recommendation, including 450 items that Governor Kehoe did not propose or went beyond his recommendation.

    Additionally, the Office of Administration’s Division of Budget and Planning estimates a nearly $1 billon shortfall in general revenue starting in FY27. Contributing to this shortfall, ongoing general revenue spending authorized in the FY26 budget is projected to outpace ongoing revenues by over $1 billion and grow larger in future years. While Missouri currently has a general revenue fund balance to absorb some of this imbalance in the short term, the current trajectory of state-level spending grows this imbalance, exhausts any remaining surplus, and leads to the aforementioned $1 billion shortfall starting in FY27, if correction is not made.

    There were also several budgetary and legislative decisions made during the 2025 Legislative Session and Extraordinary Session that were not considered in Governor Kehoe’s FY26 budget recommendation but compound the budgetary challenges the State is facing:

    • Additional funding for the K-12 Foundation Formula – In his budget recommendation, Governor Kehoe proposed a $200 million increase for public education funding, representing the largest increase ever seen, and nearly 4 times larger than the average annual increase. The General Assembly chose to spend an additional $297 million on top of Governor Kehoe’s historic recommendation.
    • Tax Cuts – The General Assembly approved, and Governor Kehoe has committed to signing, pro-growth legislation eliminating the income tax on capital gains, which is expected to reduce state revenues by approximately $400 million annually. Governor Kehoe supports tax cuts and is proud to return Missourians’ hard-earned dollars back to them, but the reduction in state revenues must be accounted for in current and future budget decisions.
    • Disaster Relief – Unforeseen severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding have caused unprecedented damage to communities across the state. Governor Kehoe supported, and the General Assembly approved, over $210 million in extraordinary emergency disaster relief for Missourians. While the need is undeniable, the cost must still be reconciled in the budgetary process.

    Governor Kehoe issued 208 vetoes, totaling nearly $300 million in general revenue. To view the complete list of budget vetoes, click here.

    “As Governor, I have a constitutional obligation to balance the budget, and our administration will always follow the Constitution and rule of law,” said Governor Kehoe. “We support funding for education, and have proudly championed tax cuts for hard-working Missouri families and the desperately needed resources for our fellow Missourians affected by natural disasters this spring. However, these initiatives do not come without budgetary consequences.”

    In addition to his vetoes in the FY26 budget, Governor Kehoe today also restricted spending on 32 budget items, totaling $211 million in general revenue, from the FY26 state operating budget. To view the complete list of expenditure restrictions, click here.

    “We do not take this action lightly, but state government cannot spend beyond our means,” said Governor Kehoe. “With current circumstances, the fiscally responsible and conservative thing to do is reduce spending and protect Missouri’s nationally recognized financial strength in preparation for difficult budget years ahead. These restrictions are not an indication of project worthiness – we understand their value, and that’s why we chose not to veto them. Rather, these withholds allow us to direct Missourians’ hard-earned tax dollars toward the most critical programs and projects that support Missouri families.”

    Governor Kehoe is taking these fiscally conservative steps now in an effort to help ease the burden of broader budget cuts required to balance the budget, a constitutional responsibility of the Missouri Governor, in FY27 and future years. Governor Kehoe and his Office of Administration’s Division of Budget and Planning budget team, working alongside the General Assembly, will continue to assess Missouri’s financial outlook and evaluate the likely need for additional budget restrictions moving forward.

    “We want to assure Missourians that this action is not indicative of a larger economic problem, as our economy remains strong and resilient,” said Governor Kehoe. “Just as President Trump and the federal government is reigning in spending, the State of Missouri must do the same. While we do not have an economic problem in Missouri, we do have a spending problem in state government. By working with the General Assembly, our administration commits to the people of Missouri to get spending under control and support Missouri’s economic growth so that our fiscal outlook improves and these restrictions may be released in future years.”

    To view the FY26 state operating budget bills, click here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Shaheen Introduces Amendments to Improve Republican Budget Reconciliation Bill, Keep Costs from Skyrocketing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    **Congressional Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill would slash Medicaid and food assistance benefits for tens of thousands of Granite Staters**
    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a top member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, is offering multiple amendments to the Congressional Republican’s budget reconciliation bill that would keep health insurance and energy costs from skyrocketing, help more working families cover a greater share of the high cost of child care, make life-saving insulin more affordable for Granite Staters and more. In a Senate floor speech last night, Shaheen condemned the “Big Beautiful Bill” for ripping away health care and food assistance from millions of Americans, raising household energy costs, adding to the national debt and more in order to cut taxes for billionaires – labeling it the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in history. 
    “While my Republican colleagues jam through a disastrous budget bill that punishes working families in order to make life easier for billionaires, I’m offering multiple amendments that would help lower costs and address real challenges for Granite Staters,” said Senator Shaheen. “At a time when families are getting squeezed by the high cost of living, we should be doing all we can to help them get ahead – this bill would do the exact opposite.” 
    Below is an overview of the amendments Senator Shaheen is introducing to lessen the harmful impacts of the Republican-led budget reconciliation bill:  
    To improve access to affordable insulin, Shaheen is introducing an amendment to cap the cost of the life-saving medicine at $35 a month, among other provisions to permanently lower the cost of insulin. 
    To help more working families cover a greater share of the high cost of child care, Shaheen is co-leading an amendment to expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. 
    To make housing more affordable, lower household energy costs and protect good American jobs, Shaheen is introducing an amendment to reverse Republicans’ repeal of tax credits for energy saving home improvements and new home construction. 
    To address ongoing workforce challenges at New Hampshire’s FCI Berlin, Shaheen is introducing an amendment to require the Bureau of Prisons to allocate a portion of its funding to restore critical retention incentives that Shaheen previously helped secure and were cut by the Trump Administration. 
    To support workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Shaheen is introducing an amendment to require that Armed Services funding not be used to reduce the civilian shipyard workforce. 
    To fund repairs at the Newcastle Coast Guard Station damaged in January 2024, Shaheen is introducing an amendment to prioritize Coast Guard funding for facilities in need of repair. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: In Senate Floor Speech Ahead of Reconciliation Vote, Shaheen Decries Republican Megabill as “Largest Transfer of Wealth from the Poor to the Rich in a Single Bill in History”, Urges Colleagues to Vote No

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke on the Senate floor tonight to highlight the devastating impacts the Republican reconciliation bill will have on families in New Hampshire and across America. In her speech, Shaheen condemned the “Big Beautiful Bill” for ripping away health care and food assistance from millions of Americans, raising household energy costs, adding to the national debt and more in order to cut taxes for billionaires – labeling it the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in history. Click here to view Senator Shaheen’s remarks in full. 
    Key Quotes from Senator Shaheen:
    “This bill is the largest cut to health care in American history. […] Because of these cuts, more than 300 rural hospitals could close; more than 500 nursing homes could close. These are core programs and services that benefit our seniors, children, veterans, people living with disabilities and working families. […]Over the past several weeks, past couple of months, I’ve toured New Hampshire. I’ve heard from countless constituents who are deeply anxious about what this bill means for them and their families. Again and again, they say plainly: without Medicaid or the ACA, they wouldn’t be here today.” 
    “During this time of high food prices of increasing food insecurity, it’s particularly critical for families to be able to rely on SNAP to help them keep food on the table. One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring states to pay higher costs. Now, as the former governor of New Hampshire, I can tell you how much of a burden this is on our state’s budget.” 
    “For families concerned about energy costs, this bill only offers more pain. […] This bill cuts off long-standing tax credits for consumers—for average, everyday Americans—to make energy saving improvements to their homes or to add rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills. After countless promises to lower peoples’ energy bills, this legislation would do just the opposite.” 
    “You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more than 30 years ago. This bill that we’re considering today would do more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire time in public office. This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of energy, health care and education. This bill takes food and health care away from seniors and families, and it does all of that—it does all of that—to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process.” 
    Full Remarks as Delivered:
    Mr. President, I’m really here on the floor to oppose the reconciliation bill that we’re considering today.
    It would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill in our history.
    This legislation would take away health care from millions of Americans. It would cut food aid for millions more. It would raise household energy and health care bills and it would add trillions to the debt, all to give the top, not just 1%, but the top .1% of people who make more than $2.5 million a year, an extra $250,000 a year. 
    At a moment when Americans are struggling with the high cost of living, this bill will take money out of the pockets of working people, the average household making less than $50,000. That’s 30% of Americans. So 30% of Americans will lose about $700 a year from this bill.
    Now, here are some of the ways that it hurts middle class Americans—the people who I’m very proud to represent in New Hampshire. Somehow the Senate took a bad bill, or what I thought was a bad bill from the House, and they made it much, much worse.
    This bill is the largest cut to health care in American history. In total, the bill proposes more than $1 trillion, $1 trillion, in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. $930 billion of that is Medicaid alone. And because of these cuts, more than 300 rural hospitals could close. More than 500 nursing homes could close.
    These are core programs and services that benefit seniors, children, veterans, people living with disabilities and working families.
    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million Americans, including 43,000 Granite Staters, will lose their health insurance.
    Now, over the past several weeks, past couple of months, I’ve toured New Hampshire. I’ve heard from countless constituents who are deeply anxious about what this bill means for them and for their families.
    Again and again, they have said plainly: without Medicaid, without the Affordable Care Act, they would not be here today.
    I heard from Danielle in Dalton, the northern part of New Hampshire. Danielle is a proud mother of three sons, two of whom have autism. Danielle’s sons rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and for their home care.
    Danielle is not only their full time caregiver, but she receives a stipend from Medicaid to provide for their care. And thanks to Medicaid, both of her sons are able to work part time. They’re able to live at home with their mom, and they’re able to remain active in the community.
    This bill would put all of that at risk. Danielle says her sons could have difficulty qualifying for Medicaid under these new rules, and losing Medicaid would be catastrophic for her family because it would likely force her sons out of work, out of her home and into a group home or institution.
    And so it’s going to cost a lot more if that happens. Her boys are now contributing members of society, and this bill threatens not only their livelihood and their independence and their future, it threatens their dignity.
    I heard from Sean in Claremont. Sean shared with me his story of addiction to alcohol, cocaine and heroin, and his long road to recovery. After several near-death experiences, he found stability in a sober living home and enrolled in Medicaid. With access to treatment, he was able to hold a job and get his life back on track.
    He eventually opened his own sober living home, Hope to Freedom, where he now helps others suffering from addiction so that they can enroll in Medicaid and begin their own journey to sobriety.
    I heard from Carla in Exeter. Carla has twin three year old boys, one of whom had serious medical complications at birth. Now, she was able to have health insurance with her job, but as her family’s medical bills piled up, she enrolled her son in Medicaid to ensure that he got the care that her family could not afford and her employee sponsored health insurance wouldn’t pay for. He still needs extensive care to this day, and losing her coverage would put her family into devastating medical debt.
    Probably the story that I heard that touched me as much as any was from a man in Berlin, in northern New Hampshire. He had had a number of substance misuse issues, mental health challenges, he said, without Medicaid, without the center—we were at a center where Medicaid helped pay to support people who needed help—he said, without this, I would just give up. I would commit suicide because there would be nothing for me.
    These are just a handful of the countless stories I’ve heard these past few months. They’re about real people. This bill isn’t just words on a page. It’s a direct attack on not only their health and their economic security, but their very dignity, their ability to have fulfilling lives and to contribute back to their communities and to society. We owe them better than this.
    This bill would also make catastrophic cuts to food assistance that’s provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP.
    During this time of high food prices of increasing food insecurity, it’s particularly critical for families to be able to rely on SNAP to help them keep food on the table.
    One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring states to pay higher costs.
    Now, as the former governor of New Hampshire, I can tell you how much of a burden this is on our state’s budget. And there are all kinds of provisions in this bill that are nothing but massive cost shifts to states, and this is one area.
    The bill puts food assistance at risk for families with teenage children, as well as older adults, veterans and individuals experiencing homelessness.
    In New Hampshire, an estimated 1,000 older adults could lose SNAP access.
    These cuts will mean increased hunger across the country.
    You know, we talk a lot about kitchen table issues here. Passing this bill is an explicit vote to take food off of families’ kitchen tables.
    I heard from Rachel. She’s a care coordinator at a behavioral health center in Claremont, which is in the western part of New Hampshire.
    She told me, and I’m quoting here, “SNAP is not just a program, it’s a lifeline. For the parents I work with, it means being able to send their children to school with full stomachs and functioning minds. For caregivers struggling to make ends meet, it provides some peace of mind knowing there will be something on the table each night. And for children, many of whom are navigating mental health challenges, SNAP supports stability, dignity and health during formative years. Without SNAP, the strain on these already vulnerable families would increase exponentially”.
    And she goes on to say, finally, “SNAP is not a handout. It’s a step forward for families working hard to survive and succeed against overwhelming odds”.
    And on the energy front, for families concerned about energy costs, this bill only offers more pain.
    In addition to cutting off tremendously successful incentives for electricity that are adding reliable, affordable and clean energy to the grid at a record pace, this bill cuts off longstanding tax credits for consumers, for average everyday Americans to make energy saving improvements to their homes, or to add rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills.
    After countless promises to lower people’s energy bills, this legislation would do just the opposite.
    Last year, 2.3 million families took advantage of the Home Energy efficiency tax credit and cut an average $130 off of their yearly energy bills.
    Now, that may not sound like a lot to the Mar-A-Lago crowd, but it makes a big difference for families in New Hampshire who worry about how they’re going to heat their homes.
    American households are expected to pay an extra $170 billion in energy bills over the next ten years thanks to misplaced priorities in this bill.
    And add to that 1.5 million good jobs that are likely to go away. And it makes you wonder if supporters of this bill have actually read it, or if they actually care about American energy dominance.
    And on taxes. This bill spends more than $4 trillion on tax cuts, including nearly $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the biggest corporations.
    But for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase—let me say that again, because I didn’t say that quite right with the right emphasis—for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they would see an average tax increase in 2029.
    And these are the same families who are going to be harmed most by extreme cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.
    Families making under $50,000 are likely to be worse off, and some could lose more than $1,500 a year under this bill.
    So if you add to that the effects of Trump’s tariffs, which raise the cost of living for a typical family by $2,000 a year, this makes it even worse for families.
    So the bottom 80% of households, those making less than $175,000, will be worse off on average under this bill.
    Now, I’ve talked about how this bill makes families pay more for health care, for energy and food in order to give more money to billionaires, but there are few other things that people should know.
    First, because of the trillions of dollars this bill would add to the debt, interest rates are likely to go up. That adds more than $1,000 a year for a typical mortgage.
    This bill makes it harder for students to afford the cost of college, and it removes debt protections for students who have been defrauded by their schools.
    And this bill actually tries to prohibit states from regulating AI for the next ten years, making it that much harder to keep our kids safe online and to protect jobs from being lost to the use of this technology.
    You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more than 30 years ago. This bill that we’re considering today would do more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire time in public office.
    This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of energy, health care and education.
    This bill takes food and health care away from seniors and families, and it does all of that—it does all of that to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process.
    That’s not what the people of New Hampshire are asking for, and it’s not what Americans deserve.
    And to my colleagues in the Senate, I say this: At a moment when Americans are feeling squeezed by the cost of living, we should be doing something about that.
    Instead of gutting health care to pay for tax cuts, we should be expanding access to affordable, quality care.
    Instead of turning our backs on working parents, we should be making housing more affordable, and we should ensure that every child has access to high quality, affordable early education.
    Instead of cutting nutrition programs, let’s make sure that no child in America goes hungry.
    Instead of driving up food and energy prices, let’s invest in the programs that help American families succeed.
    President Trump calls this the “Big Beautiful Bill”, but it is a big betrayal of the American people.
    There’s nothing beautiful about taking away health care and food from working families to give more money to billionaires.
    So I intend to vote against this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
    I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Hassan Speaks on the Senate Floor Against GOP Budget Bill That Raises Costs & Takes Away Health Care From Millions of Americans

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate late last night on the harms of the Republican budget bill, which will take health care away from tens of thousands of Granite Staters, raise costs for families, make massive cuts to health care, and explode the national debt by trillions of dollars in order to pay for tax giveaways for corporate special interests and billionaires.  
    Senator Hassan also took to the airwaves with interviews on WMUR and MSNBC to make sure Granite Staters are hearing about the devastating impacts of the Republican budget bill. 
    Click here to see Senator Hassan’s remarks.
    Full Remarks as Delivered:
    I’m here today because I’m joining the majority of Americans who are deeply alarmed by this plan from the President and his Congressional allies, a plan that will make life less affordable for more Americans.
    When we return home for this Fourth of July, it’d be nice to be able to tell our constituents that we came together and passed bipartisan legislation to help bring down costs for families.
    Instead, my colleagues who vote for this legislation will have to explain why, at a time when families’ pocketbooks are strained, they chose to support a partisan bill to make American life even less affordable.
    What will America look like once this bill takes effect? Millions of people will have lost their health coverage thanks to the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. More people won’t be able to afford preventive care and cancer screenings. And more people will get sick. 
    Health care premiums will surge for everyone because fewer people will have care and the number of uninsured Americans will increase. Rural hospitals will close their doors because they lost Medicaid reimbursements that helped keep them afloat.
    More people, especially in states like mine, will have to make long car rides just to get to a hospital 50 miles away…in those desperate moments when minutes feel like hours, and hours like eternities.
    Seniors will be thrown into grave peril because this bill threatens hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. And once this plan eviscerates food assistance programs, it will be much harder for families to afford to put food on the table…at a time when groceries are already far too expensive…let there be no mistake, more families and children who today are being fed will go hungry. And all the while, our children will be burdened with trillions more in debt.
    In the name of what cause is all this done? Well, it’s all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.  
    This bill will also make us an America where our people are less free. In New Hampshire, during my time as Governor we adopted Medicaid Expansion with support from both political parties – and we balanced the budget at the same time.
    We understood that with health comes freedom; the freedom to work and provide for one’s family, the freedom from disease and despair, the freedom that comes from – why do I even have to say this – being alive. Granite Staters also understood that a great country like ours treats its people with great dignity.
    In America, we don’t sacrifice the health of our neighbors…we don’t let families fall sick…and we do not imperil our economy, our debt, and our workforce…just to pay for a tax giveaway for a billionaire.
    So what kind of country will we be with this bill? We will not only be less healthy, but we will be less prosperous and less free…in short, this bill is at odds with what we aspire to be as Americans.
    It’s also worth noting how remarkably out of step this bill is with the American people’s plea to bring down costs. In a democracy like ours, theoretically the people’s representatives pass legislation that reflects the aspirations of the majority. I say theoretically because clearly that is not what is happening today.
    Indeed, according to the data from the Joint Economic Committee – Minority, if one combines this bill with the President’s tariffs – firefighters, truck drivers, and teachers, for instance, will lose $470 or more next year; while the top 0.1%, that’s people who earn about 4 million dollars or more, will be $348,000 richer.
    This bill would take away health care from tens of thousands of Granite Staters and would take a similar toll across the country. Indeed, in both Florida and Texas the number of people who will lose their health insurance is greater than the entire population of New Hampshire…millions of people losing care with a stroke of a pen.
    What have these people done to deserve that? All the American people are asking for is for us to help bring down costs – so the President and the Republicans in Congress take away their health care?  
    Sometimes in Washington we’re faced with bills that fail to fully meet the moment to be sure. But it is rare to find legislation like this – a bill that makes life less affordable during a time when Americans of every political stripe are crying out for lower costs – a bill that seems as if it was drafted just to make a mockery of the wills and wishes of the majority of people in this country.
    Lately, many of my colleagues and some political pundits have been talking about this bill as if it were inevitable; a runaway freight train so vast that it cannot be stopped, and in light of this inevitability, they suggest that some of the bill’s deficiencies can just be overlooked. But, of course, this bill was not inevitable – nor is it now.  
    So let’s be clear – each and every Senator in this body has free will. God given free will. Which means that the measures in this legislation that gut Medicaid weren’t written by mistake or by chance. We didn’t arrive at this day, with a vote on this terrible budget bill, by accident.
    Let’s not delude ourselves…we’re only here because a majority in this body decided to ignore the majority of the country and made a series of decisions;
    The Republican majority decided to gut Medicaid;
    They decided to take away health care from millions;
    They decided to raise insurance premiums for the rest of us;
    They decided that closed hospitals were a risk worth taking;
    They decided that taking food away from hungry kids was acceptable;
    They decided that trillions more in debt was not a problem;
    The Republican majority decided that depriving the American people of all these things and raising their costs were worth it, just as long as they paid for another tax break for billionaires. 
    Because that’s the bargain that this Administration along with my Republican colleagues is forcing the American people to accept. Our people will be less healthy, our kids will have more debt, but the President and billionaires like him will get a tax break.  
    Of course, part of what makes this bill so frustrating is that it includes some individual provisions that I’ve spent years trying to pass into law. This bill includes provisions I support, some even that I authored, like strengthening the R&D tax deduction to support our entrepreneurs and a tax cut for families to make child care more affordable.
    I also support this bill’s provisions which would tackle our housing crisis by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to bring down the cost of housing, as well as a provision making mortgage insurance tax deductible so that it’s easier to buy a home. And I’d support a bill with real tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, unlike the token measures included in this bill.
    If my Republican colleagues worked across the aisle to draft a bill that brought this bipartisan approach to other critical areas – like health care and food assistance – I’d vote for it.  
    Instead, my colleagues chose to take these commonsense solutions hostage by linking every good idea to three bad ones – turning this into a purely partisan endeavor.
    So yes, I’m glad that some of these bipartisan provisions will be signed into law, but I regret that they aren’t a part of a truly bipartisan effort because of the politics of division and destruction that President Trump brings to Washington.
    Now I know that there are many areas of common ground with my Republican colleagues in this body, but it has become far too difficult to move forward on finding solutions when at every turn the President seems far more interested in demonizing and dividing rather than bringing people together.
    Turning areas of agreement into weapons to force disagreement…now that’s exactly the kind of cynical politics of division that does lasting damage to our families, our economy, and our democracy.
    Now President Trump likely will get this bill passed – he may get enough of the Republican caucus to stand in line once again to pass it. Even though my Republican colleagues know that budget analysts have added up the financial cost of this bill and have told them that it adds trillions upon trillions to our national debt, burdening our children’s future.
    But you know as important as the debt is, it’s not the only cost of passing this awful bill. There’s another kind of cost, a cost not simply of dollars and cents. I shouldn’t have to remind this Administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the nature of this cost – they know it.
    But just to be clear, this tax break for corporate special interests and billionaires has a price, a price that can’t be summed up in a budget line or written off during tax season.
    Because when we debate health care in America, some dress up these discussions with words like “reconciliation” and “program” and “discretionary spending” but what they’re talking about is being sick and being healthy, what they’re talking about – whether they want to admit it or not – is living and dying.  
    So how much does this bill cost?
    The cost is millions of Americans losing their health care;
    The cost is countless families feeling the pain of higher insurance premiums;
    The cost is a mother being forced to choose between paying out of pocket for her own care or paying for groceries for her kids.
    It’s a price that’s exacted in cancers that go undetected; it’s exacted in chronic illnesses that go untreated; it’s exacted in the health care challenges in our country that continue to go unaddressed because we spend all our energies simply trying to keep our heads above water in floods of the President’s own making.
    The price tag is more than dollars and cents; it includes the cost of losing more people from our workforce because they’re too ill to work; it includes the gnawing pains of hunger and the slow toll of malnutrition that will come as food assistance programs are robbed; it includes the anguish of young parents no longer knowing how they will make ends meet;
    It includes the lost hopes and deferred dreams of people held back by illness; it includes the cost of having to say more early goodbyes.
    What is the price tag of this bill? The price, in the end, is the health and freedom of millions of Americans; a price that will be paid because somewhere on the road that brought us here…here in President Trump’s Washington…some people decided that the health of some child or her mother may be dear, but it doesn’t carry the same weight as a bigger tax return for a billionaire does.
    Thank you, Madam President, I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Alford, Gonzales Introduce Bill to Create Military Campaign Service Medal for Service Members Who Supported Operation Midnight Hammer

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mark Alford (Missouri 4th District)

    Today, Congressmen Mark Alford (MO-04) and Tony Gonzales (TX-23) introduced the Iranian Campaign Medal Act. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish and award a United States military decoration to service members who served in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer.

     “As the Congressman representing Whiteman Air Force Base, I’m proud to co-lead this bill recognizing our airmen’s contributions to Operation Midnight Hammer,” said Congressman Alford. “It was not just the pilots—it was also the maintenance, planning, operational, and support personnel whose unparalleled coordination made this mission a resounding success. The Iranian Campaign was the ultimate testament to President Trump’s peace through strength agenda.”

    “During my 20 years of military service, including multiple campaigns in the Middle East, I served side by side with the finest troops in the world. No matter what the mission is, American servicemembers always rise to the challenge, and Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran is no exception. There is no other military in the world that could have executed a precision strike on nuclear sites with such excellence, and the men and women who made it happen deserve full recognition for their efforts. I’m especially proud that the airmen involved received training at our military installations in San Antonio, which highlights yet again the importance of Military City, U.S.A.,” said Congressman Tony Gonzales. “The Iranian Campaign Medal Act will authorize the Department of Defense to establish a military service medal for our troops deployed to Iran under President Trump’s decisive leadership.”

    Read the text of the legislation here.

    U.S. Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO), Pat Fallon (R-TX), August Pfluger (R-TX), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), and Rob Bresnahan (R-PA) supported Congressmen Alford and Gonzales’ legislation as original co-sponsors.

    Background:

    On June 22, 2025, President Trump authorized a precision strike at three Iranian nuclear sites to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Executed by 14 American pilots flying seven B-2 bombers out of Whiteman AFB, and supported by over 125 U.S. aircraft, including dozens of aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and approximately 75 precision-guided munitions, the strike successfully targeted critical Iranian nuclear infrastructure at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In keeping with longstanding tradition, Congress has the authority to establish a commemorative service medal to honor service members for their contributions to military operations.

    The Iranian Campaign Medal Act authorizes the creation and award of a United States military decoration to service members who served in Iran in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer, as well as any additional operations or periods the Secretary of Defense may designate.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News