NewzIntel.com

Category: Military Intelligence

  • MIL-OSI China: US partially evacuate embassy staff from Iraq

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

    Non-essential U.S. embassy staff and their dependents have been ordered to leave Iraq due to unspecified security risks, sources from the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday.

    “Based on our latest analysis, we decided to reduce the footprint of our mission in Iraq,” the State Department said in a statement.

    “We are constantly assessing the appropriate personnel posture at all our embassies,” it added.

    Aslo on Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved the voluntary departure of U.S. military dependents from the Middle East.

    The security risks leading to the ordered departure from Iraq are not immediately clear. According to media reports, Iran recently threatened to strike U.S. bases in the region if negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program fail.

    U.S. President Donald Trump told a podcast on Wednesday that he was growing less confident in reaching a nuclear deal with Iran.

    “I don’t know,” Trump told the “Pod Force One” podcast when asked about talks over the Iran nuclear program. “I don’t know. I did think so, and I’m getting more and more – less confident about it.”

    Later on Wednesday, when asked why families of U.S. military personnel were authorized to leave the Middle East, Trump said: “You will have to see.”

    White House special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi this weekend for a sixth round of nuclear talks. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it’s aligned with US President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda.

    The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review.

    The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there’s a particular purpose.

    The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it’s not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same.

    There’s a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this.

    But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could “prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening”.

    So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily.

    He’s spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an “AUKUS agnostic”, though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough.

    And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia.

    As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs.

    Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame.

    There’s also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production.

    There’s no question there’s a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it’s anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months.

    Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines.

    Why the US won’t spike the deal

    I’m reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal.

    There are a few key reasons for this:

    1) We’re several years down the track already.

    2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system.

    3) Industrially, we’re on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line.

    And finally, most people don’t fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations.

    Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China’s potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean.

    China is acutely mindful of what we call the “Malacca dilemma”. Overwhelmingly, China’s trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia’s island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear.

    This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured.

    Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo.

    As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario.

    Could Trump be angling for a deal?

    As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US.

    This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia’s overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do.

    There’s a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome.

    It’s highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration “doing a deal”. In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a bad thing. This is what countries do.

    We talk a lot about the Trump administration’s transactional approach to international relations. But it’s actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal.

    So I’m reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship.

    Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of “the art of the deal”, but it won’t sink the pact.

    However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia’s interests are increasingly challenged?

    Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake.

    From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled “The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations” (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.

    – ref. Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it – https://theconversation.com/trump-may-try-to-strike-a-deal-with-aukus-review-but-heres-why-he-wont-sink-it-258798

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 12, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 12, 2025.

    Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it’s aligned with US President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda. The US undersecretary of defence

    Why are sunsets so pretty in winter? There’s a simple explanation
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chloe Wilkins, Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate, Solar Physics, University of Newcastle nelo2309/Shutterstock If you live in the southern hemisphere and have been stopped in your tracks by a recent sunset, you may have noticed they seem more vibrant lately. The colours are brighter and bolder, and

    After weeks of confusion and chaos, Tasmania heads back to the polls on July 19
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania The Tasmanian government has called a state election for July 19, the fourth in a little over seven years. Following days of high drama, Governor Barbara Baker finally granted Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s election request, saying there

    Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald

    A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University President Donald Trump is trying to unravel the signature climate policy of his predecessor Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act, as part of a sweeping bid to dismantle the United States’ climate ambition. The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, is a

    ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra Higher productivity has quickly emerged as an economic reform priority for Labor’s second term. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has laid down some markers for a productivity round table in August, saying he wants it to build the “broadest possible

    Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Bojovic, Lecturer, Sustainability and Environment, University of Technology Sydney Australia’s dairy industry is in the middle of a crisis, fuelled by an almost perfect storm of challenges. Climate change and extreme weather have been battering farmlands and impacting animal productivity, creating mounting financial strains and mental

    201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Schweinberger, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The University of Queensland Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express

    Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University An illustration from a 15th-century manuscript showing the coronation of the first king of Poland, Boleslaw I. Chronica Polonorum by Mathiae de Mechovia For two centuries, scholars have sparred over the roots of the Piasts, Poland’s first documented royal

    Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University wedmoments.stock/Shutterstock Timely access to high-quality medical imaging can be lifesaving and life-altering. Radiology can confirm a fractured bone, give us an early glimpse of our baby or detect cancer. But behind the x-ray, ultrasound,

    ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Leslie, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy with a focus on Educational Psychology, University of Southern Queensland Klaus Vedfelt/ Getty Images Bullying is sadly a common experience for Australian children and teenagers. It is estimated at least 25% experience bullying at some point in their schooling. The

    New Zealand’s ‘symbolic’ sanctions on Israel too little, too late, say opposition parties
    By Russell Palmer, RNZ News political reporter Opposition parties say Aotearoa New Zealand’s government should be going much further, much faster in sanctioning Israel. Foreign Minister Winston Peters overnight revealed New Zealand had joined Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway in imposing travel bans on Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar

    More deaths reported out of Sugapa in West Papua clashes with military
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist Further reports of civilian casualties are coming out of West Papua, while clashes between Indonesia’s military and the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement continue. One of the most recent military operations took place in the early morning of May 14 in Sugapa District, Intan Jaya in Central

    Q+A follows The Project onto the scrap heap – so where to now for non-traditional current affairs?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne Two long-running television current affairs programs are coming to an end at the same time, driving home the fact that no matter what the format, they have a shelf life. The Project on Channel

    Sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers is a start, but Australia and its allies must do more
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Whyte, Scientia Associate Professor of Philosophy and ARC Future Fellow, UNSW Sydney The Australian government is imposing financial and travel sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers: Itamar Ben-Gvir (the national security minister) and Bezalel Smotrich (finance minister). This is a significant development. While Australia has previously

    Malaria has returned to the Torres Strait. What does this mean for mainland Australia?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney Aspect Drones/Shutterstock Malaria is one of the deadliest diseases spread by mosquitoes. Each year, hundreds of millions of people worldwide are infected and half a million people die from the disease. While mainland Australia was

    Is regulation really to blame for the housing affordability crisis?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gurran, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney ymgerman/Shutterstock The Albanese government has a new mantra to describe the housing crisis, which is showing no signs of abating: homes have simply become “too hard to build” in Australia. The prime minister and senior ministers

    NZ’s goal is to get smoking rates under 5% for all population groups this year – here’s why that’s highly unlikely
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago Getty Images Next week is “scrutiny week” in parliament – one of two weeks each year when opposition MPs can hold ministers accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. For us, it’s a good time to take stock

    Labor’s win at the 2025 federal election was the biggest since 1943, with its largest swings in the cities
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne We now have the (almost!) final results from the 2025 federal election – with only Bradfield still to be completely resolved. Labor won 94 of the 150

    What are the ‘less lethal’ weapons being used in Los Angeles?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samara McPhedran, Principal Research Fellow, Griffith University After United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested multiple people on alleged immigration violations, protests broke out in Los Angeles. In response, police and military personnel have been deployed around the greater LA area. Authorities have been using

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Golden grills Navy Secretary over potential lapse in destroyer procurement that could cost jobs at BIW

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02)

    Budget without DDG destroyers in FY26 would undermine shipbuilding capacity, national security, Golden says

    WASHINGTON — Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) today questioned the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations on the lack of procurement funding for DDG-51 destroyers in their FY26 budget request. These ships are built at Bath Iron Works, and a lack of procurement would harm domestic shipbuilding capacity and national defense. 

    Golden addressed the top Navy officials during a full hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    “What we are asking for is simply consistency,” Golden said while questioning Secretary of the Navy John Phelan. “It’s just as important as how big the Navy you want to have, and how quickly you want to get there. You’re not going to maintain the best shipbuilders in the world if they don’t think it’s a consistent career. And you need their skills and assets. I would ask for you to give that some deep thought.” 

    DDG-51 destroyers, known as the “backbone of the Navy’s surface fleet,” are highly versatile warships capable of both anti-air defense and striking targets like submarines, land-based threats, and other warships. Two shipyards in the United States produce DDG-51s: Bath Iron Works in Maine, and Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.

    During the hearing, Acting Chief of Naval Operations James Kilby indicated that DDG class destroyers are a critical element to the Navy’s fleet. But the Trump Administration has released limited details about its upcoming FY2026 budget request, and current records show no plans to fund new DDG procurement in the upcoming year. 

    In addition to Phelan and Kilby, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General Eric M. Smith also testified on Wednesday. Golden’s full questioning can be watched here. A partial transcription is provided below:

    +++

    CONGRESSMAN JARED GOLDEN (ME-02), HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The navy’s shipbuilding plan envisions 23 [DDG] Flight III ships. You currently have one in the fleet. Correct? 

     

    ADMIRAL JAMES W. KILBY, ACTING CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS: Well, yes, sir. One is about ready to deliver. 

     

    GOLDEN: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the pending reconciliation bill includes two DDG Flight IIIs. Congressional intent was pretty clear that these would result in a three-ship cadence in FY26 and FY27. I’m now hearing behind the scenes that the plan that we don’t have yet — the complete plan from you — is going to goose-egg the DDG program in your request for FY26. So I’ve been on the committee for six years and I’ve heard from the Navy consistently a desire that the two DDG yards [each] achieve a 1.5-ship per-year rate of production. But here you’re signaling demand that would not support that rate of production. So, do you envision paying these yards to build ships — well, I’m sorry I’ll rephrase that — to not build ships? Or do you expect these yards to achieve a 1.5-ship production rate only to then turn around and lay shipbuilders off? 

     

    THE HON. JOHN C. PHELAN, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: Thank you for the question, Congressman. The president and I are committed to national defense and are committed to shipbuilding. As it relates to the budget, you know, we are working very closely with the OSD and the OMB on this as we speak, basically daily. And so we have a good idea of what we need and don’t need, and I don’t want to get in front of the president on that. He’ll be coming out with a budget soon. But I think shipbuilding will fare quite well in that budget. 

     

    GOLDEN: Shipbuilding, yes, but I’m talking about destroyers. 

     

    PHELAN:Yeah, I can’t go into specifics with you right now Congressman, but I understand the question. I think that we are at the end of the line on the current destroyers, on the DDG (X) as I’ve said before, we’re looking at the whole force and trying to understand what the whole force posture should be, in terms of what we’re learning and what’s going on, and how it should be structured, in effect. And destroyers are an important component of that. 

     

    GOLDEN:Yes. You know, across the country we have skilled shipbuilders, but they are aging. And every yard is trying to bring in new shipbuilders, to train them up, to have the skills that they need to build the best, most quality, most lethal Navy that this country needs. On this committee, we have found through studies, which we partnered with the Navy to do, that it takes on average seven years to develop a high-asset, fully skilled Navy shipbuilder. So this rate, this signal, the consistency of the signaled demand from the Navy, and then to actually deliver on acquiring at that rate, is key to not only developing that workforce — taking seven years to get them there — but maintaining them. You cannot build a future DDG (X) without shipbuilders. 

     

    PHELAN:I agree with you and I have more ships than our shipyards can handle for the next 10 years. Whether it’s a destroyer, whether it’s a tanker, whether it’s an oiler, whether it is a submarine. So I am not worried about the demand signal we have. It is getting those workers and getting them trained. It is there, and I think it is incenting the private sector to help us as well. So this is a, as I’ve said, It’s really going to be a whole of government approach. I think the demand signal, you know, as Congressman Courtney mentioned, which we recently did …

     

    GOLDEN:I hear you. What I’m asking to is a consistent concern that has been raised that these two yards [Ingalls and BIW] get to a 1.5-ship per year production rate, and you’re not actually then demanding that rate — which will inevitably lead to ups and downs, to bathtubs in the workforce, where you are hiring people, training people, and then laying people off. What we are asking for is simply consistency. It’s just as important as how big the Navy you want to have, and how quickly you want to get there. You’re not going to maintain the best shipbuilders in the world if they don’t think it’s a consistent career. And you need their skills and assets. I would ask for you to give that some deep thought. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Operation Gallant Phoenix deployment extended

    Source: New Zealand Government

    New Zealand has extended its commitment the Operation Gallant Phoenix multinational intelligence mission in Jordan, the Government announced today.

    The deployment of up to 10 New Zealand Defence Force and Police personnel has been extended for two years until June 2027. 

    “This operation is essential to our commitment to a safe and secure New Zealand,” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says.

    “Our personnel are working with counterparts from other countries to help us understand and respond to current, evolving and future terrorist and violent extremist threats to New Zealanders at home and abroad.”

    Defence Minister Judith Collins says New Zealand brings valuable resources and expertise to this global effort to counter terrorism and violent extremism.

    “In return, New Zealand is able to enhance relationships with a wide range of countries and expand our information networks.”

    Police Minister Mark Mitchell says the deployment provides our personnel with specialised experience working with overseas partners.

    “It also provides Police and other agencies with valuable insights and information to help keep New Zealanders safe.”

    Operation Gallant Phoenix was established in 2014 and is a mission where partners collect and share information about potential and existing terrorist threats, irrespective of threat ideology. It comprises a large number of countries and agencies, including law enforcement, military and civilian personnel. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Shaheen Presses Hegseth on Tariff Disruption to America’s Defense Industrial Base, National Security

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen

    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, today questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine during a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing examining the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget request for the U.S. Department of Defense. During her questioning, Shaheen pressed Hegseth on the impacts of the administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminum on the defense industrial base, supply chain lead times and our overall military readiness. Click here to watch Shaheen’s full remarks and questions.  

    Key Quotes from Shaheen: 

    • On the impacts of steel and aluminum tariffs on lead times and the defense industrial base, Shaheen said: “Mr. Secretary, when you were asked about the impact of President Trump’s tariffs under Section 232 on the defense industrial base, you commented that you’re in the business of tanks, not trade—but you can’t buy tanks without trade. And the administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs are having an impact on the lead times for our defense industrial base. […] And how are we going to address that if we need munitions or tanks or whatever it is, and we don’t have the steel and aluminum because of the tariffs?” 
    • On Secretary Hegseth’s comments that the first Trump administration gave javelins to Ukraine, Shaheen said: “Let me just correct the record here before I close. I’m out of time. But, Mr. Secretary, you pointed out that javelins were given to Ukraine during the first Trump administration, and I support that. But I would point out that [President Trump] was impeached over holding up giving those javelins and equipment to Ukraine. So I think as we look at the record, we ought to try and be accurate about how we portray things.” 

    In a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last month, Shaheen raised concerns about how the President’s trade war harms defense supply chains and ultimately weakens America’s military readiness. The Senator expressed how tariffs on imports will increase prices for the Department of Defense’s defense acquisitions – harming its purchasing power and further raising costs on small businesses.  

    Citing national security concerns and a lack of qualifications on the Senate floor, Shaheen announced in January that Hegseth would be the first nominee for Secretary of Defense that she opposed since joining the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in 2011. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: REMARKS: Ranking Member Coons calls out Secretary Hegseth for misplaced priorities, failure to submit budget in Defense Subcommittee hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for a series of failures in his management of the military ranging from focusing on culture war issues instead of military readiness, to straining relations with crucial allies, to discussing classified military operations over unsecured messaging apps, to a refusal to strategically fund the department.
    “It pains me to point out the obvious at this budget hearing: that in the face of these threats, the Department of Defense is more internally divided and beset by challenges of its own making than at any point in my memory,” said Ranking Member Coons. “We cannot win the fight for the future without allies, nor deter China and Russia without a functional Department of Defense, and we on this committee simply cannot do our job without an adequate budget submission.”
    Ranking Member Coons’ comments came at a hearing to review the president’s Defense Department budget request for fiscal year 2026. Despite the president’s budget being announced in a press release nearly one month ago, the current request for the Defense Department still only consists of a one-page table. The department’s own website still shows an error page instead of a full budget, as Ranking Member Coons pointed out in the hearing. 
    “It should go without saying that the People’s Republic of China does not operate under a continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2026 request is no better.  If you go to [the] DOD fiscal year 2026 page right now, this is what you’ll see. This is what is currently publicly available, and the budget request was not much better,” said Ranking Member Coons. “More than a month after OMB’s press release, we are still waiting for real budget details. This is officially the latest budget submission of the modern era.”
    The lack of an actual budget request is just one of Secretary Hegseth’s repeated failures to ensure our military has the funds it needs during his first months in office. Secretary Hegseth failed to speak out against a continuing resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2025, resulting in the first year-long CR for the Department of Defense in our nation’s history that has undermined military operations, procurement, and readiness. Secretary Hegseth is currently advocating for increasing military spending through the Republican tax bill, rather than the normal appropriations process. Not only does linking military spending to a controversial, party-line bill needlessly politicize the process, any increase through reconciliation will be a one-time increase, making it harder for Defense Department leaders to plan for the future.
    Secretary Hegseth’s brief tenure has been filled with errors far beyond his failure to put future military spending on a consistent footing. In March, Ranking Member Coons called for Secretary Hegseth to resign over revelations that he shared critical information about military operations over an unsecure messaging app that could have endangered U.S. servicemembers if compromised. His department has chosen to spend $134 million illegally deploying Marines to Los Angeles, and as much as $45 million on a military parade in Washington that President Trump requested for his birthday at a time when the defense budget is already stretched. He has also spent much of his time on culture war issues – including personally directing the Navy to rename ships named after Thurgood Marshall and Harvey Milk – instead of addressing military threats in Eastern Europe and the Indo Pacific.
    A full video of his remarks can be found here.
    Senator Coons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as well, Secretary Hegseth, Chairman Caine, Ms. McDonald, for joining us here today.
    We are confronting a world more dangerous today than at any time since the Cold War, and our nation needs and deserves a strong and coordinated response to deter the threats we face, to protect our freedoms, and keep our citizens safe. The last several administrations correctly prioritized China, the People’s Republic of China, as the pacing threat to our nation’s security. More recently, as the Chairman just said, and as I strongly agree, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly aligned in ways that are making each of them more threatening to our national security.
    This is happening right now in Ukraine. Russia’s aggression is buttressed by Iranian drones, North Korean soldiers and Chinese components, technology, and funding. Ukraine is, though, not just a preview of geopolitics, it’s also the future of warfare, and the pervasive electronic warfare and drone swarms we see on the front lines are lessons from which we must learn. We need to address the urgency of this moment, to unify our efforts, and focus our precious time and money on what’s important. Chairman McConnell and I are ready to do that with anyone interested in engaging in good faith, which is why it pains me to point out the obvious at this budget hearing: that in the face of these threats, the Department of Defense is more internally divided and beset by challenges of its own making than at any point in my memory.
    Let’s start with the budget. Our Department of Defense and our troops are currently operating under a full year continuing resolution for the very first time. The continuing resolution provides tens of billions of dollars less in purchasing power than under the previous administration. This does not deliver on ‘peace through strength.’ No one on this subcommittee wanted this outcome.  Mr. Secretary, we appealed to your office to timely and publicly oppose the CR as all previous secretaries had done, but you were silent. You never responded. That CR’s cuts are forcing DOD to halt training and shrink exercises, and it fundamentally undermines readiness. DOD has made the CR worse by paying for DHS border activities with DOD funds meant for military quality of life – money to repair buildings, to relocate military families, to keep the Navy’s fleet operationally ready. Shrinking budgets will not speed up our acquisition system, complete kill chains, or deepen our magazines. We are falling behind thanks to some poor choices. It should go without saying that the People’s Republic of China does not operate under a continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2026 request is no better. If you go to DOD fiscal year 2026 page right now, this is what you’ll see. [Holds up 404 Not Found Page.] This is what is currently publicly available, and the budget request was not much better.
    We were given this on Monday. [Holds up single page.] More than a month after OMB’s press release, we are still waiting for real budget details. This is officially the latest budget submission of the modern era. For anyone not versed in how this should go at this stage, we would have received at least this, if not reams more. [Holds up large stack of papers.] This committee – to do its job – wants to work with you on the details of exactly which programs and exactly which deployments and exactly which end strength you are requesting, so that in a timely way, we can complete our work and avoid another disastrous continuing resolution, but the department has been AWOL in the [FY] 26 debate, as it was in the [FY] 25 debate. Bills are already being written, and the department’s inability to explain its budget is slowly making it less relevant to what it receives in fiscal year 26 in our appropriations process.
    What’s clear is the base request is exactly the same funding level as the FY 25 CR that’s created problems. Mr. Secretary, you’re requesting an increase instead through budget reconciliation, a partisan gamble that I believe shows poor judgment about how to handle our nation’s security. DOD’s ability to take care of our warfighters should not be contingent on whether Congress can pass a bill that also explodes the national debt, gives billionaires tax cuts, cuts access to health care – in short, is controversial and uncertain. I think it sends a bad message to the U.S. defense industry about the uncertainty of appropriations for key systems at precisely the time we want certainty and we want more from them.  
    Who wins in all this? Not the American people; our adversaries.
    Mr. Secretary, I’m also concerned that far more of your time so far has been spent inside the building on culture wars, rather than outside the building deterring real ones. This administration began by firing a long list of qualified uniformed leaders without cause: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Vice Chief of the Air Force, the head of the National Security Agency, the U.S. military representative to NATO, the director of the Defense Health Agency, the head of the Coast Guard, and all of the Service Judge Advocates General; continues to push out tens of thousands of civilians who should instead be repairing our ships, testing equipment, providing healthcare. It’s rooting out fully qualified, combat proven service members solely because they are transgender to satisfy a petty animus, and it’s censoring service academy libraries so that no future leader of our military can read Maya Angelou or Janet Jacobs’ book on the Holocaust, even Jackie Robinson’s World War II service photo is not safe from culture warriors. In January of this year, any patriotic American who met the qualifications could serve our nation and the Marines at 29 Palms were training for the Indo-Pacific, not the streets of Los Angeles. We worried then about our enemies, rather than each other, and we should return to that model.
    We also, frankly, need to get back to partnering with and supporting our allies. This administration has publicly and repeatedly threatened to seize the territory of NATO allies and retake the Panama Canal. The president paused aid to Ukraine – both intelligence partnership and military support – in the middle of their just war against one of our primary global enemies. And at times, rather than help and partner with our allies, we have levied massive tariffs against our partners. The department’s fiscal year 26 request compounds these mistakes by explicitly eliminating assistance to Ukraine and slashing security cooperation with allies around the world, sending exactly the wrong signal. Our global network of strong allies is our asymmetric advantage. The administration’s budget request may try to abandon our allies, but this Congress should not. I’ll also cite a predecessor in your role, Secretary Mattis, who testified to Congress that we need to complement strong investments in defense with comparable investments in diplomacy and development. In fact, I think he once said famously, if we don’t spend adequately on diplomacy and development, I will need more bullets because we will be in more wars; yet, DOGE has shredded our development work, shredding trust as well with partners and allies.
    Last, I’m troubled by the chaos and poor judgment that have been on full display from the Pentagon front office. Mr. Secretary, you should not have shared operational details of U.S. military strikes on Signal with other executive branch officials or personal acquaintances. Mishandling important and sensitive military information in the middle of an operation by a secretary is unthinkable. You’ve also fired several top aides, and you’ve been unable to hire a new chief of staff for months.
    Mr. Secretary, this cannot continue. Your responsibilities to our troops and our nation are far too important. We cannot win the fight for the future without allies nor deter China and Russia without a functional Department of Defense, and we on this committee simply cannot do our job without an adequate budget submission. I welcome partnership on these important priorities, and I look forward to discussing why we haven’t been able to achieve that so far and where to go from here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: VIDEO: Capito Questions Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Budget Request Hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

    [embedded content]

    Click here or on the image above to watch Senator Capito’s questions. 

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, questioned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine at a hearing to review the president’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for the U.S. Department of Defense. 

    HIGHLIGHTS:

    ON STRONG MILITARY RECRUITMENT NUMBERS:  

    SENATOR CAPITO: “I’m very proud of this fact, that the recruiting goals that have been falling short – with the exception of the Marine Corps, I want to give them a shout out – you said that they are higher.” 

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: “There was plenty of pre-criticism that certain groups would not be interested in joining the military in this environment, and we’ve seen the exact opposite. Because for us, it’s not about women or men or black or white, it’s about we want the most qualified Americans possible in our ranks.” 

    SENATOR CAPITO: “When you’re talking to recruiters, what’s the difference?” 

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: “The difference is a Commander in Chief they believe in.” 

    ON MAINTAINING SPACE SUPERIORITY: 

    SENATOR CAPITO: “I think a powerful, destabilizing force would be if China were to get the superior hand in space. General Saltzman has said that he feels that we do not have what we need to fight on our terms…I would imagine in your National Defense Strategy, but also reflected in your budget…how does this match with the need for us to become space dominant?” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: WATCH: On House Floor, Pressley Condemns Trump’s ICE Raids, Calls for Solidarity with Immigrant Neighbors

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    “From my home in the Massachusetts 7th… to Los Angeles, where Donald Trump sent the National Guard and Marines to descend on justice-seeking peaceful protestors – the hurt and harm of this hostile White House is felt by us all.”

    “We need solidarity and resistance and a rejection in this moment of these attacks on our immigrant communities. An attack on our immigrant communities is an attack on all of us.”

    Video (YouTube)

    WASHINGTON – Today, in a fiery floor speech, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) delivered a blistering condemnation of Donald Trump’s campaign of terror against immigrant communities, which have inflicted unspeakable trauma on families across the nation and done nothing to make our country safer.

    In her remarks, Congresswoman shared heartbreaking stories of families in the Massachusetts 7th impacted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) unlawful raids, condemned Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, and called for urgent solidarity with our immigrant neighbors.

    A full transcript of her remarks as delivered is available below, and the full video is available here.

    Transcript: On House Floor, Pressley Condemns Trump’s ICE Raids, Calls for Solidarity with Immigrant Neighbors

    House of Representatives

    June 11, 2025

    Mr. Chair,

    I rise today on behalf of our neighbors and community members, immigrants, our immigrant brothers and sisters who are being targeted and abducted, taken from their homes, torn away from their babies, disappeared on their way to church, work, and to school.

    Children crying in their teachers’ arms, families separated, communities traumatized. If they’ve not already been kidnapped, fearful that they will be.

    Children crying in their teachers’ arms afraid that they’re going to come home and their parents will be gone.

    Elders carrying all of their medications with them in their comings and goings for fear of being abducted and sent somewhere without access to necessary healthcare.

    We see a spike in no-shows and cancellations in health clinics as patients would rather miss critical care than risk detainment.

    We see young parents and grandparents alike attending their immigration court hearings, eager to officially call this country home, only to be met with handcuffs and shoved into cars by masked ICE individuals.

    This is Donald Trump’s America.

    But these are real people. Hardworking people whose labor and contributions make our communities a better place.

    Young people who show up every day in our schools as part of our learning communities.

    These are mothers and fathers working overtime to provide for their children.

    In my district, the Massachusetts 7th, my Chelsea constituent Kenia and her three children were driving to a Mother’s Day church service with her husband Daniel when ICE agents in unmarked vehicles ambushed them, broke the passenger’s side window, forcefully extracted Daniel from the car, and slammed his face on the sidewalk while their three watched on in horror.

    And in East Boston, my constituent Mercedes and her son are struggling after her husband Jose was arrested at work and detained for two days at an ICE facility in Burlington.

    Jose was living here legally with Temporary Protected Status but was told by the ICE agents who detained him that “only people born here have rights.”

    These are real people. Real people – children and adults alike – traumatized, whose lives have been disturbed, upended, and irreparably harmed.

    Donald Trump and ICE claim that they are committing this assault on our communities in the name of safety.

    Terror makes no one safe. It does the opposite. It sows chaos, it breeds fear, and it fosters unrest.

    From my home in the Massachusetts 7th – where mothers have wept on my shoulder, pleading for their husbands to come home, for their families to be reunited – to Los Angeles, where Donald Trump sent the National Guard and Marines to descend on justice-seeking peaceful protestors – the hurt and harm of this hostile White House is felt by us all.

    This has nothing to do with law and order. That is laughable coming from the most Godless, lawless Oval Office occupant in our history.

    This has everything to do with power and control.

    Deploying the National Guard without a governor’s approval, taking unwarranted and unprecedented action against peaceful justice-seekers and freedom fighters.

    We must see our neighbor’s humanity in this moment.

    Yet across the country, occupant Trump is working overtime to be a fascist dictator, to weaponize our government against its own people, to sow fear and chaos, to silence dissenting voices in our communities, at our colleges, in the courts and in fact, even in Congress.

    These actions are lawless – a complete violation of our constitutional rights to due process – void of common sense and compassion.

    Know this, for those of you watching at home, who might be tempted to think that this is not your problem:

    An extremist march towards fascism is everyone’s problem. Trust me, if you’re not already suffering, you will be.

    And we need solidarity and resistance and a rejection in this moment of these attacks on our immigrant communities.

    An attack on our immigrant communities is an attack on all of us.

    As a woman of faith, my God tells me to welcome the stranger. Do not be indifferent to the suffering of your neighbors.

    Immigrants make our country a better place. Immigrants make America great. And our immigrant brothers and sisters deserve to call this country home.

    I yield back.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 11 of 13]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on

    SUVA, Fiji (June 9, 2025) U.S. Army soldiers, assigned to 72nd Medical Detachment Veterinary Service Support, and veterinarians from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Fiji animal hospital conduct spay surgery on dogs and cats during a spay and neuter clinic, as part of Pacific Partnership 2025, in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.09.2025
    Date Posted: 06.11.2025 18:07
    Photo ID: 9104616
    VIRIN: 250609-N-ED646-3656
    Resolution: 8640×5760
    Size: 8.45 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ
    Web Views: 2
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    This work, Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 13 of 13], by PO2 Moises Sandoval, identified by DVIDS, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 4 of 13]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on

    SUVA, Fiji (June 9, 2025) Engineering Aide 2nd Class Jordanne Jones, left, and Construction Electrician 2nd Class Connor Croissant, both assigned to Amphibious Construction Battalion 1, conduct construction repairs at Waiqanake School during Pacific Partnership 2025 in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.09.2025
    Date Posted: 06.11.2025 18:07
    Photo ID: 9104598
    VIRIN: 250609-N-ED646-7596
    Resolution: 7731×5158
    Size: 7.19 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ
    Web Views: 2
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    This work, Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 13 of 13], by PO2 Moises Sandoval, identified by DVIDS, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Sorensen Honors Navy Veteran Harvey Milk in House Armed Services Committee Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17)

    Congressman Sorensen: “Harvey Milk, Like Every Veteran Who Served Our Nation, Deserves Our Thanks”

    Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17) honored U.S. Navy veteran and LGBTQ+ icon Harvey Milk, who served on a submarine as a diving officer in the Korean War, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Congressman Sorensen questioned U.S. Navy Secretary John Phelan and demanded to know why the U.S. Navy decided to scrub Harvey Milk’s name from a ship named in his honor. 

    “Harvey Milk was a courageous American who served our country in the Navy just like my grandfather and millions of other veterans,” said Congressman Sorensen. “Every veteran deserves to be thanked for their service. It’s wrong and un-American for this Administration to remove Harvey’s name from a ship named in his honor after he defended our freedoms in the Korean War.” 

    You can watch the full exchange with Secretary Phelan HERE.

    Congressman Sorensen is the only LGBTQ+ member on the House Armed Services Committee. He recently joined a letter objecting to the renaming of the Harvey Milk U.S. Navy ship and calling on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to rescind his order renaming the ship. 

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Amo, Beyer, Subramanyam Lead Bipartisan Request for an Independent Review of DCA Airspace in Transportation Funding Bill

    Source: US Congressman Gabe Amo (Rhode Island 1st District)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), Don Beyer (D-VA-8), and Gabe Amo (D-RI-1) led 16 of their colleagues in requesting that the Department of Transportation (DOT) facilitate an independent review of Washington, DC airspace as part of the Appropriations Committee’s Fiscal Year 2026 transportation funding bill. Such a review is warranted following the collision that occurred between an Army UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter and American Airlines Flight 5342 near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) on January 29, 2025 that resulted in the deaths of sixty-seven individuals. The request asks for the review to be conducted by an independent panel and that the results of that review be released and made available to Congress. 

    “We’re deeply grateful to Congressmen Subramanyam, Beyer, and Amo, along with their colleagues, for advancing this bipartisan request to help ensure DCA is safer for the public. Our family group developed this independent review of DCA as one of our seven reform priorities because we believe that public trust can only be rebuilt through transparency, accountability, and a willingness to learn from the systemic failures that led to the January 29 crash,” said Families of Flight 5342, a group formed by family members of those lost aboard Flight 5342 to advance aviation safety reform. “We strongly urge the Subcommittee to adopt this request. It represents a critical step in the broader effort to honor the loved ones we lost and make our skies safer for all.”

    The members highlighted that the airspace above and around our nation’s capital is highly complex, with large volumes of commercial, law enforcement, and military aircraft operating in close proximity. DCA has the busiest runway in the country, and the members specifically requested that the review evaluate DCA’s current total flight volume.

    They emphasized that the review should be conducted by an independent panel of experts in aviation safety, airspace operations, and civil-military coordination selected by the Department of Transportation in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board, and the relevant congressional committees.

    Their request asked the review assess: historical and ongoing risks associated with DCA airspace design and usage, including historical incidents relevant to current protocols and whether DCA’s current flight volume exceeds the airport’s operational capabilities within normal operating hours; the adequacy of coordination protocols between the FAA, Department of Defense, and other entities involved in or affected by airspace coordination; patterns of near-miss incidents involving military aircraft; and structural, cultural, or procedural barriers to risk identification and accountability.

    In the letter, the Members wrote: “While the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigation into the collision is ongoing, there are other sources of expertise that can contribute to the safety of this airspace, military service members, and the traveling public. We believe that an independent review of the airspace, coordination between civil and military air traffic, and operational safety, including whether DCA’s current total flight volume exceeds the airport’s operational capabilities within normal operating hours, could provide valuable insight to Congress and the relevant federal agencies as they develop policies to improve airspace safety.”

    The panel’s findings and recommendations would be required to be published online and shared with the relevant congressional committees within 180 days of the panel’s formation.

    The letter was signed by Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rick Larsen as well as Reps. André Carson, Sharice L. Davids, Cleo Fields, Steny H. Hoyer, Glenn Ivey, John B. Larson, Seth Magaziner, Jennifer L. McClellan, Seth Moulton, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jamie Raskin, Shri Thanedar, William Timmons, Jill Tokuda, and Paul Tonko.

    The letter can be read and downloaded here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

    Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald Trump.

    If they’re not, they ought to read the two essays under review here. They offer a host of compelling reasons why a reassessment of the costs, benefits and possible future trajectory of the alliance is long overdue.

    Review: After America: Australia and the new world order – Emma Shortis (Australia Institute Press), Hard New World: Our Post-American Future; Quarterly Essay 98 – Hugh White (Black Inc)

    And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis and Hugh White, it seems unlikely either of these will be read, much less acted upon, by those Shortis describes as the “mostly men in suits or uniforms, with no democratic accountability” who make security policy on our behalf.

    White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU, was the principal author of Australia’s Defence White Paper in 2000. Despite having been a prominent member of the defence establishment, it is unlikely even his observations will prove any more palatable to its current incumbents.

    Shortis, an historian and writer, is director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program. She is also a young woman, and while this shouldn’t matter, I suspect it does; at least to the “mostly men” who guard the nation from a host of improbable threats while ignoring what is arguably the most likely and important one: climate change.

    The age of insecurity

    To Shortis’s great credit, she begins her essay with a discussion of a “world on fire” in which the Trump administration is “locking in a bleaker future”.

    This matters for both generational and geographical reasons. While we live in what is arguably the safest place on the planet, the country has the rare distinction of regularly experiencing once-in-100-year floods and droughts, sometimes simultaneously.

    If that’s not a threat to security, especially of the young, it’s hard to know what is. It’s not one the current government or any other in this country has ever taken seriously enough.

    White gives a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of this reality, reflecting an essentially traditional understanding of security – even if some of his conclusions will induce conniptions in Canberra.

    While suggesting Trump is “the most prodigious liar in history”, White thinks he’s done Australia a favour by “puncturing the complacency” surrounding the alliance and our unwillingness to contemplate a world in which the US is not the reliable bedrock of security.

    Shortis doubts the US ever was a trustworthy or reliable ally. This helps explain what she calls the “strategy of pre-emptive capitulation”, in which Australian policymakers fall over themselves to appear useful and supportive to their “great and powerful friend”. Former prime minister John Howard’s activation of the ANZUS alliance in the wake of September 11 and the disastrous decision to take part in the war in Iraq is perhaps the most egregious example of this unfortunate national proclivity.

    White reminds us that all alliances are always transactional. Despite talk of a “history of mateship”, it’s vital to recognise if the great power doesn’t think something is in its “national interest”, it won’t be doing favours for allies. No matter how ingratiating and obliging they may be. While such observations may be unwelcome in Canberra, hopefully they won’t come as a revelation.

    Although White is one of Australia’s most astute critics of the conventional wisdom, sceptics and aspiring peace-builders will find little to cheer in his analysis.

    A good deal of his essay is taken up with the strategic situations in Europe and Asia. The discussion offers a penetrating, but rather despair-inducing insight into humanity’s collective predicament: only by credibly threatening our notional foes with nuclear Armageddon can we hope to keep the peace.

    The problem we now face, White argues, is the likes of Russia and China are beginning to doubt America’s part in the “balance of resolve”. During the Cold War both sides were confident about the other side’s ability and willingness to blow them to pieces.

    Now mutual destruction is less assured. While some of us might think this was a cause for cautious celebration, White suggests it fatally undermines the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

    Even before Trump reappeared, this was a source of angst and/or uncertainty for strategists around the world. The principle underpinning international order in a world in which nuclear weapons exist, according to White, is that

    a nuclear power can be stopped, but only by an unambiguous demonstration of willingness to fight a nuclear war to stop it.

    Trump represents a suitably existential threat to this cheery doctrine. Europeans have belatedly recognised the US is no longer reliable and they are responsible for their own security.

    Likewise, an ageing Xi Jinping may want to assure his position in China’s pantheon of great leaders by forcibly returning Taiwan to the motherland. It would be an enormous gamble, of course, but given Trump’s admiration for Xi, and Trump’s apparent willingness to see the world carved up into 19th century-style spheres of influence, it can’t be ruled out.

    Australia’s options

    If there’s one thing both authors agree on it’s that the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, the notional centrepiece of Australia’s future security is vastly overrated. It’s either a “disaster” (Shortis) or “insignificant” (White).

    Likewise, they agree the US is only going to help Australia if it’s judged to be in America’s interest to do so. Recognising quite what an ill-conceived, ludicrously expensive, uncertain project AUKUS is, and just how unreliable a partner the US has become under Trump, might be a useful step on the path to national strategic self-awareness.

    Shortis thinks some members of the Trump administration appear to be “aligned with Russia”. Tying ourselves closer to the US, she writes, “does not make us safer”. A major rethink of, and debate about, Australia’s security policy is clearly necessary.

    Policymakers also ought to take seriously White’s arguments about the need to reconfigure the armed forces to defend Australia independently in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

    Perhaps the hardest idea for Australia’s unimaginative strategic elites to grasp is that, as White points out,

    Asia’s future, and Australia’s, will not be decided in Washington. It will be decided in Asia.

    Former prime minister Paul Keating’s famous remark “Australia needs to seek its security in Asia rather than from Asia” remains largely unheeded. Despite plausible suggestions about developing closer strategic ties with Indonesia and even cooperating with China to offer leadership on climate change, some ideas remain sacrosanct and alternatives remain literally inconceivable.

    Even if we take a narrow view of the nature of security – one revolving around possible military threats to Australia – US Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s demands for greater defence spending on our part confirm White’s point that,

    it is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less. This is the dead end into which our “America First” defence policy has led us.

    Quite so.

    Australia’s strategic elites have locked us into the foreign and strategic policies of an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime.

    But as Shortis observes, we cannot be confident about our ability, or the world’s for that matter, to “just ride Trump out”, and hope everything will return to normal afterwards.

    It is entirely possible the international situation may get worse – possibly much worse – with or without Trump in the White House.

    The reality is American democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and the coterie of startlingly ill-qualified, inhumane, self-promoting chancers who make up much of his administration.

    A much-needed national debate

    Both authors think attempts to “smother” a serious national debate about defence policy in Australia (White), and the security establishment’s obsession with secrecy (Shortis), are the exact opposite of what this country needs at this historical juncture. They’re right.

    Several senior members of Australia’s security community have assured me if I only knew what they did I’d feel very differently about our strategic circumstances.

    Really? One thing I do know is that we’re spending far too much time – and money! – acting on what Shortis describes as a “shallow and ungenerous understanding of what ‘security’ really is”.

    We really could stop the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza if Xi had a word with Putin and the US stopped supplying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the weapons and money to slaughter women and children. But climate change would still be coming to get us.

    More importantly, global warming will get worse before it gets better, even in the unlikely event that the “international community” (whoever that may be) agrees on meaningful collective action tomorrow.

    You may not agree with all of the ideas and suggestions contained in these essays, but in their different ways they are vital contributions to a much-needed national debate.

    An informed and engaged public is a potential asset, not something to be frightened of, after all. Who knows, it may be possible to come up with some genuinely progressive, innovative ideas about what sort of domestic and international policies might be appropriate for an astonishingly fortunate country with no enemies.

    Perhaps Australia could even offer an example of the sort of creative, independent middle power diplomacy a troubled world might appreciate and even emulate.

    But given our political and strategic elites can’t free themselves from the past, it is difficult to see them dealing imaginatively with the threat of what Shortis calls the looming “environmental catastrophe”.

    No wonder so many of the young despair and have little confidence in democracy’s ability to fix what ails us.

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

    – ref. Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/goodbye-to-all-that-rethinking-australias-alliance-with-trumps-america-258066

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom statement on the passing of Brian Wilson

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 11, 2025

    Los Angeles, California – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement today on the passing of Brian Wilson, singer-songwriter and Beach Boys co-founder:

    “Jennifer and I join the world in mourning the death of Brian Wilson, a musical genius and California icon. Wilson fundamentally changed modern music, helping make the Beach Boys not only the defining American band of their era, but also the California band to this day. He captured the mystique and magic of California, carrying it around the world and across generations. Wilson did not lead an easy life, but he persevered through the trials he faced to find peace with his family and his music. He leaves a legacy that, like any one of the Beach Boys’ hits, will not be forgotten.”

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    Jun 10, 2025

    News Los Ángeles — En un discurso pronunciado esta noche ante casi 40 millones de californianos y estadounidenses en todo el país, el Gobernador Gavin Newsom condenó la militarización ilegal de Los Ángeles por parte del Presidente Trump y advirtió que las acciones del…

    Jun 10, 2025

    News What you need to know: In an address delivered to nearly 40 million Californians and Americans nationwide tonight, Governor Gavin Newsom condemned President Trump’s unlawful militarization of Los Angeles and warned that the President’s actions mark a dangerous…

    Jun 10, 2025

    News LOS ANGELES – Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are standing up all states by filing a lawsuit and request to block President Trump and the Department of Defense’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles and the takeover of a California National Guard (Cal…

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Florida Fuel Supplier Charged in Multimillion-Dollar Scheme to Defraud U.S. Department of Defense, other Federal Agencies

    Source: United States Attorneys General 1

    A federal grand jury in Miami returned an indictment today charging a Florida business owner with multiple counts of wire fraud, money laundering, and forgery for orchestrating a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies by submitting altered and fake invoices to U.S. Navy ships and other vessels through the SEA Card Program, which allows U.S. vessels to purchase critical fuel from suppliers at ports around the world.

    According to court documents filed in the Southern District of Florida, between August 2022 and January 2024, Jasen Butler, 37, of Jupiter, Florida, the owner of Independent Marine Oil Services LLC, submitted dozens of falsified documents to multiple U.S. warships — including the USS Patriot — demanding and receiving over $5 million dollars in payments for phony expenses that Butler had not incurred. These ships were attempting to purchase fuel in international ports such as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Croatia, among others. Butler also concealed his identity from government officials by using a false name and feigning employment by a fictitious fuel division of a different company. As alleged in the indictment, Butler used the millions in fraud proceeds to personally enrich himself and purchase multiple properties, including in Florida and Colorado. 

    “This indictment sends a clear, public message: the Antitrust Division and its Procurement Collusion Strike Force under President Trump will not rest until all who defraud the brave men and women of the U.S. military and the American taxpayers receive swift justice,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail A. Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

    “Investigating complex fraud schemes which impact U.S. Coast Guard operations is a priority for CGIS,” said Special Agent in Charge Josh Packer of the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) Southeast Field Office. “CGIS remains committed to working with our law enforcement partners to investigate any fraud which undermines the integrity of the Coast Guard’s supply chain.”

    “Mr. Butler’s alleged involvement in unlawfully submitting fraudulent invoices related to U.S. naval ships receiving fuel during port visits is an affront to the warfighter and taxpayer,” said Special Agent in Charge Greg Gross of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Economic Crimes Field Office. “NCIS remains committed to thoroughly investigating those who commit fraud impacting the Department of Navy.”

    If convicted, Butler faces maximum penalties of 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud, up to 10 years for each count of forgery, and up to 10 years for each count of money laundering. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. 

    Assistant Chief Sara Clingan and Trial Attorney Jonathan Pomeranz and of the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal Section are prosecuting the case.

    The NCIS and CGIS are investigating the case.

    Anyone with information about this investigation or other procurement fraud schemes should notify the PCSF at www.justice.gov/atr/webform/pcsf-citizen-complaint. The Justice Department created the PCSF in November 2019. It is a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant and program funding at all levels of government — federal, state and local. For more information, visit www.justice.gov/procurement-collusion-strike-force.

    An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Opening Remarks at Hearing on Army Corps, Bureau of Reclamation Budgets

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***

    Washington, D.C. — Today, during a Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee hearing on the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget requests for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, underscored the indispensable role each agency plays in ensuring America’s waterways are flowing, supporting our economy, and protecting the American people—and slammed President Trump’s politicization of America’s water resources and proposal to gut investments in the Corps and Bureau.

    Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:

    “Thank you very much, Chair Kennedy. Good morning to all of you, Acting Assistant Secretary Forsgren, Lieutenant General Graham, and Acting Assistant Secretary Cameron—thank you all for being here today.

    “We are here today to talk about the fiscal year 2026 budget requests for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. Whether they know it or not—every American depends on the work of these agencies every day. And that is especially true for folks in my home state of Washington, and anyone who lives out West or near a major waterway.

    “The Army Corps keeps our ports running smoothly, which is critical for our economy and trade. They manage critical infrastructure like our dams, levees, and bridges—and protect communities from dangerous floods. And they support our ecosystems and help protect keystone species like salmon, among a lot else. Bureau of Reclamation brings water to over 30 million people and irrigation to one-in-five farmers out West, it generates power to keep the lights on in millions of homes, and it protects farmers and communities against drought—to name a few things!

    “It is critical work—work that we cannot afford to shortchange. But President Trump’s budget request shows yet again that he has no clue, and no problem gutting essential water investments our communities rely on to feed their families and stay safe from flooding. The president’s budget requests a nearly 25 percent cut for the Corps of Engineers.

    “And when you consider the fact that House Republicans’ last yearlong CR already cut funding for the Corps, we are really talking about a nearly 30 percent cut for the Corps relative to the funding level just a few months ago. This request, for example, falls $1.7 billion below the target level for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—leaving more than half of that target funding on the table.

    “Not only that, you include just $60 million for Donor and Energy ports like in my home state, when our bipartisan Water Resources Development Act has specifically instructed that there be $417 million for these ports. And President Trump’s budget also proposes a massive 30 percent cut for the Bureau of Reclamation. These cuts would end critical work on flood prevention, port dredging, basic management of our water resources, and more. This is flat-out dangerous—and Trump’s budget is dead on arrival here in Congress as far as I’m concerned.

    “But we have a lot more to cover beyond the budget request. Because, as we sit here today, the President seems bent on doing everything he can to undermine the work of the Corps and the Bureau with reckless staffing cuts, and by brazenly—and corruptly—politicizing the allocation of funding and control over our nation’s water resources. In the span of just a few months, DOGE has pushed out a quarter of the Bureau’s staff without any discernible strategy. This mass exodus of talent puts the Bureau’s mission at serious risk. The last thing we need are fewer dam safety inspections or big delays on repair projects.

    “And when it comes to politicization, the President spent much of his first few weeks in office making up conspiracies about California’s water supply as wildfires raged; vowing to block disaster relief, picking fights with the state’s governor, and—against the advice of all experts—ultimately ordered the Corps to open two dams and unleash billions of gallons of water on California’s central valley. That move, predictably, did absolutely nothing to stop the fires and came nowhere near LA. But it did waste huge quantities of precious water and nearly flooded—yes, flooded—local farms and communities and put agriculture at risk.

    “It was one of the first instances we saw of this president meddling in the Corps’ work and overruling experts to chase some fixation, but it was not the last. A few weeks ago, the Corps released plans detailing how it is allocating funding for construction projects in FY-25. Now, usually, that is something we decide here in Congress. But that decision-making power was turned over to the Trump administration with House Republicans’ yearlong, slush-fund CR.

    “That was one of the many reasons I voted against that bill, and it’s a reminder to all of us about why we need strong, bipartisan spending bills. So instead of allocating construction funding to projects that were selected in both our bipartisan Senate appropriations bill and the Republican House bill and giving funding to red and blue states roughly evenly—as both bills did—this administration decided to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in critical investments from blue states, and steer those investments instead to red states and the president’s political allies.

    “Every single construction project in California—the most populous state in the country—was zeroed out. We’re talking about funds to protect people in one of the most flood-prone states in the country—gone. And Trump completely defunded construction at the Howard Hansom Dam in Washington state, leaving a literal hole in the ground! This is a shovel-ready project that will ensure water reliability for over one million people in the region. And of course, the administration’s budget proposal does not fund those projects in FY-26 either.

    “All told, two-thirds of Army Corps construction funding is now headed to red states, for no reason other than Trump wanting to punish political enemies and reward his friends. This is not how these projects should work—ever—in the United States of America.

    “Lieutenant General Graham, a few weeks ago the Assistant Secretary’s office was asked in a House hearing about this nakedly partisan allocation. That official didn’t even try to justify it. Instead, they said, tellingly, the buck stopped with OMB. So, there it is: Trump and Russ Vought called the final shots and defunded these projects on their own.

    “Now, I shouldn’t need to tell anyone here, floods hit red states and blue states alike. Droughts hammers farmers in rural districts, and strain families in big ways. Every single American—in one way or another—depends on our ports being well-maintained to get the basic goods we count on and keep our economy humming. And everyone should be able to trust their government will decide how to invest resources and protect them from threats like flooding, drought, and wildfire based on science, based on engineering—that is, what’s best for people—not on a president’s desire for retribution.

    “I believe Congress needs to reject the reckless cuts you’re requesting for the Corps and the Bureau. And we need to see an end to the egregious politicization of these resources—this is not a path we can afford to continue going down as a country.

    “So, I will just give a warning to all of my colleagues, once again: It may have not been your state this time, but you all know full well just how fickle the President can be.

    “Let’s not leave this authority with him. We do need to come together and write a strong bipartisan bill.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Slams Trump Administration’s Politicization of Water Resources, Proposal to Gut Investments in America’s Waterways, Flood and Drought Prevention

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH AND READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s questioning***

    Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, slammed the Trump administration’s politicization of water resources and proposal to gut investments in the Corps and Bureau.

    Senator Murray questioned witnesses D. Lee Forsgren, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); Lt. Gen. William H. Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Scott J. Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of Interior, on the Trump administration threatening the Howard Hanson Dam project in Washington state, not meeting funding targets for donor ports like the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and putting the Columbia River Treaty with Canada—which is critical for the entire Pacific Northwest—at risk.

    [RANK POLITICIZATION OF ARMY CORPS FUNDING]

    Senator Murray began by asking General Graham about President Trump’s flagrant politicization of Army Corps funding—an issue she touched on in her opening remarks—stating: “The Howard Hanson dam project is to address dam safety issues, provide additional water supply, and meet the Corps’ legal obligations by opening up miles of critical salmon habitat—would you agree with that assessment?”

    General Graham responded, “Yes. The Howard Hanson project right now is, the one we are working on is primarily is fish passage, to figure out how to get small juvenile fish off of a high head dam which we have never done before, but it is part of a larger project that provides as you said, critical flood risk management and water supply protection to the southeastern part of Seattle.”

    “Is it true that the $500 million the project was slated to receive in the FY25 budget—as well as in the House and Senate bills—would have allowed construction to proceed on schedule?” Senator Murray asked General Graham.

    General Graham replied, “Yes, that would have allowed us to keep on our current construction schedule.”

    Senator Murray said, “Well it’s clear that the Howard Hanson project is shovel ready. And despite that—the Trump Administration seems ready to walk away from that. Everyone needs to understand, turning the Army Corps into a political slush fund sets a very dangerous precedent.”

    “In fact, in testimony before the House, a top Army Corps official very explicitly stated that OMB—not the experts at the Corps—called the final shots here. Section 107 has been passed on a bipartisan basis in our bill for the last five years and makes clear that funding should be allocated only to projects determined to be eligible by the Chief of Engineers. But it appears that OMB handed the Corps the final spend plan without consulting you as required,” Senator Murray continued. “The law needs to be followed. So, I am going to ask you, yes or no—were you provided a final spend plan so you could determine all the projects listed were eligible?”

    General Graham answered, “We provided our best technical recommendation to the assistant secretary.”

    Mr. Forsgren responded, “We provided input through the presidential budget process on that spending plan. We provided technical input on that spending plan.”

    “So that you could prove that all of them were eligible, correct?” pressed Senator Murray.

    “I don’t think eligibility was ever the question,” replied Mr. Forsgren.

    Senator Murray replied, “That’s really troubling—and really an example of this Administration that just somehow thinks they are above the law. I’ve got news for Russ Vought—the law applies to him the same as for everybody else. So that is very troubling.”

    [DONOR PORT FUNDING]

    Senator Murray continued her questioning by discussing the administration’s failure to meet statutory targets for Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) funding for donor ports like the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma—which contribute significantly to the HMTF but have historically received relatively little funding back for harbor maintenance projects. Murray said, “I consistently hear from ports and harbors across the country about how they rely on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain critical port infrastructure. Now, in April, the Administration issued an Executive Order acknowledging that cargo carriers divert goods to Canada from our donor ports, Seattle and Tacoma, to avoid the Harbor Maintenance Tax—that is really an unfair practice, I have spoken about for years.”

    “But this year’s budget request does not even attempt to meet the WRDA [Water Resources Development Act] targets for HMTF donor port funding,” continued Senator Murray. “Even more troubling, in the skinny budget, this administration tries to tell Congress that it is not a federal responsibility to provide those dollars—even though that is one of the explicit purposes Congress passed into law. That is really unacceptable. Donor Port funding has already been determined through the WRDA process and our annual appropriations bills for years. It is extremely frustrating that I have to continue raising this issue year after year to get our ports the fair share they are entitled to under the law.”

    Senator Murray asked Mr. Forsgren, “Will you commit to ensure that Donor Ports like Seattle and Tacoma will receive their full, fair share of the HMTF dollars as Congress intended?”

    Mr. Forsgren responded, “I will commit to working to ensure that the Harbor Maintenance Fund is used to the maximum extent it possibly can. We understand the Harbor Maintenance Fund is the backbone of the commercial navigation system for our ports and that system has to be able to be functional across all of the nation’s ports. But I will say, there needs to be a primary focus on the principal federal responsibility which is the mainline channels. I will commit to working with you to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as it is passed into law.”

    [COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY]

    Finally, Senator Murray emphasized the importance of the Columbia River Treaty for Washington state and the entire Pacific Northwest, and the shared waterway with Canada, “The Columbia River provides habitat for salmon and endangered species, it also irrigates 600,000 acres of farmland, and serves as a marine highway, it also provides electricity to the entire Northwest. And critically, it is also a transboundary waterway shared with Canada. Now, the State Department has been leading efforts to negotiate a modernized Columbia River Treaty—which is really critical to providing certainty for people and businesses across our region who rely on the Columbia River. But this Administration appears committed to doing everything they can now to tank our relationship with our friend and neighbor, Canada. And the key to getting this agreement in place, and all the hard work that has gone into it, was collaboration between all the stakeholders. It is really imperative that as the interim agreement is executed, that that collaboration continues.”

    Senator Murray asked Mr. Cameron and Mr. Forsgren, “Will you commit to ensuring that the Corps and Reclamation continue to communicate with tribes and the mid-C public utilities on the operation of the Columbia River System?”

    Mr. Forsgren replied, “We certainly commit—we are committed to the treaty, as is reflected in the budget. We are committed to continuing the dialogue necessary to operate and maintain the system.”

    “Mr. Cameron?” followed up Senator Murray.

    Mr. Cameron said, “Yes Senator, I’ve already had multiple meetings with stakeholders from throughout the Columbia River basin, including tribes. Conversations are ongoing.”

    Senator Murray concluded, “This is really a critical treaty. We need to get it enacted. And again, Canada is not our enemy there, we need to include them.”

    ___________________________________

    Senator Murray recently led the Washington state and California delegations to call out President Trump’s outrageous, nakedly-political decision to zero out critical funding for Army Corps of Engineers construction projects in blue states like Washington and California while steering hundreds of millions more to red states. Supporting the Howard Hanson Dam has been a longtime priority for Senator Murray, and she has pressed the Army Corps to prioritize funding for the Dam for years. Under the last administration, Senator Murray was able to secure critical funding boosts for Howard Hanson Dam, including $220 million in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and $50 million to begin construction of a new facility in the funding bills for fiscal year 2024 that Murray wrote as then-Chair of the Appropriations Committee. Back in 2010, Murray secured $44 million in badly needed emergency funds for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to repair the Howard Hanson Dam. In the draft fiscal year 2025 appropriations bill she cleared unanimously out of Committee last year, Senator Murray secured $500 million for the dam, which would support fish passage and address dam safety and water supply issues for cities like Tacoma and Covington. $500 million was also included in the House’s draft fiscal year 2025 appropriations bill. The funding is needed to execute a construction option on the contract for the project, which would have allowed construction to begin in 2026 as scheduled.

    Congress typically provides specific, detailed instructions in its annual appropriations bills on how the Army Corps (and so many other agencies) must spend funding provided by Congress. Annual appropriations bills note exactly what Army Corps projects must be funded and at what levels. But instead of working with Democrats to pass full-year appropriations bills that deliver for communities across America, Republicans in Congress put forth a yearlong continuing resolution (CR) that failed to include hundreds of specific directives on how funding must be spent. For months, Senator Murray warned of the dangers of passing Republicans’ slush fund CR, noting, for example, that it would allow the administration to zero out funding for Army Corps projects. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Slams Secretary Hegseth for Playing Politics with America’s National Security

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s exchange with Secretary Hegseth***

    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, questioned Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary Pete Hegseth at a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for DOD. Senator Murray pressed Secretary Hegseth on firing skilled Navy shipbuilders, firing qualified and experienced military leaders, Trump’s recent comments to use “heavy force” on peaceful protesters, and his leaked Signal Chat.

    In opening comments, Vice Chair Murray said:

    “Secretary Hegseth—you oversee one of the largest and most important organizations on planet earth. More than anything, the Department of Defense needs stable, competent, and strategic leadership. And much as I had feared back in January, that is not what we’ve seen under your leadership.

    “In a matter of months, you have lost top aides and reportedly struggled to hire new ones. You have fired highly respected top military officials. You shared highly-sensitive attack plans over Signal—and apparently with people in your own personal circles. And you have not taken responsibility for these mistakes.

    “All the while, the security challenges we face have grown larger—not smaller. And in the face of these challenges, you have taken a series of actions that weaken our posture.

    “For example: in my home state of Washington, which is home to many DOD installations critical to our Indo-Pacific strategy, you have pushed out almost 2,000 highly trained civilian, including at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

    “Mr. Secretary, you talk about returning the Department to its mission of ‘warfighting.’ But I am repeatedly hearing that your policy and personnel changes at the Pentagon are only undermining–not strengthening–our military’s preparedness to protect our country.

    “You are deploying the American military to police the American people. Sending the National Guard into California without the Governor’s request. Sending the Marines—not after foreign threats, but after American protesters.

    “And now President Trump is promising ‘heavy force’ against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade. Those sorts of actions, and that sort of rhetoric from the President—should stop every one of us cold. Threatening to use our own troops—on our own citizens—at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American.

    “We should all be speaking out against this—and demanding accountability.

    “Now Mr. Secretary, I have to say, for people who tout their commitment to transparency and efficiency, I have never seen an administration more hell-bent on hiding basic facts from the American people. Your Department has been unresponsive to Congressional inquiries and oversight requests. And all the while you are working to muzzle the free press, denying journalists’ access to the Pentagon.

    “Now before I turn to my questions, let me also just note: it is now mid-June—and we only, just days ago, received some—but not all—important portions of your budget request.

    “It should not have taken this long to get a request—and we still need to see the justifications, in order for this committee to do its work. We are missing those. Not having a full budget at this juncture is unacceptable.”

    [CIVILIAN CUTS TO SHIPYARDS]

    Senator Murray began her questioning by noting how the Trump administration’s staffing cuts and attacks on the civilian workforce are undermining key defense initiatives: “This administration has put the civilian workforce under attack from day one: encouraging resignations, firing probationary employees, instituting a hiring freeze, requiring OPM to approve any new hire one-by-one, and—new last week—requiring prospective employees to explain how they would, ‘help support the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities.’ We have spoken with military installations across our country. Almost all of them have been forced to fire skilled, civilian employees who are badly needed. And all of them also have hundreds—in some cases, thousands—of new hires ready to bring onboard but now have to have individually reviewed by OPM—apparently to ensure they ‘support the President’s priorities.’”

    Senator Murray asked Secretary Hegseth, “Will you be firing more shipbuilders? Yes or no?”

    Despite firing probationary employees at our shipyards, Secretary Hegseth falsely claimed no shipbuilders have been fired—and dodged Senator Murray’s question, instead arguing the Department is merely letting thousands go through its buyout program: “We haven’t fired shipbuilders. We’ve offered through a right-sizing of our civilian position, which everyone on this Committee would acknowledge the Defense Department has had a bloated bureaucracy for a long time. Have given a voluntary process by – which some people can choose to take a DRP [deferred resignation program].”

    Senator Murray interjected to ask: “Mr. Secretary, do we need more or fewer shipbuilders?”

    Secretary Hegseth dodged the question, instead claiming—after letting go more than 2000 civilian workers at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard alone—that: “We are investing historically in our shipbuilding industrial base and workforce and ships in this budget—more than anything the previous administration ever did.”

    Senator Murray said, “Well you managed to fire highly skilled workers, including in my home state of Washington, for no reason, so let me just say: the Navy needs welders, not people who can recite the President’s Executive Orders.”

    “If the Navy wants to hire a qualified candidate for the role—but that candidate happened to vote for or donate to Democrats—would they be hired?” Senator Murray asked, referred to the administration’s new, first-ever requirements that prospective employees explain how they would help support the President’s orders and policies.

    Secretary Hegseth replied, “there’s never been a litmus test for hiring welders”—but did not respond to Senator Murray’s question about whether there would be a litmus test going forward—or how the new requirements will be effectuated.

    Senator Murray responded: “That is what they are being asked. Mr. Secretary, I just have to say: we need to drop the politics in our military. We need to hire the best people—we do not need to force them out.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Coalition of 18 Attorneys General Issue Statement in Support of California’s Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful, Undemocratic Federalization of State National Guard

    Source: US State of California

    Wednesday, June 11, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    OAKLAND – Today, a coalition of 18 attorneys general issued a statement condemning the Trump Administration’s unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and supporting California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense:

    “The president’s decision to federalize and deploy California’s National Guard without the consent of California state leaders is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.

    “The federal administration should be working with local leaders to keep everyone safe, not mobilizing the military against the American people.

    “As the chief law enforcement officers of our states, we are proud to protect our communities and oppose violence in any form. We support Attorney General Bonta in his challenge to the Trump administration’s illegal conduct.

    “We oppose any action from this administration that will sow chaos, inflame tensions, and put people’s lives at risk – including those of our law enforcement officers.”

    The statement was jointly issued by the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Boozman Touts Arkansas National Security Contributions, Cites Military Installation Vulnerability to Drone Threat

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas – John Boozman

    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) secured public support from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine for several Natural State military missions and support capacities during a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing. He also expressed concerns about the potential for drone attacks on domestic military assets in light of the latest Ukrainian operation against Russia’s air force.

    Boozman highlighted the recent graduation of two Polish pilots at Ebbing Air National Guard Base in Fort Smith, the first to complete the F-35 Foreign Military Sales pilot training, and emphasized the program’s importance.

    “[This is] an accomplishment we’re very excited to see repeated,” Boozman said before inviting Hegseth to explain “the importance of training our partners and allies on American systems and how that enables mission readiness and deterrence around the world.” 

    “Our ability to project power by, with and through allies is one of the most important force multipliers that we have. The training of their people, and military-to-military training, creates enduring bonds over generations that we’re then able to leverage for future capability. I’m encouraged to hear about those two graduations. I know it keeps our defense industrial base robust and also projects capabilities to allies and partners,” Hegseth responded. 

    The senator then addressed the depletion of munitions amid conflicts in Ukraine and Israel while raising the need to adequately re-stockpile this capability through our organic industrial base as well as through private industry efforts, including in south Arkansas.

    “I had the opportunity of taking your predecessor to Camden, Arkansas, to see the great work our industry partners are doing to help solve the problem, however, the Department’s organic industrial base also fills important capability gaps,” Boozman said. “Where can we invest more to fix that?” he continued. 

    “One of my jobs as Chairman is to make sure the youngsters have the combat capability they need, at scale, before they need it. My hope is that we can raise everybody’s capacity through changing the culture not only in munitions production but across the entire national and defense industrial base, encourage competition to keep the prices down, write better contracts and increase the overall capacity,”Caine answered.

    Boozman has repeatedly championed investments in Camden and the industries that produce some of the world’s most effective weapon systems and munitions, including recent expansions by RTX, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne – an L3Harris Technologies company. 

    The senator, who chairs the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, also took the opportunity to underscore how vulnerable U.S. installations remain to potential attacks and asked Hegseth how Ukraine’s successful Operation Spider’s Web has changed the way we defend military infrastructure and installations from emerging threats like armed drones. 

    “Even before that operation, it’s something we put on the forefront of our planning. Cheaper, commercially available drones with small explosives represent a new threat. That day, we met to evaluate that we’re doing enough. It’s a critical reality of the modern battlefield that we have a responsibility to address,” Hegseth explained.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sanctuary cities can’t protect people from ICE immigration raids − but they don’t actually violate federal law

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, Professor of Political Science, San Diego State University

    While sanctuary policies for immigrants have grown in the U.S. since the 1980s, the Trump administration is the first to challenge them. Marcos Silva/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The Trump administration plans to send special response teams of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct immigration raids in four cities run by Democratic mayors, NBC news reported on June 11, 2025, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the planning process.

    NBC reports that New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle are four of the five places that would be affected by this deployment, as well as northern Virginia. These cities are also among the other major metropolitan hubs – as well as more than 200 small towns and counties and a dozen states – that over the past 40 years have adopted what are often known as sanctuary policies.

    Special response teams are tactical units under ICE that are trained to respond to extreme situations such as drug and arms smugglers. These units have been used to respond to recent immigration protests in Los Angeles in response to ICE raids. President Donald Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard troops, as well as about 700 Marines, to quell protests in that city. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have said the presence of troops is exacerbating the situation and are challenging the legality of these deployments in court.

    While sanctuary policies often prohibit local participation in immigration enforcement or cooperation with ICE, if large-scale raids take place in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle, their designation as sanctuary cities offers little protection to immigrants living without legal authorization from deportation.

    There is not a single definition of a sanctuary policy. But it often involves local authorities not asking about a resident’s immigration status, or not sharing that personal information with federal immigration authorities.

    So when a San Francisco police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer will not ask if the person is living in the country legally.

    American presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, have chosen to leave sanctuary policies largely unchallenged since different places first adopted them in the 1970s. This changed in 2017, when President Donald Trump first tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary places, claiming that their policies “willfully violate Federal law.” Legal challenges during his first term stopped him from actually withholding the money.

    At the start of his second term, Trump signed two executive orders in January and April 2025 which again state that his administration will withhold federal money from areas with sanctuary policies.

    “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” Trump said, according to an April White House statement. This statement was immediately followed by his April executive order.

    These two executive orders task the attorney general and secretary of homeland security with publishing a list of all sanctuary places and notifying local and state officials of “non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.” Those that do not comply with federal law, according to the orders, may lose federal funding.

    San Francisco and 14 other sanctuary cities, including New Haven, Connecticut, and Portland, Oregon, sued the Trump administration in February on the grounds that it was illegally trying to coerce cities to comply with its policies. A U.S. district court judge in California issued an injunction on April 24 preventing the administration – at least for the time being – from cutting funding from places with sanctuary policies.

    However, as researchers who have studied sanctuary policies for over a decade, we know that Trump’s claim that sanctuary policies violate federal immigration law is not correct.

    It’s true that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Yet there is no federal requirement that state or local governments participate or cooperate in federal immigration enforcement, which would require an act of Congress.

    A sign is seen at the Nogales, Ariz., and Mariposa, Mexico, border crossing.
    Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images

    What’s behind sanctuary policies

    In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department was the first to announce a prohibition on local officials asking about a resident’s immigration status.

    However, it was not until the 1980s that the sanctuary movement took off, when hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans fled civil war and violence in their home countries and migrated to the U.S. This prompted a number of cities to declare solidarity with the faith-based sanctuary movement that offered refuge to Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan asylum seekers facing deportation.

    In 1985, Berkeley, Calif., and San Francisco pledged that city officials, including police officers, would not report Central Americans to immigration authorities as long as they were law abiding.

    Berkeley also banned officials from using local money to work with federal immigration authorities.

    “We are not asking anyone to do anything illegal,” Nancy Walker, a supervisor for San Francisco, said in 1985, according to The New York Times. “We have got to extend our hand to these people. If these people go home, they die. They are asking us to let them stay.”

    Today, there are hundreds of sanctuary cities, towns, counties and states across the country that all have a variation of policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    Sometimes – but not always – places with sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s main immigration enforcement agency.

    A large part of ICE’s work is identifying, arresting and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In order to carry out this work, ICE issues what is known as “detainer requests” to local law enforcement authorities. A detainer request asks local law enforcement to hold a specific arrested person already being held by police until that person can be transferred to ICE, which can then take steps to deport them.

    While places without sanctuary policies tend to comply with these requests, some sanctuary jurisdictions, like the state of California, only do so in the cases of particular violent criminal offenses.

    Yet local officials in sanctuary places cannot legally block ICE from arresting local residents who are living in the country illegally, or from carrying out any other parts of its work.

    Can Trump withhold federal funding?

    Trump claimed in 2017 that sanctuary policies violated federal law, and he issued an executive order that tried to rescind federal grants that these jurisdictions received.

    However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2018 case involving San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, that the president could not refuse to “disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization.”

    Federal courts, meanwhile, split over whether Trump could freeze funding attached to a specific federal program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, which provides about US$250 million in annual funding to state and local law enforcement.

    These cases were in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when the Department of Justice, under Biden, asked that they be dismissed.

    Other Supreme Court rulings also suggest that the Trump administration’s claim that it can withhold federal funding from sanctuary places rests on shaky legal ground.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 and again in 1997 that the federal government could not coerce state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, or compel them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

    Under pressure

    The first Trump administration was not generally successful, with the exception of the split over the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, at stripping funding from sanctuary places. But cutting federal funding – even if it happens temporarily – can be economically damaging to cities and counties while they challenge the decision in court.

    Local officials also face other kinds of political pressure to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.

    A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, for example, sent letters to dozens of local officials in January threatening criminal prosecution for their sanctuary policies.

    Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, a sanctuary city, testifies during a House committee hearing on sanctuary city mayors on March 5, 2025, in Washington.
    Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The real effects of sanctuary policies

    One part of Trump’s argument against sanctuary policies is that places with these policies have more crime than those that do not.

    But there is no established relationship between sanctuary status and crime rates.

    There is, however, evidence that when local law enforcement and ICE work together, it reduces the likelihood of immigrant and Latino communities to report crimes, likely for fear of being arrested by federal immigration authorities.

    Sanctuary policies are certainly worthy of debate, but this requires an accurate representation of what they are, what they do, and the effects they have.

    This is an updated version of a story originally published on May 28, 2025.

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

    – ref. Sanctuary cities can’t protect people from ICE immigration raids − but they don’t actually violate federal law – https://theconversation.com/sanctuary-cities-cant-protect-people-from-ice-immigration-raids-but-they-dont-actually-violate-federal-law-255831

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: World Cup 2026: Growing threats to human rights set to undermine FIFA’s responsibilities one year out from kick off

    Source: Amnesty International –

    One year to go until the largest-ever sporting event across the USA, Canada and Mexico

    Urgent human rights risks in 2026 host countries – particularly in the USA – are impacting immigrants, the right to protest, and LGBTI+ rights

    Growing threats to civil liberties and human rights risk undermining FIFA’s commitments and responsibilities

    ‘FIFA and the US authorities must ensure that the World Cup does not become a pretext for stifling dissent or expanding mass surveillance’ – Daniel Noroña, Amnesty USA

    FIFA must take urgent and concrete action to uphold human rights for everyone involved in the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, the Sport & Rights Alliance said today.

    With just one year remaining before the tournament begins across the United States, Canada, and Mexico – and only days before the Club World Cup kicks off on June 14 – growing threats to civil liberties and human rights risk undermining FIFA’s own commitments and responsibilities in this area.

    In its statutes, Human Rights Policy, and 2026 Bidding Process Guide, FIFA accepts its responsibility to respect human rights in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Bidding Process Guide specifically requires would-be hosts to document their commitment to “ensur[ing] that the hosting and staging of the Competition do[es] not involve adverse impacts on internationally recognised human rights.” The guide gives particular attention to “labour rights, the rights of children, gender equality, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and protecting all individuals from all forms of discrimination.”

    The Sport & Rights Alliance has identified several critical areas where government policies in the 2026 host countries, particularly the United States under President Donald Trump, pose significant and immediate risks to the human rights of immigrants; freedom of the press and free expression; LGBTI+ rights; safety for children; and the right to be free from discrimination, requiring urgent and transparent intervention.

    Andrea Florence, Executive Director of the Sport & Rights Alliance, said:

    “In 2018, the US, Mexico, and Canada provided clear human rights commitments in their bid documents to host the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup.

    “Despite FIFA’s mantra that ‘football unites the world,’ a World Cup held under discriminatory and exclusionary policies risks deepening social divides rather than bridging them. FIFA should exert its leverage and demand concrete, legally binding guarantees that human rights won’t be further sacrificed for the sake of the game.”

    Right to protest; freedom of expression

    With the 2026 Men’s World Cup potentially serving as a spotlight for public criticism and controversy, the escalating crackdowns on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly for people engaged in speech and protest related to Palestinian rights, is deeply troubling, the Alliance said. Students and activists have been detained and their visas revoked for speaking out about their views. The Trump administration has also deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles following protests against immigration arrests, claiming they constitute an act of “rebellion” against the government.

    FIFA’s stated commitments to free expression have also previously been contradicted when it has imposed rules prohibiting players and fans from making political or religious statements. At the 2022 Men’s World Cup in Qatar, for example, Iranian fans displaying “Woman, Life, Freedom” banners were removed from stadiums, while rainbow flags were confiscated at a number of matches.

    Daniel Noroña, Americas Advocacy Director at Amnesty International USA, said:

    “The ability to peacefully protest without fear of retribution is a cornerstone of a free society, yet it is increasingly under threat in the United States.

    “There is a long history of peaceful protest in global football. FIFA and the US authorities must ensure that the World Cup does not become a pretext for stifling dissent or expanding mass surveillance, and every player, fan, journalist, and resident can participate and protest without fear of sanction, arbitrary detention or discriminatory treatment.”

    Discriminatory immigration policies

    FIFA anticipates that as many as 6.5 million people could attend the 2026 tournament across the host countries. The current US administration’s abusive immigration policies, including enforced disappearances under the Alien Enemies Act, travel bans, increased detention, and visa restrictions, threaten the inclusivity and global nature of the World Cup.

    Despite President Trump’s executive order stating that teams qualifying for the 2026 Men’s World Cup will be exempt from travel bans, as of now fans and extended family members from banned countries will not be allowed to enter the United States. Delays, denials, and the real prospect of detention for fans, media, and other participants from specific countries could severely disrupt the tournament.

    Minky Worden, Director of Global Initiatives at Human Rights Watch, said:

    “FIFA should publicly acknowledge the threat US immigration and other anti-human rights policies pose to the tournament’s integrity and use its leverage with the US government to ensure that the rights of all qualified teams, support staff, media, and fans are respected as they seek to enter the United States regardless of nationality, gender identity, religion, or opinion.

    “FIFA should establish clear benchmarks and timelines for the US policy changes needed to ensure respect for immigrants’ rights during the 2026 World Cup and beyond.”

    Human Rights Watch wrote to FIFA on May 5 to say that it should use its leverage to push the Trump administration to roll back discriminatory immigration policies in the United States. FIFA responded on June 3, stating that it “expects … host countries take measures to ensure that any eligible persons who are involved in the Competition are able to enter the respective countries,” and “is actively working on this matter with relevant authorities.” FIFA also said it would engage with relevant authorities if it became aware of human rights concerns.

    Ronan Evain, Executive Director of Football Supporters Europe, said:

    “Fans travel to the World Cup to celebrate and express their passion, and any attempt to curtail our fundamental rights, including the right to free speech, is a betrayal of the spirit of football.

    “We’re particularly concerned about the potential for selective enforcement and discrimination against fans based on our perceived political views or national origin. FIFA must obtain the necessary guarantees to ensure fans from all over the world are able to safely travel and attend the games.”

    Discrimination and violence against LGBTI+ people

    The increasing legislative and rhetorical attacks on the rights of LGBTI+ people, particularly transgender people in the United States, underscore the current administration’s intention to erase transgender people from public life and dismantle crucial human rights protections. Discriminatory laws and the hostile political climate around LGBTI+ rights in the United States could directly threaten the security, bodily autonomy, dignity, and inclusion of LGBTI+ fans, players, and workers at the 2026 Men’s World Cup.

    In Mexico, LGBTI+ people, and especially trans and gender-diverse people, face violence across the country, which affects their daily lives and participation in public events. Federal and state authorities should take urgent steps to prevent and punish violence against LGBTI+ people, with particular attention to the specific risks faced by trans and gender-diverse communities.

    Gurchaten Sandhu, Director of Programs at ILGA World, said:

    “The alarming discrimination and violence against LGBTI+ individuals in the United States and Mexico cast a chilling shadow over the promise of an inclusive World Cup.

    “As organiser of the event, FIFA should demand that all host cities and states uphold universal human rights, ensuring no fan, worker, or athlete faces discrimination based on their sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, or sex characteristics, and that any discriminatory laws are actively challenged and nullified.”

    Press freedom

    Journalists covering the 2026 Men’s World Cup face distinct and alarming risks in both Mexico and the United States. Mexico consistently ranks among one of world’s most dangerous and deadly countries for media professionals, who face threats, harassment, and violence from both organised crime and public officials. The pervasive impunity for these crimes creates a chilling effect and zones of silence in which critical information is suppressed. In the United States, journalists could face intrusive screening, social media monitoring, and be denied entry based on perceived political views, undermining their ability to report independently.

    Antoine Bernard, Advocacy and Assistance Director at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), said:

    “Journalists covering the World Cup must be granted unimpeded access, free from arbitrary restrictions, detention, or violence.

    “FIFA and the local authorities must implement exceptional measures to protect all media workers – not only ensuring smooth entry for foreign press but actively safeguarding all journalists who will be covering large crowds, excited spectators, and potential protests, and addressing the systemic impunity that allows violence against them to persist.

    “Local law enforcement’s policies need to be strengthened to ensure the distinction of journalists from demonstrators, bystanders, and fans, and they must clearly communicate the policies they intend to follow in ensuring this distinction, in full respect of journalists’ freedom and independence.”

    Labour rights

    The immense scale of the 2026 Men’s World Cup will necessitate a massive workforce in host cities to staff stadiums, hospitality, transport, and more. The Trump administration’s dismantling of federal programs and anti-union sentiment increase the risk of exploitation and child labour, wage theft, and unsafe working conditions for these critical workers.

    Luc Triangle, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), said:

    “The extensive network of contracts for stadium construction, hospitality, and event services in the host cities must be built on a foundation of respect for workers’ rights.

    “We are gravely concerned that without strong, enforceable labour protections, this tournament will inadvertently fuel precarious work and child labour, suppress wages, and deny workers their fundamental rights to organise and bargain collectively. FIFA must demand robust social dialogue and binding agreements to protect every worker contributing to this World Cup.”

    Transparency and anti-corruption

    The Sport & Rights Alliance also harbours significant concerns related to low governmental transparency and weak anti-corruption regulations in and around the 2026 Men’s World Cup, particularly given recent policy shifts in the United States and Mexico. As the tournament approaches, robust oversight and unwavering commitment to ethical principles are needed to prevent the exploitation of this global event for private gain at the expense of human rights and public trust.

    Tor Dølvik, Special Advisor at Transparency International, said:

    “The 2026 FIFA World Cup will take place in a global context where anti-corruption efforts are increasingly under strain.

    “All host countries and FIFA must uphold their anti-corruption responsibilities by establishing comprehensive risk management mechanisms that close potential loopholes for corruption, and reliable systems for detecting and reporting irregularities. Full transparency regarding all expenditures related to the World Cup – before, during, and after the events – will be vital in building trust and ensuring integrity throughout the process.”

    FIFA’s responsibility

    FIFA, as the chief actor responsible for an event that will leave a tremendous footprint, needs to conduct an updated human rights due diligence assessment, and unequivocally leverage its influence to ensure that the 2026 Men’s World Cup is a rights-respecting and rights-advancing event.

    A new human rights due diligence assessment should consider the need for tangible commitments to reverse discriminatory policies, strengthen protections for historically marginalised groups, ensure substantial accountability for human rights abuses, and establish truly effective, transparent, and independent grievance mechanisms for people to seek support and a remedy. Failure to act decisively risks irrevocably tarnishing the legacy of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup and setting a dangerous precedent for future mega-sporting events.

    About the Sport & Rights Alliance

    The Sport & Rights Alliance’s mission is to promote the rights and well-being of those most affected by human rights risks associated with the delivery of sport. Its partners include Amnesty International, The Army of Survivors, Football Supporters Europe, Human Rights Watch, ILGA World (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), the International Trade Union Confederation, Reporters Without Borders, Transparency International, and World Players Association, UNI Global Union.

    As a global coalition of leading nongovernmental organisations and trade unions, the Sport & Rights Alliance works together to ensure sports bodies, governments, and other relevant stakeholders give rise to a world of sport that protects, respects, and fulfills international standards for human rights, labour rights, child wellbeing and safeguarding, and anti-corruption.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaine Statement on Pentagon Review of AUKUS

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and Ranking Member of the SASC Subcommittee on Seapower, released the following statement after it was reported that the Department of Defense has launched a review of the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) submarine deal:

    “The Australia-U.K.-U.S. agreement, which I’ve been a strong supporter of, is critical to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific. If this Administration is serious about countering the threat from China—like it has said as recently as this morning—then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base. Anything less would play directly into China’s hand.”

    Kaine has played a key role in securing more resources for the submarine industrial base, including additional funding for the Virginia-class submarine program that is currently facing significant delays because of workforce challenges and supply chain disruptions. The on-time completion of Virginia-class submarines, which are built in Virginia and Connecticut, is critical to fulfilling the AUKUS partnership, through which the U.S. will sell at least two Virginia-class submarines to Australia to boost security and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, and counter Chinese military aggression in the region. Kaine has been a strong champion of AUKUS in Congress and has helped get signed into law provisions to implement and strengthen the partnership.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Operation of Russian military helicopters in some EU Member States – E-001346/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission identified replacing post-Soviet legacy equipment as one of the most pressing challenges in the Joint Communication on the Defence Investment Gaps Analysis and Way Forward published on 18 May 2022[1] and initiated immediate actions to address it commonly in the spirit of solidarity proposing a regulation on establishing an instrument for the reinforcement of the European defence industry through common procurement[2].

    The programme proved to be successful and the Commission has proposed its follow-up through the European Defence Industry Programme[3], currently under consideration by the co-legislators.

    Moreover, the Commission proposed on 19 March 2025 a new regulation establishing the Security Action for Europe[4] that would be instrumental in addressing the replacement of Member States’ legacy equipment. It will provide Member States with loans up to EUR 150 billion to pursue their rearmament plans.

    To address the issue of replacing post-Soviet equipment in a longer-term perspective, the Commission supports research and development actions through the European Defence Fund[5].

    It supports the European Defence industry to provide Member States with new state of the art, innovative defence products and technologies.

    Decisions on the replacement of Russian helicopters and measures to ensure safety and security of their deployment are the responsibility of Member States, which remain obliged to comply with all the relevant restrictive measures (sanctions) in Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/512[6] and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014[7].

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022JC0024.
    • [2]  ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2418/oj.
    • [3] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/edip-proposal-regulation_en.
    • [4] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6d6f889c-e58d-4caa-8f3b-8b93154fe206_en?filename=SAFE%20Regulation.pdf.
    • [5] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/european-defence-fund-edf-official-webpage-european-commission_en.
    • [6] ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2014/512/2025-02-25.
    • [7]  ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/833/2025-02-25.
    Last updated: 11 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Future role and funding of the EU Rapid Deployment Capacity – E-001535/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The EU Rapid Deployment Capacity (EU RDC) is a flagship initiative of the Strategic Compass[1]. It is now operational as a robust and scalable military instrument that can be deployed in a swift manner to respond to crises outside EU borders. The EU RDC is composed of EU Battlegroups and pre-identified forces and capabilities provided by Member States.

    Over the past three years, preparatory work has focused on: securing the necessary forces and capabilities; supporting their readiness and interoperability through EU live exercises; strengthening the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (staffing, communication and information systems); and conducting advance planning. The operational readiness, however, requires continuous effort, notably Member States’ commitment.

    Since the EU RDC is implemented under the EU Common Security and Defence Policy, the financing of common costs related to its deployment and live exercises is done through the European Peace Facility[2]. The remainder of the costs related to the EU RDC is borne by Member States on a ‘costs lie where they fall’ basis.

    The deployment of the EU RDC, as is the case for all EU military operations, will require a unanimous decision of the Member States.

    More generally, in line with Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU RDC, as all actions conducted in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy, ‘shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States’[3].

    • [1] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/strategic-compass-security-and-defence-1_en..
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32024D2846.
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008M042.
    Last updated: 11 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney announces a change in the leadership of the public service

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced his intention to name Michael Sabia as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, effective July 7, 2025.

    Mr. Sabia brings over three decades of expertise across the public and private sectors, including as President and CEO of Hydro-Québec, President and CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), Canada’s Deputy Minister of Finance, and Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. He has also held senior roles at Bell Canada Enterprises, as President and CEO, at Canadian National Railway, and in the Privy Council Office. In recognition of his leadership across business, finance, and public service, Mr. Sabia was named an Officer of the Order of Canada.

    As Canada’s new government builds the strongest economy in the G7, Mr. Sabia’s leadership will be key to this mission. Canada’s exemplary public service – with Mr. Sabia at the helm – will advance nation-building projects, catalyze enormous private investment to drive growth, and deliver the change Canadians want and deserve. 

    The Prime Minister thanked John Hannaford for his service as Clerk of the Privy Council and congratulated him on his upcoming retirement. Mr. Hannaford joined the federal public service in 1995 and has served in a number of senior roles, including as Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Deputy Minister of International Trade, and Foreign and Defence Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister. From 2009 to 2012, he was Ambassador of Canada to Norway.

    Mr. Hannaford’s leadership has helped guide Canada’s response to a wide array of new trade and security challenges, and supported Canada’s new government in passing a middle-class tax cut, introducing stronger border security measures, and tabling legislation to build one Canadian economy. His expertise during the new government’s transition period has been invaluable. As Head of the Public Service, he also led a renewed dialogue on values and ethics to guide public servants as they deliver results for Canadians during these extraordinary times. To recognize his contributions to public service, Mr. Hannaford will be appointed as a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada prior to his retirement.

    The Prime Minister also thanked the public service for their unwavering dedication at this important moment for Canada’s future.

    Quote

    “As Canada’s new government moves with focus and determination to build the strongest economy in the G7, bring down costs for Canadians, and keep communities safe, Mr. Sabia will help us deliver on this mandate and our government’s disciplined focus on core priorities. I congratulate Mr. Hannaford on his retirement as the Clerk of the Privy Council and for his steadfast dedication and service to Canada.”

    Quick Fact

    • The role of the Clerk of the Privy Council is to advise the Prime Minister and elected government officials in managing the country, from an objective, non-partisan, public policy perspective. The Clerk also ensures Canada’s federal public service is managed effectively and follows a code of value and ethics in its work to design and deliver high-quality services and programs for Canadians.

    Biographical Note

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Case Opposed Proposed Funding Bill That Shortchanges Critical Military Infrastructure Needs In Hawaii, The Indo-Pacific and NATO

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ed Case (Hawai‘i – District 1)

    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Congressman Ed Case (HI-01), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, early this morning voted against the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations funding measure.

    The measure (MILCON-VA) would fund worldwide military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and various small agencies and programs supporting our nation’s some 19 million veterans, including some 112,000 throughout Hawai‘i, and their families.

    The bill is the first of twelve separate bills developed by the Appropriations Committee that would fund the federal government at some $1.6 trillion for FY 2026 commencing October 1st of this year.

    “While the measure does have positive provisions including funding for essential veterans programs, I regrettably had to vote against it because it kicks critical military infrastructure projects down the road yet again, pursues the Project 2025 goal of privatizing VA medical care, shortchanges dedicated funding for Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) cleanup, eliminates climate resiliency efforts and excludes important VA infrastructure funding,” said Case, who is in his seventh year on Appropriations and previously served on the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs for four years. He currently serves on its Subcommittees on Defense and Homeland Security. 

    Case spoke to his Appropriations Committee colleagues on the serious deficiencies in the bill that fail to address critical military infrastructure needs throughout the Indo-Pacific (speech here). He stated that only one milcon project is located in the Indo-Pacific despite critical needs in meeting the challenge of the People’s Republic of China. The bill also fails to provide funding for infrastructure in Europe to support U.S. servicemembers working to bolster NATO and deter Russia.

    Case further said that the funding measure specifically advances the privatization of veterans health care by proposing vastly larger increases for medical care provided in private sector compared to shorfunding the government’s VA healthcare system, a key goal of the Project 2025 plan being followed by the Trump administration. By vast margins, veterans oppose privatizing the VA and want to receive their medical care at VA clinics and hospitals with a direct mission to care for veterans and their families as opposed to the private sector.

    Despite these and other significant problems with the bill, Case highlighted positive provisions he requested, including fully funding the budget request for veterans’ medical care at $131.4 billion and for veterans’ toxic exposures-related needs under the PACT Act.

    It also includes $1.3 billion for specific care for women veterans, and supports the Office of Women’s Health, including its childcare initiative. These funds will allow the VA to continue hiring women primary care providers and to increase the number of peer support specialists for women veterans. These efforts have become even more critical as the number of female veterans using VA health care services has increased.  

    “Women veterans often require specialized care due to unique health needs stemming from their military service and gender,” said Case. “With sustained support from my Committee over multiple years, Congress is working to ensure the VA set the standard for women veterans care, ensuring consistent, high-quality services across all facilities.” 

    The measure also continues support as Case requested for the VA Center for Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and United States-affiliated Pacific Islander (NHPIUSAPI) Veterans. The center’s doctors and scientists coordinate research from all over the Pacific Islands and the United States to specifically address veterans’ healthcare in the Hawaiian Islands and throughout the Pacific. The center works with the University of Hawai‘i, and the bill encourages the VA to continue partnering with universities in the Pacific region focusing on issues unique to the NHPIUSAPI community. 

    Further details follow: 

    Veterans-Related Programs 

    The bill provides $133.7 billion in discretionary spending for veterans-related programs, an increase of $4.7 billion above the FY 2025 enacted level 

    “Our Hawai‘i veterans and their families make up one of the largest percentages of any state in our nation including in such key areas like women and minority veterans. I continued to focus especially on the often unique challenges of delivering full veterans’ health and other benefits in a diverse island state,” said Case.

    Specific veterans-related programs and provisions requested and secured by Case include:

    ·        $12 million for the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, which is $6 million above the FY 2025 level. 

    ·        Contracting preferences for Native Hawaiian owned business that work with the VA. 

    ·        Directing the VA to continue supporting the VA Center for NHPIUSAPI Veterans.

    ·         $1.5 million for a pilot project using the most advanced technology to identify the remains of unidentified fallen servicemembers buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.  

    ·        Directing the VA to develop a plan for more fully providing VA benefits for veterans living in the Freely Associated States. 

    ·         $106 million for the American Battle Monument Commission, which manages the Honolulu Memorial at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. 

    ·        $60 million for the VA Grants for the Construction of Veterans Cemeteries Program, which regularly provides fundings to support Hawaii’s state cemeteries. 

    ·        $233 million for substance-use disorder (SUD) efforts to ensure veterans can receive timely SUD specialty services. 

    ·        $3.4 billion for the Veterans’ Homelessness Program Resources Account for our nation’s veterans. This funding will enhance homeless veterans service providers ability to provide high demand care such as health services, substance use disorder programs, compensated work therapy and other supportive services.   

    ·        $342 million for Rural Health Initiatives, $5 million above FY 2025 level. This will improve access and quality of care for the more than 3 million enrolled veterans residing in highly rural areas.  

    Military Construction 

    The bill provides $453.6 billion for Department of Defense (DoD) military construction and family housing, $480 million above the FY 2025 enacted level.  

    Specific military construction programs and provisions requested and secured by Case critical to Hawai‘i include:  

    ·          $634 million for the Energy Resiliency and Conservation Investment Program, which funds projects that save energy and water, reduce DoD energy costs and improve energy resilience. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to identify the Army’s investment needs in order to support the wildland firefighters located on Schofield Barracks.   

    ·         Directing the DoD to provide a report on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam infrastructure development plan, to address ongoing concerns of the aging water and wastewater facilities on the installation. 

    ·          Directing the DoD to assess the aging infrastructure that houses the headquarters of the Marine Corps, Space Force and Special Operations Commands on O‘ahu. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the requirement for a floating drydock at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the capacity for battle damage repair of all public shipyards and how to prepare these shipyards for conflict requirements under the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP). SIOP is a multi-billion multi-year effort to upgrade the Navy’s four public shipyards, including Pearl Harbor. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the infrastructure needs and shortfalls for 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment on Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i.  

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impacts of unexploded ordnance on military construction sites in Guam. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessary steps and what actions would be required to begin construction on port improvements on Tinian Island. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessity and feasibility of establishing a biosecurity inspection facility to combat invasive species on the Northern Mariana Islands. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impact and develop a plan to address growing solid waste management issues on Tinian Island.  

    The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for its consideration.  

    A summary of the VA-MilCon funding bill is available here. The committee report explaining the full bill in detail is available here. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Larsen Releases Statement on the Protests in Los Angeles

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Rick Larsen (2nd Congressional District Washington)

    Larsen Releases Statement on the Protests in Los Angeles

    Washington, D.C., June 11, 2025

    Today, Representative Rick Larsen released the following statement:

    “I condemn any violence in Los Angeles and interference with law enforcement activities that seems to involve only a limited number of demonstrators.

    “Americans have the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and protest, and I support peaceful protestors. Individuals that broke the law during the protests in Los Angeles must be held accountable through the legal system.

    “I support state and local leadership and law enforcement who are working to manage demonstration activity and de-escalate tensions.

    “I join my California colleagues who are demanding that the President and Secretary of Defense rescind the unlawful deployment of troops and return control to local authorities. The President and Secretary of Defense have a responsibility not to escalate tensions, and reports that the White House is enjoying stoking chaos shows how dishonest their actions are.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: IAM District 19 Charity Golf Tournament Supports Guide Dogs 

    Source: US GOIAM Union

    IAM District 19’s 10th annual Southeast Championship Charity Golf Tournament continued its tradition of a great day on the links for an even better cause.

    The Chattanooga, Tenn., event helped raise approximately $70,000 for the IAM’s favorite charity, Guide Dogs of America | Tender Loving Canines. More than 100 participants and numerous sponsors showed up to support GDA | TLC at Chattanooga Golf & Country Club. 

    See photos from District 19’s GDA | TLC tournament here.

    “The participants and sponsors of our annual District 19 golf tournament should be extremely proud to support a great charity like GDA | TLC. Together, we are making it possible for guide and service dog recipients to live a more independent and safe life,” said IAM District 19 President and Directing General Chair Reece Murtagh. “I’d also like to give a special thanks to District 19 General Chair Heath Jacobs, who works tirelessly every year to put on this great event.”

    A U.S. Army veteran who received a GDA | TLC service dog was also on hand to share her story with attendees.

    The post IAM District 19 Charity Golf Tournament Supports Guide Dogs  appeared first on IAM Union.

    MIL OSI USA News –