Category: Military Intelligence

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Minutes – Thursday, 8 May 2025 – Strasbourg – Final edition

    Source: European Parliament

    PV-10-2025-05-08

    EN

    EN

    iPlPv_Sit

    Minutes
    Thursday, 8 May 2025 – Strasbourg

    IN THE CHAIR: Christel SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

    1. Opening of the sitting

    The sitting opened at 09:00.


    2. Composition of political groups

    Volker Schnurrbusch was no longer sitting as a non-attached Member and had joined the ESN Group as of 8 May 2025.


    3. Composition of committees and delegations

    The ESN Group had notified the President of the following decision changing the composition of the committees and delegations:

    – TRAN Committee: Volker Schnurrbusch to replace Siegbert Frank Droese

    The decision took effect as of that day.


    4. 80 years after the end of World War II – freedom, democracy and security as the heritage of Europe (debate)

    Statements by Parliament: 80 years after the end of World War II – freedom, democracy and security as the heritage of Europe (2025/2694(RSP))

    The following spoke: Sebastião Bugalho, on behalf of the PPE Group, Marc Angel, on behalf of the S&D Group, Kinga Gál, on behalf of the PfE Group, Patryk Jaki, on behalf of the ECR Group, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, on behalf of the Renew Group, Thomas Waitz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Konstantinos Arvanitis, on behalf of The Left Group, René Aust, on behalf of the ESN Group, Sandra Kalniete, Javi López, Hermann Tertsch, Adrian-George Axinia, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who also answered blue-card questions from Arkadiusz Mularczyk and Petr Bystron, Nela Riehl, Marina Mesure, Stanislav Stoyanov, Ruth Firmenich, Łukasz Kohut, Evelyn Regner, António Tânger Corrêa, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Michał Kobosko, Benedetta Scuderi, Danilo Della Valle, Zsuzsanna Borvendég, Ondřej Dostál, Wouter Beke, Francisco Assis, who also answered a blue-card question from Sebastião Bugalho, Anders Vistisen, Rihards Kols, Charles Goerens and Arkadiusz Mularczyk to put a blue-card question to Charles Goerens.

    IN THE CHAIR: Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS
    Vice-President

    The following spoke: Charles Goerens, who answered a blue-card question from Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Jaume Asens Llodrà, João Oliveira, Ivan David, Danuše Nerudová, Cecilia Strada, Alexandre Varaut, Stephen Nikola Bartulica, Dan Barna, Anna Strolenberg, Rudi Kennes, Paulius Saudargas, René Repasi, who also answered blue-card questions from Bogdan Rzońca and Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Marieke Ehlers, Aurelijus Veryga, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Sunčana Glavak, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Sebastian Tynkkynen, who also declined to take a blue-card question from Petras Gražulis, Martin Hojsík, Evin Incir, who also answered a blue-card question from Bogdan Rzońca, Adam Bielan, who also answered a blue-card question from Petras Gražulis, Engin Eroglu, Nils Ušakovs, Christophe Grudler, Nikos Papandreou, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin and Matjaž Nemec.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Viktória Ferenc, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Siegbert Frank Droese, Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos and Lukas Sieper.

    The debate closed.


    5. Old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market (debate)

    Question for oral answer O-000012/2025 by Anna Cavazzini, on behalf of the IMCO Committee to the Commission: B10-0005/2025 (2025/2542(RSP))

    Anna Cavazzini moved the question.

    Stéphane Séjourné (Executive Vice-President of the Commission) answered the question.

    The following spoke: Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE Group, Laura Ballarín Cereza, on behalf of the S&D Group, Klara Dostalova, on behalf of the PfE Group, Stefano Cavedagna, on behalf of the ECR Group, Svenja Hahn, on behalf of the Renew Group, Alice Kuhnke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Hanna Gedin, on behalf of The Left Group, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Alex Agius Saliba, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, Biljana Borzan, Elisabeth Dieringer, who also answered a blue-card question from Lukas Sieper, Tomislav Sokol, Pierre Jouvet, Zala Tomašič, Dimitris Tsiodras and Regina Doherty.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Bogdan Rzońca, João Oliveira and Lukas Sieper.

    The following spoke: Stéphane Séjourné.

    Motions for resolutions tabled under Rule 142(5) to wind up the debate: minutes of 8.5.2025, item I.

    The debate closed.

    Vote: 8 May 2025.

    (The sitting was suspended at 11:51.)


    IN THE CHAIR: Javi LÓPEZ
    Vice-President

    6. Resumption of the sitting

    The sitting resumed at 12:04.

    The following spoke: René Aust, concerning an incident on Parliament’s premises in Brussels on 30 April 2025 (the President provided some clarifications).


    7. Voting time

    For detailed results of the votes, see also ‘Results of votes’ and ‘Results of roll-call votes’.


    7.1. Arrest and risk of execution of Tundu Lissu, Chair of Chadema, the main opposition party in Tanzania (vote)

    Motions for resolutions RC-B10-0260/2025 (minutes of 8.5.2025, item I), B10-0260/2025, B10-0261/2025, B10-0262/2025, B10-0263/2025, B10-0264/2025 and B10-0265/2025 (minutes of 7.5.2025, item I) (2025/2690(RSP))

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0095)

    (Motion for a resolution B10-0262/2025 fell.)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 1)






    7.4. Ninth report on economic and social cohesion (vote)

    Report on the ninth report on economic and social cohesion [2024/2107(INI)] – Committee on Regional Development. Rapporteur: Jacek Protas (A10-0066/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted by single vote (P10_TA(2025)0098)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 4)


    7.5. CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles for 2025 to 2027 ***I (vote)

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 to include an additional flexibility as regards the calculation of manufacturers’ compliance with CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles for the calendar years 2025 to 2027 – (COM(2025)0136 – C10-0062/2025 – 2025/0070(COD)) – Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    COMMISSION PROPOSAL and AMENDMENTS

    Approved (P10_TA(2025)0099)

    Parliament’s first reading thus closed.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 5)


    7.6. The protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus) ***I (vote)

    Amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus) – (COM(2025)0106 – C10-0044/2025 – 2025/0058(COD)) – Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    PROPOSAL TO REJECT THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

    Rejected

    COMMISSION PROPOSAL

    Approved (P10_TA(2025)0100)

    Parliament’s first reading thus closed.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 6)


    7.7. The role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season ***I (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 as regards the role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season [COM(2025)0099 – C10-0041/2025 – 2025/0051(COD)] – Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Rapporteur: Borys Budka (A10-0079/2025)

    The debate had taken place on 7 May 2025 (minutes of 7.5.2025, item 16).

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    COMMISSION PROPOSAL and AMENDMENTS

    Approved (P10_TA(2025)0101)

    REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BACK TO COMMITTEE

    Approved

    The following had spoken:

    Borys Budka (rapporteur), after the vote on the Commission proposal, to request that the matter be referred back to the committee responsible, for institutional negotiations, under Rule 60(4). Parliament agreed to the request.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 7)


    7.8. Screening of foreign investments in the Union ***I (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the screening of foreign investments in the Union and repealing Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council [COM(2024)0023 – C9-0011/2024 – 2024/0017(COD)] – Committee on International Trade. Rapporteur: Raphaël Glucksmann (A10-0061/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    COMMISSION PROPOSAL and AMENDMENTS

    Approved (P10_TA(2025)0102)

    REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BACK TO COMMITTEE

    Approved

    The following had spoken:

    Raphaël Glucksmann (rapporteur), after the vote on the Commission proposal, to request that the matter be referred back to the committee responsible, for institutional negotiations, under Rule 60(4). Parliament agreed to the request.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 8)


    7.9. Suspending certain parts of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 as regards imports of Ukrainian products into the European Union ***I (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council suspending certain parts of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 as regards imports of Ukrainian products into the European Union [COM(2025)0107 – C10-0042/2025 – 2025/0056(COD)] – Committee on International Trade. Rapporteur: Karin Karlsbro (A10-0059/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE VOTE (ESN Group) (Rule 206(4))

    Rejected

    COMMISSION PROPOSAL and AMENDMENTS

    Approved (P10_TA(2025)0103)

    Parliament’s first reading thus closed.

    The following had spoken:

    – Hans Neuhoff, on behalf of the ESN Group, to request that the vote be postponed pursuant to Rule 206(4), and Bernd Lange, against the request.

    – Karin Karlsbro (rapporteur), before the vote, to make a statement under Rule 165(4).

    – Costas Kadis (Member of the Commission), before the vote, to make a statement.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 9)


    7.10. Competition policy – annual report 2024 (vote)

    Report on competition policy – annual report 2024 [2024/2079(INI)] – Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Rapporteur: Lara Wolters (A10-0071/2025)

    The debate had taken place on 7 May 2025 (minutes of 7.5.2025, item 12).

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0104)

    The following had spoken:


    Majdouline Sbai, to move an oral amendment to Amendment 1. Parliament agreed to put the oral amendment to the vote.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 10)


    7.11. Banking Union – annual report 2024 (vote)

    Report on Banking Union – annual report 2024 [2024/2055(INI)] – Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Rapporteur: Ralf Seekatz (A10-0044/2025)

    The debate had taken place on 7 May 2025 (minutes of 7.5.2025, item 17).

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0105)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 11)


    7.12. Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (vote)

    Motion for a resolution, tabled by the ENVI Committee, pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3), on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D105678/01 – 2025/2647(RSP)) (B10-0244/2025) – Members responsible: Anja Hazekamp, Martin Häusling, Biljana Borzan, Sirpa Pietikäinen.

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0106)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 12)




    IN THE CHAIR: Ewa KOPACZ
    Vice-President

    8. Resumption of the sitting

    The sitting resumed at 15:00.


    9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

    The minutes of the previous sitting were approved.


    10. EU action on treating and preventing diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular neurological diseases and measles (debate)

    Commission statement: EU action on treating and preventing diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular neurological diseases and measles(2025/2696(RSP))

    Costas Kadis (Member of the Commission) made the statement.

    The following spoke: Tomislav Sokol, on behalf of the PPE Group, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, on behalf of the S&D Group, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, on behalf of the PfE Group, Aurelijus Veryga, on behalf of the ECR Group, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, on behalf of the Renew Group, Tilly Metz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Milan Mazurek, on behalf of the ESN Group, Seán Kelly, Christophe Clergeau, Manuela Ripa and Laurent Castillo.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: András Tivadar Kulja, Lukas Sieper and Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă.

    The following spoke: Costas Kadis.

    The following spoke: Lukas Sieper, concerning the intervention by Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă.

    The debate closed.


    11. Explanations of vote


    11.1. Ninth report on economic and social cohesion (A10-0066/2025 – Jacek Protas ) (oral explanations of vote)

    Seán Kelly, Lukas Sieper


    11.2. The role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season (A10-0079/2025 – Borys Budka ) (oral explanations of vote)

    Seán Kelly, Lukas Sieper


    11.3. Competition policy – annual report 2024 (A10-0071/2025 – Lara Wolters) (oral explanations of vote)

    Seán Kelly


    11.4. Old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market (B10-0246/2025) (oral explanations of vote)

    Lukas Sieper


    11.5. Written explanations of vote

    Explanations of vote submitted in writing under Rule 201 appear on the Members’ pages on Parliament’s website.


    12. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

    In accordance with Rule 208(3), the minutes of the sitting would be put to the House for approval at the start of the next sitting.

    With Parliament’s agreement, the texts adopted during the part-session would be forwarded to their respective addressees without delay.


    13. Dates of the next part-session

    The next part-session would be held on 21 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.


    14. Closure of the sitting

    The sitting closed at 15:50.


    15. Adjournment of the session

    The session of the European Parliament was adjourned.

    Alessandro Chiocchetti

    Roberta Metsola

    Secretary-General

    President


    LIST OF DOCUMENTS SERVING AS A BASIS FOR THE DEBATES AND DECISIONS OF PARLIAMENT


    I. Motions for resolutions tabled

    Arrest and risk of execution of Tundu Lissu, Chair of Chadema, the main opposition party in Tanzania

    Joint motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 150(5) and Rule 136(4):

    on the arrest and risk of execution of Tundu Lissu, Chair of Chadema, the main opposition party in Tanzania (2025/2690(RSP)) (RC-B10-0260/2025)
    (replacing motions for resolutions B10-0260/2025, B10-0261/2025, B10-0263/2025, B10-0264/2025 and B10-0265/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Reinhold Lopatka, Michael Gahler, David McAllister, Željana Zovko, Michał Szczerba, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Ana Miguel Pedro, Davor Ivo Stier, Tomas Tobé, Liudas Mažylis, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Mirosława Nykiel, Wouter Beke, Luděk Niedermayer, Vangelis Meimarakis, Milan Zver, Tomáš Zdechovský, Danuše Nerudová, Miriam Lexmann, Jan Farský, Loránt Vincze, Jessica Polfjärd, Andrey Kovatchev, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Francisco Assis, Marit Maij
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Adam Bielan, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Assita Kanko, Waldemar Tomaszewski, Alberico Gambino
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Engin Eroglu, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Moritz Körner, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Urmas Paet, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Michal Wiezik, Lucia Yar
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Catarina Vieira
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    Return of Ukrainian children forcibly transferred and deported by Russia

    Joint motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 150(5) and Rule 136(4):

    on the return of Ukrainian children forcibly transferred and deported by Russia (2025/2691(RSP)) (RC-B10-0249/2025)
    (replacing motions for resolutions B10-0249/2025, B10-0250/2025, B10-0252/2025, B10-0255/2025 and B10-0258/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Jessika Van Leeuwen, Michael Gahler, David McAllister, Sandra Kalniete, Željana Zovko, Andrzej Halicki, Michał Szczerba, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Ana Miguel Pedro, Dariusz Joński, Davor Ivo Stier, Tomas Tobé, Reinhold Lopatka, Liudas Mažylis, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Mirosława Nykiel, Wouter Beke, Luděk Niedermayer, Vangelis Meimarakis, Milan Zver, Tomáš Zdechovský, Danuše Nerudová, Miriam Lexmann, Ondřej Kolář, Jan Farský, Loránt Vincze, Jessica Polfjärd, Andrey Kovatchev, Ewa Kopacz, Matej Tonin, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Francisco Assis, Thijs Reuten, Evin Incir, Pina Picierno
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Adam Bielan, Rihards Kols, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Aurelijus Veryga, Reinis Pozņaks, Alexandr Vondra, Maciej Wąsik, Veronika Vrecionová, Ondřej Krutílek, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Michał Dworczyk, Assita Kanko, Jaak Madison, Mariusz Kamiński, Roberts Zīle, Charlie Weimers, Beatrice Timgren, Dick Erixon, Sebastian Tynkkynen
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Petras Auštrevičius, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Abir Al-Sahlani, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Helmut Brandstätter, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Engin Eroglu, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Ľubica Karvašová, Michał Kobosko, Moritz Körner, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Nathalie Loiseau, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Urmas Paet, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Eugen Tomac, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Villy Søvndal
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
    Hanna Gedin, Jonas Sjöstedt, Merja Kyllönen

    Violations of religious freedom in Tibet

    Joint motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 150(5) and Rule 136(4):

    on violations of religious freedom in Tibet (2025/2692(RSP)) (RC-B10-0248/2025)
    (replacing motions for resolutions B10-0248/2025, B10-0251/2025, B10-0254/2025, B10-0256/2025 and B10-0259/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Danuše Nerudová, Michael Gahler, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Ana Miguel Pedro, Davor Ivo Stier, Tomas Tobé, Reinhold Lopatka, Liudas Mažylis, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Mirosława Nykiel, Wouter Beke, Luděk Niedermayer, Vangelis Meimarakis, Milan Zver, Tomáš Zdechovský, Miriam Lexmann, Ondřej Kolář, Jan Farský, Loránt Vincze, Jessica Polfjärd, Andrey Kovatchev, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Francisco Assis, Hannes Heide
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Adam Bielan, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Assita Kanko, Maciej Wąsik, Veronika Vrecionová, Ondřej Krutílek, Alexandr Vondra, Mariusz Kamiński, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Michał Dworczyk, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Waldemar Tomaszewski, Carlo Fidanza
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Engin Eroglu, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Petras Auštrevičius, Dan Barna, Helmut Brandstätter, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Moritz Körner, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Ľubica Karvašová, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Ville Niinistö
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    Old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market

    Motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 142( 5) to wind up the debate:

    on the old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market (2025/2542(RSP)) (B10-0246/2025)
    Anna Cavazzini
    on behalf of the IMCO Committee


    II. Decisions to draw up own-initiative reports

    Decisions to draw up own-initiative reports (Rule 55)

    (Following the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 30 April 2025)

    AFET Committee

    – EU-US political relations (2025/2084(INI))
    (opinion: INTA)

    – EU political strategy on Latin America (2025/2083(INI))
    (opinion: DEVE)

    – Relations between the EU and Saudi Arabia (2025/2082(INI))

    AGRI Committee

    – EU agri-food promotion policy (2025/2089(INI))

    DEVE Committee

    – Humanitarian aid in a time of polycrisis – reaffirming our principles for a more effective and ambitious response to humanitarian crises (2025/2085(INI))
    (opinion: FEMM)

    ENVI, AGRI committees

    – Ensuring faster registration and uptake of biological control agents (2025/2086(INI))

    SANT Committee

    – Public health aspects of biotechnology and life sciences (2025/2087(INI))

    SEDE Committee

    – Drones and new systems of warfare – the EU‘s need to adapt to be fit for today‘s security challenges (2025/2088(INI))

    SEDE, TRAN committees

    – Military mobility (2025/2090(INI))

    (Following the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 3 April 2025)

    CULT Committee

    – Impact of social media and the online environment on young people (2025/2081(INI))
    (opinion: IMCO, LIBE, FEMM)

    Decisions to draw up own-initiative reports (Rules 47 and 55)

    (Following the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 3 April 2025)

    EMPL Committee

    – Digitalisation, artificial intelligence and algorithmic management in the workplace – shaping the future of work (2025/2080(INL))
    (opinion: LIBE)

    JURI Committee

    – The 28th Regime: a new legal framework for innovative companies (2025/2079(INL))


    III. Petitions

    Petitions Nos 0377-25 to 0527-25 had been entered in the register on 6 May 2025 and had been forwarded to the committee responsible, in accordance with Rule 232(9) and (10).

    The President had, on 6 May 2025, forwarded to the committee responsible, in accordance with Rule 232(15), petitions addressed to Parliament by natural or legal persons who were not citizens of the European Union and who did not reside, or have their registered office, in a Member State.


    IV. Documents received

    The following documents had been received from Members:

    – Maria Zacharia. Motion for a resolution on the crime at Tempi and waiving the immunity of ministers and government officials (B10-0200/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: LIBE
    opinion: TRAN

    – Jean-Paul Garraud. Motion for a resolution on protecting the sovereignty of the Member States in democratic decision-making (B10-0238/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: LIBE

    – Christine Anderson, Marieke Ehlers and Virginie Joron. Motion for a resolution on the criteria and methods for establishing intent behind the dissemination of misleading information (B10-0239/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: LIBE

    – Pernando Barrena Arza, Marc Botenga, Lynn Boylan, Per Clausen, Danilo Della Valle, Kathleen Funchion, Estrella Galán, Hanna Gedin, Giorgos Georgiou, Kateřina Konečná, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Ana Miranda Paz, João Oliveira, Mounir Satouri, Jonas Sjöstedt and Maria Zacharia. Motion for a resolution on the immediate suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (B10-0240/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: AFET

    – Anja Arndt, René Aust, Zsuzsanna Borvendég, Irmhild Boßdorf, Markus Buchheit, Petr Bystron, Elisabeth Dieringer, Siegbert Frank Droese, Tomasz Froelich, Roman Haider, Marc Jongen, Alexander Jungbluth, Mary Khan, Rada Laykova, Milan Mazurek, Hans Neuhoff, Alexander Sell, Petra Steger, António Tânger Corrêa, Milan Uhrík and Petar Volgin. Motion for a resolution on a joint and strong response to the Federal Republic of Germany’s departure from financial stability (B10-0241/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: ECON

    – Mathilde Androuët, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Catherine Griset, Fabrice Leggeri, Julien Leonardelli, Thierry Mariani, Aleksandar Nikolic, Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, André Rougé, Pierre-Romain Thionnet and Alexandre Varaut. Motion for a resolution on protecting multilingualism in the EU (B10-0242/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: CULT

    – Pina Picierno, Massimiliano Salini and Antonella Sberna. Motion for a resolution on the establishment of a European Day in Remembrance of the Victims of Accidents at Work and for the Protection and Dignity of Workers: ‘8 August – European Day in Remembrance of the Victims of Accidents at Work and for the Protection and Dignity of Workers’ (B10-0245/2025)
    referred to committee responsible: EMPL


    ATTENDANCE REGISTER

    Present:

    Abadía Jover Maravillas, Adamowicz Magdalena, Aftias Georgios, Agirregoitia Martínez Oihane, Agius Peter, Agius Saliba Alex, Alexandraki Galato, Allione Grégory, Al-Sahlani Abir, Anadiotis Nikolaos, Anderson Christine, Andersson Li, Andresen Rasmus, Andrews Barry, Andriukaitis Vytenis Povilas, Androuët Mathilde, Angel Marc, Antoci Giuseppe, Arias Echeverría Pablo, Arimont Pascal, Arłukowicz Bartosz, Arnaoutoglou Sakis, Arndt Anja, Arvanitis Konstantinos, Asens Llodrà Jaume, Assis Francisco, Attard Daniel, Aubry Manon, Auštrevičius Petras, Axinia Adrian-George, Azmani Malik, Bajada Thomas, Baljeu Jeannette, Ballarín Cereza Laura, Bardella Jordan, Barna Dan, Barrena Arza Pernando, Bartulica Stephen Nikola, Bartůšek Nikola, Bay Nicolas, Bay Christophe, Beke Wouter, Beleris Fredis, Bellamy François-Xavier, Benea Dragoş, Benifei Brando, Benjumea Benjumea Isabel, Berendsen Tom, Berger Stefan, Berlato Sergio, Bernhuber Alexander, Biedroń Robert, Bielan Adam, Bischoff Gabriele, Blinkevičiūtė Vilija, Blom Rachel, Bloss Michael, Bocheński Tobiasz, Boeselager Damian, Bogdan Ioan-Rareş, Bonaccini Stefano, Borchia Paolo, Borrás Pabón Mireia, Borvendég Zsuzsanna, Borzan Biljana, Bosanac Gordan, Boßdorf Irmhild, Bosse Stine, Botenga Marc, Boyer Gilles, Boylan Lynn, Brasier-Clain Marie-Luce, Bricmont Saskia, Brudziński Joachim Stanisław, Bryłka Anna, Buchheit Markus, Buczek Tomasz, Buda Daniel, Buda Waldemar, Budka Borys, Bugalho Sebastião, Buła Andrzej, Bullmann Udo, Burkhardt Delara, Buxadé Villalba Jorge, Bystron Petr, Bžoch Jaroslav, Camara Mélissa, Canfin Pascal, Carberry Nina, Cârciu Gheorghe, Carême Damien, Casa David, Caspary Daniel, Cassart Benoit, Castillo Laurent, del Castillo Vera Pilar, Cavazzini Anna, Cavedagna Stefano, Cepeda José, Ceulemans Estelle, Chahim Mohammed, Chaibi Leila, Chastel Olivier, Chinnici Caterina, Christensen Asger, Cifrová Ostrihoňová Veronika, Ciriani Alessandro, Clausen Per, Clergeau Christophe, Corrado Annalisa, Costanzo Vivien, Cotrim De Figueiredo João, Cowen Barry, Cremer Tobias, Crespo Díaz Carmen, Cristea Andi, Crosetto Giovanni, Cunha Paulo, Dahl Henrik, Danielsson Johan, Dávid Dóra, David Ivan, Decaro Antonio, de la Hoz Quintano Raúl, Della Valle Danilo, Deloge Valérie, De Masi Fabio, De Meo Salvatore, Devaux Valérie, Dibrani Adnan, Diepeveen Ton, Dieringer Elisabeth, Dîncu Vasile, Di Rupo Elio, Disdier Mélanie, Doherty Regina, Doleschal Christian, Dömötör Csaba, Do Nascimento Cabral Paulo, Dorfmann Herbert, Dostalova Klara, Dostál Ondřej, Droese Siegbert Frank, Dworczyk Michał, Ecke Matthias, Ehler Christian, Ehlers Marieke, Eriksson Sofie, Erixon Dick, Eroglu Engin, Everding Sebastian, Falcă Gheorghe, Falcone Marco, Farantouris Nikolas, Farský Jan, Ferber Markus, Ferenc Viktória, Fernández Jonás, Fidanza Carlo, Fiocchi Pietro, Firea Gabriela, Firmenich Ruth, Fita Claire, Fourlas Loucas, Fourreau Emma, Fragkos Emmanouil, Freund Daniel, Frigout Anne-Sophie, Fritzon Heléne, Froelich Tomasz, Fuglsang Niels, Funchion Kathleen, Furet Angéline, Furore Mario, Gahler Michael, Gál Kinga, Galán Estrella, Gambino Alberico, García Hermida-Van Der Walle Raquel, Garraud Jean-Paul, Gasiuk-Pihowicz Kamila, Geadi Geadis, Gedin Hanna, Geese Alexandra, Geier Jens, Geisel Thomas, Gemma Chiara, Georgiou Giorgos, Gerbrandy Gerben-Jan, Germain Jean-Marc, Gerzsenyi Gabriella, Geuking Niels, Gieseke Jens, Giménez Larraz Borja, Girauta Vidal Juan Carlos, Glavak Sunčana, Glück Andreas, Glucksmann Raphaël, Goerens Charles, Gomart Christophe, Gomes Isilda, Gómez López Sandra, Gonçalves Bruno, Gonçalves Sérgio, González Casares Nicolás, González Pons Esteban, Gori Giorgio, Gosiewska Małgorzata, Gotink Dirk, Gozi Sandro, Gražulis Petras, Griset Catherine, Gronkiewicz-Waltz Hanna, Groothuis Bart, Grossmann Elisabeth, Grudler Christophe, Guarda Cristina, Győri Enikő, Gyürk András, Hadjipantela Michalis, Hahn Svenja, Haider Roman, Halicki Andrzej, Hansen Niels Flemming, Hauser Gerald, Häusling Martin, Hava Mircea-Gheorghe, Heide Hannes, Heinäluoma Eero, Henriksson Anna-Maja, Herbst Niclas, Herranz García Esther, Hetman Krzysztof, Hohlmeier Monika, Hojsík Martin, Holmgren Pär, Homs Ginel Alicia, Humberto Sérgio, Incir Evin, Inselvini Paolo, Iovanovici Şoşoacă Diana, Jamet France, Jarubas Adam, Jerković Romana, Jongen Marc, Joński Dariusz, Joron Virginie, Jouvet Pierre, Joveva Irena, Junco García Nora, Jungbluth Alexander, Kabilov Taner, Kalfon François, Kaljurand Marina, Kalniete Sandra, Kamiński Mariusz, Karlsbro Karin, Kartheiser Fernand, Katainen Elsi, Kefalogiannis Emmanouil, Kelleher Billy, Keller Fabienne, Kelly Seán, Kennes Rudi, Knafo Sarah, Knotek Ondřej, Kobosko Michał, Köhler Stefan, Kohut Łukasz, Kokalari Arba, Kolář Ondřej, Kollár Kinga, Kols Rihards, Konečná Kateřina, Kopacz Ewa, Körner Moritz, Kountoura Elena, Kovařík Ondřej, Kovatchev Andrey, Krištopans Vilis, Kruis Sebastian, Krutílek Ondřej, Kubín Tomáš, Kuhnke Alice, Kulja András Tivadar, Kulmuni Katri, Kyuchyuk Ilhan, Lakos Eszter, Lange Bernd, Langensiepen Katrin, László András, Latinopoulou Afroditi, Laureti Camilla, Laykova Rada, Lazarov Ilia, Leggeri Fabrice, Lenaers Jeroen, Lewandowski Janusz, Lexmann Miriam, Liese Peter, Lins Norbert, Løkkegaard Morten, Lopatka Reinhold, López Javi, López Aguilar Juan Fernando, Lövin Isabella, Lucano Mimmo, Luena César, Łukacijewska Elżbieta Katarzyna, Lupo Giuseppe, Maestre Cristina, Magoni Lara, Magyar Péter, Maij Marit, Maląg Marlena, Manda Claudiu, Mandl Lukas, Maniatis Yannis, Mantovani Mario, Maran Pierfrancesco, Marczułajtis-Walczak Jagna, Maréchal Marion, Mariani Thierry, Marino Ignazio Roberto, Marquardt Erik, Martín Frías Jorge, Mavrides Costas, Maydell Eva, Mayer Georg, Mazurek Milan, Mažylis Liudas, McNamara Michael, Mebarek Nora, Mehnert Alexandra, Meimarakis Vangelis, Mendes Ana Catarina, Mendia Idoia, Mesure Marina, Metsola Roberta, Metz Tilly, Mikser Sven, Millán Mon Francisco José, Minchev Nikola, Miranda Paz Ana, Montero Irene, Montserrat Dolors, Morace Carolina, Morano Nadine, Moratti Letizia, Moreira de Sá Tiago, Moreno Sánchez Javier, Moretti Alessandra, Motreanu Dan-Ştefan, Mularczyk Arkadiusz, Mullooly Ciaran, Mureşan Siegfried, Muşoiu Ştefan, Nagyová Jana, Navarrete Rojas Fernando, Negrescu Victor, Nemec Matjaž, Nerudová Danuše, Nesci Denis, Neuhoff Hans, Neumann Hannah, Nevado del Campo Elena, Niebler Angelika, Niedermayer Luděk, Niinistö Ville, Nikolaou-Alavanos Lefteris, Nikolic Aleksandar, Ní Mhurchú Cynthia, Noichl Maria, Nordqvist Rasmus, Novakov Andrey, Nykiel Mirosława, Ódor Ľudovít, Oetjen Jan-Christoph, Ohisalo Maria, Oliveira João, Olivier Philippe, Omarjee Younous, Ó Ríordáin Aodhán, Orlando Leoluca, Ozdoba Jacek, Paet Urmas, Pajín Leire, Palmisano Valentina, Panayiotou Fidias, Papadakis Kostas, Papandreou Nikos, Pappas Nikos, Pascual de la Parte Nicolás, Patriciello Aldo, Paulus Jutta, Pellerin-Carlin Thomas, Penkova Tsvetelina, Pennelle Gilles, Peter-Hansen Kira Marie, Petrov Hristo, Picaro Michele, Picierno Pina, Picula Tonino, Piera Pascale, Pietikäinen Sirpa, Pimpie Pierre, Piperea Gheorghe, de la Pisa Carrión Margarita, Pokorná Jermanová Jaroslava, Polato Daniele, Polfjärd Jessica, Popescu Virgil-Daniel, Pozņaks Reinis, Prebilič Vladimir, Princi Giusi, Protas Jacek, Pürner Friedrich, Rackete Carola, Radtke Dennis, Ratas Jüri, Razza Ruggero, Rechagneux Julie, Regner Evelyn, Repasi René, Repp Sabrina, Ressler Karlo, Reuten Thijs, Riba i Giner Diana, Ricci Matteo, Riehl Nela, Ripa Manuela, Rodrigues André, Rougé André, Ruissen Bert-Jan, Ruotolo Sandro, Rzońca Bogdan, Saeidi Arash, Salini Massimiliano, Salis Ilaria, Sánchez Amor Nacho, Sanchez Julien, Sancho Murillo Elena, Saramo Jussi, Sardone Silvia, Satouri Mounir, Saudargas Paulius, Sbai Majdouline, Sberna Antonella, Schaldemose Christel, Schaller-Baross Ernő, Schenk Oliver, Scheuring-Wielgus Joanna, Schieder Andreas, Schilling Lena, Schneider Christine, Schnurrbusch Volker, Schwab Andreas, Scuderi Benedetta, Seekatz Ralf, Sell Alexander, Serrano Sierra Rosa, Sidl Günther, Sienkiewicz Bartłomiej, Sieper Lukas, Singer Christine, Sinkevičius Virginijus, Sjöstedt Jonas, Śmiszek Krzysztof, Smith Anthony, Smit Sander, Sokol Tomislav, Solier Diego, Solís Pérez Susana, Sommen Liesbet, Sonneborn Martin, Sorel Malika, Sousa Silva Hélder, Søvndal Villy, Squarta Marco, Staķis Mārtiņš, Stancanelli Raffaele, Steger Petra, Stier Davor Ivo, Storm Kristoffer, Stöteler Sebastiaan, Stoyanov Stanislav, Strack-Zimmermann Marie-Agnes, Strada Cecilia, Streit Joachim, Strik Tineke, Strolenberg Anna, Sturdza Şerban Dimitrie, Stürgkh Anna, Sypniewski Marcin, Szczerba Michał, Szydło Beata, Tamburrano Dario, Tânger Corrêa António, Tarquinio Marco, Târziu Claudiu-Richard, Tavares Carla, Tegethoff Kai, Teodorescu Georgiana, Teodorescu Måwe Alice, Terheş Cristian, Ter Laak Ingeborg, Terras Riho, Tertsch Hermann, Thionnet Pierre-Romain, Timgren Beatrice, Tinagli Irene, Tobback Bruno, Tobé Tomas, Tolassy Rody, Tomašič Zala, Tomaszewski Waldemar, Tomc Romana, Tonin Matej, Toom Jana, Topo Raffaele, Torselli Francesco, Tosi Flavio, Toussaint Marie, Tovaglieri Isabella, Tridico Pasquale, Trochu Laurence, Tsiodras Dimitris, Tudose Mihai, Turek Filip, Tynkkynen Sebastian, Ušakovs Nils, Vaidere Inese, Valchev Ivaylo, Vălean Adina, Valet Matthieu, Van Brempt Kathleen, Van Brug Anouk, van den Berg Brigitte, Vandendriessche Tom, Van Dijck Kris, Van Lanschot Reinier, Van Leeuwen Jessika, Vannacci Roberto, Van Sparrentak Kim, Varaut Alexandre, Vasconcelos Ana, Vasile-Voiculescu Vlad, Vautmans Hilde, Vedrenne Marie-Pierre, Ventola Francesco, Veryga Aurelijus, Vicsek Annamária, Vieira Catarina, Vigenin Kristian, Vilimsky Harald, Vincze Loránt, Vistisen Anders, Vivaldini Mariateresa, Volgin Petar, von der Schulenburg Michael, Vondra Alexandr, Vrecionová Veronika, Vázquez Lázara Adrián, Waitz Thomas, Walsh Maria, Walsmann Marion, Warborn Jörgen, Warnke Jan-Peter, Wąsik Maciej, Wawrykiewicz Michał, Wcisło Marta, Wechsler Andrea, Weimers Charlie, Werbrouck Séverine, Wiesner Emma, Wiezik Michal, Winkler Iuliu, Winzig Angelika, Wiseler-Lima Isabel, Wiśniewska Jadwiga, Wölken Tiemo, Wolters Lara, Yar Lucia, Yon-Courtin Stéphanie, Zacharia Maria, Zalewska Anna, Zan Alessandro, Zarzalejos Javier, Zdechovský Tomáš, Zdrojewski Bogdan Andrzej, Zijlstra Auke, Zingaretti Nicola, Złotowski Kosma

    Excused:

    Verheyen Sabine

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Death of 17-year old Palestinian prisoner Walid Ahmad in Israeli prison – E-001766/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001766/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE)

    On 17 April 2025, children’s rights non-governmental organisation Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP) reported[1] the death of 17-year old Palestinian prisoner Walid Ahmad earlier this month in the Israeli Megiddo prison after months of untreated infections, prolonged malnutrition, dehydration and intense beatings from Israeli forces. DCIP expressed its concerns that Palestinian child prisoners are systematically isolated from the outside world and face torture in Israeli prisons.

    • 1.What is the Commission’s assessment of the current conditions in Israeli prisons, in particular for Palestinian prisoners?
    • 2.Can the Commission rule out the possibility that any EU funding has benefited any Israeli detention facilities, either directly or indirectly?
    • 3.Has the Commission addressed the death of Mr Ahmad, as well as the general detention conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons with the Israeli authorities, if so, how, and with what effects?

    Submitted: 30.4.2025

    • [1] https://www.dci-palestine.org/17_year_old_palestinian_child_prisoner_starved_to_death_by_israeli_prison_guards.
    Last updated: 8 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Experts split on Australia’s Papua New Guinea military recruitment plan

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Australia’s plan to recruit from Papua New Guinea for its Defence Force raises “major ethical concerns”, according to the Australia Defence Association, while another expert thinks it is broadly a good idea.

    The two nations are set to begin negotiating a new defence treaty that is expected to see Papua New Guineans join the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

    Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James believes “it’s an idiot idea” if there is no pathway to citizenship for Papua New Guineans who serve in the ADF

    “You can’t expect other people to defend your country if you’re not willing to do it and until this scheme actually addresses this in any detail, we’re not going to know whether it’s an idiot idea or it’s something that might be workable in the long run.”

    However, an expert associate at the Australian National University’s National Security College, Jennifer Parker, believes it is a good idea.

    “Australia having a closer relationship with Papua New Guinea through that cross pollination of people going and working in each other’s defence forces, that’s incredibly positive.”

    Parker said recruiting from the Pacific has been an ongoing conversation, but the exact nature of what the recruitment might look like is unknown, including whether there is a pathway to citizenship or if there would be a separate PNG unit within the ADF.

    Extreme scenario
    When asked whether it was ethical for people from PNG to fight Australia’s wars, Parker said that would be an extreme scenario.

    “We’re not talking about conscripting people from other countries or anything like that. We’re talking about offering the opportunity for people, if they choose to join,” she said.

    “There are many defence forces around the world where people choose, people who are born in other countries, choose to join.”

    However, James disagrees.

    “Whether they’re volunteers or whether they’re conscripted, you’re still expecting foreigners to defend your society and with no link to that society.”

    Both Parker and James brought up concerns surrounding brain drain.

    James said in Timor-Leste, in the early 2000s, many New Zealanders in the army infantry who were serving alongside Australia joined the Australian Army, attracted by the higher pay, which was not in the interest of New Zealand or Australia in the long run.

    Care needed
    “You’ve got to be real careful that you don’t ruin the Papua New Guinea Defence Force by making it too easy for Papua New Guineans to serve in the Australian Defence Force.”

    Parker said the policy needed to be crafted very clearly in conjunction with Papua New Guinea to make sure it strengthened the two nations relationship, not undermined it.

    Australia aims to grow the number of ADF uniformed personnel to 80,000 by 2040. However, it is not on track to meet that target.

    Parker said she did not think Australia was trying to fill the shortfall.

    “There are a couple of challenges in the recruitment issues for the Australian Defence Force.

    “But I don’t think the scoping of recruiting people from Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands, if it indeed goes ahead, is about addressing recruitment for the Australian Defence Force.

    “I think it’s about increasing closer security ties between Papua New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, and Australia.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech to India New Zealand Business Council

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    Kia ora and good morning, everyone.

    This is a great time to hold a Summit focused on the India-New Zealand relationship. It comes seven weeks after I returned from India following one of New Zealand’s largest ever Prime Ministerial missions.

    I was joined by 40 business representatives, 15 community leaders, three Cabinet Ministers, four MPs, a Kapa Haka group, and a range of senior government officials all laser-focused on our relationship with India. 

    We visited New Delhi and Mumbai for a packed programme that covered every facet of our broad-based relationship with India – political connections, trade and economics, defence and security, people, culture and, of course, cricket. 

    As was the case on my previous visits to India when I was in the private sector with Unilever, I was struck by the remarkable energy, dynamism, and innovation that I encountered. 

    I concluded the mission more convinced than ever that India is a country of enormous consequence for New Zealand and for the world.

    So, I want to spend some time reflecting on the mission and talking about some of the outcomes in three key areas. First, economic opportunities; second, defence and security; and third, in terms of people and culture. 

    I then want to set out what I see as the next steps in the relationship.

    Economic opportunities

    First, I want to talk about the economic opportunities we saw in India, and what we are doing to capitalise on them. 

    I’m sure everyone here is familiar with India’s amazing growth story. The fastest GDP growth rate in the G20, with India on track to become the world’s third-largest economy in the next few years, and the Indian middle class now numbers 445 million. 

    When I met with Prime Minister Modi, I had a chance to discuss with him India’s extraordinary transformation. Over the past decade, 250 million Indians have been lifted out of poverty; the number of airports in India has more than doubled to 157, with many more planned in the coming years; and India’s government estimates that it has built 95,000 kilometres of highway. To put this last one in perspective, that would be enough highway to drive between New Zealand and India eight times.  

    Globally, India is a consequential and influential voice, successfully hosting the G20 in 2023, and a space power, becoming the first country to land a spacecraft on the moon’s South Pole two years ago.

    While in India, I had discussions with business leaders who are running companies doing incredible things. Innovators like Nadir Godrej, responsible for one of India’s biggest, oldest and best-known industrial groups, and Natarajan Chandrasekaran who chairs Tata, a conglomerate with a presence in dozens of countries around the world. It was inspiring to hear of their plans and, importantly, to pitch to them on the value of closer connections with New Zealand.

    For New Zealand, the economic opportunities in India are immense. Despite India’s growth and scale, it still only accounts for 1.5 per cent of our exports. We are working hard to change that. That was why I took so many business leaders with me to India. That’s why we worked so hard while in New Delhi and Mumbai to ensure New Zealand’s primary products, our technology, our education exports and our tourism offering were front and centre.  

    It is Kiwi and Indian businesses, including all of those in this room today, that are the engines of growth, creating new opportunities, lifting trade, and helping transform the relationship between our countries. And for all your ongoing effort and leadership in this regard, I thank you. 

    Part of my Government’s job is to improve the environment in which our great Kiwi businesses operate in their dealings with India. On that front, I am pleased to report that, during the mission to India, the Government made real progress. 

    First and foremost, I was delighted that Todd McClay and his Indian counterpart, Piyush Goyal, announced the launch of negotiations towards a Free Trade Agreement. The launch of negotiations is a breakthrough in the economic relationship between India and New Zealand. 

    Prime Minister Modi and I have instructed our negotiators to work quickly to reach a comprehensive and mutually beneficial agreement, one that promises to play a major role in doubling New Zealand’s exports by value over the next ten years.

    My Government is focused on growing our economy and lifting incomes, and the launch of negotiations presents an opportunity to do exactly that.

    On top of that, 33 MoUs and other commercial outcomes were progressed on the mission, reflecting the growing partnerships between New Zealand and Indian businesses. 

    Among those was an MoU between Air New Zealand and Air India to establish a new codeshare partnership on 16 routes between India, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. The MoU will also see these two great airlines explore the introduction of a direct service between India and New Zealand by the end of 2028. 

    This is a fantastic opportunity that promises to make it easier to fly between our countries and further boost our tourism and education sectors.

    Defence and security

    But there is so much more to our relationship with India than our economic ties. Which brings me to the second major theme of my visit, defence and security. 

    New Zealand is invested in supporting stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. 

    In an increasingly multipolar world, India is a major geopolitical power and a significant global and regional security actor.

    Prime Minister Modi and I agreed that our defence forces should build greater strategic trust with one another, including undertaking more exchanges and training together. 

    I was pleased to witness the signing of a new Defence Cooperation Arrangement with India. This arrangement enhances defence dialogue and connections and adds an important new dimension to our strategic engagement.

    One of the reasons why we want to build greater trust is so that we can have candid conversations at challenging times. On 22 April, India suffered a devastating terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir. New Zealand condemns terrorism, and we sent our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the attack.

    Since then, we have seen an escalation in tension and military activity. We encourage both India and Pakistan to show restraint at this difficult moment and try to de-escalate the situation.

    The situation in Jammu and Kashmir reminds us that we face an increasingly difficult and uncertain strategic outlook, including in the Indo‑Pacific region that India and New Zealand share.

    While I was in India, I had the great opportunity to share New Zealand’s perspective on the region as the Chief Guest at the Raisina Dialogue, which, as this audience will know, is India’s – and one of the world’s – premier defence and security events. 

    My message at Raisina was simple: There can be no prosperity without security.

    That is why it’s vitally important that New Zealand works closely with India and other partners in support of a region where countries are free to choose their own path free from interference, and where all countries respect foundational rules.  

    People-to-people links

    The third major theme of my mission centred on the links between our people. 

    New Zealand’s Indian community was a key feature of many of my discussions in India, including with Prime Minister Modi. 

    Prime Minister Modi praised New Zealand’s Indian diaspora, referring to it as a “living bridge” between our countries. Prime Minister Modi and I formally recognised the contribution of the diaspora in the joint statement released during my visit. 

    As this audience will be well aware, the 300,000-strong Indian community is the third largest ethnic group in New Zealand. India is our largest source of skilled migrants and our second-largest source of international students. 

    A point I made to Prime Minister Modi was that Kiwi-Indians are on average younger, better educated, and have greater earnings than the general New Zealand population. 

    In short, Indian-Kiwis are making a massive contribution to New Zealand. This is why I chose to take with me to India a senior delegation of community leaders.

    I made sure that my programme in India reflected and respected the deep cultural links between our countries. I paid my respects at a place sacred to many Kiwi-Hindus – the BAPS Swaminarayan Akshardham Temple. And I visited Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, a place of profound faith and history to Kiwi-Sikhs. 

    Of course, another indispensable element of our partnership with India is cricket. It was very special to visit Wankhede Stadium with Mumbai-born Ajaz Patel, who took the third-best bowling figures in Test history on that ground. 

    But our sporting links go beyond cricket. Prime Minister Modi and I also discussed his plans to diversify and enhance India’s prowess across multiple sports. India is particularly interested in Olympic sports as it looks to bolster Ahmedabad’s bid to host the 2036 Olympic Games. Given our high-performance sports ecosystem and our outstanding record at the Olympics, this is an area where New Zealand is well positioned to work with India.

    I was particularly pleased to witness the signing of a Sports Memorandum of Cooperation between New Zealand and India. This arrangement allows us to develop new ways to collaborate across high-performance sports, and exchange programmes, skills, technology and innovation, research, and people.

    It should boost sports performance in each country and facilitate exchanges in areas such as community sports and health. 

    Cooperation in sports is particularly significant at a time when, next year, New Zealand and India will celebrate 100 years of sporting ties. We look forward to celebrating this milestone, including with a visit by the Indian men’s cricket team in late 2026.

    Next steps for government, business and community

    So, across people, culture, sport, defence and security, trade and economics – my mission to India left the relationship in a stronger position. But there is still a lot of work to do.

    I now want to take a few minutes to reflect on the next steps for this important relationship, and the respective roles of government, business and community. 

    I want to be clear that the mission to India was not the end goal. Rather, it was a springboard to help take our relationship to new heights. We now have an extensive work programme across every facet of the relationship. I will touch on just a couple of examples. 

    First, we have moved quickly to begin negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement, with the first round of talks already having taken place. 

    Second, our Government will be continuing a steady tempo of political-level engagements with our Indian counterparts. There is no substitute for face-to-face relationships with the key decision-makers, which is why I’m so pleased Minister Margherita has joined us today. During my meeting with Prime Minister Modi, I offered to reciprocate his warm and generous hospitality by inviting him to visit New Zealand when his schedule allows.

    Third, to give effect to the various areas of new co-operation, our Government has confirmed that we will need more people on the ground in India. New Zealand will increase our diplomatic footprint in India by more than 60 per cent, underscoring our commitment to the relationship and our ambition to see it grow further.

    The Government will be working hard to maintain the momentum, and continue building a broad, deep, and enduring strategic relationship with India. 

    But our relationship with India is far too important to be left to Government alone. There is a crucial role for two other actors in our society, business and community. 

    Our relationship with India is so significant that I want to see an ‘all of New Zealand’ effort with government, business and community all moving in the same direction. 

    The opportunities presented by India are immense. Many of you are already active in the market and have been for some years. But I want to see more New Zealand exporters building relationships in the market and putting together your own strategies for tapping into India’s enormous potential. 

    The wider Kiwi-Indian community also has a very important role as – in Prime Minister Modi’s words – the “living bridge” between New Zealand and India. 

    We will stay in touch with the senior delegation of community leaders that accompanied me to India. I encourage the Indian community in New Zealand to continue to share with the Government your insights into our relationship with India and ideas for how we can continue moving forward.

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the vital partnership between New Zealand and India.

    The INZBC have put together an excellent programme for today, featuring a range of speakers who are all committed to bringing New Zealand and India much closer together.

    The bottom line is we are two countries that can and should be doing much more together, and we will.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: INS SUNAYNA (IOS SAGAR) RETURNS TO KOCHI ON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF MONTH LONG DEPLOYMENT

    Source: Government of India

    INS SUNAYNA (IOS SAGAR) RETURNS TO KOCHI ON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF MONTH LONG DEPLOYMENT

    IOS Sagar – A significant step in reinforcing India’s commitment to Regional Security and Collaborative Maritime Cooperation reflecting the vision of MAHASAGAR

    Sagar Mission reaffirms India’s continued engagement with Maritime Neighbours towards building stronger ties and working towards a safer, more inclusive & secure IOR

    Indian Navy strengthening Maritime Bonds, Capacity Building and Enduring Partnership with IOR Nations

    Posted On: 08 MAY 2025 5:43PM by PIB Delhi

    Indian Navy’s maiden initiative of Indian Ocean Ship Sagar, jointly crewed by personnel from nine IOR Navies, concluded its month long deployment in SW IOR region and returned to Kochi on 08 May 25. Vice Admiral V Srinivas, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Naval Command congratulated the crew of India and nine friendly foreign countries during the grand reception ceremony held at Naval Base, Kochi. The successful completion of the deployment marks a new chapter in maritime cooperation and underscores India’s commitment to safeguarding collective maritime interests, capacity building and enduring partnership with IOR nations.

    IOS Sagar was flagged off by the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri, Shri Rajnath Singh from Karwar on 05 Apr 25. During the deployment, the ship undertook port calls at Dar-es-Salaam, Nacala, Port Louis, Port Victoria and Male. The key highlights of the mission included joint naval exercises, professional & cultural exchanges and joint EEZ surveillance of key IOR nations – Tanzania, Mozambique, Mauritius & Seychelles. Strengthening regional maritime cooperation between India and African nations, the ship participated in AIKEYME 2025 alongside INS Chennai & INS Kesari, which was jointly hosted by India and Tanzania from 13 – 18 Apr 25. The exercise provided an opportunity for the crew of lOS Sagar to participate in the joint harbour phase and interact with the participating Navies. At Mozambique, a range of collaborative activities and community engagements were held promoting operational synergy and interoperability with the Mozambique Navy.

    Reinforcing the enduring bond between India and Mauritius, the crew of IOS Sagar had fruitful engagement with the Mauritius Police Force and undertook coordinated patrol with the Mauritius Coast Guard. Visit to Port Victoria, Seychelles was marked with cross deck visits, training exchange, joint Yoga sessions and maritime engagement with Seychelles Defence Force. The ship held collaborative maritime security and regional outreach mission at Maldives prior to entering Kochi. This deployment exemplifies Indian Navy’s continued engagement with regional Navies and maritime security stakeholders of IOR nations to train together, exchange best practices and enhance interoperability and mutual understanding.

    It was a unique experience for the 44 international crew of nine partner nations – Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Tanzania who jointly manned the ship alongside Indian Navy crew, truly signifying the motto of ‘One Ocean One Mission’. The journey of IOS Sagar which commenced with the combined harbour and sea training phase at SNC, Kochi in Mar 25 has been truly memorable for all the crew members. The professional and seamless integration of the international crew working together as a well knit and cohesive team truly reflects the spirit of camaraderie and maritime friendship. The mission is a testament to Indian Navy’s commitment as the ‘First Responder’ and ‘Preferred Security Partner’ in IOR towards the Gol’s strategic vision of MAHASAGAR (Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security Across the Region).

    _____________________________________________________________

    VM/SKS                                                                                                    101/25

    (Release ID: 2127730) Visitor Counter : 2

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: DELIVERY OF ‘ARNALA’- FIRST ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE SHALLOW WATER CRAFT TO THE INDIAN NAVY

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 08 MAY 2025 5:39PM by PIB Delhi

    ‘Arnala’, the first of the eight ASW SWCs (Anti-Submarine Warfare Shallow Water Craft), indigenously designed and built by Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), Kolkata, was delivered to the Indian Navy on 08 May 25 at M/s L&T Shipyard, Kattupalli.

    The warship has been designed and constructed as per the Classification Rules of Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) of GRSE with M/s L&T Shipyard, thus demonstrating the success of collaborative defence manufacturing.

    Arnala is named after the historic fort ‘Arnala’ located off Vasai, Maharashtra, a reflection of India’s rich maritime heritage. The 77 m long warship, is the largest Indian Naval warship propelled by a Diesel Engine-Waterjet combination. The ship has been designed for underwater surveillance, search & rescue operations and Low Intensity Maritime Operations (LIMO). The ship is capable of undertaking ASW operations in coastal waters, along with advanced mine laying capabilities. The induction of ASW SWC ships would significantly boost shallow water Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities of the Indian Navy.

    Arnala’s delivery is yet another milestone in the Indian Navy’s quest for indigenous shipbuilding and upholding the Government’s vision of ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ with over 80% indigenous content.

    .

    _____________________________________________________________

    VM/SKS                                                                                                    100/25

    (Release ID: 2127729) Visitor Counter : 2

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Operation Sindoor was successfully executed because our formidable & professionally-trained Armed Forces were equipped with high-quality equipment, says Raksha Mantri at National Quality Conclave 2025

    Source: Government of India

    Operation Sindoor was successfully executed because our formidable & professionally-trained Armed Forces were equipped with high-quality equipment, says Raksha Mantri at National Quality Conclave 2025

    “India has always played the role of a responsible nation, but if anyone tries to take advantage of its restraint, they will face ‘quality action’”

    No limit will become an obstacle in protecting India’s sovereignty, fully prepared for responsible responses in the future: Shri Rajnath Singh

    “Expanding defence industrial ecosystem is providing an unprecedented strength to India”

    “Need to develop global trust in our equipment to make India a developed nation & largest defence exporter by 2047”

    Posted On: 08 MAY 2025 5:53PM by PIB Delhi

    Operation Sindoor was successfully executed because our formidable & professionally-trained Armed Forces were equipped with high-quality equipment,” said Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh while addressing the National Quality Conclave in New Delhi on May 08, 2025. Raksha Mantri commended the precision with which the Armed Forces executed the operation without harming any innocent person and with minimum collateral damage, terming it as unimaginable and a matter of great pride for the nation.

    “In Operation Sindoor, nine terror camps were destroyed in Pakistan & PoK, and a good number of terrorists were killed. It shows the crucial role ‘quality’ plays in securing national interests,” said Shri Rajnath Singh.

    Raksha Mantri asserted that India has always played the role of a responsible nation exercising great restraint and it believes in resolving issues through dialogue, however, if anyone tries to take advantage of this restraint, they will face ‘quality action’. He assured the nation that no limit will become an obstacle for the Government in protecting India’s sovereignty. “We are fully prepared for such responsible responses in the future as well,” he said.

    Sharing his views on the theme of the conclave ‘Fast-tracking of Quality Assurance through Integrated Approach and Technology Enabled Processes’, Shri Rajnath Singh stated that fast-tracking quality assessment is the need of the hour in view of the disruptive changes and new transformations being witnessed in the defence sector across the globe.

    Raksha Mantri voiced the Government’s emphasis on the empowerment of the defence production sector since 2014, based on Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s philosophy of Defence Sovereignty. He said: “Defence Sovereignty means that until a country is capable and self-reliant in its defence needs, its independence cannot be considered complete. If we buy weapons and other defence equipment from abroad, we are outsourcing our security and leaving it at the mercy of someone else. Our government thought over it seriously and took a decisive step to achieve self-reliance. The expanding defence industrial ecosystem is providing an unprecedented strength to India”.

    Shri Rajnath Singh added that equal emphasis is being laid on quality and quantity in defence production with many revolutionary steps being taken in that direction, including corporatisation of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). He termed Quality as the Government’s priority Reform Agenda, highlighting that since the corporatisation of OFB, DPSUs have become internationally competitive and export-oriented, with efforts being made to advance quality production.

    Raksha Mantri pointed out that one of the objectives behind the progress of the public sector has been to develop a Healthy Competitive Private Defence Ecosystem, which will strengthen India’s security through quality. “In today’s world, a strong brand value is important than just a product. The brand, which assures consistent quality and reliability, succeeds,” he said.

    Shri Rajnath Singh appealed to the Armed Forces, Government QA agencies, DPSUs, private industry, research institutions, academia, and MSME representatives present on the occasion to build a world-leading state-of-the-art Brand India.  “Brand India means if an Indian company has promised something, it will definitely happen. ‘Whenever in doubt, go for India’ should be our USP,” he said.

    On the major changes being witnessed in the global order, Raksha Mantri stated that when developed countries move towards re-armament, the demand for arms & equipment will increase. He cited the report of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which said that the world military expenditure has reached $ 2,718 billion in 2024. He expressed hope that with coordinated efforts, the Indian defence manufacturing sector can make its mark globally with the Brand India philosophy. “Defence exports crossed the record figure of about Rs 24,000 crore in Financial Year 2024-25. Our aim is to increase the figure to Rs 50,000 crore by 2029. The target is to make India a developed nation and the world’s largest defence exporter by 2047. To achieve the goal, we must develop global trust regarding the quality of our defence equipment,” he said.

    While Shri Rajnath Singh acknowledged the efforts being made towards quality improvement, he stressed on the need to focus on using tools such as artificial intelligence, internet of things, and machine learning for real-time quality monitoring in today’s technology-driven era. He also called for updating standards and testing protocols to align with evolving global technologies. We need to focus on time-bound quality assurance clearances so that unwanted delays do not take place, he said.

    Raksha Mantri added that quality assessment agencies should always keep an eye on their deficiencies and work on overcoming them through modernisation and development of testing infrastructure. Continuous gap analysis in the field of niche technology will be an essential step, he said.

    Organised by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) under the aegis of Department of Defence Production, the conclave underscored the need to transition from legacy QA models to predictive, data-driven, and automated systems. Experts called for seamless collaboration across stakeholders to accelerate certification timelines, streamline inspections, and embed real-time quality oversight into defence production.

    Secretary (Defence Production) Shri Sanjeev Kumar spotlighted the role of innovation and industry collaboration in making India a leading defence exporter. In a transparent and interactive Open House session, he addressed queries from defence industry representatives and user agencies, reinforcing the Ministry’s resolve to simplify, digitalise, and modernise QA systems.

    Key Highlights & Announcements

    • A landmark session introduced the Industry 4.0/QA 4.0 Roadmap, developed jointly by DGQA and industry partners. It includes deployment of smart technologies like Internet of Things-enabled test benches, automated data capture, digital dashboards, and AI-powered analytics—aimed at reducing human error, enhancing efficiency, and enabling continuous quality monitoring across defence product life-cycles.
    • The Draft Indian Military Airworthiness Bill was formally presented for final inputs. The Bill, crafted through an inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders, including MoD, DRDO, Services, DPSUs, and industry, proposes a statutory framework for the certification of military aircraft and airborne systems. A dedicated interactive session captured final feedback from user representatives and industry forums.
    • A dedicated session explored strategies to boost the indigenous development of Explosives and Ordnance (E&O) stores. Experts examined the role of emerging technologies – AI/ML, Big Data, Additive Manufacturing, Silicon Photonics, Semiconductors, and Advanced Materials—in modernising E&O production, safety validation, and certification. The session reinforced the need for technological self-reliance in critical munitions and precision systems.

     

    The National Quality Conclave 2025 concluded with a united commitment from all stakeholders to redefine defence QA as a strategic enabler, not just of compliance, but of national security, export capability, and indigenous innovation. The outcomes of the conclave are expected to catalyse India’s transformation into a global benchmark for defence quality assurance.

    DG, DGQA Shri N Manoharan emphasised that the conclave had significantly strengthened the partnership between industry and defence stakeholders, while also advancing efforts toward standardisation and innovation in quality assurance.

    Director General of Naval Armament Inspection Rear Admiral Rupak Barua, Director General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance Shri Sanjay Chawla, CMDs of DPSUs, senior MoD officers were also present on the occasion.

    *****

    VK/Savvy

    (Release ID: 2127735) Visitor Counter : 2

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy: The Trump Administration Is Undoing The Biggest Two-Year Decline In Gun Violence In U.S. History

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
    [embedded content]
    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) spoke on the U.S. Senate floor on Thursday to sound the alarm over a coordinated effort by the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans to dismantle the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the most comprehensive gun safety law passed in decades. Pointing to clear evidence that the law is saving lives, Murphy slammed the effort as a reckless attempt to score points with the gun lobby, no matter the cost to American families.
    Murphy highlighted BSCA’s success, underscoring how the legislation contributed to the largest two-year decline in gun violence in American history: “In 2023 there were 659 mass shootings in America. In 2024, there were 500. That’s a 24% one-year decline in mass shootings. That means that there were 160 mass shootings that didn’t happen. 160 communities that were not terrorized in 2024. And this bill had a lot to do with it. Overall gun deaths went down from 2023 to 2024 from 19,000 to 16,700. That was a 12% reduction. We’ve never in this country’s history seen one-year declines in gun homicides in the neighborhood of 12%. Certain cities saw astronomical declines. In Hartford, we saw a 39% drop in homicides from 2023 to 2024. This year, 2025, Hartford is on track to have the lowest recorded instances of gun violence – that’s homicides and nonfatal shootings – since 2006. New Haven saw a 39% drop in homicides. As I think I said, overall in Connecticut, we had 167 homicides in 2023. In 2024 we had 63. It’s wild. And this happened in Baltimore. This happened in Chicago. In most of the major cities in this country, and in rural areas as well, we saw this dramatic, dramatic decline. So it is just something to celebrate because it’s not easy to get that kind of consensus. It’s not easy to get that kind of consensus, and we should celebrate the fact that there are literally thousands of people, largely young men, who are alive today because of the bill that we passed.”
    Murphy blasted the administration’s cuts to lifesaving violence prevention programs, accusing Republicans of abandoning a long-standing bipartisan commitment to mental health and community support: “I understand we’ve got a difference – the President and I have a difference – on what our gun laws should be. But there is consensus – I thought there was consensus – that we should support investment in mental health. I thought there was a consensus, that we all believed that there were good community groups that were doing totally apolitical work, not related at all to gun laws, to try to interrupt cycles of violence. The reason that these numbers have been going down is not just the changes in gun laws. The reason that our communities are safer all across the country is because we are finally putting real money into school-based mental health, into children’s mental health, and into the groups in our communities that are keeping kids alive.”
    On the cruelty of the administration’s actions, Murphy added: “There are literally going to be thousands of children – traumatized children, children with serious mental illness, with cycles and histories of abuse in their household – who have created this relationship with an adult, this adult that is helping them address their potential tendency to act out in violent ways due to their mental illness, their trauma. And one day these kids are going to show up at school, and that adult is going to be gone. That trusted adult that had created that bond, that relationship, that is helping that child, is keeping that school safe– that relationship, that bond, is destroyed. Because in cutting these grants off with no warning, there is no way, in the middle of a school year, for a school mental health clinic to find the money under the mattress. It’s illogical. It’s going to drive up gun violence rates. And it’s cruel to our poorest and most at-risk communities, and to the kids. And to the kids – the traumatized kids, the kids with serious mental illness – the kids that we should think first about when we wake up in the morning.”
    Murphy concluded: “What’s the point of running for the United States Senate, what’s the point of working to forge this compromise, if the president can just ignore it? And by the way, if Donald Trump gets away with it, mark my words: a Democratic president will do the same thing. If this becomes standard practice, if our laws just become advisory, then there’s no reason for any of us to show up any longer. Why do you work so hard, why do you care so much about getting to this place, if you don’t care when the president just ignores the laws that we pass? It is very hard to find consensus here, especially on an issue as important and as politically sensitive as gun violence. So, when we do find that consensus, on behalf of the kids and families out there who are begging us to work together to save lives, we should protect that consensus.”
    A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:
    MURPHY: “Thank you, Mr. President. 
    “Mr. President, I want to come to the floor today to talk about a success story. But potentially a success story interrupted. Back in 2022, we all were shocked to watch news playing out, during an afternoon that we were here working in the Senate, of another mass shooting. This one of just unthinkable size and scope in Uvalde, Texas. I was actually sitting in the presiding officer’s chair when I saw word of the shooting scroll across my smartphone screen.
    “And gratefully, in the wake of that shooting, a group of us, Republicans and Democrats, were able to come together and set aside the differences that we had, and still have, on the issue of gun violence in this country, decided not to argue about an assault weapons ban for instance, and instead we decided to work on finding a ‘least common denominator,’ as we called it. Trying to find a set of common sense changes to our gun laws, common sense investments in our communities, that would hopefully together try to put a downward pressure on what, up until then, had been annual spiking rates of homicides and mass shootings.
    “It’s just true that in this country you are ten times more likely to be shot in your school, in your neighborhood, at a movie theater, than you are in any other high-income developed nation. That’s a choice. That’s not bad luck. That’s not happenstance. That’s because in America we decide to have a ton of weapons in the hands of very dangerous people. And we also don’t spend enough time trying to unwind some of the reasons why young people in particular get into lives of really risky and potentially violent behavior. 
    “So we came together in 2022 and we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It was a big bipartisan vote. It wasn’t close. The final tally was 65 to 33, nearly two-thirds of the Senate voting in favor of this common sense gun safety measure. And it wasn’t anything close to what I see as necessary in order to tackle this epidemic in this country, but it was significant. It was five changes in gun laws, supporting state red flag laws, stopping domestic abusers from getting their hands on guns, putting a short but meaningful waiting period when young people are hastily buying an assault weapon, making it easier for law enforcement to go after drug trafficking rings. It was five meaningful changes. 
    “But it was also a big investment. A big investment in the kind of services that can help interrupt violence. A lot of my Republican friends said ‘We don’t believe it’s the guns. We think it’s mental illness.’ Well, I don’t agree, but this is how you put together a compromise. So we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included a landmark, $14 billion investment, most of it in mental health; most of it directed toward kids – school-based mental health, but also significant investments in school safety, just hardening schools to make it harder for a shooter to get inside; and community anti-gun-violence initiatives, the work that local community groups are doing in North Carolina, in Connecticut, all across the country to just try to wrap services around people who might be at risk of gun violence or stop the cycle of violence once the first shooting happens.
    “So we passed this legislation and we crossed our fingers. We said let’s hope that we’re right and that these changes in gun laws and these investments we’re making in our communities will make a difference. 
    “Well, what happened after we passed that law was absolutely stunning. The biggest two-year decline in gun violence in the history of recorded statistics in the United States of America. That’s extraordinary. That’s extraordinary. And I’m not going to sit here and claim that the entire reason was the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, but it was a big part of the reason because we did make it harder for bad people to get their hands on guns. We did deliver the kind of services that are necessary. 
    “You’re seeing this downward trajectory, but let me just put the numbers on it. In 2023 there were 659 mass shootings in America. In 2024, there were 500. That’s a 24% one-year decline in mass shootings. That means that there were 160 mass shootings that didn’t happen. 160 communities that were not terrorized in 2024. And this bill had a lot to do with it. Overall gun deaths went down from 2023 to 2024 from 19,000 to 16,700. That was a 12% reduction. We’ve never in this country’s history seen one-year declines in gun homicides in the neighborhood of 12%. Certain cities saw astronomical declines. In Hartford, we saw a 39% drop in homicides from 2023 to 2024. This year, 2025, Hartford is on track to have the lowest recorded instances of gun violence – that’s homicides and nonfatal shootings – since 2006. New Haven saw a 39% drop in homicides. As I think I said, overall in Connecticut, we had 167 homicides in 2023. In 2024 we had 63. It’s wild. And this happened in Baltimore. This happened in Chicago. In most of the major cities in this country, and in rural areas as well, we saw this dramatic, dramatic decline. So it is just something to celebrate because it’s not easy to get that kind of consensus. It’s not easy to get that kind of consensus, and we should celebrate the fact that there are literally thousands of people, largely young men, who are alive today because of the bill that we passed.
    “But this progress is in threat of being interrupted. And the reason is that the Trump administration has reversed course. I want to talk specifically about how they are undoing the progress of this bill, but their attempt to try to reverse the broader progress that we have made on reducing gun violence is pretty comprehensive. Let me just give you a handful of the ways in which the Trump administration is trying to make our communities less safe. 
    “First, they closed the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This was something the Biden Administration set up to try to better implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This wasn’t a terribly political office. It was just trying to coordinate all the work being done across agencies to reduce violence in our communities. Trump would have taken this office in a different direction, but he didn’t. He just shuttered it. There’s no Office of Gun Violence Prevention anymore in the federal government. 
    “On March 20th, the administration announced that they’re going to start a process of restoring firearms rights to individuals who have had them taken away because they had a serious criminal record. This is likely illegal. There’s an appropriations bill rider that says the ATF can’t do this, but the message was sent: we actually think that dangerous people should be able to get their gun rights back. That same day Trump’s Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court trying to overturn a decision to say that silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment. Trying to say that no state legislature could ban or regulate the use of silencers. Silencers are broadly used by killers– by criminals who are trying to hide the fact that they are engaged in criminal, lethal conduct. 
    “On April 7, DOJ announced that it was repealing a policy from the Biden administration that said simply this: If you’re a gun dealer and you’re engaged in illegal conduct, we’re going to pull your license. And we’re not going to give you two or three or four shots. We’re going to have a zero tolerance policy for gun dealers that are selling guns on the black market. That’s a policy most Americans would see as common sense. But the DOJ announces that it is going to let off the hook gun dealers that are violating the laws. 
    “Now throughout the last 100 days, the Trump administration has been sending all sorts of signals that they are deprioritizing the work of ATF. Most recently, on April 9th, they announced that the Army Secretary would now be the acting head of ATF, basically telling ATF agents, ‘We don’t care about your work. We’re not going to have a full-time ATF head. We’re putting somebody with a big other important job in charge of the ATF. You’re not going to have any real supervision or direction.’ 
    It was just a signal of deprioritization of the enforcement of our gun laws. That caused, the next day, the second-highest ranking official at the ATF, who had served admirably for 35 years, to resign in protest. 
    “And then, maybe most unconscionably and most cruelly, just a few days ago ATF took down the memorial wall dedicated to victims of gun violence. I mean, there were names up there, tributes to moms and dads, brothers and sisters who had been killed in episodes of gun violence. That was really important to hundreds of families out there who knew that their loved one’s name was part of that wall. Now the wall comes down. For what? Just to send another signal that the administration doesn’t care about attacking gun violence. 
    “But I really wanted to come to the floor today to talk about the two most important assaults that the Trump administration has made on our work to try to keep our communities safe. And those are the twin announcements that the administration made, that they were going to end two of the key streams of funding for community groups in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. First, the administration announced it was ending $1 billion in grants under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to invest in school mental health, and then that they were ending $800 million of DOJ grants to try to drive down violence through supporting community efforts to do that work. 
    “This makes no sense. I understand we’ve got a difference – the President and I have a difference – on what our gun laws should be. But there is consensus–I thought there was consensus–that we should support investment in mental health. I thought there was a consensus, that we all believed that there were good community groups that were doing totally apolitical work, not related at all to gun laws, to try to interrupt cycles of violence. The reason that these numbers have been going down is not just the changes in gun laws. The reason that our communities are safer all across the country is because we are finally putting real money into school-based mental health, into children’s mental health, and into the groups in our communities that are keeping kids alive.
    “In Oakland, they have seen a stunning 32% drop in homicides. And it is a result of groups like Youth Alive. This is a nonprofit that is working to prevent and disrupt the cycle of gun violence. So you go into a community, you go into a place where a shooting has happened, and you do work with the victim of that incident to make sure that it doesn’t become a cycle of violence. These are often called ‘hospital-based violence intervention programs.’ When there’s a shooting, you have a social worker or community anti-gun violence worker go to the hospital–that’s often where the community is the most angry, the friends of that victim may be planning for revenge–and you do the work to stop that cycle of violence. It was working in Oakland. Youth Alive was preventing gun violence. Last year, of the 113 clients they served, only one of them was injured a second time. And yet, in the middle of a three-year, $2 million grant that Youth Alive was getting, it was suspended, terminated. They’re going to have to lay off their staff. That program is being shut down in Oakland. And I’ll just tell you, I would bet you homicides are going to start going back up in Oakland. 
    “Baltimore has seen a similar massive decline in gun violence: a 43% reduction since 2010. What a success story–Baltimore, one of the most violent communities in terms of rates of gun violence in the country–a 43% decline. Center for Hope is a group in Baltimore that provides prevention and healing services for children who have been the witnesses or victims of gun violence. And they were getting, again, a $2 million grant to work with the victims of gun violence, to try to heal those communities, and again, to stop that cycle of retributive violence that often happens in places like Baltimore. Donald Trump cut their grant. So in the middle of the grant, they are losing $1.2 million and they are going to have to lay off seven employees. Center for Hope runs six of the city’s ten Safe Street Sites. These operate in the pockets of Baltimore that see the most shooting. Because of these Center for Hope sites–these Safe Street Sites–between 2023 and 2024, four of the sites run by the Center for Hope saw zero homicides, and now they’re having to lay off people. Guess what is going to happen: those shootings are going to go up again. 
    “We had to work really hard to find this consensus on a very difficult issue. It is illegal, what the president has done. He is not allowed, under the Constitution, to decide unilaterally to cancel spending that has been authorized and appropriated by Congress. So maybe the first and most important thing to say about what the president has done to cancel mental health grants and anti-violence grants is that it is illegal. He can’t do it, and it is likely that a court will turn these grants back on. But it is also such bad policy. It is cruel and inhumane, but it is also illogical. We literally are seeing the fruits of the labor of these groups. And not just in saving a life or two. You’re talking about 30% and 40% reductions in violence in these cities. And what will happen is unmistakable. You stop funding these groups that are doing the mental health work in the schools, that are doing the anti-gun violence work, and these rates will start to go back up again. That’s illogical. 
    “But it’s cruel as well. Because what the president is doing, for instance, in cutting off the school mental health grants, is that he’s cutting off existing grants. It’s not that he’s announcing ‘I’m not giving any new grants.’ There are schools all across this country which have set up new mental health clinics because of the grants they got. They were five-year grants, and one or two or three years into those grants, Donald Trump is shutting the programs down. So there are literally going to be thousands of children–traumatized children, children with serious mental illness, with cycles and histories of abuse in their household–who have created this relationship with an adult, this adult that is helping them address their potential tendency to act out in violent ways due to their mental illness, their trauma. And one day these kids are going to show up at school, and that adult is going to be gone. That trusted adult that had created that bond, that relationship, that is helping that child, is keeping that school safe– that relationship, that bond, is destroyed. Because in cutting these grants off with no warning, there is no way, in the middle of a school year, for a school mental health clinic to find the money under the mattress. It’s illogical. It’s going to drive up gun violence rates. And it’s cruel to our poorest and most at-risk communities, and to the kids. And to the kids – the traumatized kids, the kids with serious mental illness – the kids that we should think first about when we wake up in the morning. 
    “And I guess the final thing to say is this, Mr. President: we’re putting ourselves out of business. We’re putting ourselves out of business. What is the point of passing a law by a 65-33 vote if the President of the United States can just ignore it? As I said, that is illegal, and the courts will likely tell him you can’t shut off the funding that we appropriated and authorized. But this should matter to Republicans and Democrats. 
    “Every single one of my Republican colleagues worked really hard to get this job, worked really hard to become a United States Senator. Those of us who work on these bipartisan pieces of legislation work really hard to pass them. What’s the point of running for the United States Senate, what’s the point of working to forge this compromise, if the president can just ignore it? And by the way, if Donald Trump gets away with it, mark my words: a Democratic president will do the same thing. If this becomes standard practice, if our laws just become advisory, then there’s no reason for any of us to show up any longer. Why do you work so hard, why do you care so much about getting to this place, if you don’t care when the president just ignores the laws that we pass? 
    “It is very hard to find consensus here, especially on an issue as important and as politically sensitive as gun violence. So, when we do find that consensus, on behalf of the kids and families out there who are begging us to work together to save lives, we should protect that consensus. 
    “I yield the floor.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: King Gets Commitment from Defense Nominee to Maintain Focus on Military Blast Trauma

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), pressed Sean O’Keefe, nominee to serve as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, for his commitment to maintain focus on addressing brain injuries stemming from weapon blast traumas. During the exchange, Senator King’s remarks were informed by the analysis of the brain of the Lewiston shooter — who shot and killed 18 Maine people in October 2023 — which showed evidence of severe traumatic brain injury. An Army reservist, he worked as an instructor at a hand grenade training range where it is believed he was repeatedly exposed to low-level blasts, leading to an undetected deterioration of his mental health. O’Keefe gave his absolute commitment to prioritize working to better understand and combat the impacts of blast traumas.
    Senator King made this issue the focal point of his questions for O’Keefe during the hearing:
    “Mr. O’Keefe, I am running out of time. We had a tragedy in Maine several years ago with a shooting. 18 people killed. It turned out that the fellow had been a trainer exposed to blast, blast overpressure. There was a lot of work done at the time. I hope you will commit to maintaining that work, and to be sure that what was learned in those various reports that were made gets down to the troop level, so that it is not just a report on the shelf in the Pentagon, it actually affects conduct. This is one of the most serious problems coming out of the Mideast Wars, is the effects of continuous exposure to blast,” said Senator King.
    “You absolutely have my commitment. As you know, we did quite a lot of work on this in last year’s NDAA and that legislation will take place over the next year or so. If confirmed, I look forward to implementing the legislation and working with this committee. We are learning more about this area every day, it seems. It is affecting more people the perhaps we first thought. Absolutely, you have my commitment. This is a priority,” replied O’Keefe.
    “You use the magic word, implementation. One of my mottos of life is: implementation can be as important as vision. We can have a good bill coming out of here. If it is not implemented adequately, it’s not going to save lives. I accept your commitment and look forward to working with you on that,” concluded Senator King.
    During just three months in 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) provided treatment to service members nearly 50,000 times for traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), which are considered the “signature wound” of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For troops with mild TBI, “the most important cause of brain injury was the long-term exposure to explosive weapons.” Researchers in Afghanistan also determined that, “75 percent of the troops’ [blast] exposure was coming from their own weapons.” Despite this, service members continue to train with weapons with unsafe blast levels, and sadly, many have of these injuries have led to high levels of mental illness and suicide.
    Following the Lewiston shooting, Senator King has been working with his colleagues to increase mental health funding and address brain injuries. Last summer he wrote a letter to the former Department of Defense (DoD) Secretary Lloyd Austin urging the Department to expedite protection of servicemembers from weapon blasts and TBIs. Prior to that letter he urged leaders of the Appropriations Committee to support the strongest possible funding for the Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health Research program within the DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDRMP). Earlier this year, Senator King introduced bipartisan legislation to study impacts of lower-intensity weapon blasts on veteran mental health. He also was successful in securing a provision to protect service members from brain injuries in the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoeven: Energy Committee Advances Andrea Travnicek’s Nomination to Full Senate

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven

    05.08.25

    WASHINGTON – Senator John Hoeven today announced that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee has approved Dr. Andrea Travnicek’s nomination to serve as Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior, sending her nomination to the full Senate for approval.

    “The Senate Energy Committee approved Dr. Travnicek’s nomination with bipartisan support not only because of her vast technical knowledge, but because she has a proven record of collaborating across all levels of government, as well as with tribes and private stakeholders. Andrea was a trusted advisor and an important member of my staff when I was governor, and has the right background for this position,” said Senator Hoeven. “As the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, she will be a great partner as we work to advance critical priorities, including completing more drought-resistant water supply projects in North Dakota, and ensuring we have USGS studies necessary to unlock our nation’s energy potential. Andrea’s nomination now goes to the full Senate and we’ll work to get her confirmed as quickly as possible.”

    A member of the Senate Energy Committee, Hoeven introduced Dr. Travnicek at her confirmation hearing last week and outlined her depth of experience and qualifications for the role. Additionally, Hoeven and Travnicek discussed issues relevant to agriculture, energy and water development under her role, including:

    • Ensuring access to reliable water supplies for North Dakota’s communities.
      • Hoeven continues working to advance his legislation to increase authorizations under the Dakota Water Resources Act (DWRA).
      • The increased funding from the Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) program is needed to complete water supply projects like the Northwest Area Water Supply (NAWS) and the Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water Supply (ENDAWS).
    • Keeping U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surveys of oil and gas reserves updated, reflecting the latest technologies and industry practices.
    • Maximizing access to taxpayer-owned energy resources, including the abundant oil, gas and coal reserves that fall under federal control.
      • The senator highlighted his North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act, which would allow equal-value exchanges to reduce fragmentation of state and tribally-owned lands and minerals, while supporting greater development of these resources.
      • Hoeven also stressed the need to provide regulatory relief and streamline federal permitting.

    Dr. Travnicek holds a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Management/Communication from North Dakota State University. During President Trump’s first term, she served as a deputy assistant secretary at Interior. Most recently, she was Director of the North Dakota Department of Water Resources. As governor, Hoeven appointed her as a senior policy advisor in his office following her service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Sacramento, California.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville Honors Puck Esposito of Auburn as “May Veteran of the Month”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) released a video honoring U.S. Navy Captain Paul “Puck” Esposito as the May “Veteran of the Month.”
    Excerpts from Sen. Tuberville’s remarks can be found below, and complete remarks can be found here. 

    “In Alabama, we take a lot of pride in honoring and supporting the heroes who have served in our nation’s military. But it takes people who are dedicated to this mission 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
    No one embodies this cause better than Captain Paul “Puck” Esposito of Auburn, Alabama. The son of a World War II and Korean War veteran, Puck followed in his father’s footsteps and joined the Navy in 1986. Puck spent 30 years in active duty as a Navy Aviator. From flying Grey helicopters, serving on an exchange tour with the Canadian Air Force, to spending eight years at sea—you name it, Puck did it. He was sent on nine long deployments and served in every theater the Navy has a presence in. 
    […]
    His role at the Vets Resource Center has been an essential part of filling the gaps for Auburn student-veterans and military-affiliated students. Though the Center is largely focused on providing academic resources for its participants, Puck has taken a deeper approach. In addition to educational support, Puck and his team have worked to combat critical issues such as veteran suicide, food insecurity, and homelessness.
    Under the last decade of Puck’s leadership, Auburn’s Vets Resource Center has expanded from supporting 600 students to 2,100 currently. They put on events like Project Iron Ruck and help Auburn recognize and honor veterans at many of the University’s athletic events. We’re proud to now call Puck one of our own, and are grateful for all he does to support our veterans.”
    Senator Tuberville recognizes a different Alabama veteran each month for their service and contribution to their community. Constituents can nominate an Alabama veteran and submit their information to Senator Tuberville’s office for consideration by emailing press_office@tuberville.senate.gov. 
    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville Speaks with Trump Defense Nominees on Supporting Small Businesses and Service Academy Oversight

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) spoke with Sean O’Keefe, President Trump’s nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and Michael Obadal, President Trump’s nominee to be Under Secretary of the Army during their Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) nomination hearing. During the hearing, they spoke about how the Army can integrate and support small defense businesses and different ways to improve the United States’ military service academies.
    Read Sen. Tuberville’s remarks below or on YouTube or Rumble.

    ON RCCTO AT REDSTONE ARSENAL:
    TUBERVILLE: “Thank you for your service, first of all. […] One of our new defense contractors, obviously, has taken a novel approach to supporting the warfighter. You know, newer companies like this have become successful, partly because newer defense contract and authorities and organizations such as the RCCTO, which is headquartered in Redstone Arsenal in my state of Alabama, you know, we’re making progress. 
    So, how can the Army continue to improve our acquisition systems based on the lessons learned from the RCCTO?”
    OBADAL: “Senator, thank you for the question as this is a critical part of Army transformation. And I believe that the RCCTO really showed us that we can rapidly understand the problem, innovate solutions with industry, and then field them rapidly in a number of different ways. My experience in commercial industry, and specifically in the defense technology industry, gave me a wide exposure to a number of different companies dealing with the acquisition corps. And having been on both sides of the table and having overseen acquisitions in my government service, I came to the conclusion that the Army needs to be a better customer. And we need to do that through streamlining our requirements through predictability of requirements and not changing them and moving the goalpost on the defense industry. 
    With that said, we always have to have agile requirements, which requires modularity, both software and hardware. So, if confirmed, when I look at the entire acquisition corps, I believe the people—we have fantastic people—in our acquisition corps who have given us the world’s strongest Army. It is our processes that we have to fix. So, if confirmed Senator, I would work diligently on that.”
    ON SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES IN DEFENSE:
    TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Thank you. As Senator Ernst said earlier, last week, the Army announced the ATI initiative [is] headed in a different direction in some areas. I understand that being an old football coach—you can’t keep doing the same thing over and over, you gotta change along with your adversary, and obviously we need to do that. You know, part of this change last week, canceling multiple programs, you know, one of these contracts, the Future Tactical Uncrewed Aircraft System, was won by a small family business in Alabama, my home state, named Griffin Aerospace. On Friday, they were notified that the thousands of man hours and millions of dollars that they had spent and invested in good faith were basically wasted. It’s hard to understand that from their perspective. I’d like to suggest to you that the Army restore faith with this type of businesses because we need these smaller businesses. That is not Lockheed [Martin], this is not Boeing—who could really absorb this. This is gonna devastate this country. And at the end of the day, they need more than an, ‘oops.’ You know, we wanna change here. Do you agree with that?”
    OBADAL: “Senator, I wholeheartedly agree that the Army needs to take care of small business[es] as best it can. And I believe there are a number of different ways that we can do that because small business[es], in my experience, is where most of the innovation comes from. And obviously large companies, like you mentioned, build us exquisite weapon systems and we need them, but we have to make sure that we’re cultivating a robust small and medium sized business ecosystem.”
    TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Thank you. And, you know, in my state, in Huntsville, we have probably 600-800 small defense contractors. We can’t lose them. You know, they get bought out obviously regularly, but we need to make sure that, you know, for future innovation, they’re as important as anybody. So, thank you for that.
    ON MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMY OVERSIGHT:
    TUBERVILLE: “Mr. O’Keefe, in my role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, we held our first hearing, as you well know, with our [superintendents] of our [service] academies in 30 years. [The] first one in 30 years. […] One of the things we illuminated during that hearing is that permanent military professors at the academies require Senate confirmation—which is very understandable—while civilian-tenured faculty are not [Senate confirmed], making them as far as I can tell, the only lifetime government employee [that] is not subject to advice and consent. How do you feel about that?”
    O’KEEFE: “Senator, it’s an interesting dynamic when the permanent professors were set up decades ago, the majority of the faculty was all military at the service academies. I suppose the concern anytime you’re discussing whether to make more civilian positions Senate confirmed is perhaps extended vacancies. I do think that there’s some room to evaluate the administrative faculty authority. You know, they have a slightly nuanced statutory scheme that applies to civilian faculty. They didn’t always have tenure for instance. So, I think that is something that should be evaluated, which I think could improve the […] effectiveness of the workforce, of the faculty mix there. Without perhaps causing some of the vacancies that I think might result with Senate confirmation. But I do think that’s an area to take a look at. I know the Secretary has mentioned that that’s something he wants to take a look at as well.”
    TUBERVILLE: “Thank you, and when confirmed, I have some suggestions [for what superintendents can] do about transforming, you know, our military academies to make them better. We don’t wanna do something just to do it, but we need to make them better and grow with the times. And so, [I] look forward to visiting with you on that and working with you.”
    O’KEEFE: “Absolutely, Senator.”
    TUBERVILLE: “Thank you.”
    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Keith Self Introduces Bill to Support and Protect Our Military Chaplains

    Source:

    Congressman Keith Self introduced the Military Chaplains Act of 2025 alongside Congressman Morgan Luttrell in an effort to support and protect military chaplains across all branches of the armed forces.

    Various bad actors within the Department of Defense have undermined statutory protections and retaliated against military chaplains in an effort to secularize the military chaplaincy program. This included, but was not limited to, chaplains who were punished for: providing solicited Biblical teaching on human sexuality; seeking a religious exemption from the COVID19 vaccine; delivering sermons or performing rites, rituals, or counseling consistent with tenets of their faith. These punishments often included downgraded performance reports, resulting in missed promotions and involuntary separation from the armed forces. Others included degraded fitness reports, removal from their operational unit, travel permission denials, mandatory training denials, and many other forms of retribution that directly harmed—and for those who were not separated, continue to harm—their careers.

    While basic protections exist for the chaplain’s religious freedom and rights of conscience— including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 533 of the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA, and the First Amendment—explicit statutory protections for chaplains within the Department of Defense are still needed. Currently, the above statutes are fully captured in DoDI 1300.17 as well as the individual regulations for each military branch. However, these protections are not codified in Title 10 of the United States Code.

    Additionally, Title 10 does not lay out the full scope of chaplains’ duties. In some of the branches, Title 10 allows chaplains to perform rites, rituals, and ceremonies. There are many other things chaplains can and should be doing, such as advising command on moral decision making. There are many areas where they are permitted to do these things, but because it is not explicitly stated in statute, it is not consistently implemented across branches.

    “The military chaplain’s ability to freely exercise their religious duties is not only a Constitutional right, but it is essential to forming the conscience and character of our warfighters,” said Congressman Self. “As someone who benefited from the counsel of chaplains during my 25 years in the Army, I believe we must ensure they can serve without sacrificing their God-given freedoms. Though we currently have an administration that values the chaplain corps, that may not always be the case. That’s why this legislation to safeguard religious liberty in our armed forces is urgently needed.”

    If enacted, the Military Chaplains Act would:

    1. Establish statutory protections for chaplains, ensuring they can live and serve in 
    alignment with their sincerely held religious beliefs and the tenets of their religious 
    endorsing organization.  

    2. Clarify the broad scope of a chaplain’s purpose, role, and duties. These duties extend 
    beyond facilitating the free exercise of religion to include advising on spiritual matters, 
    including policy and command decisions. 

    3. Provide explicit statutory protections, subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of 
    Military Justice, that all responsibilities are free from “censorship, undue restriction, or 
    fear of retribution.” 

    4. Institute a clear standardization of the chaplain across branches of the armed forces. 

    This bill is currently supported by First Liberty Institute and Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty (CALL).

    “Chaplains are leaders in our fighting force, responsible for maintaining spiritual readiness. It is imperative that we provide them with the tools and protections necessary to fulfill their duties in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs and the tenets of their religious endorsing body. The Military Chaplains Act of 2025 not only provides these tools but also ensures that chaplains can serve without censorship, undue restrictions, or fear of retribution.”

    —Erin Smith, Associate Counsel at First Liberty Institute

    “The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty fully supports the Military Chaplains Act of 2025 and believes it is long overdue! No service member should ever be denied their constitutionally protected rights to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and this law will ensure our Military Chaplains are decidedly the most qualified among religious professionals.”

    —Bishop Derek Jones, Executive Director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty

    Read the full bill text HERE.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Tenney Announces FY26 Community Project Funding Submissions

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

    Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today announced the 15 projects she has submitted to the House Appropriations Committee in the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Community Project Funding (CPF) process. 

    The CPF process allows municipalities and non-profits to submit federal funding requests for high-priority community projects with strong local support in New York’s 24th Congressional District. Each application was subjected to a rigorous review process to ensure that it is a sound use of taxpayer dollars and that applicants have a clear and accountable plan to spend funds on targeted projects within a year.  

    A list of Rep Tenney’s submitted FY26 projects can be found below:

    • $2,000,000 for the City of Lockport’s Phase III – Erie Canal Flight of Five Locks
    • $1,000,000 for the City of Oswego Police Department’s New Police Station
    • $4,275,000 for Jefferson County’s Installation of Runway 10 Omni-Directional Approach Lights at Watertown International Airport
    • $2,000,000 for Orleans County’s Public Safety Building Vital Improvements for Safety and Security
    • $2,000,000 for Schuyler County’s Emergency Operations Center
    • $5,000,000 for the Town of Lyons’ Resurgence of the Town of Lyons Canal Street District
    • $3,300,000 for the Town of Phelps’ Sanitary Sewer Distribution Project
    • $1,000,000 for the Town of Throop’s Water Improvements Project
    • $2,475,000 for the Town of Torrey’s Water District #2 Resource Improvements      
    • $10,000,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ work on Genesee County’s water needs
    • $3,000,000 for the Village of Geneseo’s Water and Sewer System Improvements
    • $1,500,000 for the Village of Mexico’s Water System Improvements
    • $3,000,000 for the Village of Waterloo’s Sewer System Improvements and Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades
    • $4,000,000 for Wayne County’s Rural Health Services Building Renovation
    • $3,000,000 for Wyoming County’s Silver Lake Dredging Project    

    “The Community Project Funding Process allows Congress to hear directly from municipalities and community leaders about their needs. This year, I submitted 15 projects on behalf of our district to improve essential infrastructure, enhance public safety, and revitalize our local communities. I remain committed to advocating for these projects throughout the appropriations process and will continue to be a strong voice for protecting your hard-earned tax dollars while representing our district in Congress,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

    Community leaders who submitted and worked with Rep Tenney’s office on various funding proposals expressed their appreciation for her advocacy:

    “On behalf of Genesee County, I extend our sincere thanks to Congresswoman Tenney for championing this critical investment in our region’s infrastructure. The proposed water project will play a vital role in strengthening our water system—not only for the City of Batavia, but for communities, farms, and businesses throughout Genesee County. This funding brings us one step closer to securing long-term reliability, capacity, and growth potential for the entire county,” said the Genesee County Legislature Chair, Shelley Stein. 

    “The Town of Lyons and the Wayne County Regional Land Bank greatly appreciate Congresswoman Tenney’s commitment to our Resurgence of the Town of Lyons Canal Street District project. This neighborhood revitalization addresses legacy community needs by transforming blighted properties in the heart of downtown into quality housing, commercial space, enhanced infrastructure, and improved access to essential services,” said the Town of Lyons Supervisor, Jim Brady.

    “The Flight of Five is more than a historic marvel — it’s the beating heart of Lockport’s canal heritage and a cornerstone of our tourism future. With possible Phase III funding on the horizon, we’re poised to take the next critical step in fully restoring this 19th-century engineering wonder. This investment not only honors the legacy of the Erie Canal, but positions Lockport as a must-see destination for millions of visitors exploring the Niagara region,” said the President/CEO Greater Lockport Development Corporation, Vicki Smith.

    “We sincerely thank Congresswoman Tenney for selecting Oswego as one of 15 projects in the FY26 Appropriations Bill. This vital support moves us closer to replacing our 150-year-old police station with a modern facility that will enhance public safety, support emergency response, and provide space for community outreach and critical services. This project will help build a stronger, safer Oswego for all,” said the City of Oswego Police Chief, Phil Cady.

    “On behalf of the residents of the Town of Phelps, I would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Congresswoman Claudia Tenney for her support of our Route 14 wastewater infrastructure project. We deeply appreciate Congresswoman Tenney’s efforts in advancing our funding request to the Appropriations Committee for review and consideration. Her advocacy brings us one step closer to a much-needed sewer line project that will significantly enhance development opportunities not only within our town but in the Town and City of Geneva. Federal funding is essential to ensure the timely construction of this project, which will serve thousands of visitors to the Finger Lakes region while supporting long-term growth for our community. We are especially grateful for Representative Tenney’s commitment, hard work, and her willingness to listen to the needs of our residents. Her support reflects a strong partnership between federal leadership and local priorities,” said the Town of Phelps Town Supervisor, Bill Wellman.

    “We are thankful for Congresswoman Tenney continuous support of Watertown International Airport, these lights are so important to airport users. The runway 10 lights help decrease delays and keep airplanes landing when visibility is limited. It’s vital for our residents, tourism, business, and DOD communities that rely on the airport for safe and reliable air transportation,” said the Watertown International Airport Director of Aviation, Grant Sussey.

    “This investment in critical infrastructure keeps villages like Geneseo moving forward while keeping tax rates and housing affordable. Most importantly, you are replacing lead water service pipes and ensuring that our sanitary sewer is safe, and keeping it separate from our storm sewer. Finishing the project will leave us ADA compliant and offer enhanced walkability to our village,” said the Geneseo Village Mayor, Christopher Ivers.

    “First, we would like the thank Congresswoman Tenney for including us in the Appropriations bill. We are deeply grateful for her advocacy, commitment, and unwavering support of our community. This funding will have a transformative impact on our community that will enable us to expand critical infrastructure, enhance resources, and provide greater opportunities for those we serve. The project we are looking to fund will foster long-term growth and positive changes for Waterloo,” said the Mayor of Waterloo, Walt Bennett.

    “The Town of Torrey is thrilled to have been selected by Congresswoman Tenney to provide funding through the Congressional Appropriations process for the Town’s Water District #2 serving the Perry Point area. This funding will provide the residents of the district with a reliable and safe supply of water at a reasonable cost while protecting the waters of Seneca Lake. The Town of Torrey is very appreciative of the efforts that Congresswoman Tenney has made on behalf of Torrey residents and the 24th Congressional District,” said the Supervisor of the Town of Torrey, Peter Martini. 

    “On behalf of the residents of Wyoming County, especially those living around Silver Lake, and the Board of Supervisors, I extend our sincere appreciation for Congresswoman Tenney’s selection of the Silver Lake dredging project to submit to the House Appropriations Committee. Congresswoman Tenney understands and shares the values we hold as part of our proud agricultural heritage. An integral part of the environmental stewardship we are tasked with is to fulfill our mission of a healthier and more resilient Silver Lake. It is not only an essential component of our county’s robust tourism industry, but is also a prime drinking water source for multiple communities spanning Wyoming and Livingston counties. This important funding will help to preserve sensitive habitats, protect water quality and enhance public waterway access. We are deeply grateful to Congresswoman Tenney for her unwavering support in this project and for Wyoming County,” said the Chairwoman of the Wyoming County Board of Supervisors, Rebecca Ryan.

    “The Village of Mexico would like to take this opportunity to express their appreciation for Congresswomen Claudia Tenney’s continued support of the Village and Town of Mexico. This project if awarded would help insure continued safe and accessible water far into the Future,” said the Mayor of the Village of Mexico, Terry Grimshaw.

    “Wayne County is humbled and so very grateful by this support from Congresswoman Tenney’s office to be selected as one of the 15 projects submitted for consideration. The House Appropriations funding opportunity provides a meaningful modernization of a rural facility offering healthcare and behavioral health treatment and services. Wayne County Health Building renovations would help expand support and treatment to all ages for critical outpatient treatment and support services in our rural community,” said Wayne County Public Health Director Diane Devlin, Aging & Youth Director Amy Haskins, and Interim County Administrator Mark Humbert.

    “The town of Throop is incredibly grateful to Congresswoman Tenney for selecting Throop’s Water District #3 project as a candidate for Community Project Funding. This investment will provide safe, reliable drinking water, as well as fire protection to residents who’ve long relied on aging private wells with poor water quality. Investing in this project will significantly improve the quality of life, health, and public safety for residents within this proposed water district. This project also has broader implications to the entire water system. This water district will vastly improve the area’s water infrastructure resiliency by completing a critical loop to an existing main line, creating essential system redundancy that benefits the broader network. Congresswoman Tenney has a steadfast commitment to ensuring all communities are supported, especially those in rural areas. Rural communities are the backbone of this region, and Congresswoman Tenney’s continued support for them is invaluable. Her support for this project is a powerful example of how by working together, elected officials can strengthen our infrastructure, safeguard our future, and impact the lives of our residents,” said the Town of Throop Supervisor, Eric Ridley. 

    “On behalf of Schuyler County, I want to say thank you to Congresswoman Tenney for supporting our project submission to improve our county’s Emergency Operations Center. This new Emergency Operations Center will house our county’s Emergency Management department, 911/Dispatch, Schuyler County Sheriff’s Office, and the Schuyler County Public Health Office to improve emergency response times and recovery efforts for our taxpayers and visitors. Thank you again to Congresswoman Tenney for advocating for the project. We are appreciative of your efforts in supporting critical emergency infrastructure projects NY-24,” said the Chairman of the Schuyler County Legislator, Carl H. Blowers

    “We very much appreciate the fact that Congresswoman Tenney recognizes the infrastructure needs of local governments and is working to secure $2 million in funding for the Orleans County Public Safety Building. Fixing a roof may be not be the most exciting project, but it was very necessary to maintaining that building and ensuring safe working conditions for our public safety team. We are very thankful Congresswoman Tenney delivered for us,” said the Orleans County Legislature Chairman, Lynne Johnson. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Video: A Friendly Fast Rope

    Source: United States Department of Defense (video statements)

    @marinesand Japanese forces celebrate @MCASIwakuni’s 46th Friendship Day at MCAS Iwakuni to foster positive relationships between the air station and its Japanese hosts, offering a culturally enriching experience that displays the mutual support between the two nations.

    For more on the Department of Defense, visit: http://www.defense.gov

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3yy0oZ5iR8

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI: Draganfly Announces First Quarter Results of 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Vancouver, BC., May 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Draganfly Inc. (NASDAQ: DPRO) (CSE: DPRO) (FSE: 3U8) (“Draganfly” or the “Company”), an award-winning, industry-leading drone solutions and systems developer, is pleased to announce its first quarter financial results.

    Key Financial and Operational Highlights for Q1 2025:

    • Revenue for the first quarter of 2025 was $1,547,715 which represents a 16% year over year increase. Product sales of $1,541,811 were up 24.5% over the same period last year.
    • Gross profit for Q1 2025 was $310,088 up 10.7% from $280,011 for the same period last year. Gross margin percentage for Q1 2025 was 20.0% compared to 21.1% in Q1 2024. Gross profit would have been $271,422 and gross margin would have been 17.5%, not including a one-time non-cash recovery of a write down of inventory of $38,666. The decrease is due to the sales mix of the products sold.
    • The comprehensive loss for the period of $3,433,712 includes non-cash changes comprised of a positive change in fair value derivative of $157,830, a recovery of a write down of inventory of $38,666, and an impairment gain on notes receivable of $25,951 and would otherwise be a comprehensive loss of $3,656,159 vs an adjusted comprehensive loss of $3,559,976 for the same period last year. Contributors to the slight year-over-year increase are increased research and development, office and miscellaneous, professional fees, share based payments, and wages offset by change in derivative liability.
    • Cash balance on March 31, 2025 of $2,126,103 compared to $6,252,409 on December 31, 2024.
    • Volatus Aerospace partnered with Draganfly to integrate Volatus’ advanced Bathymetric LiDAR technology with Draganfly’s Heavy Lift Drone for a pilot project in oil and gas exploration. This collaboration aims to enhance precision data acquisition in energy markets. Additionally, Volatus became an OEM-approved dealer for Draganfly’s UAV platforms, including the Heavy Lift Drone, Commander 3XL, and Apex Drones.
    • Draganfly obtained a waiver from the FAA under 14 CFR §§ 107.39 and 107.145, allowing its drones to operate over people and moving vehicles. This waiver enables Draganfly to conduct flights beyond standard operational restrictions, facilitating advanced UAV operations in complex urban environments.
    • Building upon their existing partnership, Volatus Aerospace and Draganfly announced an expanded collaboration to address the growing demand for automated geospatial data collection and analysis solutions in the utility infrastructure sector. This strategic alliance combines Volatus’ operational expertise with Draganfly’s advanced sensor technology to enhance services for high-value power utility customers.
    • Draganfly announced the establishment of a new U.S. facility in Tampa, Florida, strategically positioned near key military and government clients. This expansion includes a demonstration and live-fire testing facility, reinforcing Draganfly’s commitment to delivering cutting-edge drone solutions to its U.S. customers and bolstering national security and defense partnerships.
    • The Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics Division selected Draganfly to conduct a drone medical delivery demonstration, which was successfully completed. The demonstration involved the simulated delivery of medical supplies to support home-based healthcare, showcasing the potential of UAVs in enhancing healthcare logistics.
    • Draganfly appointed Christopher C. Miller, former Acting U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump, to its Board of Directors. Miller brings extensive experience in defense and intelligence, which is expected to guide Draganfly’s strategic initiatives in government, defense, and aerospace sectors.

    Draganfly will hold a shareholder update and earnings call on May 8, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. PDT / 5:30 p.m. EDT.

    Registration for the call can be done Here

    Selected financial information is outlined below and should be read with Draganfly’s consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, and associated management discussion and analysis, which will be available under the Company’s profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and filed on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

        Three months ended March 31,
                2025     2024  
    Total revenues         $ 1,547,715   $ 1,329,581  
    Gross Margin (as a % of revenues) (1)           20.0 %   21.1 %
    Net income (loss)           (3,424,825 )   (1,863,808 )
    Net income (loss) per share ($)                
              (0.63 )   (0.85 )
              (0.63 )   (0.85 )
    Comprehensive income (loss)           (3,433,712 )   (1,884,416 )
    Comprehensive income (loss) per share ($)                
              (0.63 )   (0.86 )
              (0.63 )   (0.86 )
    Change in cash and cash equivalents         $ (4,126,306 ) $ 1,246,124  

    (1) Gross Profit (as a % of revenues) would have been 17.5% and 32.2% not including a non-cash recovery of a write down of inventory of $38,666 and a non-cash write down of inventory of $148,760 respectively for the three month period ending March 31 2025 and 2024, respectively.

    As at           March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024
    Total assets         $ 6,919,097 $ 10,200,088
    Working capital           705,243   3,846,283
    Total non-current liabilities           296,067   342,013
    Shareholders’ equity         $ 1,476,648 $ 4,621,783
    Number of shares outstanding   5,433,824   5,427,795

    Shareholders’ equity and working capital as at March 31, 2025, includes a fair value of derivative liability of $2,040,291 (2024 – $2,198,121) and would otherwise be $3,516,939 (2024 – $6,819,904) and $2,745,534 (2024 – $6,044,404), respectively.

        2025 Q1   2024 Q4   2024 Q1
    Revenue $ 1,547,715   $ 1,613,162   $ 1,329,581  
    Cost of sales(2) $ (1,237,627 ) $ (1,397,422 ) $ (1,049,570 )
    Gross profit(3) $ 310,088   $ 215,740   $ 280,011  
    Gross margin – percentage   20.0 %   13.4 %   21.1 %
    Operating expenses $ (3,911,035 ) $ (4,085,766 ) $ (3,530,933 )
    Operating income (loss) $ (3,600,947 ) $ (3,870,026 ) $ (3,250,922 )
    Operating loss per share – basic $ (0.66 ) $ (0.91 ) $ (1.47 )
    Operating loss per share – diluted $ (0.66 ) $ (0.91 ) $ (1.47 )
    Other income (expense) $ 176,122   $ (851,896 ) $ 1,387,114  
    Change in fair value of derivative liability (1) $ 157,830   $ (946,116 ) $ 1,817,569  
    Other comprehensive income (loss) $ (8,887 ) $ 5,991   $ (20,608 )
    Comprehensive income (loss) $ (3,433,712 ) $ (4,715,931 ) $ (1,884,416 )
    Comprehensive income (loss) per share – basic $ (0.63 ) $ (1.11 ) $ (0.86 )
    Comprehensive income (loss) per share – diluted $ (0.63 ) $ (1.11 ) $ (0.86 )

    (1) Included in other income (expense).

    (2) Cost of goods sold includes non-cash inventory write downs of, $167,515 in Q4 2024 and a recovery of a write down of inventory of $38,666 in Q1 2025 and would have been $1,229,907 in Q4 2024 and $1,276,293 in Q1 2025 before these write downs.
    (3) Gross profit would have been $383,255 in Q4 2024 and $271,422 in Q1 2025 without the write downs in number 2 above. 
    (4) Cost of goods sold includes non-cash inventory write downs of $148,760 in Q1 2024 and would have been $900,810 in Q1 2024 before these write downs.
    (5) Gross profit would have been $428,771 in Q1 2024 without the write downs in number 4 above.

    About Draganfly

    Draganfly Inc. (NASDAQ: DPRO; CSE: DPRO; FSE: 3U8) is the creator of quality, cutting-edge drone solutions, software, and AI systems that revolutionize the way organizations can do business and service their stakeholders. Recognized as being at the forefront of technology for over 25 years, Draganfly is an award-winning industry leader serving the public safety, public health, mining, agriculture, industrial inspections, security, mapping, and surveying markets. Draganfly is a company driven by passion, ingenuity, and the need to provide efficient solutions and first-class services to its customers around the world with the goal of saving time, money, and lives.

    Media Contact
    Erika Racicot
    Email: media@draganfly.com

    Company Contact
    Email: info@draganfly.com

    Note Regarding Non-GAAP Measures

    In this press release we describe certain income and expense items that are unusual or non-recurring. There are terms not defined by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Our usage of these terms may vary from the usage adopted by other companies. Specifically, gross profit and gross margin are undefined terms by IFRS that may be referenced herein. We provide this detail so that readers have a better understanding of the significant events and transactions that have had an impact on our results.

    Throughout this release, reference is made to “gross profit,” and “gross margin,” which are non-IFRS measures. Management believes that gross profit, defined as revenue less operating expenses, is a useful supplemental measure of operations. Gross profit helps provide an understanding on the level of costs needed to create revenue. Gross margin illustrates the gross profit as a percentage of revenue. Readers are cautioned that these non-IFRS measures may not be comparable to similar measures used by other companies. Readers are also cautioned not to view these non-IFRS financial measures as an alternative to financial measures calculated in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). For more information with respect to financial measures which have not been defined by GAAP, including reconciliations to the closest comparable GAAP measure, see the “Non-GAAP Measures and Additional GAAP Measures”‎ section of the Company’s most recent MD&A which is available on SEDAR.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This release contains certain “forward looking statements” and certain “forward-looking information” as ‎defined under applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements and information can ‎generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “intend”, ‎‎“estimate”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “plans” or similar terminology. Forward-looking statements ‎and information are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and ‎assumptions that, while believed by management to be reasonable, are inherently subject to significant ‎business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Forward-looking statements and ‎information are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond ‎the ability of the Company to control or predict, that may cause the Company’s actual results, ‎performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied thereby, and are ‎developed based on assumptions about such risks, uncertainties and other factors set out here in, ‎including but not limited to: the Company’s arrangement with Volatus Aerospace to integrate Volatus’ advanced Bathymetric LiDAR technology with Draganfly’s Heavy Lift Drone for a pilot project in oil and gas exploration as well as the expanded collaboration to address the growing demand for automated geospatial data collection and analysis solutions in the utility infrastructure sector; the obtention of a waiver from the FAA under 14 CFR §§ 107.39 and 107.145, allowing its drones to operate over people and moving vehicles; the establishment of a new U.S. facility in Tampa, Florida, strategically positioned near key military and government clients‎; and financial condition, the successful integration of technology, the inherent risks involved in ‎the general securities markets; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in ‎the future; the inherent uncertainty of cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and ‎expenses, currency fluctuations; regulatory restrictions, liability, competition, loss of key employees and ‎other related risks and uncertainties disclosed under the heading “Risk Factors“ in the Company’s most ‎recent filings filed with securities regulators in Canada on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. The ‎Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking information except as required by ‎applicable law. Such forward-looking information represents managements’ best judgment based on ‎information currently available. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual future results ‎may vary materially. Accordingly, readers are advised not to place undue reliance on forward-looking ‎statements or information.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cramer, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Strengthen Civilian Defense Workforce

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States civilian defense and national security workforce is experiencing shortages in crucial areas, particularly cybersecurity. To address these shortages and improve recruiting for the defense industrial base, U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Mike Rounds (R-SD), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), to introduce the Defense Workforce Integration Act. 
    This bipartisan legislation would bolster the civilian defense and national security workforce by leveraging existing programs and best practices within the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to retain the talent and motivation of those who desire to serve in uniform but are medically disqualified.
    “Our civilian defense and national security workforce mightily contribute to the safety and security of the country,” said Cramer. “Many Americans are medically disqualified from military duty and civilian careers each year, yet they have valuable skills and a desire to serve. This bipartisan bill streamlines the hiring of these candidates for other positions, so we can preserve talent, fill vital vacant positions, and foster growth in the industrial base.”
    “Oftentimes, the U.S. Department of Defense will invest significant time and resources into military recruits’ training – only for those recruits to be taken out of consideration for medical reasons, many of which do not prohibit them from working to keep our nation safe and secure,” said Shaheen. “Our bipartisan, bicameral bill provides opportunities for these individuals—who have already stepped up to serve their nation—to still contribute to America’s national security by increasing awareness and accessibility of careers in the civilian defense workforce. Especially as employers like the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard face recruitment and retention challenges for vital roles, we should be doing all we can to fill vacancies that bolster our national security.” 
    “Medical issues might prevent some patriotic Americans from active military service, but it doesn’t have to prevent them from finding other ways to serve our country,” said Rounds. “The Defense Workforce Integration Act would help individuals who want to serve their country but are disqualified from military service for medical reasons transition into federal civilian roles within the Department of Defense.” 
    How the Defense Workforce Integration Act Works:
    For Applicants Who Cannot Join the Military: Directs DOD to enable military personnel managers to provide individuals who are medically disqualified during their initial evaluations with information about civilian employment opportunities in the following areas: the defense industrial base, cybersecurity, intelligence, research and development of defense technologies, national emergency and disaster preparedness, and any other non-military role the Secretary of Defense considers in the national security interest.
    For Servicemembers Disqualified Early in their Careers: Expands existing Air Force best practices and DRIVE program by establishing Army and Navy equivalents to execute “warm hand-offs” to DOD civilian hiring authorities for personnel who are medically disqualified during their initial accession and training pipelines.
    For Personnel Leaving the Military After Serving Honorably: Leverages existing Navy transition assistance programs to expand awareness of critical civilian roles at Military Sealift Command and enhance our civilian maritime workforce.
    Members who cosigned the bill include U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Angus King (I-ME). A companion measure was introduced in the House by U.S. Representatives Jen Kiggans (R-VA-02) and Joe Courtney (D-CT-02), members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee.
    Click here for bill text.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Labor Caucus Members Blast First Trump Administration’s First 100 Days, Join Labor Union Leaders to talk about Impacts on Working Families

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Glenn Ivey – Maryland (4th District)

    Congressman Glenn Ivey, Rep. Debbie Dingell and Rep. Steven Horsford and labor leaders held a press conference in front of the Capitol today.  They talked about the first 100 days of the Trump Administration and its impact on working families. 

    U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell said:

    “As we mark the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, we are facing an unprecedented attack on the federal workforce. Federal employees do some of the most critical work that, frankly, too many people take for granted. They are nurses, food inspectors, doctors, transportation safety workers, law enforcement officers, scientists, VA workers, and beyond. Their work keeps us safe and keeps our daily lives running smoothly. I’ve heard countless stories from my constituents who are frustrated and scared of being a federal employee right now. An attack on workers’ rights anywhere is an attack on workers’ rights everywhere. That’s why we are standing in strong solidarity with federal employees and will not stop fighting to protect workers’ rights.”

    U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford said:

    “One hundred days into this presidency, working Nevadans can’t afford this president’s economic chaos. Tourism is buckling with consumer confidence at a 50-year low and international travel down 20 percent – at the same time, we’re being tariff-taxed on everything from food to lumber to toilet paper. Serving billionaires at the expense of working people is the opposite of leadership, which is exactly why Trump’s presidency is failing.”

    U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey said:

    “President Trump said he would support working people.  Instead, he’s spent 100 days finding new ways to lower wages and make workplaces less safe.  He’s slashed worker safety protections, stripped collective bargaining rights, and crippled the National Labor Relations Board.  Workers deserve better and that’s why my colleagues in the Labor Caucus and I are fighting back.”

    Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said:

    “Our nation’s civil servants are the backbone of our democracy – and they’re under attack for doing their jobs.  Democracy Forward is committed to working alongside partners to defend these workers and the public institutions they serve.”

    National Federation of Federal Employees President, Randy Erwin said:

    “President Trump’s first 100 days in office have been a disaster for federal workers and the American people. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated civil servants have been fired or intimidated into resignation, diminishing the critical services that communities across the country depend on every day. It is shameful that the President has celebrated firing veterans and weakening their healthcare, the erosion of public safety, and undermining our national security.”

    American Federation of Government Employees, District 14 National VP Ottis Johnson said:

    “AFGE is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the House Labor Caucus to fight for the collective bargaining rights of more than one million federal employees who are being retaliated against for standing up for their rights. We are calling on all members of Congress to stand up for federal workers by cosponsoring the Protect America’s Workforce Act and defeating the GOP leadership’s punitive reconciliation package.”

    International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, President Matthew Biggs said:

    “This Administration’s attacks on federal workers, on their civil service protections and union rights, and on their careers and livelihoods hurt all Americans and the services and government functions Americans count on in every part of the country. IFPTE members who work for the Navy, Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, EPA, DOJ, SSA, NOAA, and so many other agencies chose their careers in the federal government because they are invested in and dedicated to the work they do on behalf of the American public. The Trump Administration that keeps finding new and illegal ways to harass, exhaust, and disrespect the federal workforce, but our union and our federal membership is working with labor, legal and civil society partners, and with allies in Congress to protecting our democracy, our nonpartisan merit-based civil service, and our commitment to all Americans.

    Additional Photos of press conference available upon request.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Confronts Congress’ Silence on Gaza

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
    WASHINGTON, May 8 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today gave remarks on the Senate floor marking 68 days since Israel allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza and calling on the U.S. to end its complicity in the destruction of the Palestinian people.
    Sanders’ remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched HERE:  
    M. President, I want to say a few words about an issue that people all over the world are thinking about – are appalled by – but for some strange reason gets very little discussion here in the nation’s capital or in the halls of Congress. And that is the horrific humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Gaza. 
    Today marks 68 days and counting since ANY humanitarian aid was allowed into Gaza. For more than nine weeks, Israel has blocked all supplies: no food, no water, no medicine, and no fuel. 
    Hundreds of truckloads of lifesaving supplies are waiting to enter Gaza, sitting just across the border, but are denied entry by Israeli authorities. 
    There is no ambiguity here: Netanyahu’s extremist government talks openly about using humanitarian aid as a weapon. Defense Minister Israel Katz said “Israel’s policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers.” 
    M. President, starving children to death as a weapon of war is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, the Foreign Assistance Act, and basic human decency. Civilized people do not starve children to death. 
    What is going on in Gaza is a war crime, committed openly and in broad daylight, and continuing every single day. 
    M. President, there are 2.2 million people who live in Gaza. Today, these people are trapped. The borders are sealed. And Israel has pushed the population into an ever-smaller area. 
    With Israel having cut off all aid, what we are seeing now is a slow, brutal process of mass starvation and death by the denial of basic necessities. This is methodical, it is intentional, it is the stated policy of the Netanyahu government. 
    Without fuel, there is no ability to pump fresh water, leaving people increasingly desperate, unable to find clean water to drink, wash with, or cook properly. Disease is once again spreading in Gaza. 
    Most of the bakeries in Gaza have now shut down, having run out of fuel and flour. The few remaining community kitchens are also shutting down. Most people are now surviving on scarce canned goods, often a single can of beans or some lentils, shared between a family once a day. 
    The UN reports that more than 2 million people out of a population of 2.2 million face severe food shortages. 
    The starvation hits children hardest. At least 65,000 children now show symptoms of malnutrition, and dozens have already starved to death. 
    Malnutrition rates increased 80 percent in March, the last month for which data is available, after Netanyahu began the siege, but the situation has severely deteriorated since then. 
    UNICEF reported yesterday that “the situation is getting worse every day,” and that they are treating about 10,000 children for severe malnutrition. 
    Without adequate nutrition or access to clean water, many children will die of easily preventable diseases, killed by something as simple as diarrhea. 
    For the tens of thousands of injured people in Gaza, particularly the countless burn victims from Israeli bombing, their wounds cannot heal without adequate food and clean water. Left to fester, infections will kill many who should have survived. 
    With no infant formula, and with malnourished mothers unable to breastfeed, many infants are also at severe risk of death. Those that survive will bear the scars of their suffering for the rest of their lives. 
    And with little medicine available, easily treatable illnesses and chronic diseases like diabetes or heart disease can be a death sentence in Gaza. 
    M. President, what is going on there is not some terrible earthquake, it is not a hurricane, it is not a storm. What is going on in Gaza today is a manmade nightmare. And nothing can justify this. 
    What is happening in Gaza will be a permanent stain on the world’s collective conscience. History will never forget that we allowed this to happen and, for us here in the United States, that we, in fact, enabled this atrocity. 
    There is no doubt that Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this terrible war with its barbaric October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages. 
    The International Criminal Court was right to indict Yahya Sinwar and other leaders of Hamas as war criminals for those atrocities. 
    Clearly, Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas. 
    But Netanyahu’s extremist government has not just waged war against Hamas. Instead, they have waged an all-out barbaric war of annihilation against the Palestinian people. 
    They have intentionally made life unlivable in Gaza.
    Israel, up to now, has killed more than 52,000 people and injured more than 118,000 – 60 percent of whom are women, children, and the elderly. More than 15,000 children have been killed. 
    M. President, Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment has damaged or destroyed two-thirds of all structures in Gaza, including 92 percent of the housing units. Most of the population now is living in tents or other makeshift structures. 
    M. President, the health care system in Gaza has been essentially destroyed. Most of the territory’s hospitals and primary health care facilities have been bombed. 
    Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been totally devastated, including almost 90 percent of water and sanitation facilities. Most of the roads have been destroyed. 
    Gaza’s education system has been obliterated. Hundreds of schools have been bombed, as has every single one of Gaza’s 12 universities. 
    And there has been no electricity in Gaza for 18 months. 
    M. President, given this reality, nobody should have any doubts that Netanyahu is a war criminal. Just like his counterparts in Hamas, he has a massive amount of innocent blood on his hands.
    And now Netanyahu and his extremist ministers have a new plan: to indefinitely reoccupy all of Gaza, flatten the few buildings that are still standing, and force the entire population of 2.2 million people into a single tiny area, where hired U.S. security contractors will distribute rations to the survivors. 
    Israeli officials are quite open about the goal here: to force Palestinians to leave for other countries “in line with President Trump’s vision for Gaza,” as one Israeli official said this week. 
    Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich said this week that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed,” and that its population will “leave in great numbers.” 
    For many in Netanyahu’s extremist government, this has been the plan all along: it’s called ethnic cleansing. 
    This would be a terrible tragedy, no matter where or why it was happening. But what makes this tragedy so much worse for us in America is that it is our government, the United States government, that is absolutely complicit in creating and sustaining this humanitarian disaster. 
    Last year alone, the United States provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel. This year, the Trump administration has approved $12 billion more in bombs and weapons. 
    And for months, Trump has offered blanket support for Netanyahu. More than that, he has repeatedly said that the United States will actually take over Gaza after the war, that the Palestinians will be pushed out, and that the U.S. will redevelop it into what Trump calls “the Riviera of the Middle East,” a playground for billionaires. 
    M. President, this war has killed or injured more than 170,000 people in Gaza. It has cost American taxpayers well over $20 billion in the last year. And right now, as we speak, thousands of children are starving to death. And the U.S. president is actively encouraging the ethnic cleansing of over 2 million people. 
    Given that reality, one might think that there would be a vigorous discussion right here in the Senate: do we really want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars starving children in Gaza. You tell me why spending billions of dollars to support Netanyahu’s war and starving children in Gaza is a good idea. I’d love to hear it. 
    But, M. President, we are not having that debate. And let me suggest to you why I think we are not having that debate.  
    That is because we have a corrupt campaign finance system that allows AIPAC to set the agenda here in Washington. 
    In the last election cycle, AIPAC’s PAC and Super PAC spent nearly $127 million combined.
    And the fact is that, if you are a member of Congress and you vote against Netanyahu’s war in Gaza, AIPAC is there to punish you with millions of dollars in advertisements to see that you’re defeated. 
    One might think that in a democracy there would be a vigorous debate on an issue of such consequence. But because of our corrupt campaign finance system, people are literally afraid to stand up. If they do, suddenly you will have all kinds of ads coming in to your district to defeat you.
    Sadly, I must confess, that this political corruption works. Many of my colleagues will privately express their horror at Netanyahu’s war crimes, but will do or say very little publicly about it. 
    M. President, history will not forgive our complicity in this nightmare. The time is long overdue for us to end our support for Netanyahu’s destruction of the Palestinian people. We must not put another nickel into Netanyahu’s war machine. We must demand an immediate ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of the hostages, and the rebuilding of Gaza – not for billionaires to enjoy their Riviera there – but rebuilding Gaza for the Palestinian people.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Rebukes Trump’s Misuse of Military in Immigration Enforcement

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC – Over the past three months, the Trump Administration has surged military personnel to the Southwest Border, Guantanamo Bay, and the U.S. southern coasts. The Administration has spent nearly $500 billion and engaged tens of thousands of troops, Navy warships, armored combat vehicles, and military aircraft in its immigration enforcement operation.

    On Thursday, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate floor to address the unprecedented and likely illegal use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement. 

    A video of Senator Reed’s remarks may be viewed here.

    A copy of Senator Reed’s letter to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General may be viewed here.

    A transcript of Senator Reed’s floor speech follows:

    REED:  Mr. President, I rise to address President Trump’s dangerous and inappropriate use of the U.S. military to carry out his immigration enforcement campaign. 

    Before I discuss the Trump Administration spending nearly half a billion dollars and sending tens of thousands of troops, ships, combat vehicles, and aircraft away from their real missions, I want to make clear that border security is a priority.  I do not support open borders.  And I believe that those who enter the United States and break our laws should be subject to deportation in accordance with the law and due process.  I have voted time and time again for billions of dollars of increased support for border agents, detection technology, and physical barriers where it makes sense. 

    Mr. President, it is no secret that our borders have been under pressure for more than a decade because of a broken immigration system that Congressional Republicans have consistently refused to help fix.  We have considered bipartisan immigration reform bills in 2006, in 2007, in 2013, and in 2024, all of which were shut down by Republicans.  The mess that we have today rests largely on their decision to put political advantage above real progress.

    Now, President Trump is ignoring Congress, ignoring the law, ignoring the Courts, and ignoring the Constitution in order to implement an immigration policy that fails to respect due process, adversely impacts our innovation economy, and to the point of my remarks, degrades our military.  In the name of his anti-immigrant efforts, President Trump is using the U.S. military to conduct operations on American soil that it has neither the training or authority to carry out.  Our troops, who are already stretched thin for time and resources, are now burning time, assets, morale, and readiness for these overblown operations.

    The President has declared an emergency at the border to justify using the military for civilian law enforcement.  This, despite border encounters currently at the lowest level since August of 2020.  Over the past 12 months, since President Biden’s executive actions last June, there has been a continued, significant decrease in unlawful border crossings – including a?more than 60 percent decrease in encounters?from May 2024 to December 2024. 

    In short, all along the Southern Border we have seen a dramatic drop in illegal crossings and migrant encounters, well before President Trump took office.  A national emergency?  It seems not. 

    We already have an entire federal agency to protect our borders and address illegal immigration: the Department of Homeland Security.  DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other law enforcement groups.  I have voted consistently to give these agencies additional resources to carry out their missions.  But immigration enforcement is not, and must not become, a function of the Department of Defense. 

    Our military has long provided technical and logistical support to DHS at the border, but always and exclusively in a supporting role, drawing a clear line between military law enforcement authorities.  Indeed, since the Reconstruction Era, U.S. presidents have been prohibited from using the military in civilian law enforcement by a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act.  This law has kept the commander-in-chief from wielding the military as a domestic political weapon, and it continues to provide an important check on the President’s ability to use the military domestically against American citizens.

    I understand American citizens asking if it matters which Department enforces immigration, as long as the job gets done.  Well, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned by the President’s current approach, even if one agrees with him politically.

    Most alarmingly, President Trump is taking real steps to militarize immigration enforcement.  Once he uses the military for this reason, it will be easier for him to use it for other purposes.  And given the tenor of his public statements, it is a reasonable fear that he may someday order the use of the armed forces in American cities and against American citizens.

    Indeed, the Brennan Center – a law and public policy institution – recently analyzed President Trump’s military actions at the border and concluded, quote: “Using the military for border enforcement is a slippery slope.  If soldiers are allowed to take on domestic policing roles at the border, it may become easier to justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future.  Our nation’s founders warned against the dangers of an army turned inward, which can all too easily be turned into an instrument of tyranny.”

    Beyond these concerns, there are real, immediate consequences for our troops, which we are seeing right now.

    Readiness

    One of the military’s top priorities is readiness.  America faces real, growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries, and the Department of Defense needs to be laser focused on preparing troops to defend our interests abroad.

    It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness.  We should acknowledge the jobs that our troops are actually doing there.  In the past, up to 2,000 National Guard and Reserve troops would rotate to the border each year to assist DHS and Customs and Border Patrol with basic monitoring, logistics, and warehousing activities.  These missions were designed to be “behind the scenes” logistical support to free up Border Patrol agents from administrative duties and return them back to the field to conduct their core mission of immigration enforcement.

    Today, however, Trump has surged more than 12,000 active-duty troops to the border to carry out a variety of expanded missions that do not look anything like “behind the scenes” administrative support.  For example, one Marine battalion has been stringing miles and miles of barbed wire across the California mountains.  Multiple Army infantry companies are patrolling the Rio Grande riverbank on foot, rifles loaded.  Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons – the most advanced submarine hunting planes in the world – over the desert.  Two Navy destroyers are loitering off our East and West Coasts, looking for migrant boats in the water.  And at least one Army transportation unit is changing the oil and tires on Border Patrol trucks all day, every day. 

    In addition, the Administration has wasted massive amounts of defense dollars by flying migrants out of the country using military aircraft.  Often, they have had to return them to the United States mainland just days later.  According to U.S. Transportation Command, it costs at least $20,000 per flight hour to use a C-130 and $28,500 per flight hour to use a C-17.  In comparison, contracted ICE flights that regularly transport migrants inside of the U.S. cost only $8,500 per flight hour.  President Trump’s decision to use military aircraft instead of ICE aircraft to shuttle migrants across the globe—to as far away as India—is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars and servicemembers’ time.

    Just yesterday, we learned that the White House wanted to fly migrants, on military aircraft, to Libya, which is one of the most dangerous, hostile locations on earth.  Human rights groups have called the conditions in Libya’s network of migrant detention centers “horrific” and “deplorable.”  The plan has been cancelled for now, but it is unconscionable for the Trump Administration to consider sending migrants to Libya and endangering our troops in the process.

    Further, the Department of Defense has informed Congress that the current surge in border missions—including troop deployments and military flights—could cost as much as $2 billion by the end of the fiscal year.  Secretary Hegseth has claimed that the border mission is so overwhelming that we will have to withdraw massive numbers of troops from Europe in order to meet the demand.  Incredibly, he has also claimed that the border missions will have “no impact” on our military readiness.

    However, we know that these border missions are harming military readiness.  Last month, when the NORTHCOM commander testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked how his forces on the border mission are maintaining their required military training.  He testified that his troops are spending 5 days a week supporting Customs and Border Patrol and other agencies, and only 1 day a week training.  In other words, 20 percent – at most – of our servicemembers’ time is being spent training on their critical military tasks.

    In my personal engagements with commanders at all levels, they have made clear that readying their formations requires extensive time and training, as well as stability for families.  Border missions will not build these warfighting requirements.  Border missions will distract from training, drain resources, and undermine readiness.  The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has assessed previous military support missions to DHS and found them to be detrimental to unit readiness.  Specifically, in its 2021 report, GAO found that, quote, “separating units in order to assign a portion of them to the Southwest Border mission was a consistent trend in degrading readiness ratings.”

    Guantanamo Bay

    In February, President Trump issued an unprecedented order to the Defense Department to begin transporting and detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  For decades, the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay has housed a facility called the Migrant Operations Center that is used to temporarily house migrants who are saved at sea while traveling in unsafe vessels from Cuba, Haiti, or other nearby nations.  The facility is typically unoccupied and is kept in a low-level operational state until needed and, until February, it was run by private contractors.  The intended use for this center was never to house migrants flown from the United States to Guantanamo Bay. 

    Nonetheless, President Trump ordered the military to expand the Migrant Operations Center to accommodate up to 30,000 migrants who would be brought there from the United States.  Within weeks, approximately 1,000 active-duty troops were sent to Guantanamo to build tents for this massive number of migrants.  However, once built, the tents were found not to meet ICE standards and, to date, they have never been used and are now being dismantled.  The hundreds of troops sent down for the mission have had very little to do in the meantime. 

    Since February, around 500 individuals identified by the Administration as illegal migrants have been flown to Guantanamo Bay, and most have been detained for no more than two weeks.  Rather than being taken to the Migrant Operations Center, about half of these migrants have been held on the other side of the island at the detention facility that was built and used for law of war detainees – such as 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    There are currently 15 law of war detainees remaining on Guantanamo Bay.  The facilities housing these detainees have deteriorated significantly in the 20 years since they were built, and the military personnel who guard these individuals also endure the same tough conditions in these dilapidated facilities.   Needless to say, these servicemembers have been stretched thin.  Last fall, it was a significant morale boost for them when the remaining law of war detainees were moved to a “newer” facility.  Naturally, it was a blow to morale when, just one month later, they were ordered back to the older, more decrepit facility to make way for migrants at the newer facility.

    While it is crystal clear that the military is in charge of the law of war detention center at Guantanamo Bay, it is not clear who is legally responsible for the migrants being held there.  Longstanding law dictates that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain “custody and control” of migrants, but in the detention center, the military maintains control.  This leads to questions about who is in charge and accountable.  When I have asked those questions, the answers have often been contradictory.  That’s disturbing.  

    To investigate these issues, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay in March with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen, Peters, King, and Padilla. We conducted a firsthand examination of the missions underway there and met with military servicemembers, ICE officers, and DHS officials to fully understand the costs and military readiness impacts of these missions.  This trip raised many new questions and concerns. 

    I have grave doubts about the legality of removing migrants from the U.S. to Cuba, a foreign nation, and detaining them there.  There are at least a dozen open cases and court orders impacting the Guantanamo mission.  The detention center has only been used for law of war detainees, and it is reckless to equate migrants with international war criminals. 

    I was outraged by the scale of wastefulness that we found there.  It is obvious that Guantanamo Bay is an illogical location to detain migrants.  The staggering financial cost to fly these migrants out of the United States and detain them at Guantanamo Bay—a mission costing tens of millions of dollars a month—is an insult to American taxpayers.  President Trump could implement his immigration policies for a fraction of the cost by using existing ICE facilities in the U.S., but he is obsessed with the image of using Guantanamo, no matter the cost.

    I am also frustrated that my Senate colleagues and I had to fly to Cuba to get answers to the questions that Defense Secretary Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Noem have been ducking for months.  By avoiding questions, they are putting servicemembers and officers on the ground in the position of trying to make sense of contradictory and political orders without any guidance or support from the Pentagon or DHS headquarters.

    Domestic Law Enforcement

    Since coming into office, the Trump Administration has expanded the role of the military in immigration enforcement in other troubling ways.  The movement of migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay is unprecedented, and the buildup of 12,000 active duty troops at the Southern Border, including the Army’s 10th Mountain Division and 100 armored Stryker combat vehicles, has a huge impact on our military posture.  This is a larger force than we deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003.

    This Administration has purposely placed many of our military forces into the immigration debate in this country, and I fear it will also place them in legal and ethical risk.

    For example, on March 30th, a military flight traveled from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador with foreign nationals on board, including seven Venezuelans.  To my understanding, not a single DHS official or civilian was on the flight, meaning that military personnel maintained both custody and control of the migrants, contrary to longstanding DOD policy and practice. 

    Here is an image of that plane unloading in El Salvador.  As you can see, the crew does not include any DHS officials or civilian law enforcement personnel – only uniformed troops, who are physically handing migrants to the Salvadoran police.

    This flight would clearly have been in violation of various immigration laws and policies, recent judicial orders, and the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military carried out a core law enforcement function of deportation without any DHS officials present.  After the fact, the Administration tried to explain itself by saying it used, quote, “counter-terrorism” authorities rather than law enforcement authorities.  I am not aware of any counter-terrorism authorities that would authorize such a flight. 

    Accordingly, last month I sent a letter to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General asking that office to conduct an inquiry into the incident and any laws or Defense Department policies that may have been violated.  I expect the IG to exercise his independence in carrying out this inquiry, and I am disturbed that the Administration continues to put servicemembers in legal and physical jeopardy through these reckless orders.  Mr. President, I would submit that letter for the record.

    I am also concerned about the Trump Administration’s dubious creation of “National Defense Areas” along the Southern Border in recent weeks.  These National Defense Areas, first designated in New Mexico and later expanded into Texas, were created when the Department of Interior transferred land, including the Roosevelt Reservation—a 60-foot-wide strip along the border—to the Department of Defense.  So now, large swaths of the border are considered military installations.  The Administration has created these zones so that when a migrant crosses the border in those areas, prosecutors can charge them with both entering the U.S. illegally and trespassing on a military installation.  In effect, the National Defense Zones evade the long-standing protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection.  In the Administration’s telling, this approach permits military involvement in immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

    This is both unprecedented and a legal fiction.  As the Brennan Center report found, quote: “No matter how the Trump administration frames these activities… they are civilian law enforcement functions.  He cannot turn them into military operations by misusing the language of war.  These civilian law enforcement activities are not “incidental” — they are the reason for creating the installation.”

    The Administration is also considering using military bases to detain thousands of migrants inside the United States.  Unlike in past emergencies, when military bases near the border were used to hold migrants during large surges, this administration is seeking to use installations deep within the country, including in New Jersey, Indiana, Delaware, California, and Virginia.  One could be forgiven for extrapolating that these bases are being selected to hold round-ups of migrants in major cities. 

    The President is not taking these military actions out of necessity; he is testing the boundaries of our legal system, and, in my view, violating them.  If left unchecked and unchallenged, he will go much, much further in employing the armed forces in to enforce domestic immigration laws, traditionally a civilian law enforcement function.

    For years, Mr. Trump has publicly expressed his desire to use U.S. military personnel for domestic law enforcement.  During the last campaign, he repeatedly claimed that, if elected, he would order the National Guard and active-duty military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented migrants.  He even said that he would deploy the military to conduct local law enforcement in cities, and that troops could shoot shoplifters leaving the scene of a crime.

    Trump’s defenders often say that he is joking or exaggerating when he makes such claims.  But we know these are not idle threats.  In his first 100 days in office, he has declared multiple national emergencies and invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport migrants without due process.  Indeed, he has even unapologetically deported U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution.  We have all seen the chilling videos of masked and hooded ICE agents arresting civilians on the street – scenes we are accustomed to seeing on the nightly news in countries run by dictators.  The Administration is expanding its operation one step at a time, and President Trump’s deployment of forces to the border, the military deportation flights, and the establishment of National Defense Areas can be interpreted as setting the stage to invoke the Insurrection Act and order the military to carry out domestic law enforcement inside the country. 

    In fact, we have seen this situation before.  In June 2020, then-President Trump, infuriated by protesters in front of the White House and across the country, ordered his staff to prepare to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow him to deploy active-duty military forces to patrol the streets of DC and other cities.  Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley talked him out of it, but the President clearly views this as a serious option.

    Beyond the immorality of Trump’s desire to deploy the military domestically, to do so would simply be illegal.  As I mentioned, the doctrine of Posse Comitatus is sacred in our nation to separate the military from direct law enforcement responsibilities. 

    The use of National Guard or active-duty troops should be reserved only to those rare circumstances where civilian law enforcement has collapsed, and state leaders have specifically asked for presidential assistance.  Their deployment should never be at the sole discretion of a President, as Trump has demonstrated that such power begs abuse.

    Ultimately, U.S. military members are trained to engage the enemies of the United States abroad with deadly force, not to arrest migrants on the Southern Border or to deport them from U.S. cities.  The military has a sacred role in our country, but the public’s trust is easily lost, and a pillar of our society is cracked when the commander-in-chief uses the military recklessly. 

    Our constitutional system is fundamentally designed to separate military and civilian roles, reserving police powers for law enforcement agencies, and endowing the military with the superior weaponry and firepower necessary to fight and win the nations’ wars.  When we allow the military to be used in the routine exercise of the police power, the nation teeters on the brink of autocracy and military rule.  One need not be a student of history to see how easily this backsliding can occur.  It is all around us in the world today.

    Trump’s clear intent to use the U.S. military in potentially illegal and certainly inappropriate ways for his own political benefit is antithetical to the spirit of our American democracy. Such power is the hallmark of authoritarians around the world.

    President Trump and Secretary Hegseth must use common sense, follow the law, and immediately cease the military border deployments and deportation flights.  And my colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the majority, should demand the same and hold the Administration accountable for its actions.

    I yield the floor.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man Accused of Concealing Death of Disabled Veteran for Years to Reap Financial Benefits

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

    ST. LOUIS – A convicted felon from Salem, Missouri was indicted on Wednesday and accused of concealing the death of his uncle, a U.S. Army veteran with quadraplegia, for at least five years so that he could steal at least $650,000 of his disability benefits.

    Brian K. Ditch, 44, is now facing four felony counts of wire fraud, four counts of aggravated identity theft, two counts of theft of government property and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    The indictment alleges that Ditch was solely responsible for his uncle’s care beginning in 2008, and kept his uncle locked in his garage and under his control so he could fraudulently obtain his government benefits. Instead of properly caring for his uncle, Ditch trapped him in the garage for over 24 hours at a time, forcing his uncle “to sit in his own urine and feces without the ability to eat or drink,” the indictment says. After his uncle’s death around 2019, Ditch concealed his death and the body so that he could continue to receive the money, the indictment says. It says Ditch told relatives that he had moved his uncle into a nursing home.

    His uncle received $9,559 per month in Disability Compensation benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the indictment says. The VA would not have continued to pay had they known Ditch’s uncle was dead, the indictment says. Ditch’s uncle also received a total of $235,210 in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Retirement Insurance benefits from the Social Security Administration since 2008.

    Ditch used the money to buy exotic reptiles, fund lavish vacations and enrich himself, the indictment says. Salem police officers found the uncle’s partially frozen body in a trash can in March, as well as three shotguns, the indictment says. As a convicted felon, Ditch is barred from possessing firearms.

    Ditch is expected to plead not guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis Friday.

    Charges set forth in an indictment are merely accusations and do not constitute proof of guilt.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty.

    “The Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General is committed to holding accountable anyone who exploits veterans or steals their VA benefits,” said Special Agent in Charge Gregory Billingsley with the VA OIG’s Central Field Office. “VA’s programs and services are established to justly compensate deserving veterans and the VA OIG will bring to justice those who would defraud these programs.”

    The Salem Police Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Derek Wiseman is prosecuting the case.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: Fidus Investment Corporation Announces First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Board of Directors Declared Total Dividends of $0.54 per Share for Second Quarter 2025

    Base Dividend of $0.43 and Supplemental Dividend of $0.11 Per Share

    EVANSTON, Ill., May 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Fidus Investment Corporation (NASDAQ:FDUS) (“Fidus” or the “Company”), a provider of customized debt and equity financing solutions, primarily to lower middle-market companies based in the United States, today announced its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025.

    First Quarter 2025 Financial Highlights

    • Total investment income of $36.5 million
    • Net investment income of $18.2 million, or $0.53 per share
    • Adjusted net investment income of $18.5 million, or $0.54 per share(1)
    • Invested $115.6 million in debt and equity securities, including seven new portfolio companies
    • Received proceeds from repayments and realizations of $57.3 million
    • Paid total dividends of $0.54 per share: regular quarterly dividend of $0.43 and a supplemental dividend of $0.11 per share on March 27, 2025
    • Net asset value (“NAV”) of $677.9 million, or $19.39 per share, as of March 31, 2025
    • Estimated spillover income (or taxable income in excess of distributions) as of March 31, 2025 of $47.4 million, or $1.36 per share

    Management Commentary

    “We continued to build our portfolio of debt and equity investments in a methodical and disciplined manner during the first quarter by investing in high quality businesses with defensive characteristics and resilient business models that generate high levels of cash flow to service debt and support growth. We also monetized two equity investments for a net realized gain of $11.5 million, or $0.33 per share, which contributed to the increase in NAV,” said Edward Ross, Chairman and CEO of Fidus Investment Corporation. “Our portfolio remains well diversified and healthy overall, and constructed to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns over time for the benefit of our shareholders.”

    (1)   Supplemental information regarding adjusted net investment income:

    On a supplemental basis, we provide information relating to adjusted net investment income, which is a non-GAAP measure. This measure is provided in addition to, but not as a substitute for, net investment income. Adjusted net investment income represents net investment income excluding any capital gains incentive fee expense or (reversal) attributable to realized and unrealized gains and losses. The management agreement with our investment adviser provides that a capital gains incentive fee is determined and paid annually with respect to cumulative realized capital gains (but not unrealized capital gains) to the extent such realized capital gains exceed realized and unrealized losses. In addition, we accrue, but do not pay, a capital gains incentive fee in connection with any unrealized capital appreciation, as appropriate. As such, we believe that adjusted net investment income is a useful indicator of operations exclusive of any capital gains incentive fee expense or (reversal) attributable to realized and unrealized gains and losses. The presentation of this additional information is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial results prepared in accordance with GAAP. Reconciliations of net investment income to adjusted net investment income are set forth in Schedule 1.

    First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    The following table provides a summary of our operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024 (dollars in thousands, except per share data):

                             
        Three Months Ended
    March 31,
                 
        2025     2024     $ Change     % Change  
    Interest income   $ 30,319     $ 28,138     $ 2,181       7.8 %
    Payment-in-kind interest income     2,248       2,049       199       9.7 %
    Dividend income     1,231       397       834       210.1 %
    Fee income     2,127       2,359       (232 )     (9.8 %)
    Interest on idle funds     571       1,708       (1,137 )     (66.6 %)
    Total investment income   $ 36,496     $ 34,651     $ 1,845       5.3 %
                             
    Net investment income   $ 18,222     $ 17,627     $ 595       3.4 %
    Net investment income per share   $ 0.53     $ 0.57     $ (0.04 )     (7.0 %)
                             
    Adjusted net investment income (1)   $ 18,509     $ 18,126     $ 383       2.1 %
    Adjusted net investment income per share (1)   $ 0.54     $ 0.59     $ (0.05 )     (8.5 %)
                             
    Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations   $ 19,658     $ 20,123     $ (465 )     (2.3 %)
    Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations per share   $ 0.58     $ 0.65     $ (0.07 )     (10.8 %)
                                     

    The $1.8 million increase in total investment income for the three months ended March 31, 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024, was primarily attributable to (i) a $2.4 million increase in total interest income (which includes payment-in-kind interest income) resulting from an increase in average debt investment balances outstanding, partially offset by a decrease in weighted average yield on debt investment balances outstanding, (ii) a $0.8 million increase in dividend income due to an increase in distributions received from equity investments, partially offset by (iii) a $0.2 million decrease in fee income resulting from a decrease in amendment and management services fees and (iv) a $1.2 million decrease in interest on idle funds resulting from a decrease in average cash balances.

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025, total expenses, including the base management fee waiver and income tax provision, were $18.3 million, an increase of $1.3 million, or 7.3% from the $17.0 million of total expenses, including the base management fee waiver and income tax provision, for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase was primarily attributable to (i) a $0.8 million increase in interest and financing expenses due to an increase in average borrowings outstanding and weighted average interest rates of our debt outstanding, (ii) a $0.6 million net increase in base management fee, including the base management fee waiver, due to higher average total assets, (iii) a $0.1 million increase in the income incentive fee, partially offset by (iv) a $0.2 million decrease in the accrued capital gains incentive fee.

    Net investment income increased by $0.6 million, or 3.4%, to $18.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2025 as compared to the same period in 2024, as a result of the $1.8 million increase in total investment income and the $1.3 million increase in total expenses, including base management fee waiver and income tax provision. Adjusted net investment income,(1) which excludes the capital gains incentive fee accrual, was $0.54 per share compared to $0.59 per share in the prior year.

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the total net realized gain/(loss) on investments, net of income tax (provision)/benefit on realized gains, was $11.5 million, as compared to total net realized gain/(loss) on investments, net of income tax (provision)/benefit on realized gains, of $1.8 million for the same period in 2024.

    Portfolio and Investment Activities

    As of March 31, 2025, the fair value of our investment portfolio totaled $1.2 billion and consisted of 92 active portfolio companies and four portfolio companies that have sold their underlying operations. Our total portfolio investments at fair value were approximately 100.5% of the related cost basis as of March 31, 2025. As of March 31, 2025, the debt investments of 52 portfolio companies bore interest at a variable rate, which represented $740.3 million, or 72.8%, of our debt investment portfolio on a fair value basis, and the remainder of our debt investment portfolio was comprised of fixed rate investments. As of March 31, 2025, our average active portfolio company investment at amortized cost was $12.5 million, which excludes investments in four portfolio companies that have sold their underlying operations. The weighted average yield on debt investments was 13.2% as of March 31, 2025. The weighted average yield was computed using the effective interest rates for debt investments at cost as of March 31, 2025, including the accretion of original issue discounts and loan origination fees, but excluding investments on non-accrual status and investments recorded as a secured borrowing.

    First quarter 2025 investment activity included the following new portfolio company investments:

    • AMOpportunities, Inc., a healthcare training platform providing tech-enabled clinical rotation development and management services for schools, providers, and health systems. Fidus invested $10.0 million in first lien debt and $0.7 million in preferred equity.
    • Customer Expressions Corp. (dba Case IQ), a provider of SaaS-based Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solutions to mid-size and large enterprises. Fidus invested $15.0 million in first lien debt and $0.8 million in common equity.
    • Fraser Steel LLC, a designer and manufacturer of steel tubular parts and assemblies for OEM customers used in a wide range of applications. Fidus invested $14.0 million in first lien debt, $0.1 million in preferred equity, $0.5 million in common equity, and made additional commitments up to $2.0 million in a revolving loan.
    • Info Tech Operating, LLC (dba infotech), a software solutions provider for the infrastructure construction industry. Fidus invested $13.5 million in first lien debt.
    • Mayesh Wholesale Florist, LLC, a leading U.S. wholesaler of premium, fresh cut flowers. Fidus invested $10.5 million in first lien debt, $0.5 million in preferred equity, and made additional commitments up to $2.0 million in first lien debt.
    • Onsight Industries, LLC, a leading provider of customized signs & displays, mailbox solutions, and site furnishings for the home builder and land developer industries. Fidus invested $9.1 million in first lien debt and $0.4 million in common equity.
    • PayEntry Financial Services, Inc. (dba Payentry), a leading provider of payroll processing and other complementary HR services (e.g., insurance, 401K, benefits, HCM solutions) to SMBs. Fidus invested $5.6 million in second lien debt, $0.8 million in preferred equity, and made additional commitments up to $6.0 million in second lien debt.

    Liquidity and Capital Resources

    As of March 31, 2025, we had $67.5 million in cash and cash equivalents and $140.0 million of unused capacity under our senior secured revolving credit facility (the “Credit Facility”). For the three months ended March 31, 2025, we received net proceeds of $20.7 million from the equity at-the-market program (the “ATM Program”) and received net proceeds from the issuance of the March 2030 Notes (as defined below) of $96.9 million. As of March 31, 2025, we had SBA debentures outstanding of $182.0 million, $125.0 million outstanding of our 4.75% notes due January 2026 (the “January 2026 Notes”), $125.0 million outstanding of our 3.50% notes due November 2026 (the “November 2026 Notes”), and $100.0 million outstanding of our 6.75% March 2030 Notes (the “March 2030 Notes” and together with the January 2026 Notes and the November 2026 Notes, the “Notes”). As of March 31, 2025, the weighted average interest rate on total debt outstanding was 4.8%.

    Second Quarter 2025 Dividends Totaling $0.54 Per Share Declared

    On May 5, 2025, our board of directors declared a base dividend of $0.43 per share and a supplemental dividend of $0.11 per share for the second quarter. The dividends will be payable on June 25, 2025, to stockholders of record as of June 13, 2025.

    When declaring dividends, our board of directors reviews estimates of taxable income available for distribution, which differs from consolidated income under GAAP due to (i) changes in unrealized appreciation and depreciation, (ii) temporary and permanent differences in income and expense recognition, and (iii) the amount of undistributed taxable income carried over from a given year for distribution in the following year. The final determination of 2025 taxable income, as well as the tax attributes for 2025 dividends, will be made after the close of the 2025 tax year. The final tax attributes for 2025 dividends will generally include ordinary taxable income but may also include capital gains, qualified dividends and return of capital.

    Fidus has adopted a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that provides for reinvestment of dividends on behalf of its stockholders, unless a stockholder elects to receive cash. As a result, when we declare a cash dividend, stockholders who have not “opted out” of the DRIP at least two days prior to the dividend payment date will have their cash dividends automatically reinvested in additional shares of our common stock. Those stockholders whose shares are held by a broker or other financial intermediary may receive dividends in cash by notifying their broker or other financial intermediary of their election.

    Subsequent Events

    On April 15, 2025, we invested $5.0 million in first lien debt, $0.4 million in preferred equity, $0.4 million in common equity, and committed up to $4.0 million in a revolving loan to Laboratory Testing, LLC, a provider of material testing and calibration services, primarily to the Aerospace & Defense end market.

    On April 23, 2025, we exited our debt investments in Elements Brands, LLC. We received payment in full of $3.7 million on our first lien debt, which includes fees.

    On May 5, 2025, we issued an additional $10.0 million in SBA debentures, which will bear interest at a fixed interim interest rate of 5.163% until the pooling date in September 2025.

    First Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call

    Management will host a conference call to discuss the operating and financial results at 9:00am ET on Friday, May 9, 2025. To participate in the conference call, please dial (844) 808-7136 approximately 10 minutes prior to the call. International callers should dial (412) 317-0534. Please ask to be joined into the Fidus Investment Corporation call.

    A live webcast of the conference call will be available at http://investor.fdus.com/news-events/events-presentations. Please access the website 15 minutes prior to the start of the call to download and install any necessary audio software. An archived replay of the conference call will also be available in the investor relations section of the Company’s website.

    ABOUT FIDUS INVESTMENT CORPORATION

    Fidus Investment Corporation provides customized debt and equity financing solutions to lower middle-market companies, which management generally defines as U.S. based companies with revenues between $10 million and $150 million. The Company’s investment objective is to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns by generating both current income from debt investments and capital appreciation from equity related investments. Fidus seeks to partner with business owners, management teams and financial sponsors by providing customized financing for change of ownership transactions, recapitalizations, strategic acquisitions, business expansion and other growth initiatives.

    Fidus is an externally managed, closed-end, non-diversified management investment company that has elected to be treated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. In addition, for tax purposes, Fidus has elected to be treated as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Fidus was formed in February 2011 to continue and expand the business of Fidus Mezzanine Capital, L.P., which commenced operations in May 2007 and was licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration as a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC).

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements which are based upon current expectations and are inherently uncertain, including, but not limited to, statements about the future performance and financial condition of the Company, the prospects of our existing and prospective portfolio companies, the financial condition and ability of our existing and prospective portfolio companies to achieve their objectives, and the timing, form and amount of any distributions or supplemental dividends in the future. Any such statements, other than statements of historical fact, are likely to be affected by other unknowable future events and conditions, including elements of the future that are or are not under the Company’s control, such as changes in the financial and lending markets, the impact of the general economy (including an economic downturn or recession), the impact of interest rate volatility and the impact of elevated levels of inflation on the Company’s portfolio companies and the industries in which it invests, and the uncertainty relating to the general economy (including the uncertainty with respect to new tariffs and trade policies); accordingly, such statements cannot be guarantees or assurances of any aspect of future performance. Actual developments and results are highly likely to vary materially from these estimates and projections of the future as a result of a number of factors related to changes in the markets in which the Company invests, changes in the financial, capital, and lending markets, and other factors described from time to time in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such statements speak only as of the time when made, and are based on information available to the Company as of the date hereof and are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any such statement now or in the future, except as required by applicable law.

     
    FIDUS INVESTMENT CORPORATION
    Consolidated Statements of Assets and Liabilities
    (in thousands, except shares and per share data)
                     
        March 31,     December 31,  
        2025     2024  
    ASSETS                
    Investments, at fair value:                
    Control investments (cost: $6,832 and $6,832, respectively)   $     $  
    Affiliate investments (cost: $52,611 and $56,679, respectively)     91,066       102,024  
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments (cost: $1,089,409 and $1,011,646, respectively)     1,063,342       988,482  
    Total investments, at fair value (cost: $1,148,852 and $1,075,157, respectively)     1,154,408       1,090,506  
    Cash and cash equivalents     67,478       57,159  
    Interest receivable     18,404       15,119  
    Proceeds receivable from stock offering     701        
    Prepaid expenses and other assets     991       1,328  
    Total assets   $ 1,241,982     $ 1,164,112  
    LIABILITIES                
    SBA debentures, net of deferred financing costs   $ 175,870     $ 168,899  
    Notes, net of deferred financing costs     345,557       248,362  
    Borrowings under Credit Facility, net of deferred financing costs     (948 )     43,954  
    Secured borrowings     13,601       13,674  
    Accrued interest and fees payable     3,573       5,784  
    Base management fee payable, net of base management fee waiver – due to affiliate     4,863       4,805  
    Income incentive fee payable – due to affiliate     4,594       4,477  
    Capital gains incentive fee payable – due to affiliate     14,990       14,703  
    Administration fee payable and other, net – due to affiliate     295       919  
    Taxes payable     325       1,850  
    Accounts payable and other liabilities     1,332       1,019  
    Total liabilities   $ 564,052     $ 508,446  
    Commitments and contingencies                
    NET ASSETS                
    Common stock, $0.001 par value (100,000,000 shares authorized, 34,970,709 and 33,914,652 shares                
    issued and outstanding at March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively)   $ 35     $ 34  
    Additional paid-in capital     588,519       567,159  
    Total distributable earnings     89,376       88,473  
    Total net assets     677,930       655,666  
    Total liabilities and net assets   $ 1,241,982     $ 1,164,112  
    Net asset value per common share   $ 19.39     $ 19.33  
     
    FIDUS INVESTMENT CORPORATION
    Consolidated Statements of Operations (unaudited)
    (in thousands, except shares and per share data)
     
        Three Months Ended  
        March 31,  
        2025     2024  
    Investment Income:            
    Interest income            
    Control investments   $     $  
    Affiliate investments     1,094       869  
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     29,225       27,269  
    Total interest income     30,319       28,138  
    Payment-in-kind interest income            
    Control investments            
    Affiliate investments            
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     2,248       2,049  
    Total payment-in-kind interest income     2,248       2,049  
    Dividend income            
    Control investments            
    Affiliate investments     886       348  
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     345       49  
    Total dividend income     1,231       397  
    Fee income            
    Control investments            
    Affiliate investments     8       5  
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     2,119       2,354  
    Total fee income     2,127       2,359  
    Interest on idle funds     571       1,708  
    Total investment income     36,496       34,651  
    Expenses:            
    Interest and financing expenses     6,773       6,012  
    Base management fee     4,922       4,432  
    Incentive fee – income     4,594       4,467  
    Incentive fee (reversal) – capital gains     287       499  
    Administrative service expenses     602       537  
    Professional fees     948       937  
    Other general and administrative expenses     206       229  
    Total expenses before base management fee waiver     18,332       17,113  
    Base management fee waiver     (59 )     (69 )
    Total expenses, net of base management fee waiver     18,273       17,044  
    Net investment income before income taxes     18,223       17,607  
    Income tax provision (benefit)     1       (20 )
    Net investment income     18,222       17,627  
    Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investments:            
    Net realized gains (losses):            
    Control investments            
    Affiliate investments     10,066        
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     3,264       1,743  
    Total net realized gain (loss) on investments     13,330       1,743  
    Income tax (provision) benefit from realized gains on investments     (1,850 )     56  
    Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation):            
    Control investments            
    Affiliate investments     (6,890 )     (3,236 )
    Non-control/non-affiliate investments     (2,903 )     4,454  
    Total net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments     (9,793 )     1,218  
    Net gain (loss) on investments     1,687       3,017  
    Realized losses on extinguishment of debt     (251 )     (521 )
    Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations   $ 19,658     $ 20,123  
    Per common share data:            
    Net investment income per share-basic and diluted   $ 0.53     $ 0.57  
    Net increase in net assets resulting from operations per share — basic and diluted   $ 0.58     $ 0.65  
    Dividends declared per share   $ 0.54     $ 0.65  
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding — basic and diluted     34,077,720       30,776,758  
    Schedule 1

    Supplemental Information Regarding Adjusted Net Investment Income

     

    On a supplemental basis, we provide information relating to adjusted net investment income, which is a non-GAAP measure. This measure is provided in addition to, but not as a substitute for, net investment income. Adjusted net investment income represents net investment income excluding any capital gains incentive fee expense or (reversal) attributable to realized and unrealized gains and losses. The management agreement with our investment advisor provides that a capital gains incentive fee is determined and paid annually with respect to cumulative realized capital gains (but not unrealized capital gains) to the extent such realized capital gains exceed realized and unrealized losses for such year, less the aggregate amount of any capital gains incentive fees paid in all prior years. In addition, we accrue, but do not pay, a capital gains incentive fee in connection with any unrealized capital appreciation, as appropriate. As such, we believe that adjusted net investment income is a useful indicator of operations exclusive of any capital gains incentive fee expense or (reversal) attributable to realized and unrealized gains and losses. The presentation of this additional information is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial results prepared in accordance with GAAP. The following table provides a reconciliation of net investment income to adjusted net investment income for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024.

        ($ in thousands)  
        Three Months Ended  
        March 31,  
        (unaudited)  
        2025     2024  
    Net investment income   $ 18,222     $ 17,627  
    Capital gains incentive fee expense (reversal)     287       499  
    Adjusted net investment income (1)   $ 18,509     $ 18,126  
        (Per share)  
        Three Months Ended  
        March 31,  
        (unaudited)  
        2025     2024  
    Net investment income   $ 0.53     $ 0.57  
    Capital gains incentive fee expense (reversal)     0.01       0.02  
    Adjusted net investment income (1)   $ 0.54     $ 0.59  
    (1) Adjusted net investment income per share amounts are calculated as adjusted net investment income divided by weighted average shares outstanding for the period. Due to rounding, the sum of net investment income per share and capital gains incentive fee expense (reversal) amounts may not equal the adjusted net investment income per share amount presented here.
    Company Contact: Investor Relations Contact:
    Shelby E. Sherard Jody Burfening
    Chief Financial Officer Alliance Advisors IR
    (847) 859-3940 (212) 838-3777
    ssherard@fidusinv.com jburfening@allianceadvisors.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China and Russia pledge to defend the results of the Victory in World War II

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    Moscow, May 8 (Xinhua) — China and Russia on Thursday agreed to firmly defend the results of the victory in World War II.

    Both sides made this commitment in the joint statement between China and Russia on further deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in the new era, which was signed by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    The parties promised to resolutely suppress any attempts to falsify the history of World War II, to belittle the historical achievements of China and Russia in World War II, or to denigrate the image of the liberators. The parties strongly condemned acts of desecration and destruction of memorials to fallen war heroes.

    In a joint statement, the two countries described World War II as an unprecedented catastrophe in human history, in which China and the Soviet Union became the main theaters of war in Asia and Europe and served as bulwarks of resistance to militarism and fascism.

    The document notes the enormous historical contribution of the Chinese and Soviet peoples to the protection of the dignity of humanity and the restoration of peace on the planet.

    The statement stressed that in the modern world, China and Russia have a common mission and responsibility to maintain a correct view of the history of World War II and will forever remember the righteous deeds of their peoples in safeguarding world peace.

    According to the document, the parties intend to make every effort to prevent the revival of the misanthropic ideology of Nazism and racial superiority, and will continue to jointly oppose the glorification of Nazis and their accomplices, the rise of neo-Nazism, militaristic revanchism, the encouragement of various forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia.

    China and Russia called on the international community to respect and protect the principles developed by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East aimed at preventing attempts to start wars, commit genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

    China and Russia promised to continue holding educational and commemorative events in various forms. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-Evening Report: To split Moscow from Beijing, Trump is reviving Nixon’s ‘madman diplomacy’. It could backfire badly

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Langford, Executive Director, Security & Defence PLuS and Professor, UNSW Sydney

    When United States President William McKinley advocated high‑tariff protectionism in 1896, he argued squeezing foreign competitors behind a 50% wall of duties would make America richer and safer.

    That logic framed US trade debates for a generation, but it was always an economic device – not a geopolitical lever.

    In 2025, Donald Trump, now the 47th US president, slapped tariffs on most imported goods to the United States, specifically targeting Chinese imports.

    Yet, despite the fact he idolises McKinley, Trump’s emerging grand strategy looks less like his customs schedule and more like Richard Nixon’s “madman” diplomacy of the early 1970s.

    Trump is signalling that unpredictability, not price schedules, will coerce adversaries and reorder alliances.

    An image of irrational resolve

    McKinley’s 1890s tariffs nearly doubled average duties, shielding domestic manufacturers but doing little to shift the global balance of power.

    The lesson from these tariffs was straightforward: protectionism may enrich some sectors, but it rarely bends rivals’ strategic choices.

    Trump’s first term flirted with McKinley-inspired trade wars, industrial policy and “America First” rhetoric. His second term “strategic reset” moves onto darker, Nixonian ground.

    Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, cultivated an image of irrational resolve. They hinted they might do “anything”, even use nuclear weapons, to force concessions in Vietnam and alarm the Soviet politburo.

    Nixon’s White House chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, recalled the president demanding Moscow and Hanoi see him as a man “with his hand on the nuclear button”.

    The gambit dovetailed with a bold diplomatic inversion. By opening to Mao Zedong’s China, Nixon sought to isolate the Soviet Union.

    Trump’s ‘reverse Nixon’ efforts

    Half a century later, Trump appears to be running the tape backward.

    Rather than prying China from Russia, he is testing whether Moscow can be prised from Beijing.

    In early April, he imposed a blanket 54% tariff on Chinese goods – yet exempted Russia, Cuba and North Korea from the harshest duties.

    The White House has simultaneously floated selective sanctions relief for Moscow if Vladimir Putin shows “flexibility” on Ukraine.

    Trump’s boosters call the manoeuvre a “reverse Nixon”: befriend the weaker adversary to hem in the stronger.

    Al-Jazeera recently reported senior US officials and analysts believe deepening ties with Russia could splinter the Sino‑Russian axis that has unnerved US strategists for years.

    But Foreign Affairs warns that even if Washington dangled lavish incentives, Putin would “play Washington and Beijing off each other” rather than choose sides.

    Australia’s Strategic Policy Institute is blunter: the idea of splitting the pair is “a delusion”.

    Nor is the madman pose guaranteed to intimidate. Scholars note Nixon’s bluff worked only when coupled with painstaking back‑channel diplomacy; the façade of irrationality still required a coherent end‑game.

    Trump’s record of erratic statements on NATO, sudden tariff escalations and social media outbursts risks convincing adversaries that chaos is the message, not the method.

    Success would require discipline

    Yet, the strategic prize is real.

    A durable Sino‑Russian alignment forces Washington to split resources across two theatres, complicates sanctions enforcement, and gives Beijing access to Russian hydrocarbons and military technologies.

    Even a partial wedge – Moscow adopting neutrality in a potential Indo‑Pacific crisis, for instance – would lighten America’s load and disadvantage China.

    Can Trump craft a credible offer? Tariff exemptions and the hint of sanctions relief are carrots; resumed arms‑control talks and guarantees of Russian equities in a post‑war Ukraine settlement could sweeten the pot.

    The sticks are clear: escalating tariffs and technology bans on China, plus renewed US gas exports aimed at undercutting Sino‑Russian energy deals.

    The fact CIA Director John Ratcliffe called China the “top national security threat” in his confirmation hearings earlier this year – relegating Russia to a lesser threat – underscores the hierarchy.

    Still, success would require disciplined messaging and allied buy‑in, traits not often associated with madman theatrics.

    If European and Indo‑Pacific partners suspect Washington will mortgage Ukraine’s security or trade their markets for a fleeting Moscow détente, unity will fray.

    For Australia, the stakes are immense

    For Canberra, the calculus is stark.

    Australia’s primary challenge is a more assertive China, not a distant Russia.

    If Trump could drive even a hairline crack between Moscow and Beijing, the Indo‑Pacific balance would tilt in favour of the US and its allies.

    A Russia preoccupied with Europe or simply unwilling to share sensitive missile and space technologies would deprive China of critical enablers.

    Conversely, a bungled “reverse Nixon” strategy could embolden both autocracies.

    Should Putin benefit from US tariff exemptions and sanctions relief while deepening defence ties with Beijing — as recent drone and satellite deals suggest – Australia would face a sharper, more integrated adversarial bloc.

    The lesson, for Australia, is to hedge: continue deepening AUKUS technology sharing, accelerate long‑range strike acquisition, and tighten diplomatic coordination with Japan, India and ASEAN states.

    For Australia, perched on Asia’s faultline, the stakes are immense. A successful wedge would ease pressure on the “first‑island chain” – the chain of strategic islands that stretches from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia – and give Canberra precious strategic depth.

    A failed gambit risks confronting Australian forces with a tandem of nuclear‑armed revisionists (Russia and China) emboldened by US miscalculation.

    Ian Langford 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. To split Moscow from Beijing, Trump is reviving Nixon’s ‘madman diplomacy’. It could backfire badly – https://theconversation.com/to-split-moscow-from-beijing-trump-is-reviving-nixons-madman-diplomacy-it-could-backfire-badly-255878

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Some Reddit users just love to disagree, new AI-powered troll-spotting algorithm finds

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, Associate Professor in Behavioral Data Science, University of Technology Sydney

    ginger_polina_bublik/Shutterstock

    In today’s fractured online landscape, it is harder than ever to identify harmful actors such as trolls and misinformation spreaders.

    Often, efforts to spot malicious accounts focus on analysing what they say. However, our latest research suggests we should be paying more attention to what they do – and how they do it.

    We have developed a way to identify potentially harmful online actors based solely on their behavioural patterns – the way they interact with others – rather than the content they share. We presented our results at the recent ACM Web Conference, and were awarded Best Paper.

    Beyond looking at what people say

    Traditional approaches to spotting problematic online behaviour typically rely on two methods. One is to examine content (what people are saying). The other is to analyse network connections (who follows whom).

    These methods have limitations.

    Users can circumvent content analysis. They may code their language carefully, or share misleading information without using obvious trigger words.

    Network analysis falls short on platforms such as Reddit. Here, connections between users aren’t explicit. Communities are organised around topics rather than social relationships.

    We wanted to find a way to identify harmful actors that couldn’t be easily gamed. We realised we could, focusing on behaviour – how people interact, rather than what they say.

    Teaching AI to understand human behaviour online

    Our approach uses a technique called inverse reinforcement learning. This is a method typically used to understand human decision-making in fields such as autonomous driving or game theory.

    We adapted this technology to analyse how users behave on social media platforms.

    Behavioural analysis could help the fight against the growing problem of online misinformation.
    Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock

    The system works by observing a user’s actions, such as creating new threads, posting comments and replying to others. From those actions it infers the underlying strategy or “policy” that drives their behaviour.

    In our Reddit case study, we analysed 5.9 million interactions over six years. We identified five distinct behavioural personas, including one particularly notable group – “disagreers”.

    Meet the ‘disagreers’

    Perhaps our most striking result was finding an entire class of Reddit users whose primary purpose seems to be to disagree with others. These users specifically seek out opportunities to post contradictory comments, especially in response to disagreement, and then move on without waiting for replies.

    The “disagreers” were most common in politically-focused subreddits (forums focused on particular topics) such as r/news, r/worldnews, and r/politics. Interestingly, they were much less common in the now-banned pro-Trump forum r/The_Donald despite its political focus.

    This pattern reveals how behavioural analysis can uncover dynamics that content analysis might miss. In r/The_Donald, users tended to agree with each other while directing hostility toward outside targets. This dynamic may explain why traditional content moderation has struggled to address problems in such communities.

    Soccer fans and gamers

    Our research also revealed unexpected connections. Users discussing completely different topics sometimes displayed remarkably similar behavioural patterns.

    We found striking similarities between users discussing soccer (on r/soccer) and e-sports (on r/leagueoflegends).

    This similarity emerges from the fundamental nature of both communities. Soccer and e-sports fans engage in parallel ways: they passionately support specific teams, follow matches with intense interest, participate in heated discussions about strategies and player performances, celebrate victories, and dissect defeats.

    Despite their differences, fans of soccer and the online multiplayer battle game League of Legends behave in very similar ways online.
    Vasyl Shulga/Shutterstock

    Both communities foster strong tribal identities. Users defend their favoured teams while critiquing rivals.

    Whether debating Premier League tactics or League of Legends champions, the underlying interaction patterns – the timing, sequence and emotional tone of responses – remain consistent across these topically distinct communities.

    This challenges conventional wisdom about online polarisation. While echo chambers are often blamed for increasing division, our research suggests behavioural patterns can transcend topical boundaries. Users may be divided more by how they interact than what they discuss.

    Beyond troll detection

    The implications of this research extend well beyond academic interest. Platform moderators could use behavioural patterns to identify potentially problematic users before they’ve posted large volumes of harmful content.

    Unlike content moderation, behavioural analysis does not depend on understanding language. It is hard to evade, since changing one’s behavioural patterns requires more effort than adjusting language.

    The approach could also help design more effective strategies to counter misinformation. Rather than focusing solely on the content, we can design systems that encourage more constructive engagement patterns.

    For social media users, this research offers a reminder that how we engage online – not just what we say – shapes our digital identity and influences others.

    As online spaces continue to grapple with manipulation, harassment and polarisation, approaches that consider behavioural patterns alongside content analysis may offer more effective solutions for fostering healthier online communities.

    Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator, the Australian Department of Home Affairs, the Defence Innovation Network, and the National Science Centre, Poland.

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

    ref. Some Reddit users just love to disagree, new AI-powered troll-spotting algorithm finds – https://theconversation.com/some-reddit-users-just-love-to-disagree-new-ai-powered-troll-spotting-algorithm-finds-255879

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Brownley and House Natural Resources Democrats Reject Republicans’ Plan to Sacrifice our Public Lands, Waters and Wildlife for Billionaire Tax Cuts

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)

  • MIL-OSI Global: India-Pakistan: escalating conflict between two nuclear powers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    Once again, India and Pakistan are locked in conflict over Kashmir. A diplomatic crisis that started with a terrorist attack that killed 26 tourists, all but one of them Indian, became a fortnight of cross-border skirmishes and pugilistic posturing from New Delhi and Islamabad. India responded on May 7 with Operation Sindoor, a series of airstrikes apparently aimed at what India said were terrorist training camps, in which at least 31 people were reportedly killed. Pakistan has vowed revenge and launched its own deadly attacks. And so an old emnity is rekindled.

    India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads over Kashmir virtually since partition in 1947. Its mixed population, its geography and, importantly, its history as what was known as a “princely state”, virtually guaranteed it. Princely states, which were not administered by the British Raj were given the choice of joining either independent India or the newly created Pakistan. Kashmir, ruled over by the Hindu maharaja Hari Singh, eventually joined India.

    Hari Singh reportedly did so with some misgivings. The state he ruled over had a majority population of Muslims. But when the first conflict broke out at the end of 1947, with an invasion by Pakistani tribesmen looking to take control of Kashmir, he called on India for assistance and signed a deal temporarily incorporating the state into India pending a plebiscite – which never took place.

    The first India-Pakistan war ended in 1949 with a UN-mandated ceasefire. A border was drawn through the state giving India roughly two-thirds control over Jammu and Kashmir, with Pakistan controlling the other third. Both sides have claimed the whole territory ever since.

    Violence has broken out periodically in the intervening decades, characterised since the 1980s by insurgencies, which India routinely accuses Pakistan of backing – an accusation which Pakistan routinely denies. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) have carried out terror attacks in both Kashmir and India, including LeT’s 2008 Mumbai massacre in which 166 people were killed.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    Now the situation which the rest of the world has worried about for years, a conflict between two neighbouring nuclear armed powers, has begun to escalate with fears it might spiral out of control. Natasha Lindsteadt, an expert in international security, takes a look at the military – and nuclear– capabilities and policies of the two countries.

    She writes that India has a far larger military (it’s ranked as one of the world’s top five military nations by Military Watch magazine, with Pakistan ranked ninth). The two countries have a roughly comparable nuclear arsenal. But while India has a “no first use” policy, Pakistan has never committed itself in this way, arguing it needs its nuclear arsenal to counter India’s larger conventional forces.

    But even a small nuclear exchange between the two could kill more than 20 million people, writes Lindsteadt.




    Read more:
    Why are India and Pakistan on the brink of war and how dangerous is the situation? An expert explains


    Part of the problem seems to be a complete lack of communications at the highest level. US president, Donald Trump, initially appeared reluctant to get involved, saying that he is “sure they’ll figure it out one way or the other … There’s great tension between Pakistan and India, but there always has been.” He is since reported to have offered to step in, an offer apparently politely rejected by New Delhi.

    “What is needed now is robust, real-time crisis communication between the two nations,” write security experts Syed Ali Zia Jaffery of the University of Lahore and Nicholas Wheeler of the University of Birmingham. The problem is that there is no mechanism for that.

    And as we know from the Cuban missile crisis, when the US and Soviet Union came very close to a nuclear exchange, it’s all too easy for mistakes to be made which could escalate a conflict between two nuclear powers into a conflagration.

    After that crisis, the two leaders involved, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev, set up a communications link (which became known as the “hotline”) to enable direct communications. As Jaffery and Wheeler point out, this served to keep the rival powers from further dangerous confrontation (it even helped in bringing about arms treaties when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Mikhail Gorbachev was in the Kremlin.




    Read more:
    Why a hotline is needed to help bring India and Pakistan back from the brink of a disastrous war


    For a deeper dive into the crisis and the long history of conflict between India and Pakistan, here are five essential reads, carefully curated for you by my colleague Matt Williams, senior international editor at The Conversation in the US.




    Read more:
    India-Pakistan strikes: 5 essential reads on decades of rivalry and tensions over Kashmir


    Netanyahu’s Gaza plan

    In the Middle East, meanwhile, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are planning to move in large numbers into Gaza with a plan to occupy the whole of the territory. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has described the move as a “forceful operation” which will destroy Hamas and rescue its remaining hostages. The remaining population of 2.1 million Palestinian civilians will be moved “to proect it”.

    With more than 50,000 people dead in Gaza since the conflict began in October 2023, you have to say Israel’s attempts to protect civilians have been decidedly unsuccessful.

    Leonie Fleischmann, senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, sees this as Israel’s next step towards clearing Gaza of Palestinians, something she says Netanyahu’s far-right enablers have been pushing for all along. But she also sees parallels with what is happening in the West Bank, where Israel is gradually annexing land occupied by Palestinians and mandated by the Oslo accords of the 1990s as part of a future Palestinian state.

    The recent Louis Theroux documentary film showed the terrible circumstances under which Palestinians live on the West Bank, juxtaposing that with the determination of extreme Zionists to take over what they see as the land of their forefathers.

    Fleischmann notes that this week, Israeli cabinet minister Bezalel Smotrich approved plans for construction on land in an area which, if given to settlers, would effectively cut the West Bank in two. This would, she says, “bury any remaining hope for a two-state solution”. Rather chillingly, Smotrich is quoted as saying: “This is how you kill the Palestinian state.”




    Read more:
    Israeli plan to occupy all of Gaza could open the door for annexation of the West Bank


    Where would Palestinians go under Netanyahu’s plan? Well, if the Israeli prime minister shares Donald Trump’s vision of redeveloping Gaza as some sort of Middle Eastern “riviera”, they’d be dispersed into countries such as Egypt and Jordan.

    This idea is a non-starter, writes Scott Lucas of University College Dublin. Lucas, a Middle East expert who has written regularly for us about Israel and Gaza and answered our questions about the situation. He says Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has definitively ruled out accepting a mass exodus of Palestinians via the Rafah crossing at Gaza’s southern end. And Jordan is equally unwilling to accept any more Palestinian refugees. Apart from anything else, it already has about 3 million.

    As Lucas writes: “Any Arab government that takes in Gazans, even amid a humanitarian crisis, would be tacitly burying the idea of a Palestinian state. That would break a 77-year-old principle and resurrect the Nakba – the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948.”

    Israel is unlikely to get much international support for such a move either, Lucas adds. Donald Trump is preoccupied with other things and, even if he weren’t, the rest of the international community would hardly stand for what would probably be seen as an act of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.




    Read more:
    What does Netanyahu’s plan for ‘conquering’ Gaza mean for Israel, Palestine and their neighbours? Expert Q&A


    But what do ordinary Israelis think of their government’s plans for Gaza? For most Israelis the paramount factor is their security. So far the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza had enjoyed majority suppport for that reason and in the hope that somehow the conflict might lead to getting the remaining hostages home.

    But the latest plan to take Gaza completely could scupper any hope of repatriating the hostages. And there are signs that many Israelis are getting tired of the constant crisis and conflict. There appears to be a growing appetite for peace.

    Or so writes Yuval Katz of Loughborough University, who grew up in Israel but left eight years ago to pursue an academic career. He was recently home for the first time in two years and spent time contacting peace groups. Here is what he found.




    Read more:
    Israel’s peace movement offers a ray of hope amid the pain of Gaza conflict


    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. India-Pakistan: escalating conflict between two nuclear powers – https://theconversation.com/india-pakistan-escalating-conflict-between-two-nuclear-powers-256277

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Tenney Attends Event at White House to Celebrate Military Mothers

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

    Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today joined President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump at the White House for a celebration of Military Mothers. 

    Rep Tenney is the mother of U.S. Naval Academy graduate Trey Cleary, who is an active-duty Major in the U.S. Marine Corps.

    “Thank you to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for welcoming military mothers to the White House today. It is encouraging to see this administration’s strong support for our military and their families, recognizing their sacrifices and ensuring they receive the respect and resources they deserve. As the mother of an active-duty Marine, it is a true honor to stand among so many who share that bond. I am deeply grateful for my son, Trey, and his service to our country,” said Congresswoman Tenney. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Four sentenced in $110 million-dollar kickback conspiracy

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    McALLEN, Texas – Multiple people have been sentenced for their roles in a conspiracy to pay kickbacks in exchange for prescription referrals, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    John Ageudo Rodriguez, 55, Mohammad Imtiaz Chowdhury, 44, and Hector de la Cruz Jr., 54, all of Edinburg, and Alex Flores Jr., 55, McAllen, had all previously pleaded guilty.

    U.S. District Judge Randy Crane has now ordered Rodriguez to serve 60 months in federal prison. De La Cruz and Flores were sentenced to 46 months while Chowdhury received a 30-month-term of imprisonment. All must also serve three years of supervised release following completion of their sentences.  

    Rodriguez, a former licensed pharmacist, owned and operated Pharr Family Pharmacy. He conspired with several “marketers” – including Chowdhury, De La Cruz and Flores – to pay kickbacks to medical providers who referred prescriptions to his pharmacy. Rodriguez then billed various benefit programs, including the Department of Labor, TRICARE and Medicare, for millions of dollars in claims. From 2014 to 2016, his pharmacy submitted more than $110 million in claims to federal health care programs for compound drugs.

    “Illegal kickbacks are the engine that drives health care fraud,” said Ganjei. “Our office will aggressively pursue fraud, waste, and abuse that cost taxpayers millions, if not billions, every year.”

    All were permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

    The U.S. Postal Service-Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Labor-OIG, FBI, Department of Defense-Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Department of Veteran Affairs-OIG, Department of Health and Human Services-OIG and Texas Health and Human Services-OIG conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Swartz prosecuted the case.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: 05.08.2025 Sens. Cruz, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Support Veterans Pursuing Aviation Careers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Texas Ted Cruz

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) introduced theAuthorizing Vocational and Instructional Aviation Training for Eligible Veterans Act to allow eligible veterans to use their Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) benefits for non-degree flight training programs expanding opportunities for veterans pursuing commercial aviation careers.
    Sen. Cruz said, “One of the biggest challenges I hear about from veterans in Texas is finding meaningful employment after retiring from active-duty military service. This legislation empowers those who have defended our country by enabling them to pursue commercial aviation careers.”
    Sen. Sheehy said, “As a former Navy SEAL and aviator who created many successful aviation careers for veterans at the aerial firefighting business we started, I’m proud to support veterans getting the training they need to thrive. Veterans know how to work as a team and accomplish the mission, and this bill will help us fill critical aviation workforce shortages and equip veterans with skills needed to prosper in good-paying careers.”
    Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Rep Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.-23).
    Read the full text of the bill here.
    BACKGROUND
    Current law prohibits using VR&E benefits for flight training unless offered through a degree-granting institution. This restriction limits opportunities for veterans who wish to pursue aviation careers through FAA-certified flight schools that do not offer traditional degree programs.
    The AVIATE act will: 

    Authorize the VA Secretary to approve non-degree flight training programs under the VR&E program. 
     Provide parity between Chapter 31 (VR&E) and Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) for aviation training. 
     Expand access to FAA-certified flight schools not affiliated with degree-granting institutions. 

    MIL OSI USA News