Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Hern votes to advance Trump agenda
Republican Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern (OK-01) voted in favor of the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 14, the budget framework for the reconciliation process. This vote unlocks the next step in reconciliation, where committees of jurisdiction will draft policy language to meet the budget targets.
“Thanks to President Trump, Republicans have this rare opportunity to utilize every lever of the federal government to enact historic legislation that helps Americans and moves our country forward,” said Chairman Hern. “This is what the American people voted for in November. They want Congress to deliver on the America First agenda. The hard part is still ahead of us: crafting the specific policies to both enact President Trump’s agenda and cut wasteful and fraudulent spending across the government. I’m ready to roll my sleeves up and get to work!”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Republican Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern (OK-01) celebrated the passage of HR 22, the SAVE Act, in the House of Representatives this morning.
The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for federal office.
“The SAVE Act is simple: only American citizens can vote in our elections,” said Chairman Hern. “It’s not controversial, it’s just common sense! After four years of dangerous open border policies, I’m proud to work alongside the Trump Administration to secure our border and protect Americans from Biden’s failed policies.”
This was a bipartisan vote, with four Democrats voting in favor: Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, and Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez of Washington.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Republican Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern (OK-01) celebrated the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act in the House of Representatives this morning.
“President Trump and the American people gave us a clear mandate; today we delivered,” said Rep. Hern. “While Democrats have been demagoguing and fearmongering, spreading lies about what this legislation does or doesn’t do, Republicans have been working hard to deliver real relief to working families and small businesses. I am proud of the work we did on this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it signed into law.”
Here are Rep. Hern’s remarks during floor debate.
Included in the legislation were several priorities previously introduced by Rep. Hern, the WIRED Act and the Education and Workforce Freedom Act.
Previously introduced as HR 6817, the WIRED Act establishes a fee on certain remittance transfers out of the country to target cartel activity and help fund border security. Last Congress, Rep. Hern led the House bill, and then-Senator J.D. Vance led the Senate version of the bill. The legislation is based on a similar policy enacted by the State of Oklahoma.
“Republicans are delivering on President Trump’s agenda, and I’m proud to see my legislation included,” said Rep. Hern. “This bill was originally inspired by successful legislation happening right here in Oklahoma. I was able to take this great idea that our state legislature enacted and work with now-Vice President Vance to scale it up to the federal level. We must be using every tool at our disposal to combat the cartels.”
The Education and Workforce Freedom Act, previously introduced as HR 8915, expands tax-advantaged 529 accounts to allow K-12 students from public, private, religious or home school settings to use those funds. It also allows the funds to be used for licensing and credentialing expenses, modernizing our tax code to meet the demands of the American workforce.
“Any parent will tell you that they know what’s better for their kids than the government,” said Rep. Hern. “Parents should be allowed to use their 529 tax-advantaged accounts to get their children the education they deserve, according to their individual needs. Including this provision in our One Big, Beautiful Bill puts us one step closer to a stronger education system and better outcomes for students of all backgrounds.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
An undated file photo of Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense (MND) of China. [Photo/Xinhua]
A Chinese military spokesperson on Sunday expressed strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the negative remarks related to China made by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, at the 22nd edition of the Shangri-La Dialogue.
Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense, said the U.S. Defense Secretary’s remarks are filled with deep-rooted hegemonic logic, bullying manners, and Cold War mentality, and constitute a serious violation of China’s sovereignty and interests as well as a distortion of China’s policies and propositions.
The remarks also disregard the joint efforts of countries in the region to safeguard prosperity and stability and run counter to the common aspiration of countries around the world for peace and development, Zhang said. “We are strongly dissatisfied with this and firmly oppose this.”
The spokesperson said the United States strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific, grossly interfering in other countries’ internal affairs and inciting tensions.
“Facts have repeatedly proven that the United States, going against the trend of the times and acting willfully, will only end up hurting itself,” he said.
He stated that the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair. The United States has no right to make irresponsible remarks about it, let alone attempt to use it as a tool to contain China, Zhang said.
He added that the People’s Liberation Army will resolutely defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity and resolutely foil all “Taiwan independence” separatist schemes and any external interference.
Zhang noted that the United States, which seeks to destabilize the South China Sea by ganging up with others and stirring up trouble, is the “biggest threat” to regional peace and stability.
Noting that China has always been a guardian and contributor to peace and development in the Asia-Pacific, Zhang said the Chinese military will work with regional countries to jointly oppose hegemony harming the region, oppose the introduction of geopolitical conflicts into the region, and oppose any country or force from bringing war and chaos to the region.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
How did the United States become what it is today, with its “law-of-the-jungle” foreign policy creating chaos worldwide and politicians jockeying for power and profit in disregard of the welfare of the American people. Three recently published books can provide a compelling and multifaceted examination.
“Built on Lies” and “America Unveiled: Reassessing History and Influence,” both released by Xinhua Publishing House, have recently hit shelves nationwide. Together with “America Unmasked,” which debuted last year, they are also slated for digital release.
The book “Built on Lies” delves into the construction of Washington’s false narratives, drawing on detailed case studies to unpack the systems and strategies behind their creation and spread. The book examines how the United States has long polished its global image through information warfare and cognitive manipulation, using these tools to maintain its dominance and sow instability abroad. The work serves as a cautionary examination of the dangers of uncritically accepting Washington’s version of events.
The book “America Unveiled” reexamines U.S. history from a non-Western perspective, shedding light on facts often selectively ignored, deliberately concealed, or distorted in mainstream American discourse. The book confronts issues such as identity crises, racism and the dysfunctions of American democracy, offering a comprehensive portrait of the country’s realities.
The book “America Unmasked” takes a critical look at the United States through four key lenses — its institutions, hegemony, rhetoric and external critiques. The book examines how the United States leverages its economic, military and cultural power to maintain global dominance, extract benefits and export its values. In doing so, it aims to dismantle the self-proclaimed image of the United States as a champion of freedom, democracy and human rights.
The authors, all seasoned researchers of U.S. affairs, have grounded their analyses in a wealth of factual evidence. Through their work, they aim to help readers understand the complexities and contradictions of U.S. society and its foreign policy.
Thank you to the conference organizers for inviting me to speak today. I have attended this conference several times and I’m honored to be on the program this year. Today, I will speak on the U.S. economic outlook and the implications for monetary policy.1 I will focus my comments on two issues: first, the effects of tariffs on inflation persistence, and second, the divergence of household inflation expectations and financial market measures of inflation expectations. The theme of this conference is structural shifts and monetary policy. The key structural shift that is affecting the economies of both the United States and South Korea is the recent change in U.S. trade policy, and a substantial share of my remarks will address how this shift is affecting the U.S. outlook. The variability in tariff announcements this year, including the whipsawing of court rulings and doubling of metal tariffs last week, has created considerable uncertainty about where trade policy will settle. In mid-April, based on how things looked at the time, I proposed two scenarios to consider in framing an outlook and a preferred stance of monetary policy: a large tariff scenario and a smaller tariff scenario.2 In both cases, I assumed that the tariff increases would lead to a one-time boost to prices that would temporarily raise inflation, after which inflation would return to its underlying rate. This temporary increase could play out with a prompt rise in inflation that could recede quickly, or it could occur more gradually with a more modest increase that would recede more slowly. As I will explain, crucial to this judgment is my assumption that longer-term inflation expectations remain anchored. The large-tariff scenario I described assumed an average, trade-weighted tariff for goods imports of 25 percent, which is close to where things stood after the 90-day tariff suspensions announced April 9, and my scenario assumed that this would remain in place for some time. In that case, I argued that inflation based on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index could reach a peak of 5 percent on an annualized basis this year if businesses passed through all of the tariff costs to consumers. If firms absorbed some of the tariff increase, then inflation might peak around 4 percent. I also argued that an economic slowdown from these higher costs could push the unemployment rate up from 4.2 percent to 5 percent next year. The smaller-tariff scenario assumed a 10 percent average tariff on goods imports would remain in place but that higher country and sector specific tariffs would be negotiated down over time. In this case, inflation may rise to 3 percent on an annualized basis and then dissipate. Growth in output and employment would slow, with the unemployment rate rising but probably not as high as 5 percent. Reported progress on trade negotiations since that speech leaves my base case somewhere in between these two scenarios. The temporary reduction in China tariffs has significantly decreased the trade-weighted average tariff, since China supplied about 13 percent of U.S. goods imports in 2024. But that reduction is only temporary and is due to increase if a trade agreement is not reached by August 12. Meanwhile, tariffs on other countries were temporarily lowered to 10 percent, but it is unclear where they will end up. Furthermore, the Administration continues to say that it plans additional tariffs on specific industries and sectors of the economy. Last week’s court decisions declaring a large share of tariffs illegal introduce additional uncertainty, but there seem to be multiple options for maintaining tariffs, so I will stick with an estimated trade weighted tariff right now of 15 percent on U.S. goods imports, which falls in between my large- and smaller- tariff scenarios. I see the risks of my large tariff scenario having gone down, but there is still considerable uncertainty about the ultimate levels, and thus about the impact on the economic outlook. The context for this uncertainty about tariffs is that hard data on the fundamentals of the economy lately has been mostly positive and supportive of the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) economic objectives. There is very little evidence of the effect of trade policy in this data on inflation or economic activity through April, but that may change in the coming weeks. In comparison, there is evidence of tariff effects in the “soft data” based on surveys of consumers, businesses, and investors—indications of an expected slowdown in economic activity and an increase in prices. As of today, I see downside risks to economic activity and employment and upside risks to inflation in the second half of 2025, but how these risks evolve is strongly tied to how trade policy evolves. A careful examination of the hard data on overall economic activity through April shows it has been, on balance, positive. I say this because, while real gross domestic product contracted slightly in the first quarter, private domestic final demand, a measure of spending by consumers and businesses, grew at a healthy annual rate of 2.5 percent in the quarter. Of course, economic policy uncertainty among businesses is very elevated, and this has affected measures of sentiment and confidence for consumers and businesses, which fell to historically low levels in April. One index of this policy uncertainty compiled from newspaper stories, government reports, and the dispersion of the forecasts of private-sector economists rose in April to nearly twice the level seen during the pandemic and the Global Financial Crisis.3 However, consumer sentiment rebounded with the announcement that the China tariffs had been lowered temporarily. And households’ spending should continue to be supported by income from the resilient labor market. In addition, my business contacts have told me that, because of tariff uncertainty, their investment plans are currently on hold but are not canceled. So we may see a slowdown in investment in the near term but a jump back up later this year. Wherever things end up on a continuum between my “large” and “smaller” scenarios, I do expect tariffs will result in an increase in the unemployment rate that will, all else equal, probably linger. Higher tariffs will reduce spending, and businesses will respond, in part, by reducing production and payrolls. We won’t get the jobs report for May until this Friday, but the consensus expectation is that employers added 130,000 jobs and that the unemployment rate remained steady at 4.2 percent. We have seen a reduction in wage pressures over recent months, and the ratio of job vacancies to the number of unemployed people has moderated from as high as 2 a couple of years ago to close to 1 today, which was about where it was before the pandemic. With a balanced labor market, if aggregate demand slows noticeably, businesses will likely look to cut workers. But I believe job cuts would be modest if the smaller-tariff scenario is realized. Most chief executives I have spoken to say that they can maintain their current operations with an effective tariff of 10 percent, looking for efficiencies here and there, and won’t have to significantly reduce their workforces. InflationNow let me turn to the outlook for inflation. Before the recent shift in U.S. trade policy, inflation had been making consistent, but uneven, progress over the past two years toward our 2 percent goal. While that progress seemed to stall at the beginning of 2025, it has resumed the past two months. The same pattern of higher readings at the start of the year, followed by lower readings the next couple of months, also occurred in 2024 and I expect that research will eventually reveal some residual seasonal effect or other factor that has affected at least some prices early in the year. Total PCE inflation for April rose 0.1 percent, and core PCE inflation without energy and food prices increased by the same amount. It was the second monthly reading at 0.1 percent or less, and it means that headline PCE inflation was up 2.1 percent over the 12 months through April and that core was up 2.5 percent. In the absence of the tariff increases, I was expecting inflation would continue to be coming down nicely to our 2 percent goal. But now I expect that the effect of higher tariffs will raise inflation in the coming months. The surge in imports to build up inventories ahead of the April 2 announcement makes the timing of price increases somewhat uncertain. Thinking about the rest of 2025 and 2026, I expect the largest factor driving inflation will be tariffs. As I said earlier, whatever the size of the tariffs, I expect the effects on inflation to be temporary, and most apparent in the second half of 2025. This will be determined not only by the ultimate size of the increase, but also by how exporters and importers respond, something that is highly uncertain. Will foreign exporters discount prices to try and preserve market share? Will domestic importers absorb some of the tariff increases to shore up demand and sales volumes? Will firms simply pass the entire tariff along to consumers? Since about 10 percent of personal spending goes to imported goods, if the ultimate tariff levels are closer to my 10 percent smaller-tariff scenario and if that is fully passed through to consumers, then the tariff would push up prices 1 percent. But based on my conversations with business leaders, I suspect the tariff cost will not be fully passed through and, instead, the burden will be distributed something like 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3 among consumers, importers and exporters. In this case, it would raise inflation three tenths of 1 percent for a short period. However, if the tariffs are higher than 10 percent, more of the increase is likely to be passed on to consumers, as businesses face limits in how much they can absorb and still find a way to remain profitable. I have also heard from business contacts that firms may choose to spread the tariff across non-imported goods. This would increase many goods prices a little instead of boosting import prices by a larger amount. But this approach would not affect the total impact of tariffs on the overall price level. Let me illustrate why using an example. Imagine a firm selling 10 goods with equal sales revenue so that all have an equal weight of 1/10 when aggregating the firm’s average price. Now assume one of the goods is imported. A 10 percent tariff on the imported good that is fully passed through raises the price of the imported good by 10 percent, while the prices of the other nine goods remain unchanged. This pricing strategy raises the average price of all goods by 1 percent. Now, instead, suppose the firm chooses a different strategy and decides to spread the tariff cost across all goods by raising all 10 goods prices by 1 percent. As a result, the price of the imported good increases much less, but the prices of the other nine goods now increase a bit even though they are not subject to tariffs. Under this strategy, the average price of the firm’s goods still goes up 1 percent, and the tariff is fully passed through. So both pricing strategies have the same total effect on the aggregate price level across the firm and, if repeated, across the economy. The same logic applies to passing along the tariff via a sequence of smaller price increases instead of at a single point in time—in the end, the aggregate price level goes up by the same amount regardless of whether it is gradual or immediate. I have heard the concern that some firms may raise prices opportunistically while blaming the tariff increase. There is always a risk that firms blame some purported cost spike for a price increase, but it doesn’t happen often because of the risk of losing market share to competitors or squandering the allegiance of loyal customers. So while this may happen in isolated instances, I do not believe it will be a significant source of additional inflation above and beyond the tariff-induced increase. Inflation PersistenceLet me now turn to the first of two issues about inflation that I want to cover in more detail. This is inflation persistence. The economics behind a tariff increase implies it should have a transitory effect on prices—tariffs raise prices once, but those prices don’t keep going up. I know that hearing “transitory” will certainly remind many people of the consensus on the FOMC in 2021 that the pandemic increases to inflation would be transitory. Inflation turned out to be much more persistent than we thought it would be. Am I playing with fire by taking this position again? It sure looks like it. So why do I believe a tariff-induced inflation spike will not be persistent this time? Looking back to how inflation played out in 2021 and 2022, I believe there were three key factors that increased the persistence of the initial burst of inflation in 2021. First, there was a negative labor supply shock that was more persistent than expected. I believed that once the economy reopened, all of this labor would return. However, many workers left the labor market because of illness, or to care for children and family members, or took early retirement. They never returned. And with every wave of COVID-19, the United States experienced additional waves of early retirements that inhibited the labor supply from returning to its pre-pandemic level. Also, with the service sector shut down, demand surged for goods as spending on travel and other services halted and the negative labor supply shock led to a shortage of workers in goods production, delivery, and sales. Goods industries raised wages to attract workers and then once the economy began to reopen, service-sector firms had to pay higher wages to get workers back. This persistent shortage of labor from these several pandemic-related effects continued through 2021 and 2022 as job vacancies skyrocketed and firms had no choice but to pass along escalating wage increases in the form of higher prices. The second factor driving inflation after the pandemic was that the supply chain disruptions that many expected to be temporary turned out to be more persistent. There were multiple waves of COVID affecting different regions of the world at different times, so that resolving production and transportation problems was constantly disrupted by the ebbing and flowing of the disease. One notable detail is that China’s lockdowns lasted much longer than expected and played an important role in global supply disruptions. The last factor was the quite stimulative fiscal response in the United States. There were hundreds of billions of dollars in grants to businesses to pay idled workers and large transfer payments to households. Furthermore, additional fiscal spending bills in 2021 and 2022 further stimulated aggregate demand. I am willing to admit that, at the time, I underappreciated how the large and sustained fiscal response would combine with highly accommodative monetary policy to overstimulate aggregate demand in an economy that quickly recovered from the early effects of the pandemic. Today I don’t see factors like the three I have described here reinforcing the inflationary effects of higher tariffs. There is no longer a shortage of labor and, at least so far, no indication that tariffs are causing big disruptions in supply chains, as the recent surge in imports that I mentioned should attest. While Congress is putting together a tax bill, as it stands now, a large share of that legislation extends tax cuts that have been on the books for eight years and thus would not be stimulative. Finally, monetary policy is in a very different position—we have shrunk our balance sheet by over $2 trillion and our policy rate is north of 4 percent instead of being at the effective lower bound. So I do not believe one can use 2021 and 2022 as a basis for predicting what will happen to the persistence of inflation arising from tariffs. Inflation ExpectationsNow let’s discuss the second issue of diverging inflation expectations. I have argued that I believe the tariff-induced inflation will be transitory and we should look through it when setting policy as long as longer-term inflation expectations are anchored.4 However, right now, we are seeing a dramatic disparity between household measures of inflation expectations and market-based measures, as well as the inflation expectations of professional forecasters. The University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers show that both near- and longer-term inflation expectations have increased strikingly, on net, in the past few months and currently stand at 6.6 percent and 4.2 percent respectively. Meanwhile, inflation expectation measures based on prices of nominal versus inflation-adjusted securities have not increased very much, with 2-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities inflation compensation around 2.7 percent and 5-year and 10-year around 2.4 percent. Also, the median from the Survey of Professional Forecasters for consumer price inflation 6 to 10 years ahead is at 2.2 percent. This highly unusual discrepancy between inflation expectation measures creates problems for policymakers. Whose expectations should we be paying attention to? I prefer to look at market-based measures of inflation compensation and professional forecasters’ expectations because they have money on the line. Those buying inflation protected-securities lose money if they are wrong. Professional forecasters have clients and firms making financial decisions based on those forecasts and will lose customers if their predictions are wrong. As I used to teach my students, in a capitalist system, competition will drive firms out of business if they make bad decisions. Forecasting mistakes can be costly for consumers, but households aren’t competing with each other and won’t be driven out of business if they make bad decisions. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the household measures of high inflation expectations are correct and financial market participants’ expectations are too low. What are the implications of this mismatch?5 If households actually believe inflation will be 7 percent for several years, workers would be expected to demand at least a 7 percent raise to keep their real wages from falling.6 If firms grant those wage demands, then inflation would rise by roughly 7 percent as the wage increases are passed through. Also, job search and the quits rate should increase as workers look for higher-paying jobs. Is this happening? Although that was the story a few years ago in a tight labor market, I am not now hearing about such an upturn in wage demands from my business contacts, and I don’t see it in wage and compensation data. After several years of outsized pay increases and in a labor market that has loosened significantly from a year or two ago, I think workers don’t have much leverage to ask for raises and are probably more worried about keeping their jobs right now. Furthermore, instead of increasing, the quits rate is below its pre-pandemic level. Given labor market conditions, it seems hard to believe that the high inflation expectations we are seeing in consumer surveys will lead to large nominal wage increases and a second-round burst of inflation. A second point here is that if consumers believed we were about to face high inflation, they would be front-loading purchases, much as importers seem to be front-loading their inventories. But, on the contrary, with the exception of motor vehicles, we haven’t seen a broad surge in the consumer spending, which overall is growing more slowly than it did in the second half of 2024. For financial businesses, they set interest rates of their loans and financial products based on expected inflation. Their views should be embedded in market-based inflation expectations and those of professional forecasters. If they got the forecast wrong and the nominal interest rates on their loans were too low, then their real returns would be dramatically reduced and their profit margins squeezed. I have a hard time believing interest rates are mis-priced so badly. If they were, then households would think the real interest rate on loans is greatly suppressed. Consequently, loan demand for interest-sensitive products like houses, cars, and durable goods should surge. While loan demand appears to be healthy, there are no reports from banks or other financial firms that loan demand is surging. So, based on wage demands, spending patterns, and loan demand, I see no evidence of economic activity that conforms to the inflation views reflected in the University of Michigan household measures, which, like other polling about the economy in recent years, may reflect attitudes about other factors.7 In conclusion, given my belief that any tariff-induced inflation will not be persistent and that inflation expectations are anchored, I support looking through any tariff effects on near term-inflation when setting the policy rate. Fortunately, the strong labor market and progress on inflation through April gives me additional time to see how trade negotiations play out and the economy evolves. Assuming that the effective tariff rate settles close to my lower tariff scenario, that underlying inflation continues to make progress to our 2 percent goal, and that the labor market remains solid, I would be supporting “good news” rate cuts later this year.
1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text 2. See Waller (2025) A Tale of Two Outlooks. Return to text 3. See Scott R. Baker, Nick Bloom, and Steven J. Davis (2025), “Economic Policy Uncertainty,” webpage, https://www.policyuncertainty.com/us_monthly.html. Return to text 4. For an interesting history of monetary policymakers “looking through” inflation increases, see Nelson, Edward (2025). “A Look Back at “Look Through,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2025-037. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Return to text 5. In what follows, I am focusing solely on the higher level of inflation expectations and not the higher level of inflation uncertainty. The level of inflation and uncertainty about inflation are highly correlated, so it is difficult to disentangle the effects separately. To see how these two effects can alter household behavior, see Dimitris Georgarakos, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Olivier Coibion, and Geoff Kenny (2024), “The Causal Effects of Inflation Uncertainty on Households’ Beliefs and Actions (PDF),” NBER Working Paper Series 33014 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, October). Return to text 6. As documented in Nelson (2025), second round wage effects were a general concern of policymakers in the 1970s and 1990s when discussing oil price shocks or how to respond to changes in value-added taxes and exchange rate shocks. Return to text 7. For a discussion of factors that were affecting inflation perceptions during the COVID pandemic, see David Lebow and Ekaterina Peneva (2024), “Inflation Perceptions during the Covid Pandemic and Recovery,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19). Return to text
BOULDER – Governor Polis released the following statement condemning today’s attack in Boulder. Governor Polis continues to monitor the situation.
“My thoughts go out to the people who have been injured by this heinous and targeted act on the Jewish community. Boulder is strong. We have overcome tragedies together and will get through this together as a community. I’ve spoken with Boulder Mayor Brockett, and my administration is working closely with local and federal law enforcement on this afternoon’s attack. I thank the first responders who ran to help the injured and ensure victims received medical attention needed and to apprehend the suspect. As the Jewish community reels from the recent antisemitic murders in Washington, D.C., it is unfathomable that the community is facing another antisemitic attack here in Boulder, on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot. Several individuals were brutally attacked while peacefully drawing attention to the plight of hostages who have been held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza for 604 days. Hate is unacceptable in our Colorado for all, and I condemn this act of terror. The suspect should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Governor Jared Polis.
More information will be provided as it becomes available. The Boulder Office of Disaster Management (ODM) has activated its emergency operations center in response to the incident and is sharing important information related to open shelters and incident updates on its webpage at boulderodm.gov/. Please use that page for verified resources. Boulder Police and the FBI will be leading on this investigation, and the state has offered any support it can provide, including State Patrol presence at the command post and direct support from the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management through the Colorado Information Analysis Center and Office of Emergency Management.
We are aware of six victims wounded in today’s attack between the ages of 67 and 88, including two with serious injuries. There is one suspect, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, in custody. Several blocks in downtown Boulder remain closed as officials look for any additional devices. This is an active investigation.
Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country.
To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe environmental damage when it operated between 1972 and 1989.
Australia views Bougainville as strategically important to “inner security arc”. The main island is about 1,500 kilometres from Queensland’s Port Douglas.
Given this, the possibility of China’s increasing presence in Bougainville raises concerns about shifting allegiances and the potential for Beijing to exert greater influence over the region.
Australia’s tangled history in Bougainville
Bougainville is a small island group in the South Pacific with a population of about 300,000. It consists of two main islands: Buka in the north and Bougainville Island in the south.
Bougainville has a long history of unwanted interference from outsiders, including missionaries, plantation owners and colonial administrations (German, British, Japanese and Australian).
Two weeks before Papua New Guinea received its independence from Australia in 1975, Bougainvilleans sought to split away, unilaterally declaring their own independence. This declaration was ignored in both Canberra and Port Moresby, but Bougainville was given a certain degree of autonomy to remain within the new nation of PNG.
The opening of the Panguna mine in the 1970s further fractured relations between Australia and Bougainville. Landowners opposed the environmental degradation and limited revenues they received from the mine. The influx of foreign workers from Australia, PNG and China also led to resentment. Violent resistance grew, eventually halting mining operations and expelling almost all foreigners.
Under the leadership of Francis Ona, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) fought a long civil war to restore Bougainville to Me’ekamui, or the “Holy Land” it once was.
After the war ended, Australia helped broker the Bougainville Peace Agreement in 2001. Although aid programs have since begun to heal the rift between Australia and Bougainville, many Bougainvilleans feel Canberra continues to favour PNG’s territorial integrity.
In 2019, Bougainvilleans voted overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum. Australia’s response, however, was ambiguous.
As Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama, a former BRA commander, told me in 2024:
We are moving forward. And it’s the people’s vision: independence. I’m saying, no earlier than 2025, no later than 2027. My benchmark is 2026, the first of September. I will declare. No matter what happens. I will declare independence on our republican constitution.
Major issues to overcome
Bougainville leaders see the reopening of Panguna mine as key to financing independence. Bougainville Copper Limited, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that once operated the mine, backs this assessment.
But reopening the mine would also require addressing the ongoing environmental and social issues it has caused. These include polluted rivers and water sources, landslides, flooding, chemical waste hazards, the loss of food security, displacement, and damage to sacred sites.
Many of these issues have been exacerbated by years of small-scale alluvial mining by Bougainvilleans themselves, eroding the main road into Panguna.
Some also worry reopening the mine could reignite conflict, as landowners are divided about the project. Mismanagement of royalties could also stoke social tensions.
Violence related to competition over alluvial mining has already been increasing at the mine.
The Bougainville government cannot deal with these complex issues on its own. Nor can it finance the infrastructure and development needed to reopen the mine. This is why it’s seeking foreign investors.
Open for business
Historically, China has a strong interest in the region. According to Pacific researcher Anna Powles, Chinese efforts to build relationships with Bougainville’s political elite have increased over the years.
Chinese investors have offered development packages contingent on long-term mining revenues and Bougainville’s independence. Bougainville is showing interest.
Patrick Nisira, the minister for commerce, trade, industry and economic development, said last year the proposed Chinese infrastructure investment is “aligning perfectly with Bougainville’s nationhood aspirations”.
The government has also reportedly made overtures to the United States, offering a military base in Bougainville in return for support reopening the mine.
Given American demand for minerals, Bougainville could very well end up in the middle of a battle between China and the US over influence in the new nation, and thus in our region.
Which path will Bougainville and Australia take?
There is support in Bougainville for a future without large-scale mining. One minister, Geraldine Paul, has been promoting the islands’ booming cocoa industry and fisheries to support an independent Bougainville.
The new nation will also need new laws to hold the government accountable and protect the people and culture of Bougainville. As Paul told me in 2024:
[…]the most important thing is we need to make sure that we invest in our foundation and that’s building our family and culture. Everything starts from there.
What happens in Bougainville affects Australia and the broader security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. With September 1 2026 just around the corner, it is time for Australia to intensify its diplomatic and economic relationships with Bougainville to maintain regional stability.
Anna-Karina Hermkens receives funding from the Australian Research Council to follow and analyse Bougainville’s journey towards independence.
Secondly, experts disagree on whether populism is a threat or corrective to democracy. Some think it can be both.
Populism: left or right?
Much of the confusion about populism stems from the fact that it can appear across the ideological spectrum.
This is because “the people” and “the elite” are flexible terms, and populists can characterise them in very different ways.
Right-wing populists tend to characterise “the people” in socio-cultural terms, and often combine their populism with nativism.
Think for instance, of how Trump’s “people” are coded as White Americans.
Or, how Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi evokes Hindu nationalism in his definition of “the people”.
Other prominent right-wing populist leaders include the likes of Viktor Orban of Hungary, Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, and Australia’s Pauline Hanson.
Left-wing populists, meanwhile, tend to characterise “the people” in socio-economic terms. They often combine their populism with calls for economic redistribution or shifts in power.
In the US, Bernie Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 presidential primary campaigns put the working class and people in precarious work at the heart of his “people”.
Other examples of left-wing populism include the Podemos and Syriza parties in Spain and Greece respectively.
This also means the way populists tend to define “the elite” is quite different.
Right-wing populist targets often include:
government and policy elites (think of Trump’s “drain the swamp”)
cultural elites (Trump’s attacks on media as “fake news”)
academics (attacks on the “ivory tower”) and
transnational bodies (such as attacks on the United Nations).
These groups are connected in right-wing populist discourse and purported to be undermining “the people’s” livelihood by abetting increased immigration or the destruction of “traditional values”.
Left-wing populists tend to target business and power elites, who they see as fleecing “the people” economically and keeping them from expressing their popular power (think of Occupy Wall Street’s divide between the 99% and the 1%).
Populists also tend to have a suspicion of transnational organisations. But while right-wing populists tend to focus on the likes of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, left-wing populists are more suspicious of business transnationals such as the World Trade Organization or World Economic Forum.
These metaphors suggest populism has come out of nowhere, and is causing a major and unexpected shock to the system.
But that’s simply not the case.
If anything, the story of 21st century politics has been one in which populism has become “normalised” and “mainstreamed”.
Populists are no longer merely “challenger” parties nor minor parties.
They increasingly are among the top three parties in their respective countries (particularly in Europe), and have won government in places from the US to India to the Netherlands to Italy to Greece.
This success has seen them steadily viewed as viable and “normal” political players.
Meanwhile, mainstream parties and leaders have increasingly adopted elements of populists’ discourse, platforms and political styles, as a way to compete with populists.
This, ironically, has had the effect of legitimising populists in many countries; it makes their policies and discourse look more “acceptable”.
It’s important to be cynical about any pundit crowing about the “death” of populism – or, on the flipside, the idea it has come out of nowhere.
Populism is here to stay. Acknowledging that can help us better understand its appeal, which in turn, can provide hints about how to best deal with it.
Benjamin Moffitt receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.
U.S. Coast Guard 7th District PA Detachment Jacksonville Contact: Coast Guard PA Detachment Jacksonville Office: 904-714-7606/7607 After Hours: 786-393-4138 PA Detachment Jacksonville online newsroom
06/01/2025 04:57 PM EDT
MIAMI — The Coast Guard reminds mariners and residents of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to prepare for the 2025 hurricane season.
CALGARY, Alberta, June 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX: CVE) (NYSE: CVE) is providing an update on its Oil Sands operations following ongoing wildfire activity in northern Alberta. Cenovus is focused on the safety of its people and the integrity of its assets, and all staff are safe. Based on the inspections the company has completed to date, it is not aware of any damage to its infrastructure and would anticipate a full restart of Christina Lake operations in the near term.
As a precaution, currently only essential personnel are at the Christina Lake oil sands asset, where the company began safely and methodically shutting in production on May 29. Operations will resume as soon as it’s safe to do so. Approximately 238,000 barrels per day of production have been impacted, and the company will provide an update when it is in a position to restart.
Cenovus is closely monitoring the overall wildfire situation in Alberta. The company is grateful for the efforts of its teams who are working tirelessly to keep the company’s people and assets safe, and for the provincial emergency management teams and firefighters keeping communities safe.
Advisory Forward-looking Information This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively referred to as “forward-looking information”) about Cenovus’s current expectations, estimates and projections about the future, based on certain assumptions made in light of experience and perception of historical trends. Forward-looking information in this news release is identified by words such as “focus”, “anticipate” and “will” or similar expressions, including, but not limited to, statements about: safety; asset integrity; production impacts; and resumption of operations.
Except as required by applicable securities laws, Cenovus disclaims any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward‐looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing lists are not exhaustive and are made as at the date hereof. Events or circumstances could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated or projected and expressed in, or implied by, the forward‐looking information.
For additional information regarding Cenovus’s material risk factors, the assumptions made, and risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ from the anticipated results, refer to “Risk Management and Risk Factors” and “Advisory” in Cenovus’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the periods ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2025 and to the risk factors, assumptions and uncertainties described in other documents Cenovus files from time to time with securities regulatory authorities in Canada (available on SEDAR+ at sedarplus.ca, on EDGAR at sec.gov and Cenovus’s website at cenovus.com).
Cenovus Energy Inc. Cenovus Energy Inc. is an integrated energy company with oil and natural gas production operations in Canada and the Asia Pacific region, and upgrading, refining and marketing operations in Canada and the United States. The company is committed to maximizing value by developing its assets in a safe, responsible and cost-efficient manner, integrating environmental, social and governance considerations into its business plans. Cenovus common shares and warrants are listed on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges, and the company’s preferred shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. For more information, visit cenovus.com.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Betty McCollum (DFL-Minn)
SAINT PAUL, Minn. — Congresswoman Betty McCollum will host a Medicaid Town Hall on Saturday, May 31st at 11am. She will be joined by a panel of special guests to discuss the importance of Medicaid for Minnesota seniors, children, and working parents.
WHAT: Medicaid Matters to Minnesota Families Town Hall
WHEN: Saturday, May 31st, 2025 at 11am
WHO: Congresswoman Betty McCollum, Dean of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation; John Connolly, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Deputy Commissioner, State Medicaid Director; Barbara Joers, President and CEO Gillette Children’s Hospital; Ryan Hilmoe, Minnesota Nurses Association; Kate Weeks, Assistant Commissioner, Economic Opportunity and Youth Services, Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families; Sumukha Terakanambi, Disability and Healthcare Advocate, Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities; Jessica Francis, Executive Director, Open Cupboard.
WHERE: Stillwater; Credentialed media will receive location upon RSVP. Editors and Reporters may RSVP by emailing mccollumpress@mail.house.gov with the subject line “Town Hall.”
RSVP: Residents of Minnesota’s Fourth Congressional District can RSVP here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Betty McCollum (DFL-Minn)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After beginning debate at 2:45am on Thursday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Republicans’ massive budget reconciliation bill, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on a vote of 215-214. All Democrats opposed the legislation. Following the vote, Congresswoman Betty McCollum issued the following statement:
“The ugly truth of Donald Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is that it strips away healthcare from 20,000 Minnesotans with disabilities, seniors, children, and working parents in Minnesota’s 4th Congressional District – that’s the equivalent of every resident of Stillwater losing their healthcare overnight. The ugly truth is that 45,000 Minnesotans will go hungry without the SNAP food assistance they rely on – the equivalent of every resident of Maplewood going to bed hungry and waking up hungry. The ugly truth is that Donald Trump and his Republican Congressional followers are cutting healthcare and food access for the most vulnerable Minnesotans to give permanent tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk and corporations who currently don’t pay their fair share. In fact, some large corporations pay $0 in taxes. In short, the ugly truth about the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is that it’s just another Trump GOP Tax Scam.
“Under this legislation, the average family earning less than $50,000 would get under $300 in tax cuts in 2027, less than $1 a day, while a wealthy tax filer earning $1,000,000 or more a year would receive about $90,000 in tax breaks. The more the American people learn about this ugly legislation, the more they dislike it, which is why the House Republican majority advanced it through key committees during dead-of-the-night hearings and rushed the floor vote through while most Americans were sleeping.
“It was easy to vote no on this bill. Leading with my Minnesota values and representing the voice of my community, I will oppose any Republican efforts to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans’ benefits, and nutrition assistance for Minnesota families, especially when they’re made in service to millionaires and billionaires.”
As we head into a new month of streaming, here’s a fresh wave of TV ready to challenge, transport and entertain you.
This month’s picks span genre and geography, from an eerie dystopian Buenos Aires, to a witty, awkward cyborg hero. Reality TV also gets a scandalous twist with the return of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. And Deaf President Now! delivers a powerful documentary on a historical milestone for Deaf rights.
There’s something for every kind of viewer — and every kind of mood.
The Eternaut
Netflix
Argentine sci-fi The Eternaut opens with a group of old friends in Buenos Aires meeting to play the card game truco on a hot summer night – when things suddenly get eerie.
The power goes out and a poisonous snowfall starts to blanket the city, killing thousands of people instantly. The survivors must get answers, quickly, as they start to grasp the true strength of their invisible enemy.
Based on Héctor Germán Oesterheld’s 1950s comic of the same name, The Eternaut portrays apocalypse through a deeply local and political lens – and in doing so has struck a chord in Argentina.
Directed by Bruno Stagnaro and led by Argentine film icon Ricardo Darín, as protagonist Juan Salvo, the series emphasises the power of collective heroism, and subtly critiques the current government’s uncompromising neoliberal approach.
It also pulses with national pride. Buenos Aires is not glamorized; real neighbourhoods are shown as classic Argentine tango, rock and folk plays in the background. Most importantly, Argentine identity is celebrated through themes of community spirit, grassroots resistance, and ingenuity in times of crisis.
The Eternaut feels both timely and timeless. Its slogan, “no one survives alone,” resonates for a country that has been long marked by both trauma and resistance efforts.
Its emotional weight is further deepened by Oesterheld’s legacy, including the tragic disappearance of him and his family members under the military rule of the 1970s.
With a second season on the way, this series is a powerful ode to Argentina.
Murderbot, Apple’s adaptation of Martha Wells’ science-fiction novella, All Systems Red (2017) is a satisfying combination of action, sci-fi and comedy. The show centres on a security unit (SecUnit) – an indentured private security cyborg – who secretly cracks the programming of its governing chip, granting itself autonomy.
Murderbot (Alexander Skarsgård), as it dubs itself, is both horrified and fascinated by humans. It’s far more afraid of eye contact, emotions and direct conversation than any physical danger. It’s also obsessed with mainlining media, particularly the ridiculous soap opera The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon.
Murderbot is hired, reluctantly, by some hippy scientists from a group of “freehold” planets – ones that exist outside the Corporation Rim – to act as protection on a scientific expedition. It goes quickly awry.
Wells’ award-winning novella, the first in an equally good series, limits us to the first-person perspective of the sarcastic cyborg. The series expands this frame beautifully, building on the source material’s dry humour to create a world that is both goofy and grounded.
And while there are serious themes at play, such as the way SecUnits are effectively enslaved, and the violent capitalist dominance of the Corporation Rim, the show is not heavy. Skarsgård offers a pitch-perfect performance of the awkward, anxious robot – its eyes flickering in horror as the scientists try to befriend it.
The opening minutes of the first episode are clumsy and on-the-nose, but ignore them. This otherwise well-designed and well-directed show cracks along with brisk, highly-entertaining 22-minute episodes.
– Erin Harrington
The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, season two
Disney+
Season one of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives had us hooked at the end of 2024. Now, the women have returned for an explosive 10-episode second season.
The reality series follows a group of Mormon women living in Utah. While the title may have you anticipating stories of faith and motherhood, the show is more focused on the personal lives of Mormon mothers who rose to TikTok fame due to scandal and infamy.
Season one saw the women grapple with balancing traditional Mormon values with their online lives and subsequent businesses (along with the fallout from a “soft-swinging scandal”). Season two further highlights infidelity, jealously and money.
Old characters are brought back, with finger-pointing ex-husbands and former alienated friends adding to the fray. Police are called, insults are thrown and many of the women delve deeper into their pasts.
The show flips flops between difficult moments such as processing the death of loved ones and difficult pregnancies, with parties and poorly executed party games. At one point the women play pregnancy roulette (a game no one should recommend), and take pregnancy tests which are anonymously read out to the group. Chaos ensues.
And after watching, you can search for the TikTok accounts of the stars and watch new drama unfold in real-time – or watch them “correct” and expand on past situations based on their own perspectives – far removed from show’s editors.
– Edith Jennifer Hill
Deaf President Now!
Apple TV+
Deaf President Now! is a stirring documentary about an iconic student uprising at Gallaudet University, the world’s only Deaf university, in 1988. The film chronicles how Deaf students – tired of being led by hearing leadership – decided to take things in their own hands come the 1988 Gallaudet presidential election.
With two of the three candidates being Deaf, the appointment of Elisabeth Zinser, a hearing candidate unfamiliar with Deaf culture, sparked outrage. Fuelled by decades of marginalisation, the students barricaded campus gates, burned effigies of Zinser and marched to the Capitol, calling for Deaf leadership in Deaf spaces.
It worked. The protest forced Zinser’s resignation and ushered in Irving King Jordan, Gallaudet’s first Deaf president.
The film juxtaposes historic footage with present-day interviews with key leaders of the movement, allowing them to tell their stories their own way. These reflections, delivered in American Sign Language (ASL), underscore how storytelling itself can become an act of resistance for Deaf people.
At the same time, the documentary wrestles with a paradox. Co-directed by Deaf activist Nyle DiMarco and hearing filmmaker Davis Guggenheim, the film exemplifies how Deaf storytelling still often has hearing involvement, especially when the story is packaged for a mainstream audience.
Nevertheless, the release of Deaf President Now! couldn’t have been more timely. With disability rights in the United States threatened under Trump, the film is a call to action. It reminds us Deaf culture isn’t just about language: it’s about Pride, self-determination and visibility.
In Lorcan Finnegan’s The Surfer, our unnamed protagonist (Nicolas Cage) is returning to his former Australian home from the United States. He is newly divorced, and trying to buy a beachside property to win back his family.
He takes his teenage son (Finn Little) for a surf near the property, but they are run off by an unfriendly pack of locals.
Returning alone to the beachside car park to make some calls, he is besieged there by the same gang, and this continues over the next several days. The gang is led by a terrifying middle-aged Andrew Tate-esque influencer, Scally (Julian McMahon), who runs the beach like a combination of a frat bro party and wellness retreat.
It is impossible to think of an actor other than Cage who could make a character like this so enjoyable to watch. Cage’s distinctively American confidence has no resistance to the terrifying switches of Australian masculinity from friendly to teasing to violent.
The Surfer is an absolute blast. A lot of the fun is in anticipating each dreadful humiliation – and it somehow turning out worse than you could have expected.
The Surfer beautifully captures the natural surroundings, stunning views and shimmering heat of Australian coastal summer. At the same time, a confined, semi-urban feature like a beachside car park feels bleak and uninviting.
As a film setting, it is both a spectacular wide-open vista and stiflingly claustrophobic – a perfect mechanism for The Surfer’s psychological horror.
The story of serial killers, Fred and Rose West, has been highly narrativised since their shocking crimes were discovered in Gloucester in 1994. The horror of the Wests lies in the juxtaposition of their seemingly ordinary suburban family and what was hidden beneath the foundations of their home.
Fred and Rose West: A British Horror Story takes us back to the moment of that revelation via previously unheard interview tapes and recordings of the property search – and of Rose while she was kept in a safe house. Family home videos add to the disturbing sense of the couple’s duplicity.
Interviews with the family of some of the victims emphasise the ongoing pain caused by the Wests, who preyed on vulnerable young women. Meanwhile, Fred’s interviews reinforce his determination to protect his wife: “I trained Rose to do what I wanted. That is why our marriage worked out so well.”
Many details of the Wests’ true horror, however, are absent: the incredible torture suffered by the victims; Fred and Rose’s own childhoods of abuse and Fred’s earlier assault of young girls, including his own sister; and any reference to the couple’s surviving children and the extraordinary abuse they suffered.
The horror of this new documentary is present in the couple’s habitual lies, their casual attitude to violence and murder, and their refusal to take responsibility for their many crimes. Yet it only scratches the surface of the Wests’ true horror story.
– Jessica Gildersleeve
The Four Seasons
Netflix
The Four Seasons follows three 50-something affluent couples as they holiday together over the course of a year.
Friends since college, the group’s easy camaraderie is upended by Nick’s (Steve Carroll) bombshell decision to leave his seemingly unsuspecting wife, Anne (Kerri Kenney-Silver), after 25 years of marriage. The announcement sends shockwaves through the other couples, testing their own relationships.
Adapted from Alan Alda’s bittersweet 1981 comedy of the same name, the series preserves the film’s narrative conceit, unfolding over four seasonal mini trips. Episode one opens in full spring at Nick and Anne’s bucolic lake house.
Given the luxury on display, you’d be forgiven for mistaking The Four Seasons as another entry in the “rich-people-behaving-badly” genre. But while there’s plenty of quips and snarky humour, what unfolds is ultimately much kinder – less a scathing indictment of wealth and more a gentle exploration of the banalities of love and middle age.
The show’s creators make the most of the expanded running time to humanise the sextet. The open marriage between gregarious Italian Claude (Marco Calvini) and husband Danny (a marvellous Colman Domingo) updates the source material without sliding into tokenism or homonormativity.
The prickly Type-A Kate (Tina Fey) and peacekeeper Jack (Will Forte) provide the series’ beating heart, in a relationship that feels lived-in and familiar.
Despite its focus on ageing, loss, mortality and grief, The Four Seasons offers comfort viewing at its finest, best enjoyed with a cup of tea and a loved one who’s known you for decades.
– Rachel Williamson
Gemma King receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Claudia Sandberg, Edith Jennifer Hill, Erin Harrington, Grace Russell, Jessica Gildersleeve, Rachel Williamson, Samuel Martin, and Sofya Gollan 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.
In an emergency, police are often the first called to the scene. But they are rarely equipped to deal with complex mental health crises.
Following recent parliamentary inquiries and royal commissions there has been a push – led by researchers, advocates and some senior police officials – for a shift to a health-led and paramedic-first response.
South Australia is one of a number of states trialling a program based on a “co-responder” model. This means trained specialists accompany police to some mental health call-outs in the community.
So, how do co-responder programs work? And are they effective? Here’s what the evidence says.
The current situation
Mental health legislation in all states and territoriesgives police the power to use “reasonable force” to transport people who “appear to have a mental illness” to hospital to prevent harm.
In most cases, this involves police taking people experiencing mental health crises to hospital emergency departments, without help from mental health clinicians or paramedics.
Those who need mental health support may not need a hospital stay.
One study found only one in five (23%) of those taken to emergency by police – usually after expressing intention to self-harm – were admitted.
The strain on police resources is also significant. For example, in New South Wales, police now respond to triple zero calls about mental health crises in the community every nine minutes (in Victoria it’s every ten).
Criminalising mental health
The mere presence of police alone can escalate already heightened emotional situations.
Yet the main reason police take people to hospital is for self-harm or suicidal distress, and most are not deemed to be of risk to others.
What do people with mental health issues want instead?
In our research, conducted in 2021–2022, we interviewed 20 people across Australia who’d had police intervene when they had a mental health crisis.
Those we spoke to often had multiple experiences of police call-outs over their lifetime.
They told us excessive use of force by police had traumatising and long-term effects. Many were subject to pepper spray, tasers, police dogs, batons, handcuffs and restraints, despite not being accused of committing criminal offences.
For example, Alex*, said:
I was having an anxiety attack, and they pepper sprayed me. I had bruises all over my hands from the handcuffs they put on really roughly, even though I wasn’t under arrest. Then they took me to hospital.
In our study, people with mental health issues said they would prefer an ambulance-led response wherever possible, without police attending at all.
They also wanted to be linked to therapeutic and community-based services, including mental health peer support, housing, disability support and family violence services.
What are co-responder programs?
Co-responder programs aim to de-escalate mental health incidents, reduce the number of emergency department presentations and link people experiencing mental health crises with services.
These programs, such as the one being trialled in South Australia, mean mental health clinicians (for example, social workers, counsellors or psychologists) attend some mental health incidents alongside police.
Peer-reviewed research shows these kinds of responses can be effective when compared to traditional police-led interventions.
The success of programs in the United States and Canada shows many mental health crises can safely managed without police involvement, for example by addressing issues such as homelessness and addiction with health workers, and reducing the number of arrests.
Co-responder programs are not universally available. Often, they do not operate after usual business hours or across regions.
There is also a lack of long-term evaluations of these programs. This means what we understand about their implementation, design and effectiveness over time can be mixed.
More broadly, the mental health sector is facing significant and ongoing labour shortages across Australia, posing another resourcing challenge.
How can responses to mental health crises be improved?
Last year, the final report from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System recommended paramedics should act as first responders in mental health crises wherever possible, instead of police, diverting triple zero calls to Ambulance Victoria.
However that reform has been delayed, with no indication of when it may be implemented.
A 2023 NSW parliamentary inquiry also remarked on the need to explore reducing police involvement.
Co-responder and ambluance-first models offer an improvement.
But our research suggests people with lived experience of mental health issues want more than ambulances replacing the police as crisis responders.
They need a mental health system that supports them and provides what they needed, when they need it: compassionate, timely and non-coercive responses.
*Name has been changed.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Panos Karanikolas is a member of the Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council (VMIAC). He received funding for this research from the National Disability Research Partnership as part of a partnership with VMIAC.
Chris Maylea receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, and national and state legal aid commissions.
Hamilton Kennedy 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Palazzo, Adjunct Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney
If war breaks out someday between the United States and China, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade.
Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports.
When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometres. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons.
Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we’ve seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping.
Australia’s current defence strategy cites the security of our “sea lines of communication and maritime trade” as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war.
To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia’s National Security, the problem with the government’s maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises.
A flawed maritime plan
Defence documents insist on a need for the Australian Defence Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia’s shores in order to protect the nation’s trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping.
However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China.
The reality is that Australia’s A$1.2 trillion of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries.
Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia’s national interests may well not be the paramount concern.
Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia’s shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war.
In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry.
If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal.
Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten.
In other words, the government’s future maritime plan — costing hundreds of billion dollars — may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation’s trade over thousands of kilometres.
What could work instead
Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don’t necessitate the building of warships.
Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security.
Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants.
The Australian government should also modernise its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war.
The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation’s liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our on-shore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security.
Additionally, the government should identify and subsidise vital industries, such as fertilisers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials.
Lastly, Australian industries, with the government’s assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations.
Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military.
This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path.
The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril.
Unfortunately, in the case of the nation’s maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia’s trade.
Albert Palazzo was the long-serving director of War Studies for the Australian Army.
SACRAMENTO– Governor Gavin Newsom and Acting Governor Eleni Kounalakis issued the following statement regarding the death of Baldwin Park Police Department Officer Samuel Riveros:
“We mourn the tragic loss of one of California’s brave law enforcement officers, who was killed in the line of duty while selflessly protecting the community. Our deepest condolences go out to Officer Riveros’ family, loved ones, and colleagues. We share in their grief and honor his sacrifice made in service to the public’s safety.”
On May 31, 2025, Officer Riveros was among the officers who were immediately met with gunfire after answering a call at a residence, resulting in fatal injuries to Officer Riveros.
Officer Riveros, 35, began his career with the Baldwin Park Police Department in 2016.
He is survived by his mother and sister.
In honor of Officer Riveros, flags at the State Capitol and Capitol Annex Swing Space will be flown at half-staff.
Press releases, Public safety
Recent news
May 31, 2025
News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation declaring May 2025, as “Mental Health Awareness Month.”The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATIONDuring Mental Health Awareness Month, we recognize the…
May 30, 2025
News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Connie Nakano, of Elk Grove, has been appointed Assistant Director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives and Equity at the Department of Aging. Nakano has been Assistant Director of…
May 30, 2025
News Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued a proclamation declaring May 2025, as “Foster Care Month.”The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATIONDuring Foster Care Month, we reaffirm to the more than 35,000 foster…
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
Today, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Dana Bash where he emphasized the unity of House and Senate Democrats in opposing the reckless Republican One Big Ugly Bill and serving as a check and balance on the out-of-control Trump White House.
DANA BASH: Here with me now is the House Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Thank you so much for being here this morning, sir. I want to start with that bill. You have vowed to keep the pressure on and stop it from becoming law. Obviously, you’re in the minority, same goes with Democrats in the Senate. How will you do that? LEADER JEFFRIES: Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill narrowly escaped the House of Representatives, and we’re going to continue to press our case across the country, partner with Senate Democrats in making clear to the American people the type of damage that this bill would do if it ever became law. This bill actually hurts everyday Americans in order to reward billionaires. It would strip away healthcare from approximately 14 million Americans. Premiums, copays and deductibles for tens of millions more will go up. Actually, if it ever were to be implemented into law, hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down and people will literally die. At the same time, this bill represents the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history. It takes food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans, and all of this is being done in order to enact massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors like Elon Musk. And then they want to stick the American people with the bill, increase the debt by more than $5 trillion. So I expect that you’ll see strong Democratic opposition in the Senate, just like there was strong Democratic opposition in the House. And the bill just narrowly escaped the House of Representatives.
DANA BASH: You made these arguments before it passed the House. Democrats are going to make that argument in the Senate, but again, you don’t have the votes, so what makes you think that what you’re saying will prevail and change the outcome?
LEADER JEFFRIES: The bill is deeply unpopular. If you go back to where we were in 2017, where Republicans, after several failed attempts, finally got their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act out of the House of Representatives, but it limped out of House and then failed in the Senate. I think the One Big Ugly Bill is setting up for a similar fate, but we can’t let our foot off the gas pedal.
DANA BASH: I want to ask you about something that happened in your home state of New York. In the past couple of days, Congressman Jerry Nadler said that DHS agents entered his congressional office on Wednesday without a warrant and handcuffed a member of his staff. This, of course, comes after the Trump Justice Department charged Democratic Congresswoman LaMonica McIver with obstructing ICE agents after an altercation at a facility in Newark, New Jersey. Now, I know you previously warned that the administration charging Members of Congress was a, quote, red line. What are you doing now that the red line you talked about has apparently been crossed? LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, let me make clear that the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government, the Congress. We don’t work for Donald Trump, we don’t work for the administration, we don’t work for Elon Musk, we work for the American people. And we have a responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. That’s the constitutional blueprint that was given to us by the framers of the United States democracy that we have inherited over the last few centuries. And so, we’re going to continue to undertake our congressional responsibility, notwithstanding efforts by the Trump administration to try to intimidate Democrats. It’s unfortunate that our Republican colleagues continue to be nothing more than rubber stamps for Trump’s reckless and extreme agenda, and the American people, I think, will ultimately reject that next year when we will take back control of the House of Representatives. In the meantime, in terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration have endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place and manner of our choosing, but the response will be continuous and it will meet the moment that is required.
DANA BASH: What exactly does that mean? Have you not decided how to respond?
LEADER JEFFRIES: We’ve publicly responded in a variety of different ways. We haven’t let our foot off the gas pedal in terms of additional things that may take place with respect to our congressional oversight authority and capacity. We will respond in a time, place and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen. DANA BASH: You believe, as Jerry Nadler said, that the administration is trying to intimidate Democrats?
LEADER JEFFRIES: I think the administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they’re trying to intimidate the country. This whole shock and awe strategy, this flood the zone with outrageous behavior that they’ve tried to unleash on the American people during the first few months of the Trump administration is all designed to create the appearance of inevitability. But Donald Trump has learned an important lesson, the American people are not interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king. It’s the reason why Donald Trump actually is the most unpopular president at this point of a presidency in American history. The American people have rejected this approach, and we as Congressional Democrats will continue to reject this approach.
DANA BASH: Mr. Leader, you brought up polls, so let me tell you about a new one that just came out here at CNN this morning. It shows that only 19% of Americans say that your party can get things done. 36% say the same about Republicans. And just 16% say your party has strong leaders. It’s pretty rough, and you are one of those leaders. How do you turn that around?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, we don’t have the presidency right now, so that’s always going to be challenging a few months after a presidential election. But we have to continue to make the case, one, that Democrats, of course, are the party that is determined to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers, that we believe that we need to lower the high cost of living, which for decades has been going up while the size of the middle class has been going down. So, understandably, there’s real frustration amongst the American people. They should be frustrated. Housing costs are too high, childcare costs—
DANA BASH: But they’re frustrated with you as well, with Democrats as well.
LEADER JEFFRIES: Of course, they’re frustrated with the system. But what is interesting, Dana, I think you’re aware of this, every single public poll that has come out since the Trump presidency has had congressional Democrats winning the generic ballot against congressional Republicans. And in fact, we know this is not simply speculative, in every single high-profile special election, Iowa in January, New York in February, Pennsylvania in March, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race in April and most recently in Omaha, the mayor’s race in May, Democrats have won. So the American people are actually being very clear and decisive in saying who they trust more to govern.
DANA BASH: We’re gonna have to leave it there. Hakeem Jeffries, the Leader of the House Democrats. Appreciate you being here this morning.
ADVISORY – PITTSBURGH – Shapiro Administration to Highlight Significant Proposed Investments in Pennsylvania’s Child Care Workforce
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) Secretary Dr. Val Arkoosh will visit the Children’s Home of Pittsburgh & Lemieux Family Center to tout how Governor Josh Shapiro’s 2025-26 Budget Proposal builds on his Administration’s work to make child care more affordable while expanding and strengthening the child care workforce.
Investing in the child care workforce ensures that families can continue working while children receive the foundation they need to succeed. The Governor’s proposed budget makes major investments in the child care workforce through competitive wage increases and retention bonuses for child care workers, including:
$55 million to give child care providers in Pennsylvania’s Child Care Works Program at least $1,000 per employee in recruitment or retention bonuses; and
An additional $10 million through DHS to increase Early Intervention (EI) provider rates, to ensure every Pennsylvania child has the support and resources needed to succeed – regardless of family income.
WHO: Department of Human Services Secretary Dr. Val Arkoosh
WHEN: Media Availability: Monday, June 2, 2025, at 11:00 AM
WHERE: Children’s Home of Pittsburgh 5324 Penn Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15224
MEDIA RSVP: Press interested in attending must RSVP with the name of photographer/reporter to ra-pwdhspressoffice@pa.gov.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
DOHA/Cairo, June 1 (Xinhua) — Egypt and Qatar on Sunday vowed to continue intensive efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip based on a proposal put forward by U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff.
A joint statement released by the foreign ministries of both countries said they hoped to quickly reach a preliminary 60-day agreement on a temporary ceasefire that would pave the way for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
According to the statement, Qatar and Egypt, in coordination with the United States, reaffirmed their commitment to intensifying mediation efforts to resolve the ongoing crisis.
They called on all parties to support the efforts of the mediators to reach a solution that will ensure stability and calm in the region.
“This step will help end the unprecedented humanitarian crisis, open border crossings in accordance with certain standards and facilitate the entry of humanitarian and emergency aid into the enclave to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people,” the statement said.
The document also emphasizes that the ultimate goal is to end the war in Gaza and begin the reconstruction of the Palestinian enclave. –0–
WHEREAS, Alaska summers offer longer days and abundant opportunities to enjoy the outdoors with family and friends; and
WHEREAS, barbecuing is one such opportunity, being a distinctly American pastime that embodies the spirit of summer, bringing together loved ones and neighbors to share delicious food and create lasting memories; and
WHEREAS, the annual State BBQ Championship takes place June 20 – 22, 2025 in Eagle River, and will test the skills and creativity of the most dedicated barbecue chefs in Alaska. Participants can anticipate a menu rich in diversity with unique styles and flavors; and
WHEREAS, this tradition has become a local mainstay bringing together barbecue enthusiasts each year to engage in friendly competition, demonstrate their culinary talents, and celebrate the spirit of community through food and festivity; and
WHEREAS, we encourage Alaskans to take the opportunity throughout the summer to join in the spirit of barbecuing either as a form of culinary skill and technique, or simply to enjoy delicious food and meaningful time with friends and loved ones.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Mike Dunleavy, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, do hereby proclaim June 2025 as:
BBQ Month
in Alaska and encourage all Alaskans to appreciate the friendships and festivities that can take place around barbecues all over the State.
WHEREAS, Alaska is known for its expansive landscapes, and people from around the world come to experience the magnificent views and diverse wildlife the Last Frontier has to offer; and
WHEREAS, throughout Alaska’s changing seasons, an abundance of recreational activities are enjoyed by residents and visitors, from big game hunting and sport fishing, to skiing, hiking, sled dog mushing, and much more; and
WHEREAS, Alaska is not only home to more than 700,000 people, it is also home to over 1,000 various vertebrate species, including approximately 100,000 black bear, 30,000 brown bear, and 750,000 wild caribou; and
WHEREAS, Alaska is also home to many ecosystems, ranging from coastal rainforests in the southern regions to arctic tundra and sea ice in the north; and
WHEREAS, as our time is increasingly spent indoors and in front of screens, it is important to take every opportunity to participate in outdoor activities, and Alaska’s State and National parks, forests, coastlands, and other recreational areas help mitigate the adverse effects of inactivity; and
WHEREAS, Alaskans play a vital role in caring for our natural spaces, and we demonstrate our dedication to maintaining our outdoor spaces for future generations by using our natural resources in a responsible manner and by educating our youth on the amazing wonders that surround us; and
WHEREAS, Great Outdoors Month offers an opportunity to celebrate the importance of Alaska’s majestic mountains, pristine waters, and vast landscapes as we enjoy the opportunities that abound and cherish the memorable experiences of being outdoors with family and friends.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Mike Dunleavy, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, do hereby proclaim June 2025 as:
Great Outdoors Month
in Alaska and encourage all Alaskans to take advantage of opportunities to enjoy the great outdoor activities available in Alaska’s majestic wilderness.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 1 (Xinhua) — Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang on Sunday expressed serious dissatisfaction and strong disagreement with the negative remarks about China made by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue.
As Zhang Xiaogang noted, the US Defense Secretary’s remarks are filled with deep-rooted hegemonic logic, bullying practices and Cold War mentality, constitute a serious infringement on China’s sovereignty, rights and interests, and distort the policies and positions of the Chinese side.
According to Zhang Xiaogang, these statements also ignore the joint efforts of countries in the region to safeguard prosperity and stability, and run counter to the common aspiration of all countries for peace and development. “We express serious dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to this,” the official said.
Zhang Xiaogang noted that the United States is increasing its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, grossly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and inflaming tensions.
“The facts have shown time and again that the United States, going against the grain and acting willfully, will ultimately only hurt itself,” the official warned.
He recalled that the Taiwan issue is an exclusively internal affair of China. The United States has no right to make irresponsible statements on this issue, much less try to use it as a tool to contain China, Zhang Xiaogang said.
He added that the People’s Liberation Army will firmly safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and resolutely suppress all separatist plans for “Taiwan independence” and any external interference.
Zhang Xiaogang stated that the United States, which seeks to destabilize the situation in the South China Sea by joining forces with other countries and escalating the situation, is the “biggest threat” to peace and stability in the region.
Noting that China has always stood guard over peace and development in the Asia-Pacific region, Zhang Xiaogang assured that the Chinese armed forces will work with regional countries to oppose hegemonism that harms the region, resist the region’s involvement in geopolitical conflicts, and oppose any country or force that brings war and chaos to the region. –0–
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
JERUSALEM, June 1 (Xinhua) — The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement on Sunday that it successfully intercepted a missile launched from Yemen.
According to Israeli television channel Channel 12, the missile was aimed at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, as a result of which the airport was temporarily closed to takeoffs and landings.
Since March 18, 49 rockets have reportedly been fired from Yemen at the Jewish state.
According to the Israeli rescue service Magen David Adom, there were no reports of casualties.
The rocket launch triggered air raid sirens in many areas of central Israel, including West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. –0–
Australian researchers have identified a common genetic variant that significantly increases the risk of dementia in men, potentially paving the way for more personalised approaches to prevention and treatment.
The research team from Curtin University found that a variant of the HFE gene, known as H63D, is carried by approximately one in three people in a single copy and by one in 36 in a double-copy form.
Published in the journal Neurology, the study revealed that men who carry two copies of the H63D variant are more than twice as likely to develop dementia in their lifetime compared to women with the same genetic profile.
The study analysed data from 19,114 healthy older adults across Australia and the United States to determine whether mutations in the HFE gene—which regulates iron levels in the body—could influence dementia risk.
“Having just one copy of this gene variant does not impact a person’s health or increase their risk of dementia. However, having two copies more than doubled the risk of dementia in men, but not in women,” said Professor John Olynyk from the Curtin Medical School.
While the gene itself cannot be altered, Olynyk said the brain pathways it affects—and which ultimately cause damage leading to dementia—could be targets for future treatment.
The reason why this variant affects men more than women remains unclear. “Further research is needed to understand why this genetic variant increases dementia risk specifically in males,” Olynyk added.
The HFE gene is commonly tested in Western countries, including Australia, when screening for hemochromatosis—a disorder where the body absorbs too much iron. The researchers suggest that broader screening, especially for men, could be considered in light of these findings.
Interestingly, although the HFE gene influences iron regulation, the team found no direct link between elevated iron levels in the blood and dementia risk among men with the variant.
“This suggests other mechanisms may be involved, possibly including increased inflammation and cell damage in the brain,” Olynyk noted.
The findings offer promising insights into more targeted dementia prevention strategies and highlight the need for gender-specific research in understanding the genetic underpinnings of neurodegenerative diseases.
Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia
Senator Reverend Warnock on MTP: “This Big Ugly Bill is Going to Strip People of their Health Care”
Today, Senator Reverend Warnock joined Kristen Welker on Meet the Press to outline the consequences for Georgians if the Senate passes the GOP billionaire tax giveaway bill
The Senator laid out a vision for a tax code that uplifts ordinary people: “Here’s a proposal. How about [allowing] the tax cuts to expire for people making over $500,000 a year? If they did that, they wouldn’t have to have these draconian SNAP cuts and cuts on health care”
Watch the full interview HERE
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) joined Kristen Welker on Meet the Press to outline the consequences for Georgians if the Senate passes the GOP billionaire tax giveaway bill. The GOP tax bill is expected to kick as many as 13.7 million people off their health care and risk up to 42,000 good-paying Georgia jobs, all to pay for a tax cut for the ultra-wealthy. Senator Warnock is a member of the Finance Committee, which oversees taxes and revenue. The full interview is available HERE.
“The Republicans are trying to push forward this Big Ugly Bill that’s going to literally cut as many as 7 million Americans [on Medicaid] off of their health care. It is a drag, not only on their health care, it is a drag on the American economy. They want to cut some $290 billion out of SNAP,” said Senator Reverend Warnock. “This is an unfunded mandate at a time when Donald Trump’s tariff tax is literally raising the cost of groceries, and so I’ve got my sleeves rolled up, and in front of me is the American people, the people of Georgia, and doing everything I can to save them from Trump’s Big Ugly Bill.”
“Here’s a proposal. How about [allowing] the tax cuts to expire for people making over $500,000 a year? If they did that, they wouldn’t have to have these draconian SNAP cuts and cuts on health care,” continued Senator Reverend Warnock.
Key excerpts of the interview are available below:
Senator Warnock on work reporting requirements:
“Listen, I am a big advocate for work. I have a fierce work ethic. It was something passed on to me by my late father, who was a preacher and a junk man… I believe in work and I recently released a study in Georgia that shows that this work reporting requirement, because that’s what we’re talking about, not work requirements, work reporting requirements, are very good at kicking [working] people off of their health care. It’s not good at incentivizing work at all… The data clearly shows that if you want to get people to work, the way to do that is to provide them just basic health care so that they don’t get sick. And what they’re trying to do now is take this terrible experiment in Georgia, force it on the whole nation, and what we will see as a result of that is a workforce that is sicker and poorer and an economy that’s weaker.”
Senator Warnock on consequences of the GOP tax bill:
“We are headed into a very critical week. The Republicans are trying to push forward this Big Ugly Bill that’s going to literally cut as many as 7 million Americans [on Medicaid] off of their health care. It is a drag, not only on their health care, it is a drag on the American economy. They want to cut some $290 billion out of SNAP. This is an unfunded mandate at a time when Donald Trump’s tariff tax is literally raising the cost of groceries. And so I’ve got my sleeves rolled up, and in front of me is the American people, the people of Georgia, and doing everything I can to save them from Trump’s Big Ugly Bill.”
“I’m laser-focused on doing everything I can for the people of my state, particularly children. You’re looking at somebody who grew up in public housing, the 11th of 12 children, but through good government programs, Pell grants and low-interest student loans, because of Head Start, which the Republicans want to cut. You are you looking at someone who is the first college graduate in his family, the 11th out of 12 children, who is now a United States Senator. I’ll tell you what keeps me up at night. It would be harder for me to do right now what I did as that 17-year-old kid all those years ago. That is an indictment on this moment. That’s an indictment on our leadership. And what the Republicans want to do this week will take us further back in the wrong direction. Which is why I’m going to do everything I can, not only to save us from this awful bill, but to put forward programs like workforce development programs so that our children can find their wings for their dreams. I want to do everything that I can for working-class people.”
Senator Warnock on his vision of a tax code that uplifts ordinary people:
“Here’s a proposal. How about [allowing] the tax cuts to expire for people making over $500,000 a year? If they did that, they wouldn’t have to have these draconian SNAP cuts and cuts on health care.”
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) today made this joint statement on their visit to Paris, France.
“Congratulations to Paris Saint-Germain for winning the Champions league and making history. We learned firsthand that the French are good at soccer and have amazing endurance when it comes to celebrating. Also during our time in Paris, we had worthwhile meetings with France’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Finance and President Macron’s national security advisor, and a lengthy and productive phone call with President Macron.
“As authors of the bone-crushing Russia sanctions bill that now has 82 Senate cosponsors, we assured President Macron and his team that we believe Putin is playing games regarding peace and is actually preparing for a military offensive in the late summer or early fall.
“President Macron shares the view that Putin’s behavior demonstrates that he is not interested in peace. Macron is also very determined to unite Europe, working in coordination with the U.S., to change the calculation for Putin. Importantly, we all agreed that if China and India stopped buying cheap Russian oil, Putin’s war machine would grind to a halt.
“President Macron supports lowering the price cap for Russian oil, which will hit Putin in the wallet, and working with his team, he committed to try to deliver a forceful message to China and India regarding their financial backing of Putin’s war. It is our hope that Europe will move forward together on lowering the price caps, and join together to send a clear message to China and India that they must change their behavior.
“Europe and the United States are holding all the cards and can make meaningful efforts to change China and India’s behavior.
“We are also hopeful Europe will up their game regarding the seizure of frozen assets of those who are benefiting off of Putin’s illegal invasion. President Macron was very open to that idea.
“We also discussed Russia’s kidnapping of approximately 20,000 Ukrainian children over the course of the war. President Macron has been a clear, moral voice against this barbaric kidnapping and other Russian atrocities.
“France has been terrific in supporting Ukraine. In many ways, this has been President Macron’s finest hour.
“We will be pushing the Senate to take action by using the expedited Rule 14 process to bring the sanctions bill to the floor. By the G7 summit, we hope to have sanctions put in place — in coordination with Europe — to deliver an unequivocal message to China.
“The theme of this engagement was that we appreciate President Trump’s earnest efforts to bring about peace and entice Putin to come to the table. It is our view Putin is not responding in kind, he is not interested in peace and that he plans to continue to dismember Ukraine. We appreciate that President Zelensky will send a delegation to Istanbul, which is a clear sign that he is earnestly seeking peace. Unfortunately, we believe Monday’s meeting will result in another demand by Russia that will be unrealistic.
“An end of the war that rewards Putin’s aggression will create a ripple effect around the world, which will be catastrophic in every corner. Bad actors will be emboldened, and those who want to align with the West will be deterred.
“If we can have a just and honorable peace, it will reset the world in all the right ways. History is watching.”
U.S. Coast Guard sent this bulletin at 06/01/2025 01:30 PM EDT
06/01/2025 01:18 PM EDT
SAN DIEGO — The crew of the Coast Guard Cutter PETREL (WPB-87350) interdicted 16 migrants from a 25-foot sail boat, approximately 54 miles Southwest, off Point Loma, California.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
JERUSALEM, June 1 (Xinhua) — The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Sunday that it and the Shin Bet security service killed a Hamas cell commander in an airstrike in the Gaza Strip on May 30.
The IDF statement said that Khalil Abd al-Nasser Muhammad Khatib, the commander of Hamas’s Al-Mawasi Battalion cell in the central Gaza Strip, was identified during an intelligence operation on May 30 and was subsequently killed in an IDF airstrike. The location of the operation was not specified.
According to the statement, the Hamas commander was responsible for an attack that killed 21 IDF soldiers in the al-Mawasi area of central Gaza in January 2024. The slain leader also led other attacks on Israeli army units.
Hamas has yet to comment on Israel’s statement. -0-