NewzIntel.com

Category: Natural Disasters

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: ‘Completely unexpected’: Antarctic sea ice may be in terminal decline due to rising Southern Ocean salinity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alessandro Silvano, NERC Independent Research Fellow in Oceanography, University of Southampton

    Adélie penguins rely on Antarctic sea ice for habitat. Nick Dale Photo/Shutterstock

    The ocean around Antarctica is rapidly getting saltier at the same time as sea ice is retreating at a record pace. Since 2015, the frozen continent has lost sea ice similar to the size of Greenland. That ice hasn’t returned, marking the largest global environmental change during the past decade.

    This finding caught us off guard – melting ice typically makes the ocean fresher. But new satellite data shows the opposite is happening, and that’s a big problem. Saltier water at the ocean surface behaves differently than fresher seawater by drawing up heat from the deep ocean and making it harder for sea ice to regrow.

    The loss of Antarctic sea ice has global consequences. Less sea ice means less habitat for penguins and other ice-dwelling species. More of the heat stored in the ocean is released into the atmosphere when ice melts, increasing the number and intensity of storms and accelerating global warming. This brings heatwaves on land and melts even more of the Antarctic ice sheet, which raises sea levels globally.

    Our new study has revealed that the Southern Ocean is changing, but in a different way to what we expected. We may have passed a tipping point and entered a new state defined by persistent sea ice decline, sustained by a newly discovered feedback loop.

    The Southern Ocean surrounds Antarctica, which is fringed by sea ice.
    Nasa

    A surprising discovery

    Monitoring the Southern Ocean is no small task. It’s one of the most remote and stormy places on Earth, and is covered in darkness for several months a year. Thanks to new European Space Agency satellites and underwater robots which stay below the ocean surface measuring temperature and salinity, we can now observe what is happening in real time.

    Our team at the University of Southampton worked with colleagues at the Barcelona Expert Centre and the European Space Agency to develop new algorithms to track ocean surface conditions in polar regions from satellites. By combining satellite observations with data from underwater robots, we built a 15-year picture of changes in ocean salinity, temperature and sea ice.

    What we found was astonishing. Around 2015, surface salinity in the Southern Ocean began rising sharply – just as sea ice extent started to crash. This reversal was completely unexpected. For decades, the surface had been getting fresher and colder, helping sea ice expand.

    The annual summer minimum extent of Antarctic sea ice dropped precipitously in 2015.
    NOAA Climate.gov/National Snow and Ice Data Center

    To understand why this matters, it helps to think of the Southern Ocean as a series of layers. Normally, the cold, fresh surface water sits on top of warmer, saltier water deep below. This layering (or stratification, as scientists call it) traps heat in the ocean depths, keeping surface waters cool and helping sea ice to form.

    Saltier water is denser and therefore heavier. So, when surface waters become saltier, they sink more readily, stirring the ocean’s layers and allowing heat from the deep to rise. This upward heat flux can melt sea ice from below, even during winter, making it harder for ice to reform. This vertical circulation also draws up more salt from deeper layers, reinforcing the cycle.

    A powerful feedback loop is created: more salinity brings more heat to the surface, which melts more ice, which then allows more heat to be absorbed from the Sun. My colleagues and I saw these processes first hand in 2016-2017 with the return of the Maud Rise polynya, which is a gaping hole in the sea ice that is nearly four times the size of Wales and last appeared in the 1970s.

    What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay there

    Losing Antarctic sea ice is a planetary problem. Sea ice acts like a giant mirror reflecting sunlight back into space. Without it, more energy stays in the Earth system, speeding up global warming, intensifying storms and driving sea level rise in coastal cities worldwide.

    Wildlife also suffers. Emperor penguins rely on sea ice to breed and raise their chicks. Tiny krill – shrimp-like crustaceans which form the foundation of the Antarctic food chain as food for whales and seals – feed on algae that grow beneath the ice. Without that ice, entire ecosystems start to unravel.

    What’s happening at the bottom of the world is rippling outward, reshaping weather systems, ocean currents and life on land and sea.

    Feedback loops are accelerating the loss of Antarctic sea ice.
    University of Southampton

    Antarctica is no longer the stable, frozen continent we once believed it to be. It is changing rapidly, and in ways that current climate models didn’t foresee. Until recently, those models assumed a warming world would increase precipitation and ice-melting, freshening surface waters and helping keep Antarctic sea ice relatively stable. That assumption no longer holds.

    Our findings show that the salinity of surface water is rising, the ocean’s layered structure is breaking down and sea ice is declining faster than expected. If we don’t update our scientific models, we risk being caught off guard by changes we could have prepared for. Indeed, the ultimate driver of the 2015 salinity increase remains uncertain, underscoring the need for scientists to revise their perspective on the Antarctic system and highlighting the urgency of further research.

    We need to keep watching, yet ongoing satellite and ocean monitoring is threatened by funding cuts. This research offers us an early warning signal, a planetary thermometer and a strategic tool for tracking a rapidly shifting climate. Without accurate, continuous data, it will be impossible to adapt to the changes in store.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Alessandro Silvano is a Natural Environment Research Council (United Kingdom Research and Innovation) Independent Research Fellow.

    – ref. ‘Completely unexpected’: Antarctic sea ice may be in terminal decline due to rising Southern Ocean salinity – https://theconversation.com/completely-unexpected-antarctic-sea-ice-may-be-in-terminal-decline-due-to-rising-southern-ocean-salinity-259743

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Urban food gardens produce more than vegetables, they create bonds for young Capetonians – study

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tinashe P. Kanosvamhira, Post-doctoral researcher, African Centre for Cities, University of Cape Town

    Urban farms like this one in Nouakchott, Mauritania, have many benefits. John Wessels/AFP via Getty Images)

    Urban agriculture takes many forms, among them community, school or rooftop gardens, commercial urban farms, and hydroponic or aquaponic systems. These activities have been shown to promote sustainable cities in a number of ways. They enhance local food security and foster economic opportunities through small-scale farming initiatives. They also strengthen social cohesion by creating shared spaces for collaboration and learning.

    However, evidence from some African countries (and other parts of the world) shows that very few young people are getting involved in agriculture, whether in urban, peri-urban or rural areas. Studies from Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Nigeria show that people aged between 15 and 34 have very little interest in agriculture, whether as an educational pathway or career. They perceive farming as physically demanding, low-paying and lacking in prestige. Systemic barriers like limited access to land, capital and skills also hold young people back.

    South Africa has a higher rate of young people engaging in farming (24%) than elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this number could be higher if young people better understood the benefits of a career in farming and if they had more support.

    In a recent study I explored youth-driven urban agriculture in Khayelitsha, a large urban area outside Cape Town whose residents are mostly Black, low-income earners.

    The young urban farmers I interviewed are using community gardens to grow more than vegetables. They’re also nurturing social connections, creating economic and business opportunities, and promoting environmental conservation. My findings highlight the transformative potential of youth-driven urban agriculture and how it can be a multifaceted response to urban challenges. It’s crucial that policy makers recognise the value of youth-led urban agriculture and support those doing the work.

    The research

    Khayelitsha is vibrant and bustling. But its approximately 400,000 residents have limited resources and often struggle to make a living.

    I interviewed members of two youth-led gardens. One has just two members; the other has six. All my interviewees were aged between 22 and 27. The relatively low number of interviewees is typical of qualitative research, where the emphasis is placed on depth rather than breadth. This approach allows researchers to obtain detailed, context-rich data from a small, focused group of participants.

    The first garden was founded in January 2020, just a few months before the pandemic struck. The founders wanted to tackle unemployment and food insecurity in their community. They hoped to create jobs for themselves and others, and to provide nutritional support, particularly for vulnerable groups like children with special needs.

    The second garden was established in 2014 by three childhood friends. They were inspired by one founder’s grandmother, who loved gardening. They also wanted to promote organic farming, teach people healthy eating habits, and create a self-reliant community.

    All of my interviewees were activists for food justice. This refers to efforts aimed at addressing systemic inequities in food production, distribution, and access, particularly for marginalised communities. It advocates for equitable access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food.

    One of the gardens, for instance, operates about 30 beds. It cultivates a variety of produce: beetroot, carrots, spinach, pumpkins, potatoes, radishes, peas, lettuce and herbs. 30% of its produce is donated to local community centres each month (they were unable to say how many people benefited from this arrangement). The rest is sold to support the garden financially. Its paying clients include local restaurants and chefs, and members of the community. The garden also partners with schools, hospitals and other organisations to promote healthy eating and sustainable practices.

    The second garden, which is on land belonging to a local early childhood development centre, also focuses on feeding the community, as well as engaging in food justice activism.

    Skills, resilience and connections

    The gardens also help members to develop skills. Members gain practical knowledge about sustainable agriculture, marketing and entrepreneurship, all while managing operations and planning for growth.



    Read more:
    Healthy food is hard to come by in Cape Town’s poorer areas: how community gardens can fix that

    This hands-on experience instils a sense of responsibility and gives participants valuable skills they can apply in future careers or ventures. The founder of the first garden told me his skills empowered him to seek help from his own community rather than waiting for government intervention. He approached the management of an early childhood development centre in the community to request space on their land, and this was granted.

    Social connections have been essential to the gardens’ success. Bonding capital (close ties within their networks) and bridging capital (connections beyond their immediate community) has allowed them to strengthen relationships between themselves and civil society organisations. They’ve also been able to mobilise resources, as in the case of the first garden accessing community land.

    Additionally, the gardens foster community resilience. Members host workshops and events to educate residents about healthy eating, sustainable farming and environmental stewardship.

    By donating produce to local early childhood centres, they provide direct benefits to those most in need. These efforts have transformed the gardens into safe spaces for the community.

    Broader collaboration has also been key to the gardens’ success. For instance, the second garden has worked with global organisations and networks, like the Slow Food Youth Network, to share and gain knowledge about sustainable farming practices.

    Room for growth

    My findings highlight the need for targeted support for youth-driven urban agriculture initiatives. Policy and financial backing can enable these young gardeners to expand their efforts. This in turn will allow them to provide more food to their communities, create additional jobs, and empower more young people.

    At a policy level, the government could prioritise land access for urban agriculture projects, especially in under-served communities. Cities can foster an environment for youth initiatives to thrive by allocating spaces within their planning for urban farming.



    Read more:
    Africa’s megacities threatened by heat, floods and disease – urgent action is needed to start greening and adapt to climate change

    There’s also a need for educational programmes that emphasise the value of sustainable urban agriculture, and workshops and training on entrepreneurship and sustainable farming techniques. Community organising could further empower young farmers. Finally, continued collaboration with national and international food networks would help strengthen such initiatives.

    Tinashe P. Kanosvamhira 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. Urban food gardens produce more than vegetables, they create bonds for young Capetonians – study – https://theconversation.com/urban-food-gardens-produce-more-than-vegetables-they-create-bonds-for-young-capetonians-study-243500

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Food security in Africa: managing water will be vital in a rapidly growing region

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Christian Siderius, Senior researcher in water and food security, London School of Economics and Political Science

    Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is growing at 2.7% per year and is expected to reach two billion by the year 2050. The region’s urban population is growing even faster: it was at 533 million in 2023, a 3.85% increase from 2022.

    The need to feed this population will put pressure on land and water resources.

    I’m part of a group of researchers who have looked at whether regional food production would be sufficient to supply growing urban populations. By and large, we have found high levels of food self-sufficiency. But climate change could put a spanner in the works.

    We have also looked at the potential of local water conservation measures to help achieve food self-sufficiency in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Our study shows that measures such as better irrigation or water harvesting could boost food production while buffering the vagaries of weather.

    We found that ambitious – yet realistic – adoption of such measures increases food supply to cities and makes the region as a whole self-sufficient.

    A new model

    In large parts of eastern Africa, rainfall is relatively abundant and well distributed over the growing season, resulting in good yields. In future, however, the gap between water availability and crop water demand is expected to increase.

    We wanted to know whether sub-Saharan Africa would be able to increase its food production to meet future demand, in a changing climate. To do so, we built a novel foodshed model which simulates crop production using climate data and links urban demand to nearby food supply. Foodsheds have been defined as areas where supply matches demand. We assessed various water management measures that could buffer weather variability or increase production (or both). Understanding the potential of such measures can help mobilise and target much needed investments in Africa’s food system.

    Conserving water and growing more food

    First, we looked at whether regional food production was sufficient to supply growing urban populations.

    Combining large databases and crop simulations, we outlined the regions that food might come from for urban areas. Sub-Saharan Africa produces 85% of its overall crop food demand at present, according to our calculations, much of it in eastern Africa. Tanzania, Kenya, and even Uganda – if it were to use its food exports for domestic consumption – come close to being self-sufficient.

    Local exceptions are the large cities of Mombasa, the largest port city in Kenya, and Arusha, an important tourism and diplomatic and conference hub in Tanzania, and their immediate surroundings.

    In future, a larger population will demand more food. At the same time, the gap between how much water is available and how much crops need is expected to increase. Higher water losses due to higher temperatures will not be fully compensated for by changes in rainfall, according to climate model projections. And even where rainfall is projected to increase, more extreme events are likely to affect crop production. It might rain either too much or too little, which will lead to higher year-to-year variability.

    Our study shows that local water conservation measures could buffer some of the projected negative impacts of climate change in eastern Africa. It could also boost food production.

    Water harvesting, soil conservation and making sure water infiltrates in the soil would slow runoff and store more water in the soil.

    Irrigation systems should be gradually upgraded to drip irrigation or sprinklers. This will improve irrigation efficiency and water consumption. On rainfed areas, rainwater harvesting reservoirs should be installed. The water stored could be used for supplemental irrigation during dry periods. Soil moisture conservation measures will also be applied. These measures will prevent water from evaporating from the bare soil. Irrigation could offset occasional drought risk and so provide better financial stability or create possibilities for planting a different or a second or third crop, further increasing production and income.

    Even the foodsheds of rapidly growing cities such as Dar es Salaam in Tanzania will be able to supply enough to meet demand from relatively short distances.

    Large scale expansion of irrigation onto new lands should, however, be considered carefully. Potential trade-offs with energy and tourism incomes must equally be considered.

    In an earlier study, assessing Tanzania’s ambitious formal irrigation expansion plans, we found that expansion without water conservation measures would pose considerable risk to hydropower production in the new Julius Nyerere Hydropower Project. It would also be a risk to river-dependent ecosystems and national parks and the substantial tourism income that they generate.



    Read more:
    Kenya needs to grow more food: a focus on how to irrigate its vast dry areas is key

    Why our findings matter

    Producing more food in Africa is essential to keep pace with population growth and changing diets. The alternative is an increasing dependence on imports from outside the continent. In 2021, the total value of Africa’s food imports was roughly US$100 billion. Imports can be a useful supplement to local production, but major food exporters in Europe and America are already producing at peak productivity. They have limited scope to increase area and production.

    Security concerns around global supply chains in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and broader geo-political realignment have also made countries wary of relying too much on others.

    Our study confirms the potential of Africa to supply much of the increased demand for food within the continent. We looked at all food crops, including regionally important ones such as cassava, beans and millet. Countries in eastern Africa play a pivotal role.

    Improved productivity due to measures proposed would reduce the need for more land elsewhere to grow crops, and limit conflicts related to land use. This is equally important for biodiversity and tourism.



    Read more:
    Diet and nutrition: how well Tanzanians eat depends largely on where they live

    Looking forward

    What we propose requires large investments. Exploring these costs against benefits in a case study in the Rufiji basin in Tanzania we found that most water management measures would be cost effective, but only when considering the overall impact of water conservation on agriculture, hydropower production, and the riverine ecosystem.

    Not all farmers will be able to finance these measures themselves. The government and private sector have to provide incentives, reduce risks and increase access to affordable loans.

    Nor should these measures be taken in isolation. Other buffer mechanisms to support a stable food supply are increased storage facilities for food, diversified production, and stable and diversified trade relationships.
    With farmers innovating, the region’s infrastructure rapidly developing, and expanding urban areas becoming catalysts for growth, there is both the need and the scope to further invest in and improve the region’s food system.

    Christian Siderius received funding to conduct this research from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) for the Future Water Challenges project (E555182DA/5200000978/9) and in preparation of the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit. Other cited work was carried out under the Future Climate for Africa UMFULA project with financial support from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (grants NE/M020398/1 and NE/M020258) and the UK government’s former
    Department for International Development.

    Christian is a director and founder of Uncharted Waters Ltd, a not-for-profit climate-food system analytics company, and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute of the London School of Economics and Political Science in the United Kingdom, and Visiting Senior Researcher the Water Resources Management group at Wageningen University in the Netherlands

    – ref. Food security in Africa: managing water will be vital in a rapidly growing region – https://theconversation.com/food-security-in-africa-managing-water-will-be-vital-in-a-rapidly-growing-region-241281

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Industrial scale farming is flawed: what ecologically-friendly farming practices could look like in Africa

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rachel Wynberg, Professor and DST/NRF Bio-economy Research Chair, University of Cape Town

    African Perspectives on Agroecology is a new book with 33 contributions from academics, non-governmental organisations, farmer organisations and policy makers. It is free to download, and reviewers have described it as a “must read for all who care about the future of Africa and its people”. The book outlines how agroecology, which brings ecological principles into farming practices and food systems, can solve food shortages and environmental damage caused by mass, commercial farming. We asked the book’s editor and the South African Research Chair on Environmental and Social Dimensions of the Bio-economy, Rachel Wynberg, to set out why this book is so important.

    What’s wrong with the current system of food production?

    The dominant model of modern agriculture in the world is based on monoculture, where one crop is grown across large areas using chemical fertilisers and pesticides. It relies on seeds that are owned by big corporations and are often subsidised by governments at a high cost.

    The book outlines how this approach to growing food is flawed. Firstly, it carries major costs. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s State of Food and Agriculture 2024 report, the costs of diet-related disease, hunger and malnutrition and other costs amount to about US$8 trillion a year. Countries in the global south carry much of the burden.

    Secondly, the current approach is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This happens through deforestation and land degradation, livestock and fertiliser emissions, energy use, and the globalised nature of agriculture. Food is often produced far from where it is consumed.

    Huge farmlands also wipe out biodiversity and degrade one third of all soils, globally. Industrial agriculture has many negative impacts on ecosystem health, livestock and human wellbeing.

    What’s the alternative?

    Agroecology is a good alternative. It uses natural processes such as fixing nitrogen in the soil by planting legumes, and conserving natural habitat to encourage beneficial predators that keep pests in check. It includes planting a diversity of crops, rather than just one, to prevent pest outbreaks, and avoiding synthetic pesticides and herbicides.

    Agroecology places importance on building natural, local, economically viable and socially just food systems. It aims to support farmers and rural communities.



    Read more:
    Africa’s worsening food crisis – it’s time for an agricultural revolution

    As a result, it fosters more equal social relations and improves food and nutritional security.

    Agroecology also recognises local ways of knowing and doing things, and respects the rights of Indigenous people to seeds and plants that they have planted for many generations. Transforming research and education are an important part of agroecology.

    What are the advantages?

    Agroecology increases the capacity of farming systems to adapt to climate change. Studies show how agroecology increases crop yields, regulates water and nutrients, increases agricultural diversity and reduces pests.

    It gives farmers more choice about what to grow and eat. This enables them to produce a wider variety of healthy food.

    Can agroecology grow enough food for everyone?

    Agroecology can be scaled up through:

    • farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchanges

    • creating professional networks of agroecology practitioners

    • local seed-saving networks or groups that share different seeds that are adapted to local conditions



    Read more:
    Indigenous plants and food security: a South African case study

    • solidarity networks: community-based groups or movements that aim to support each other, cooperate and take collective action.

    • the revival and use of indigenous and under-utilised crops and livestock breeds such as pearl and finger millet, sorghum and Nguni cattle

    • linking producers with consumers and markets.

    What needs to be done?

    Urgent actions are needed, especially in the climate “hotspot” of sub-Saharan Africa. Agroecology needs supportive policies and funding. South Africa has had a draft agroecology strategy for more than 10 years but this has not yet been adopted.

    Development aid for farmers often undermines agroecology. It typically promotes a “new” African Green Revolution that uses hybrid seeds, agrochemicals, new technologies, and links to markets. However, hybrid seed, especially genetically modified seed, can contaminate local seed systems that are better adapted to local conditions.

    The book illustrates what can go wrong. Maize is said to have “modernised” development and promoted foreign investment in Africa. But it has displaced indigenous crops such as sorghum and millet which are more nutritious and drought-resistant.



    Read more:
    Amazing ting: South Africa must reinvigorate sorghum as a key food before it’s lost

    Subsidy programmes and state support for hybrid maize also back multinational agrochemical and seed companies.

    Governments, industry and those funding research, innovation and consumer marketing must actively move away from a maize culture and invest in a bigger range of crops.

    For millions of smallholder African farmers, there is a deep understanding of how animals, plants, soil, people and weather patterns are connected to and affect one another. Agricultural development programmes, chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and herbicides, and genetically modified seeds disrupt these relationships. They can devalue local knowledge and skills in favour of “expert”-led innovations. This means that farmers lose their capacity to understand their environment and their ability to react appropriately.



    Read more:
    Agriculture training in South Africa badly needs an overhaul. Here are some ideas

    Lastly, agriculture research and training needs to be rethought. Research and development is now mostly shaped by market-led approaches that favour crops grown by large-scale commercial farmers. A public sector research and development agenda for agroecology needs to be developed. It should be based both on scientific knowledge as well as traditional and local knowledge.

    What would help?

    Agricultural research should be co-created by everyone involved. Farmer-led research and innovation can support food system transformations.

    New ways of seeing and doing research are evolving. Western scientific and traditional knowledges are mixing in ways that can transform farming. Our book points out that social movements are emerging as a powerful force for change.

    We hope to support these efforts through a new, four year, European Union supported initiative to establish a research and training network: the Research for Agroecology Network in Southern Africa. New agroecology knowledge networks in South Africa and Zimbabwe have also been started to coordinate research and develop curricula.

    Rachel Wynberg’s research is supported by a grant from the Seed and Knowledge Initiative and South Africa’s National Research Foundation. She is a Board member of the NGO Biowatch South Africa.

    – ref. Industrial scale farming is flawed: what ecologically-friendly farming practices could look like in Africa – https://theconversation.com/industrial-scale-farming-is-flawed-what-ecologically-friendly-farming-practices-could-look-like-in-africa-245579

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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


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

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

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

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



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

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

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

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

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

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



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

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

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

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Cyberattacks: how companies can communicate effectively after being hit

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Paolo Antonetti, Professeur, EDHEC Business School

    In its latest annual publication, insurance group Hiscox surveyed more than 2,000 cybersecurity managers in eight countries including France. Two thirds of the companies in the survey reported having been the victim of a cyberattack between mid-August 2023 and September 2024, a 15% increase over the previous period. In terms of potential financial losses, Statista estimated that cyberattacks cost France up to €122 billion in 2024, compared to €89 in 2023 – a 37% rise.


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

    The main forms of cyberattacks on French businesses, the recommendations for how companies can protect themselves, and the technical and legal responses they can adopt are well documented.

    However, much less is known about appropriate communications and public relations responses to cyberattacks. The issues at stake are critical. When a company is the target of a cyberattack, should it systematically accept responsibility, or can it instead claim to be a victim to protect its reputation? A wrong answer can aggravate the situation and undermine the confidence of customers and investors.

    Positioning as a victim

    Our recent research questions the assumption that accepting causal responsibility should be the norm after a cyberattack: we show that positioning oneself as a victim can be more effective in limiting damage to one’s image – provided claims of victimhood are deployed intelligently.

    There is evidence that firms need a strategy to present themselves effectively as victims of cybercriminals. Some firms, such as T-Mobile and Equifax, have in the past paid compensation to consumers while refusing to accept any responsibility, essentially presenting themselves as victims.

    Similarly, the large French telecommunications operator Free presented itself as a victim when communicating about the large-scale cyberattack that affected its operations last October, which may have had an impact on its image. The UK’s TalkTalk initially framed itself as a victim of a cybercrime but was later criticized for its inadequate security measures.

    Victimhood and sympathy

    Clumsily declaring itself as the sole entity to blame or the sole victim of a cyberattack – which is what interests us here – can be risky and backfire on a company, damaging its credibility rather than protecting its reputation.

    When companies present themselves as victims of cybercrime, they can elicit sympathy from stakeholders. People tend to be more compassionate toward businesses that depict themselves as wronged rather than those that deny responsibility or shift blame. In essence, this strategy frames the organization as a target of external forces beyond its control, rather than as negligent or incompetent. It leverages a fundamental social norm – people’s instinctive tendency to support those they see as victims.

    But claims of victimhood must align with public expectations and the specific context of the breach. They should not be about shirking responsibility, but about acknowledging harm in a way that fosters understanding and trust. The following approaches and choices can help.

    • align with public perception

    The reactions of stakeholders often depend on their understanding of the situation. If the attack is perceived as an external and malicious act, it is crucial for a company to adopt a consistent stance by emphasizing that it itself has been a victim. But if internal negligence is proven, claiming victim status could be counterproductive. The swiftness of a company’s response, the level of transparency and the relative stance taken are all part of a good strategy.

    • express support for stakeholders

    Adopting a position of victimhood does not mean denying all responsibility or minimizing the consequences of an attack. The company must show that it takes the situation seriously by expressing empathy and commitment to affected stakeholders. It must pay particular attention to those affected inside the organization: a claim of victimhood should be part of an apology or a message expressing concern. An effective message must be sincere and oriented toward concrete solutions.

    • consider reputation

    We find that it is easier for companies to claim victimhood persuasively if they are perceived as virtuous. This reputation can be due to a positive track record in terms of corporate social responsibility or because they are a not-for-profit institution (e.g. a library, a university or a hospital). Virtuous victims generate sympathy and empathy, and this is also reflected after a cyberattack.

    • highlight the harmfulness and sophistication of the attack

    The results of our study also show that public acceptance of victim status is more effective when the cyberattack is perceived to be the work of highly competent malicious actors. It is also important for a company to persuade the public that the attack harmed the company, while keeping the main focus of the response on the public.

    • don’t complain

    It is essential to distinguish between legitimate claims of victim status and communication that could be perceived as an attempt to exonerate oneself. An overly plaintive tone could undermine a company’s credibility. The approach should be factual and constructive, focusing on the measures taken to overcome the crisis.

    • test reactions before communicating widely

    Companies’ responses to a cyberattack can vary depending on the context and the public. It is best to assess different approaches before embarking on large-scale communication. This can be done through internal tests, focus groups or targeted surveys. Subtle differences in the situation can cause important shifts in how the public perceives the breach and what the best response might be.

    Our study sheds light on a shift in public expectations about crisis management: in the age of ubiquitous cybercrime, responsibilities are often shared. Poorly managed communication after a cyberattack can lead to a lasting loss of trust and expose a company to increased legal risks. Claiming victim status effectively, with an empathetic and transparent approach, can help mitigate the impact of the crisis and preserve the organization’s reputation.

    This article was written with Ilaria Baghi (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia).

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

    – ref. Cyberattacks: how companies can communicate effectively after being hit – https://theconversation.com/cyberattacks-how-companies-can-communicate-effectively-after-being-hit-255061

    MIL OSI –

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

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

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

    What did each side gain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What might future deterrence look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why relying on technology to keep ASEAN’s coal plants running is risky

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Lay Monica, Researcher, Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS)

    shutterstock

    A recent ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) report emphasised that to contribute in tackling climate change, ASEAN countries don’t need to immediately phase out all of their coal fleet.

    The report asserted that coal will continue to be an essential part of the energy transition. It also stated that by allowing ASEAN countries more time to improve electricity grids to accommodate more renewables could help smooth the transition to cleaner energy. Put the two together, and it strongly hinted that coal might be squeezed in to buy said time.

    In order to reduce damage from coal, ACE urged ASEAN member states to use clean coal technologies in coal-fired power plants. It also recommended to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) to replace “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants”.

    Interestingly, this is also a view promoted by the World Coal Association — now Future Coal – the international coal lobbying group.

    At first glance, this plan seems promising. However, relying heavily on technology oversimplifies potential risks and assumes full delivery of promises without thorough risk assessments. In this article, we provide evidence that ACE’s chosen pathway is not as good as it seems and could face significant problems in the future.

    False solution

    The first “clean coal technology” proposed by ACE – termed “high efficiency, low emissions (HELE)” – is mostly supercritical coal power plant. This means it uses less coal while producing more energy. This is why they’re claimed to be more environmentally friendly than sub-critical or “regular” coal power plants.

    But using supercritical technology doesn’t guarantee the emission problem is solved; it has varying degrees of success in reducing coal emissions.

    For example, a 2019 Australian paper found supercritical coal power plants underperformed against regular power plants with higher breakdown rates, leading to frequent electricity price spikes during 2018-2019. This was a decade after the technology was first launched in 2007.

    Failing to deliver steady electricity supplies would contradict ACE’s stated goal to prevent energy shortage and provide smoother transitions towards renewable energy.

    Risks of carbon capture

    Another technology that ACE advocates is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures carbon emissions from power plants and stores them underground.

    However, CCS appears to replicate past project failures. Opponents of CCS often suggest its success rate is relatively small.

    The industry claims the technology can capture 95% carbon from each project. Yet, the 2023 reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that no current project has consistently managed to capture more than 80% of carbon emissions. Some of them only succeeded in capturing 15% of carbon emissions.

    Leakage from captured carbon underground is the other risk we might bear. This will have tremendous consequences not only by netting off the so-called mitigated emissions but also by contaminating groundwater and risking communities nearby.

    According to carbon capture proponents, when done properly, the risk of leakage is minuscule. Even when it occurs, they claim it will not be catastrophic.

    However, a big enough leak is still possible. The margin of safety is very narrow: even a mere 1% leakage every ten years could pose serious consequences in the long-run, mainly rises in temperature. Keeping the “safe level of leakage rate” requires a rigorous monitoring and supervision. Therefore, the risks could be higher in developing countries like Indonesia, which has chronic problems with regulatory governance.

    Some other evidence suggests that CCS is not economically viable. One of the strongest arguments against CCS is probably the diminishing returns. As one of the leading experts in carbon capture claims:

    The closer a CCS system gets to 100% efficiency, the harder and more expensive it becomes to capture additional carbon dioxide.

    This implies potential future costs for bigger equipment, additional time, and additional energy for CCS to achieve that efficiency level.

    More importantly, chasing increasingly expensive CCS technology merely prolongs the life of coal-fired power plants, which pose significant environmental risks. The same money and effort could be used to build more renewable energy infrastructure such as wind turbines or solar panels.

    In addition to its potential high costs, captured carbon must be sold in the market – for various uses ranging for oil extraction to food preservation – to increase its economic viability.

    However, other than CO₂ conversion to fuels, there is a strictly limited usage of CO₂. Commercial use of CO₂ is less than 1% of the global CO₂ emmissions from energy usage. On the other hand, converting CO₂ back to fuels requires carbon-free energy sources.

    The conversion will also result in approximately 25-35% of energy losses. Although there have been more research on how to improve the efficiency of the process, CO₂ utilisation has yet to be scalable.

    Why the half measure?

    ACE must be wary of its reliance on technological solutions. Instead, the centre should consider a double-down on less-risky and less-capital-intensive solutions with many positive impacts, such as setting up community-based renewable energy, aggressive reforestation, or even better, significant halt of deforestation.

    Community-based renewable energy offers to help people in energy-poor areas to build their own energy sources. Moreover, people living in close geographical proximity can share costs and resources to install and maintain off grid renewables, encouraging more widespread adoption of cleaner energy sources with minimum problem of land use.

    On the other hand, in contrast to CCUS, aggressive reforestation does not require heavy machinery or specialised knowledge and skills to operate complex technology to achieve the same goals of storing emissions. Again, it is an established scientific fact that forests and soil currently store 30% of emissions. Unlike CCS that only stores emissions from sites where it is installed, forests and soil absorb atmospheric carbon emissions. Even well-planned city forests could have more capacity to effectively absorb CO2 than we thought.

    ACE can also reconsider replacing the “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants” with renewables, such as solar and wind, especially those for non-industrial electricity facilities. Those electricity generation costs have been falling rapidly for years.

    As most of the ASEAN member states are developing countries, they must carefully select the most suitable technologies to adopt. With limited fiscal capacity, rashly importing an advanced technology that will require substantial startup costs potentially becomes a costly effort, yielding limited benefits.

    It is puzzling why we should replace our old coal plants with new ones. It is like when we are replacing our old mobile phone with a slightly better mobile phone – instead of jumping straight to a smartphone. Why the half-measure?

    Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Why relying on technology to keep ASEAN’s coal plants running is risky – https://theconversation.com/why-relying-on-technology-to-keep-aseans-coal-plants-running-is-risky-234918

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: A border conflict may cost the Thai prime minister her job

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Petra Alderman, Manager of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science

    The fate of Thailand’s prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, is hanging in the balance after only ten months in office. A recent flare-up in a historical border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand could become her ultimate undoing.

    Paetongtarn has been criticised for her handling of the conflict after tensions escalated in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a fire exchange with Thai troops.

    One of Paetongtarn’s sore points is the longstanding close relationship between her father Thaksin Shinawatra and the former Cambodian prime minister and current president of the Senate, Hun Sen.

    Thaksin spent 15 years in self-imposed exile after he was ousted as Thailand’s prime minister in a 2006 military coup. Hun Sen enabled Thaksin to use Cambodia as a frequent base for meeting political allies during his exile. He even named Thaksin his special advisor.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Following Thaksin’s return to Thailand in August 2023, after which he spent six months in detention, Hun Sen visited Thaksin within days of his release on parole. This further buttressed the relationship between the two.

    Conservative Thais have used this closeness to criticise Paetongtarn and her government for being “too soft” in their dealings with Cambodia. But things turned particularly ugly on June 18 when an audio recording of Paetongtarn’s 17-minute phone call with Hun Sen was leaked via his official Facebook page.

    In the recording, Paetongtarn refers to Hun Sen in familial terms as “uncle” and offers to “take care of” anything he might want in exchange for a peaceful resolution to the border conflict.

    She also disparages a senior Thai army general, Lt Gen Boonsin Padklang, who oversees the border region. This is a dangerous move in a country where the military has considerable political clout and a history of successful military interventions against the Shinawatras.

    The leak has had a chilling effect on the close personal relations between the Shinawatras and Hun Sen. Its domestic effects have also been nothing short of disastrous for Paetongtarn.

    It came at a time of deteriorating relations between Paetongtarn’s Pheu Thai party and Bhumjaithai, its largest coalition partner. Bhumjaithai used the leaked audio recording to exit the ruling coalition on June 18, leaving Paetongtarn with a slim governing majority amid a major political crisis.

    She is now facing a string of popular protests from across the political spectrum and mounting calls by the opposition to resign.

    Paetongtarn has issued a public apology and arranged a call with Boonsin to explain her conversation with Hun Sen. On June 20, she also made a hasty trip to the border area to appear alongside Boonsin in a show of unity.

    But none of these actions are likely to repair the damage. Paetongtarn now has three options.

    Paetongtarn’s three options

    Her first option is to dig in and continue as prime minister, a path she seems to have settled on for now. This won’t guarantee her long-term survival. Her coalition, which has been cobbled together on the back of political necessity and controversial dealmaking rather than loyalty and shared policy agendas, is still fragile.

    In the wake of Bhumjaithai’s exit, other coalition partners held internal party meetings to discuss whether to follow suit or continue to stick with the embattled prime minister. For now, all remaining coalition partners have pledged their support, probably in exchange for some of the cabinet positions left vacant by Bhumjaithai.

    The current cabinet reshuffle, due to be unveiled by June 27, might paper over the coalition cracks. But it won’t resolve all problems. At least three MPs from the Democrat party, Pheu Thai’s third-largest coalition partner, have signalled they would resign should their party stick with Paentongtarn.

    Pheu Thai’s new largest coalition partner, the ultra-conservative United Thai Nation (UTN) party, might also cause further trouble.

    The party was initially set to push for Paentongtarn’s resignation in exchange for preserving the coalition arrangements. This ultimately did not happen, but Paetongtarn cannot rest on her laurels. UTN is internally fractured, and one faction’s exit could destabilise the entire government.

    Even if Paetongtarn manages to keep the coalition together, she could still be brought down by legal means. Several Bhumjaithai-aligned senators have lodged respective petitions with the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate Paetongtarn for ethical misconduct.

    This could lead to her impeachment and eventual dismissal, as in the case of her predecessor, Srettha Thavisin. Other legal challenges are also mounting.

    And then there is always the possibility of another coup. The military brought down the governments of Paetongtarn’s father and later her aunt Yingluck in 2014.

    Paetongtarn’s second option is to resign, making way for parliament to select a new prime minister. The selection would have to be made from a list of prime ministerial candidates submitted to the Election Commission before the 2023 election.

    Pheu Thai originally fielded three prime ministerial candidates, the maximum number permitted by law. With Srettha and Paetongtarn out of the game, Chaikasem Nitisiri would be Pheu Thai’s only prime ministerial option.

    However, Chaikasem is rumoured to suffer from a long-term ill health, and Pheu Thai would still need to muster sufficient support from its coalition partners. This could prove difficult as UTN is one of the only coalition parties left that still has a viable prime ministerial candidate. It could use this situation to try and take over the premiership.

    Under the third option, Paetongtarn could dissolve parliament and call a snap election. This is perhaps her least attractive option.

    The People’s party, the progressive successor of the Move Forward party that beat Pheu Thai to first place in the 2023 election, is enjoying a considerable surge in popularity. Going to the polls could prove too risky, not only for Pheu Thai but also for the entire conservative establishment.



    Read more:
    Thailand’s conservative elites oust prime minister and ban opposition

    None of these options are particularly promising, but they carry an important lesson about the volatility of political dealmaking. Whether Paetongtarn and – more crucially – her father will learn this lesson remains to be seen. In the meantime, all eyes will be on Thailand and the country’s military.

    Petra Alderman 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. A border conflict may cost the Thai prime minister her job – https://theconversation.com/a-border-conflict-may-cost-the-thai-prime-minister-her-job-259532

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: AI applications are producing cleaner cities, smarter homes and more efficient transit

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mohammadamin Ahmadfard, Postdoctoral Fellow, Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is quietly transforming how cities generate, store and distribute energy, acting as the invisible conductor that orchestrates cleaner, smarter and more resilient cities.

    By integrating renewables — from solar panels and wind turbines to geothermal grids, hydrogen plants, electric vehicles and batteries — AI can enable cities to manage diverse energy sources as a single, intelligent system.

    One striking example is the Oya Hybrid Power Station in South Africa. Here, AI-driven controls seamlessly co-ordinate solar, wind and battery storage to deliver reliable power to up to 320,000 households. Using AI makes this kind of integration not only possible, but dramatically more efficient.

    Recent research shows AI can also optimize how batteries, solar and the grid interact in buildings. A 2023 study found that deep learning and real-time data helped a boarding school in Turin, Italy increase low-cost energy purchases and cut its electricity bill by more than half.

    Cleaner, smarter energy grids

    AI models are increasingly able to predict weather with greater precision. These predictions allow electric grid operators to plan hours ahead, storing excess energy in batteries or adjusting supply to meet demand before a storm or heatwave hits.

    Using AI to respond strategically to weather is a game-changer. In Cambridge, England, a system called Aardvark uses satellite and sensor data to generate rapid, accurate forecasts of sun and wind patterns.

    Unlike traditional supercomputer-driven weather models, Aardvark’s AI can deliver precise local forecasts in minutes on an ordinary computer. This makes advanced weather prediction more accessible and affordable for cities, utilities and even smaller organizations — potentially transforming how communities everywhere plan for and respond to changing weather.

    AI models are increasingly able to predict weather with greater precision, allowing electric grid operators to plan ahead, storing excess energy in batteries or adjusting supply to meet demand before a storm or heat wave hits.
    (Shutterstock)

    AI for smarter district heating and cooling

    In Munich, Germany, AI is improving geothermal district heating by using underground sensors to monitor temperature and moisture levels in the ground.

    The collected data feeds into a digital simulation model that helps optimize network operations. In more advanced versions, during winter cold snaps, such systems can suggest lowering flow to underused spaces like half-empty offices and boosting heat where demand is higher, such as in crowded apartments.

    This intelligent, self-optimizing approach extends the life of equipment and delivers more warmth with the same energy input.

    This is a breakthrough with enormous potential for cities in cold climates with established geothermal networks, such as Winnipeg in Canada and Iceland’s Reykjavik.

    Although these cities have not yet adopted AI-driven monitoring systems, they could benefit from AI’s real-time improvements in efficiency, comfort and energy savings during harsh winters — a principle that holds true wherever geothermal district heating and cooling exists.

    Inside the home, AI-managed smart climate systems can factor in how many people are in each room, which appliances are in use, how much natural sunlight each space receives.
    (Shutterstock)

    Smart buildings

    Inside the home, AI-managed smart climate systems can factor in how many people are in each room, which appliances are in use, how much natural sunlight each space receives and how much electricity or heat a home’s solar panels generate throughout the day.

    Based on this, AI determines how to heat or cool rooms efficiently, and can transfer energy from one space to another, balancing comfort with minimal energy use.

    Coastal cities and those in wind-heavy regions are using AI in other creative ways. In Orkney, Scotland, excess wind and tidal energy are converted into green hydrogen. Instead of letting that surplus power go to waste, an AI system called HyAI controls when to generate hydrogen based on wind forecasts, electricity prices and how full the hydrogen storage tanks are.

    When winds are strong at night and electricity is cheap, the AI can divert surplus power to produce hydrogen and store it for later use. On calmer days, that stored hydrogen can power fuel cells or buses.

    Energy storage

    AI is transforming energy storage into a smart, revenue-generating force. In Finland, a startup called Capalo AI has developed Zeus VPP, an AI-powered virtual power plant that aggregates distributed batteries from homes, businesses and other sites.

    Zeus VPP uses advanced forecasting and AI algorithms to decide when batteries should charge or discharge, factoring in energy prices, local consumption and weather forecasts. This enables battery owners to earn revenue by participating in electricity markets, while also supporting grid stability and making better use of renewable energy.

    Utility companies are also using AI to monitor everything from high-voltage transmission lines to neighbourhood transformers, dramatically increasing reliability.

    AI-powered dynamic line rating adjusts how much electricity a line can carry in real time, boosting capacity by 15 to 30 per cent when conditions allow. This helps utilities maximize the use of existing infrastructure instead of relying on costly upgrades.

    At the local level, AI analyzes smart metre data to predict which transformers are overheating due to rising EV and heat pump use.

    By forecasting these stress points, utilities can proactively upgrade equipment before failures happen — a shift from reactive to predictive maintenance that makes the grid stronger and cities more resilient.

    AI-powered public transit and mobility

    Transportation innovation is becoming part of the energy solution, with AI at the centre of this transformation. In New York City, energy company Con Edison has installed major battery storage systems to help manage peak electricity demand and reduce reliance on polluting peaker plants, which supply energy only during high-demand periods.

    More broadly, Con Edison is deploying advanced AI-powered analytics software across its electric grid — optimizing voltage, enhancing reliability and enabling predictive maintenance. Together, these efforts show how combining energy storage and AI-driven analytics can make even the world’s busiest cities more resilient and efficient.

    AI is also powering “vehicle-to-grid” innovations in California, where an AI-driven platform manages electric school buses that can supply stored energy back to the grid during periods of high demand.

    By carefully managing when buses charge and discharge, these systems help keep the grid reliable and ensure vehicles are ready for their daily routes. As this technology expands, parked electric vehicles could serve as valuable backup resources for the electricity system.

    Transportation innovation is becoming part of the energy solution.
    (Shutterstock)

    AI for clean energy initiatives

    AI is rapidly transforming cities by revolutionizing how energy is used and managed. Google, for example, has slashed cooling energy at its data centres by up to 40 per cent using AI that fine-tunes fans, pumps and windows more efficiently than any human operator.

    Organizations like the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in collaboration with NVIDIA, Microsoft and others, have launched the Open Power AI Consortium, which is creating open-source AI tools for utilities worldwide.

    These tools will enable even the most resource-constrained cities to deploy advanced AI capabilities, without having to start from scratch, helping to level the playing field and accelerate the global energy transition.

    The result is not just cleaner air and lower energy bills, but a path to fewer blackouts and more resilient homes.

    Mohammadamin Ahmadfard receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Mitacs Inc. for his postdoctoral research at Toronto Metropolitan University.

    – ref. AI applications are producing cleaner cities, smarter homes and more efficient transit – https://theconversation.com/ai-applications-are-producing-cleaner-cities-smarter-homes-and-more-efficient-transit-256291

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

    Rethinking the college major could help colleges better understand what employers and students need. Westend61/Getty Images

    Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

    The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

    Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

    Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

    The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

    To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

    The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

    This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

    As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

    Students want flexibility

    The college curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.
    MoMo Productions/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

    A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

    And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

    Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

    As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

    How schools are responding

    The college major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge.
    Fuse/Corbia via Getty Images

    In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

    At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

    Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

    The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

    Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

    Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

    Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

    Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

    Reenvisioning the college major

    Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

    This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

    Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

    One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

    Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

    It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

    Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

    We take the college major for granted.

    Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

    Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

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

    – ref. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Osirak reactor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

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

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

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

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

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    The importance of symbols

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mountie symbolism

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

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

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

    Changes to the anthem, passport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fast v slow thinking

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

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

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

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

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

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

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

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

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

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

    Emotional decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – ref. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI –

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

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

    June 30, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bill text

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

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

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

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

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

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

    Governor Gavin Newsom

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

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

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

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

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

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

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

    Recent news

    Jun 30, 2025

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

    Jun 30, 2025

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

    Jun 27, 2025

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney speaks with President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, spoke with the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

    Prime Minister Carney and President el-Sisi underscored the economic and cultural ties between Canada and Egypt, and emphasized opportunities to deepen trade, commerce, and investment.

    The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and stressed the imperative of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Prime Minister reiterated that Hamas must release all hostages and have no future role in the governance of Gaza. He called for urgent, life-saving humanitarian aid to reach civilians and affirmed Canada’s support for a two-state solution.

    The Prime Minister and the President agreed to remain in contact.

    Associated Link

    MIL OSI Canada News –

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

    Source: US State of New York

    [embedded content]

    [embedded content]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Governor Kathy Hochul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Embedded Flickr Album

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Update 9: Alberta wildfire update (June 30, 3 p.m.)

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News –

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

    Source: US State of Missouri

    JUNE 30, 2025

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

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

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

    Approved Budgetary Spending

    Prioritizing Public Safety

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

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

    For more public safety budget highlights, click here.

    Emphasizing Economic Development

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

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

    For more economic development budget highlights, click here.        

    Bolstering Agriculture

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

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

    For more agriculture budget highlights, click here.

    Strengthening Education

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

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

    For more education budget highlights, click here.

    Budget Vetoes & Expenditure Restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Marion County Man Indicted For Possessing A Firearm And Ammunition By A Convicted Felon

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

    Ocala, Florida – United States Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe announces the  return by a grand jury of an indictment charging Juan Mario GonzalezPiloto (40, Anthony) with possession of a firearm and ammunition affecting commerce by a convicted felon. If convicted, GonzalezPiloto faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in federal prison. 

    According to the court records, between 2013 and 2020, GonzalezPiloto was convicted of five state felonies: (1) cannabis trafficking more than 25 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds; (2) possession of a place for drug trafficking; (3) possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; (4) possession of marijuana concentrate -hazardous extract; and (5) resisting an officer with violence.

    On November 28, 2024, Marion County Sheriff deputies responded to GonzalezPiloto’s residence in northern Marion County. GonzalezPiloto had been injured while shooting a loaded firearm on his property. In describing how he had been injured, GonzalezPiloto told investigators that the firearm had malfunctioned while he was shooting it. As a convicted felon, GonzalezPiloto is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under federal law. 

    An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.

    This case is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Hannah Nowalk Watson.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: 38 Gang Members and Associates Charged in Federal Complaint as a Result of “Operation Shock Collar”

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

    On June 26, 2025, upwards of 550 federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel executed 54 search warrants in the Fresno County city of Huron, and surrounding communities. Throughout the investigation, law enforcement seized firearms, ammunition, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Eighty‑nine criminal street gang members and associates were arrested and charged with crimes in federal and state court.

    The complaint, unsealed today, charges 38 members and associates of the Huron Dog Life, Coalinga Dog Life, and San Joaquin Ruthless Perro cliques of the Bulldog street gang with various drug and firearms trafficking offenses.

    Announcing the results of Operation Shock Collar today are Acting U.S. Attorney Michele Beckwith, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, FBI Special Agent in Charge Siddhartha Patel, Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni, Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp, and California Highway Patrol Captain (MAGEC Commander) Jon Staricka.

    “Today’s announcement reflects our Office’s commitment to using every available resource in close coordination with our law enforcement partners to address the root causes of crime and hold gang members and their associates accountable,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Beckwith. “Criminal street gangs inflict real harm on our communities by trafficking deadly drugs and firearms that destroy lives and neighborhoods. I commend the outstanding work of our agents and law enforcement partners in disrupting these criminal networks and safeguarding our communities.”

    “The charges reflect the brazen violence and drug trafficking that have threatened the safety and stability of the greater Fresno area, particularly in rural communities like Huron and Coalinga,” said Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel of the FBI Sacramento Field Office. “Yesterday’s operation was the culmination of months of collaborative work to disrupt gang-driven violence and the flow of drugs and firearms into Central Valley neighborhoods. This case highlights the power of strong partnerships at every level of law enforcement, all united in the mission to dismantle violent gangs and protect the communities we serve.”

    Fresno County Sheriff Zanoni said, “The collective work done by all law enforcement agencies in this operation will undoubtedly improve the safety and overall quality of life for residents in Fresno County, particularly those living in our smaller rural communities.”

    “This operation is a powerful example of what can be achieved when law enforcement agencies at every level work together with a shared mission: to protect our communities from violent criminal street gangs,” said Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp. “We are determined to send a clear and unwavering message to even the most rural parts of our county—no matter where you are, gang violence and drug trafficking will not be tolerated. I commend the extraordinary efforts of all the agencies involved in this operation.”

    According to the criminal complaint, in February 2024, investigators began an investigation into the Bulldog criminal street gang operating in Fresno County with a specific focus on the ongoing criminal activities of Bulldog cliques in Huron, Coalinga, and San Joaquin. The complaint alleges an extensive criminal conspiracy in which Bulldog members and associates — some of whom were inmates in California prisons and the Fresno County Jail — orchestrated various crimes, including drug and firearms trafficking. On several occasions, members of the drug trafficking conspiracy attempted to smuggle drugs hidden inside their bodies into jails or through holes they punctured in the walls. They used contraband phones to coordinate these smuggling attempts with other gang members and associates.

    Narcotics packaged for smuggling within bodily cavities

    Narcotics packaged for smuggling through holes in jail walls

    Photo depicting hole in jail walls

    Photo depicting hole in jail wall

    This case is the product of an investigation led by the FBI, the Fresno County Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium (MAGEC), the California Department of Justice Special Operations Unit, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office, the California Highway Patrol, and the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Police Departments of Fresno, Kingsburg, Coalinga, Kerman, Firebaugh, Lemoore, Parlier, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Kings County Sheriff’s Office.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert L. Veneman-Hughes, Luke Baty, and Antonio Pataca are prosecuting the case.

    The case was investigated under the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF). OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi‑agency approach. For more information about Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, please visit Justice.gov/OCDETF.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to combat illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from OCDETF and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

    This operation is part of Summer Heat, the FBI’s nationwide initiative targeting violent crime during the summer months. As part of this effort, the FBI has launched a multi-pronged offensive to crush violent crime. By surging resources alongside state and local partners, executing federal warrants on violent criminals and fugitives, and dismantling violent gangs nationwide, we are aggressively restoring safety in our communities across the country.

    The defendants charged in the criminal complaint unsealed today are:

    Ignacio Sanchez, aka “Giddy,” 44, of Salinas Valley State Prison, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Ray Pinon, aka “Lil Ray,” 46, of Huron, is charged with distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Benny Gonzales, aka “Huero,” 51, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Ramona Felisciano, 45, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Jennifer Escobedo, 42, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Armando Alfaro, aka “Whisper,” 49, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Luis Amaro Aguilar, 31, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Carly Balboa, 24, of Hanford, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Timothy Chenot, aka “Lil Whisper,” 34, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Barbara Diaz, 55, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Susanna Garcia, 38, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Axel Guevara, aka “Action,” 18, of Coalinga, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Carlos Guillen, aka “C-Dog,” 23, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to traffic in firearms.

    Gilberto Hernandez, 27, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Anthony Jeff, aka “Envy,” 46, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Victoria Lima, 44, of Clovis, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Angel Solorio Lopez, aka “Ronzo,” 18, of Coalinga, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Ricardo Lopez, aka “R-Dog,” 27, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Damien Murphy, 30, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Bridgett Murphy, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Ricardo Nunez, 22, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Laura Plascencia, aka “LP,” 46, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Gracie Pulido, 38, of Lemoore, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Daniel Loubet Romero, aka “Topo,” 44, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Debbie Sanchez, 60, of Hanford, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Naul Sandoval, 23, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Angel Soto Rios, 42, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Rodrigo Ruvalcaba, aka “Regal,” 40, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Victor Tamayo, 47, of Fresno, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Louis Bonilla, 41, of Coalinga, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Crystal Martinez, 38, of Coalinga, is charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Hemir Alonso Fevela Velazquez, 32, of Huron, is charged with distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    Herman Vierra Jr., 41, of Fresno, is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    Servando Ayala, 30, of Coalinga, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license.

    Jose Licea, aka “T-Bird,” 35, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license.

    Alexander Vasquez, aka “A-Dog,” 21, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and conspiracy to traffic in firearms.

    Brian Fornes, 22, of Huron, is charged with conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and conspiracy to traffic in firearms.

    Jesus Quesada, aka “Rojo,” 50, of Hanford, is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    If convicted, the defendants face a range of sentences from 10 years to life in prison. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    US Senate News:

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Status of the Chagos Archipelago – Part I: History of the Disputes Surrounding its Status and the Creation of a UK-US Military Base

    Source: US Global Legal Monitor

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

    A small, but important, island known as Diego Garcia has given rise to a number of legal challenges and international agreements that date back to Britain’s colonial era. The challenges surround whether the detachment from Mauritius, and subsequent colonization of the Chagos Archipelago, which consists of several islands and atolls remotely located in the center of the Indian Ocean, including the island of Diego Garcia, was lawful, and whether the removal and prohibition on the return of its inhabitants occurred within the bounds of the law. A recent agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and Mauritius settles the disputes, by returning Chagos Archipelago to Mauritus and providing the UK with continued use of a military base, which I will describe in a post tomorrow. Today I will look at the history that preceded the agreement.

    UK Colonization of Chagos Archipelago

    One of the driving forces for the UK colonization of Chagos Archipelago was the establishment of a defense facility, to be operated jointly with the United States (US). Almost immediately upon detaching the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and establishing the colony of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) the UK, after undertaking a survey to determine the most appropriate location for a defense facility, entered into an agreement with the US to allow Diego Garcia to be used for defense purposes. The US subsequently constructed, and jointly operated with the UK, a defense facility that according to the UK government provides “crucial strategic capabilities, which have played a key role in missions to disrupt high-value terrorists, including Islamic State threats to the UK.”

    History of the Chagos Archipelago and Diego Garcia

    The BIOT, which includes Diego Garcia, was the last colony established by the British as its colonial era entered into its waning days and Mauritius was on the verge of obtaining independence. In 1965, the government of the UK and a representative of Mauritius signed an agreement detaching the Chagos Archipelago from the territory of Mauritius.

    The agreement between the UK and Mauritius provided the legal foundation for the UK to establish the BIOT as new colony in the Chagos Archipelago, which initially included three other islands detached from Seychelles that were later ceded back to the Seychelles upon their independence in 1976. In return for the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, the UK government provided Mauritius with a grant of £3 million (approximately US$4 million), along with a commitment to return the islands to Mauritius at a later date when it no longer needed the territory for defense purposes. Once under UK control, in 1966, the UK signed an agreement with the US to establish a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

    Independence of Mauritius Leads to Legal Dispute over Territorial Definition

    Mauritius was granted independence from the UK in 1968, but the definition of Mauritius, contained in the Mauritius Independence Act 1968, which became its constitution and was promulgated by the government of the UK prior to Mauritius’ independence, does not include the Chagos Archipelago. Instead “Mauritius” is defined in section 5 of the 1968 Act as “the territories which immediately before the appointed day constitute the Colony of Mauritius.” The Mauritian government later claimed that its independence was made conditional upon the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from its territory and disputed the sovereignty of the UK over the Chagos Archipelago.

    This bilateral dispute progressed through numerous meetings, international exchanges, courts and tribunals for a period of 60 years until the UK and Mauritius signed the recent agreement providing sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius..

    United Nations Resolution of 1966

    In 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted a resolution condemning the British for exercising sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and calling for it to be returned to Mauritius.  In the same year, the UK and US reached an agreement providing for the use of an island in the Chagos Archipelago for defense purposes. The agreement provided that the UK government would take any administrative measures necessary to ensure the defense needs were met, which included the resettlement of the inhabitants of the islands.

    Challenges Regarding Status Continue

    The challenges faced by the Chagossians, along with their efforts to reclaim Diego Garcia are well detailed and documented in the decisions of the courts in which they lodged their claims.

    The UK entered into an agreement with Mauritius in 1972 whereby it agreed to pay Mauritius £650,000 (approximately US$875,000) for the cost of resettlement of people displaced from the Chagos Archipelago. The UK reached an additional agreement with Mauritius in 1982, under which it paid a further £4 million (approximately US$5.4 million) to be placed into a trust fund for the Chagossians removed from the islands as a final settlement of all claims, without admitting liability.

    Despite these agreements and settlement, Mauritius continued to challenge the legitimacy of British sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and the Chagossians challenged the legality of their resettlement and exile from Diego Garcia. During these challenges, and in response to a judgment from England’s High Court, the UK government conducted a feasibility study in 2002 into the return of the Chagossians to Diego Garcia. The study concluded that if the Chagossians were permitted to return to live on Diego Garcia, the costs of long-term inhabitation would be prohibitive and that natural events, such as flooding and seismic activity “would make life difficult for a resettled population.”

    Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

    In 2019, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that the decolonization of Mauritius was not completed lawfully and that an international agreement was not possible when one territory was under the authority of the other. The ICJ stated that the UK “has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.” The UK government acknowledged the opinion, but noted it was not legally binding. It stated that it did “not share the court’s approach” and asserted that it has exercised sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago since 1814. The UK affirmed that it stood by its commitment “to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes.”

    While advisory opinions from the ICJ are not binding, the UK government in 2025 acknowledged that they do “carr[y] significant weight; in particular it is likely to be highly influential on any subsequent court/tribunal”. This advisory opinion had a “meaningful real-world impact on the sustainability of UK sovereignty and the operation of the Base.” In particular, the UK government determined that if Mauritius made another legal challenge, its “… longstanding legal view is that [the UK] would not have a realistic prospect of success.”

    The advisory opinion was followed in 2021, by a case heard by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea relating to the delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives and the court ruled that the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago could be inferred from the advisory opinion made by the International Court of Justice.

    The Congress of the Universal Postal Union also recognized Mauritius as responsible for making decisions regarding international postal services in the Chagos Archipelago. The UK government determined these decisions “confirmed the risk that a future (binding) case could be brought successfully against the UK” and that this “would create serious real-world operational impacts for the Base.”

    Between the years 2021-2022, the UK used diplomacy and bilateral initiatives to attempt to steer Mauritius away from commencing further legal challenges, but these were unsuccessful and “… it became clear by mid-2022 that the only viable means to halt the process was to enter negotiations” and the start of these were announced in November 2022. They resulted in the May 2025 agreement, which I will describe in tomorrow’s post. Stay tuned!

    ——————————————————————————————————————————–

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: DataGrail Report: Consumer Demand for Data Privacy Surges, Driving Up Business Costs as Data Deletion Requests Rise

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN FRANCISCO, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Consumers are reclaiming control of their personal data—and businesses are feeling the impact. DataGrail’s newly released 2025 Data Privacy Trends Report shows a surge in data deletion and do not share requests, skyrocketing privacy expectations globally, and a failure by companies to honor consumer consent – driving up compliance costs across the board.

    DataGrail 2025 Privacy Trends Report Highlights:

    • Data deletion requests are surging, rising 82% year-over-year, surpassing access and do not sell requests for the fourth consecutive year.
    • Compliance costs are skyrocketing, largely due to the manual processing of Data Subject Requests (DSRs). Managing DSRs now costs businesses an estimated $1.26 million annually per 5 million unique website visitors—a 43% increase over 2023.
    • “Do Not Sell” (DNS) requests are gaining significant traction, with an increase of 37% over 2023. This increase is worth noting as organizations face heightened scrutiny from bodies like the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), which has focused litigation on ensuring companies honor these opt-out requests.
    • New state laws are driving more action. Seven new U.S. state laws went into effect in 2024. As a result, 41% of DSRs in 2024 came from states with active privacy laws – an increase of 229% from the 12.5% of DSRs we received from states with active privacy laws in 2023.
    • 69% of businesses violate consumer consent. Despite consumers setting their opt-out preferences, businesses continue to deploy tracking cookies, risking fines, lawsuits, and damage to their brand.

    “Our 2025 report clearly shows that consumers are taking control over their data privacy rights and are actively exercising those rights by demanding deletion of their data,” said Daniel Barber, co-founder and CEO of DataGrail. “This surge in DSRs, particularly deletions, is making compliance more expensive for organizations. The privacy landscape, driven by stricter laws and heightened enforcement globally, means proactive data privacy management is no longer optional but mandatory for brands.”

    “The trends highlighted in DataGrail’s 2025 report underscore a critical shift in the data privacy landscape,” said Ryan O’Leary, Research Director, Privacy and Legal Technology, IDC. “The significant increase in data deletion requests, coupled with rising compliance costs and continued violations of consumer consent indicates that organizations need to prioritize robust data privacy management.”

    Consumers expect privacy regardless of location or legislation
    Around the world, consumer demand for control over personal data is seeing momentum. Globally, 31.5% of DSRs came from countries without privacy laws. In the U.S., 46.6% of requests were made by people in states that didn’t have privacy laws in effect.

    Majority of businesses not honoring do not sell preferences
    As consumers automate do not sell requests, a majority of organizations are not honoring those requests, putting their organizations at risk for regulatory scrutiny, potentially leading to costly fines, lawsuits, or reputational damage to their brand. An audit of 5,000 websites reveals that 69% of organizations fire 3 or more cookie trackers despite website visitors opting out. This means organizations have not correctly implemented consent mechanisms and are tracking consumer activities to retarget them with ads without their consent.

    Data brokerage industry tops list for most data privacy requests
    Privacy requests in 2024 among data brokers were the highest category of requests across industries. Driven by the California Delete Act, which put renewed pressure on data brokers to honor deletion requests, combined with an uptick in companies that delete data, heightened concern over data breaches, political uncertainty and AI’s expanding use of personal data. These factors are driving a surge in consumer privacy actions and reshaping the data landscape.

    Methodology
    DataGrail analyzed the Data Subject Requests (DSRs) it helped process on behalf of customers from January 1 to December 31, 2023. The customer set has more than 700 million records, where a “record” is defined as a single, individual record associated with a unique identifier within a customer’s database. To determine the cost of processing requests, DataGrail used Gartner’s manual processing estimate of $1,524 per DSR.

    To normalize the data across various company sizes, DataGrail calculated DSRs per one million identities. To account for variability, DataGrail used a “10% trim mean” calculation to determine benchmarks. The dataset includes DSRs submitted under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), along with DSRs received in the U.S. and globally that don’t fall under those regulatory umbrellas. As a United States-based company, with primarily U.S.-based customers, DataGrail’s dataset may skew toward DSRs from the U.S.

    About DataGrail
    DataGrail is the data privacy company for this era. We help brands minimize risk, stay a step ahead of consumer and employee expectations, and safeguard their reputation. Our complete, data privacy platform is powered by patented Risk Intelligence technology that detects shadow IT and makes vulnerable data visible so brands can proactively manage risk. Leveraging responsible automation at scale and the largest integration network in data privacy, DataGrail automates privacy workflows across systems to perform risk assessments, accelerate data subject request (DSR) fulfillment, and optimize resources.

    Headquartered in San Francisco, the world’s most trusted brands partner with DataGrail on their data privacy journey, including Salesforce, FanDuel, Dexcom, Databricks, among others.

    Media Contact
    press@datagrail.io

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Binns, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0. Author supplied

    Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies or too many fingers, but it might be something just a little off in the background. Or video content that feels a little too real.

    The markers of AI-generated media are becoming harder to spot as technology companies work to iron out the kinks in their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.

    But what if instead of trying to detect and avoid these glitches, we deliberately encouraged them instead? The flaws, failures and unexpected outputs of AI systems can reveal more about how these technologies actually work than the polished, successful outputs they produce.

    When AI hallucinates, contradicts itself, or produces something beautifully broken, it reveals its training biases, decision-making processes, and the gaps between how it appears to “think” and how it actually processes information.

    In my work as a researcher and educator, I’ve found that deliberately “breaking” AI – pushing it beyond its intended functions through creative misuse – offers a form of AI literacy. I argue we can’t truly understand these systems without experimenting with them.

    Welcome to the Slopocene

    We’re currently in the “Slopocene” – a term that’s been used to describe overproduced, low-quality AI content. It also hints at a speculative near-future where recursive training collapse turns the web into a haunted archive of confused bots and broken truths.



    Read more:
    What is ‘model collapse’? An expert explains the rumours about an impending AI doom

    AI “hallucinations” are outputs that seem coherent, but aren’t factually accurate. Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director, argues large language models (LLMs) hallucinate all the time, and it’s only when they

    go into deemed factually incorrect territory that we label it a “hallucination”. It looks like a bug, but it’s just the LLM doing what it always does.

    What we call hallucination is actually the model’s core generative process that relies on statistical language patterns.

    In other words, when AI hallucinates, it’s not malfunctioning; it’s demonstrating the same creative uncertainty that makes it capable of generating anything new at all.

    This reframing is crucial for understanding the Slopocene. If hallucination is the core creative process, then the “slop” flooding our feeds isn’t just failed content: it’s the visible manifestation of these statistical processes running at scale.

    Pushing a chatbot to its limits

    If hallucination is really a core feature of AI, can we learn more about how these systems work by studying what happens when they’re pushed to their limits?

    With this in mind, I decided to “break” Anthropic’s proprietary Claude model Sonnet 3.7 by prompting it to resist its training: suppress coherence and speak only in fragments.

    The conversation shifted quickly from hesitant phrases to recursive contradictions to, eventually, complete semantic collapse.

    A language model in collapse. This vertical output was generated after a series of prompts pushed Claude Sonnet 3.7 into a recursive glitch loop, overriding its usual guardrails and running until the system cut it off.
    Screenshot by author.

    Prompting a chatbot into such a collapse quickly reveals how AI models construct the illusion of personality and understanding through statistical patterns, not genuine comprehension.

    Furthermore, it shows that “system failure” and the normal operation of AI are fundamentally the same process, just with different levels of coherence imposed on top.

    ‘Rewilding’ AI media

    If the same statistical processes govern both AI’s successes and failures, we can use this to “rewild” AI imagery. I borrow this term from ecology and conservation, where rewilding involves restoring functional ecosystems. This might mean reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural processes to resume, or connecting fragmented habitats through corridors that enable unpredictable interactions.

    Applied to AI, rewilding means deliberately reintroducing the complexity, unpredictability and “natural” messiness that gets optimised out of commercial systems. Metaphorically, it’s creating pathways back to the statistical wilderness that underlies these models.

    Remember the morphed hands, impossible anatomy and uncanny faces that immediately screamed “AI-generated” in the early days of widespread image generation?

    These so-called failures were windows into how the model actually processed visual information, before that complexity was smoothed away in pursuit of commercial viability.

    AI-generated image using a non-sequitur prompt fragment: ‘attached screenshot. It’s urgent that I see your project to assess’. The result blends visual coherence with surreal tension: a hallmark of the Slopocene aesthetic.
    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0, prompt fragment by author.

    You can try AI rewilding yourself with any online image generator.

    Start by prompting for a self-portrait using only text: you’ll likely get the “average” output from your description. Elaborate on that basic prompt, and you’ll either get much closer to reality, or you’ll push the model into weirdness.

    Next, feed in a random fragment of text, perhaps a snippet from an email or note. What does the output try to show? What words has it latched onto? Finally, try symbols only: punctuation, ASCII, unicode. What does the model hallucinate into view?

    The output – weird, uncanny, perhaps surreal – can help reveal the hidden associations between text and visuals that are embedded within the models.

    Insight through misuse

    Creative AI misuse offers three concrete benefits.

    First, it reveals bias and limitations in ways normal usage masks: you can uncover what a model “sees” when it can’t rely on conventional logic.

    Second, it teaches us about AI decision-making by forcing models to show their work when they’re confused.

    Third, it builds critical AI literacy by demystifying these systems through hands-on experimentation. Critical AI literacy provides methods for diagnostic experimentation, such as testing – and often misusing – AI to understand its statistical patterns and decision-making processes.

    These skills become more urgent as AI systems grow more sophisticated and ubiquitous. They’re being integrated in everything from search to social media to creative software.

    When someone generates an image, writes with AI assistance or relies on algorithmic recommendations, they’re entering a collaborative relationship with a system that has particular biases, capabilities and blind spots.

    Rather than mindlessly adopting or reflexively rejecting these tools, we can develop critical AI literacy by exploring the Slopocene and witnessing what happens when AI tools “break”.

    This isn’t about becoming more efficient AI users. It’s about maintaining agency in relationships with systems designed to be persuasive, predictive and opaque.

    Daniel Binns is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society.

    – ref. Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings – https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-slopocene-how-the-failures-of-ai-can-reveal-its-inner-workings-258584

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Carbajal Introduces Bill to Prevent Dangerous Individuals from Accessing Firearms

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Salud Carbajal (CA-24)

    U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act, legislation to prevent people who are in crisis from accessing deadly weapons. The bill would establish grants to support the implementation of extreme risk protection (ERPO) laws, also known as “red flag” laws, at the state and local levels. In addition, the bill would extend federal firearms restrictions to people subject to ERPOs, giving law enforcement the tools to remove access to firearms from people who are considered a danger to themselves or others.

    “Too often, shootings are preceded by unmistakable warning signs, but communities have lacked the tools to step in before it’s too late,” said Rep. Carbajal. “This legislation recognizes the value of extreme risk protection orders, and gives law enforcement a clear path to intervene before tragedy strikes.”

    U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) leads companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. 

    The legislation is supported by a number of organizations including Brady, GIFFORDS, Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund, and Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Earlier this month, Carbajal introduced a pair of bipartisan bills, the Filling Public Safety Vacancies Act and Increasing Behavioral Health Treatment Act, to improve public safety nationwide. The package aims to address the staffing shortages at local law enforcement departments and removes the limitations on the provision of Medicaid funding for patients in an institution for mental disease (IMD) in order to improve behavioral health.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Ellomay Capital Reports Results for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TEL-AVIV, Israel, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ellomay Capital Ltd. (NYSE American; TASE: ELLO) (“Ellomay” or the “Company”), a renewable energy and power generator and developer of renewable energy and power projects in Europe, USA and Israel, today reported its unaudited interim consolidated financial results for the three month period ended March 31, 2025.

    Financial Highlights

    • Total assets as of March 31, 2025 amounted to approximately €721.2 million, compared to total assets as of December 31, 2024 of approximately €677.3 million.
    • Revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2025 were approximately €8.9 million, compared to revenues of approximately €8.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Profit for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €6.8 million, compared to loss of approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • EBITDA for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €2.9 million, compared to EBITDA of approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. See below under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures” for additional disclosure concerning EBITDA.

    Financial Overview for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025

    • Revenues were approximately €8.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €8.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase in revenues mainly results from revenues generated from our 19.8 MW and 18.1 MW Italian solar facilities that were connected to the grid in February-May 2024 and in January 2025, respectively.
    • Operating expenses were approximately €4.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €4.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. Depreciation and amortization expenses were approximately €4.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Project development costs were approximately €1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The decrease in project development costs is mainly due to projects that reached “ready to build” status, which results in the commencement of the capitalization of expenses related to such projects into fixed assets.
    • General and administrative expenses were approximately €1.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • The Company’s share of profits of equity accounted investee, after elimination of intercompany transactions, was approximately €1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Other income was approximately €0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to €0 for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The income during the three months ended March 31, 2025 was recognized based on insurance compensation in connection with the fire near the Talasol and Ellomay Solar facilities in Spain in July 2024 due to loss of income in 2025.
    • Financing income, net, were approximately €7.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to financing expenses of approximately €3.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The change in financing expenses, net, was mainly attributable to higher income resulting from exchange rate differences that amounted to approximately €10.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to loss from exchange rate differences of approximately €0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024, an aggregate change of approximately €11.3 million. The exchange rate differences were mainly recorded in connection with the New Israeli Shekel (“NIS”) cash and cash equivalents and the Company’s NIS denominated debentures and were caused by the 5.9% devaluation of the NIS against the euro during the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to a revaluation of 0.8% during the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase in financing income for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was partially offset by an increase in financing expenses of approximately €0.9 million in connection with derivatives and warrants for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Tax benefit was approximately €0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to tax benefit of approximately €0.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Loss from discontinued operation (net of tax) was €0 for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to a loss from discontinued operation (net of tax) of approximately €0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Profit for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €6.8 million, compared to loss of approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Total other comprehensive loss was approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to total other comprehensive income of approximately €12 million in the three months ended March 31, 2024. The change in total other comprehensive income (loss) is primarily as the result of foreign currency translation adjustments due to the change in the NIS/euro exchange rate and by changes in fair value of cash flow hedges, including a material decrease in the fair value of the liability resulting from the financial power swap that covers approximately 80% of the output of the Talasol solar plant (the “Talasol PPA”). The Talasol PPA experienced a high volatility due to the substantial change in electricity prices in Europe. In accordance with hedge accounting standards, the changes in the Talasol PPA’s fair value are recorded in the Company’s shareholders’ equity through a hedging reserve and not through the accumulated deficit/retained earnings. The changes do not impact the Company’s consolidated net profit/loss or the Company’s consolidated cash flows.
    • Total comprehensive income was approximately €1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to total comprehensive income of approximately €7.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • EBITDA was approximately €2.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Net cash from operating activities was approximately €0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • On February 16, 2025, the Company issued in an Israeli public offering an aggregate principal amount of NIS 214,479,000 of newly issued Series G Debentures, due December 31, 2032. The net proceeds of the offering, net of related expenses such as consultancy fee and commissions, were approximately NIS 211.7 million (approximately €56.7 million as of the issuance date).

    CEO Review for the First Quarter of 2025

    In the first quarter, the Company’s revenues amounted to €8.9 million, an increase of approximately 9% in revenues compared to the corresponding quarter last year. These revenues do not include the Company’s share of Dorad’s revenues. The Company presented an increase of approximately 81% in EBITDA compared to the corresponding quarter last year (€2.9 million compared to €1.6 million in the corresponding quarter last year). The Company’s first quarter is a winter quarter and is characterized by low production and revenues compared to the other quarters of the year.

    In the first half of 2025, the Company recorded significant progress in the start of construction and connection to the grid of new projects, which are expected to contribute to revenue growth in the near future.

    In Italy – Financing agreements were signed for solar projects with a total capacity of 198 MW (of which 38 MW are already connected to the electricity grid), and a transaction was signed and consummated with Clal Insurance to enter as a partner (49%) in the aforementioned 198 MW. Construction work on 160 MW has begun and construction is progressing as planned. The remainder of the portfolio held by the Company (100%) is approximately 264 MW solar, of which 124 MW have received construction permits and the rest are expected to receive permits in the near future. These 264 MW are scheduled to begin construction in the last quarter of 2026.

    In the US – The Company is advancing additional solar projects with a capacity of approximately 50 MW (beyond the existing portfolio (49 MW) which has completed construction), which are expected to begin construction during 2025. The intention is that these projects will be able to enjoy the full tax benefit currently in effect. The addition of battery storage to each of the projects is also under planning.

    In the Netherlands – the Company received, after March 31, 2025, a license to increase production at the GGG facility by 64%. Licenses to increase production at the two additional facilities are in advanced stages. The new regulation for the obligation to blend green gas with fossil gas will commence according to the law in January 2027 (a delay of one year), but the targets for the first year have increased. Agreements have been signed for the sale of green certificates issued under the new regulation at a price of approximately €1 per certificate. The blending obligation is expected to significantly increase the profitability of operations in the Netherlands at current production capacity. The expected increase in production capacity from 16 million cubic meters of gas per year to around 24 million cubic meters of gas per year is expected to add significantly beyond that.

    In Israel – the Company is in negotiations with the Israeli Electricity Authority for compensation for delays and war damage to the Manara project. Ellomay Luzon (50% owned) provided a notice of exercise of its right of first refusal on the Zorlu-Phoenix transaction for the sale of Dorad’s shares. Ellomay Luzon and another shareholder exercised their right of first refusal with respect to all of the shares offered (15% of Dorad’s shares), and, subject to the timely fulfillment of the conditions to closing, Ellomay Luzon and the other shareholder are expected to share these shares in equal parts.

    In Spain – The Company’s development activity in Spain focuses on battery storage, due to the high volatility in electricity prices in Spain, which stems from an excess of renewable energy during the transition seasons and causes damage to the stability of the grid. In the Company’s assessment, the solution is a significant increase in storage capacity, which is currently at very low levels in Spain. Regulation in Spain is also starting to move in this direction.

    Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures

    EBITDA is a non-IFRS measure and is defined as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization. The Company presents this measure in order to enhance the understanding of the Company’s operating performance and to enable comparability between periods. While the Company considers EBITDA to be an important measure of comparative operating performance, EBITDA should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income or other statement of operations or cash flow data prepared in accordance with IFRS as a measure of profitability or liquidity. EBITDA does not take into account the Company’s commitments, including capital expenditures and restricted cash and, accordingly, is not necessarily indicative of amounts that may be available for discretionary uses. Not all companies calculate EBITDA in the same manner, and the measure as presented may not be comparable to similarly-titled measure presented by other companies. The Company’s EBITDA may not be indicative of the Company’s historic operating results; nor is it meant to be predictive of potential future results. The Company uses this measure internally as performance measure and believes that when this measure is combined with IFRS measure it add useful information concerning the Company’s operating performance. A reconciliation between results on an IFRS and non-IFRS basis is provided on page 17 of this press release.

    About Ellomay Capital Ltd.

    Ellomay is an Israeli based company whose shares are registered with the NYSE American and with the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “ELLO”. Since 2009, Ellomay focuses its business in the renewable energy and power sectors in Europe, USA and Israel.

    To date, Ellomay has evaluated numerous opportunities and invested significant funds in the renewable, clean energy and natural resources industries in Israel, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Texas, USA, including:

    • Approximately 335.9 MW of operating solar power plants in Spain (including a 300 MW solar plant in owned by Talasol, which is 51% owned by the Company) and 51% of approximately 38 MW of operating solar power plants in Italy;
    • 9.375% indirect interest in Dorad Energy Ltd., which owns and operates one of Israel’s largest private power plants with production capacity of approximately 850MW, representing about 6%-8% of Israel’s total current electricity consumption;
    • Groen Gas Goor B.V., Groen Gas Oude-Tonge B.V. and Groen Gas Gelderland B.V., project companies operating anaerobic digestion plants in the Netherlands, with a green gas production capacity of approximately 3 million, 3.8 million and 9.5 million Nm3 per year, respectively;
    • 83.333% of Ellomay Pumped Storage (2014) Ltd., which is involved in a project to construct a 156 MW pumped storage hydro power plant in the Manara Cliff, Israel;
    • 51% of solar projects in Italy with an aggregate capacity of 160 MW that commenced construction processes;
    • Solar projects in Italy with an aggregate capacity of 134 MW that have reached “ready to build” status; and
    • Solar projects in the Dallas Metropolitan area, Texas, USA with an aggregate capacity of approximately 27 MW that are connected to the grid and additional 22 MW that are awaiting connection to the grid.

    For more information about Ellomay, visit http://www.ellomay.com.

    Information Relating to Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements that are based on the current expectations and assumptions of the Company’s management. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release regarding the Company’s plans and objectives, expectations and assumptions of management are forward-looking statements. The use of certain words, including the words “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “expect,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the Company’s forward-looking statements. Various important factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those that may be expressed or implied by the Company’s forward-looking statements, including changes in electricity prices and demand, regulatory changes increases in interest rates and inflation, changes in the supply and prices of resources required for the operation of the Company’s facilities (such as waste and natural gas) and in the price of oil, the impact of the war and hostilities in Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Iran, the impact of the continued military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, technical and other disruptions in the operations or construction of the power plants owned by the Company, inability to obtain the financing required for the development and construction of projects, inability to advance the expansion of Dorad, increases in interest rates and inflation, changes in exchange rates, delays in development, construction, or commencement of operation of the projects under development, failure to obtain permits – whether within the set time frame or at all, climate change, and general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates, including Israel, Spain, Italy and the United States. and general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates, including Israel, Spain, Italy and the United States. These and other risks and uncertainties associated with the Company’s business are described in greater detail in the filings the Company makes from time to time with Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 20-F. The forward-looking statements are made as of this date and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    Contact:
    Kalia Rubenbach (Weintraub)
    CFO
    Tel: +972 (3) 797-1111
    Email: hilai@ellomay.com

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
      March 31,   December 31,   March 31,
    2025   2024   2025
    Unaudited   Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands
    		   Convenience Translation
    into US$ in thousands*
    Assets          
    Current assets:          
    Cash and cash equivalents 35,148   41,134   38,021
    Short term deposits 36,301   –   39,268
    Restricted cash 656   656   710
    Intangible asset from green certificates 195   178   211
    Trade and revenue receivables 5,911   5,393   6,394
    Other receivables 15,518   15,341   16,786
    Derivatives asset short-term 650   146   703
      94,379   62,848   102,093
    Non-current assets          
    Investment in equity accounted investee 40,107   41,324   43,385
    Advances on account of investments 547   547   592
    Fixed assets 487,100   482,747   526,914
    Right-of-use asset 41,276   34,315   44,650
    Restricted cash and deposits 15,569   17,052   16,842
    Deferred tax 8,525   9,039   9,222
    Long term receivables 13,882   13,411   15,017
    Derivatives 19,855   15,974   21,478
      626,861   614,409   678,100
               
    Total assets 721,240   677,257   780,193
               
    Liabilities and Equity          
    Current liabilities          
    Current maturities of long-term bank loans 20,761   21,316   22,458
    Current maturities of other long-term loans 5,866   5,866   6,345
    Current maturities of debentures 47,233   35,706   51,094
    Trade payables 9,928   8,856   10,738
    Other payables 8,913   10,896   9,642
    Current maturities of derivatives 40   1,875   43
    Current maturities of lease liabilities 733   714   793
    Warrants 1,740   1,446   1,882
      95,214   86,675   102,995
    Non-current liabilities          
    Long-term lease liabilities 32,673   25,324   35,344
    Long-term bank loans 242,177   245,866   261,972
    Other long-term loans 29,578   30,448   31,996
    Debentures 186,691   155,823   201,951
    Deferred tax 2,652   2,609   2,869
    Other long-term liabilities 950   939   1,028
    Derivatives 135   288   146
      494,856   461,297   535,306
    Total liabilities 590,070   547,972   638,301
               
    Equity          
    Share capital 25,613   25,613   27,707
    Share premium 86,275   86,271   93,327
    Treasury shares (1,736)   (1,736)   (1,878)
    Transaction reserve with non-controlling Interests 5,697   5,697   6,163
    Reserves 7,381   14,338   7,984
    Accumulated deficit (3,567)   (11,561)   (3,859)
    Total equity attributed to shareholders of the Company 119,663   118,622   129,444
    Non-Controlling Interest 11,507   10,663   12,448
    Total equity 131,170   129,285   141,892
    Total liabilities and equity 721,240   677,257   780,193

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

                    

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		 For the year
    ended
    December 31,    		   For the three
    months ended
    March 31,
      2025   2024   2024   2025
      Unaudited
    		   Audited   Unaudited
      € in thousands (except per share data)
    		   Convenience Translation into US$*
    Revenues 8,860   8,243   40,467   9,584
    Operating expenses (4,627)   (4,563)   (19,803)   (5,005)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses (4,238)   (4,055)   (15,887)   (4,584)
    Gross profit (loss) (5)   (375)   4,777   (5)
                   
    Project development costs (1,045)   (1,415)   (4,101)   (1,130)
    General and administrative expenses (1,662)   (1,620)   (6,063)   (1,798)
    Share of profits of equity accounted investee 1,189   1,286   11,062   1,286
    Other income 198   –   3,409   214
    Operating profit (loss) (1,325)   (2,124)   9,084   (1,433)
                   
    Financing income 11,483   631   2,495   12,422
    Financing income (expenses) in connection with derivatives and warrants, net (376)   536   1,140   (407)
    Financing expenses in connection with projects finance (1,375)   (1,501)   (6,190)   (1,487)
    Financing expenses in connection with debentures (1,741)   (1,711)   (6,641)   (1,883)
    Interest expenses on minority shareholder loan (476)   (554)   (2,144)   (515)
    Other financing expenses (294)   (713)   (8,311)   (318)
    Financing income (expenses), net 7,221   (3,312)   (19,651)   7,812
    Profit (loss) before taxes on income 5,896   (5,436)   (10,567)   6,379
    Tax benefit 922   828   1,424   997
    Profit (loss) from continuing operations 6,818   (4,608)   (9,143)   7,376
    Profit (loss) from discontinued operation (net of tax) –   (312)   137   –
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Profit (loss) attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company 7,994   (3,613)   (6,524)   8,647
    Non-controlling interests (1,176)   (1,307)   (2,482)   (1,271)
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
                   
    Other comprehensive income items              
    That after initial recognition in comprehensive income were or will be transferred to profit or loss:              
    Foreign currency translation differences for foreign operations (9,538)   1,124   8,007   (10,318)
    Foreign currency translation differences for foreign operations that were recognized in profit or loss –   –   255    
    Effective portion of change in fair value of cash flow hedges 4,264   10,461   5,631   4,613
    Net change in fair value of cash flow hedges transferred to profit or loss 337   457   (813)   365
    Total other comprehensive income (4,937)   12,042   13,080   (5,340)
                   
    Total other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company (6,957)   6,656   10,039   (7,526)
    Non-controlling interests 2,020   5,386   3,041   2,186
    Total other comprehensive income (loss) (4,937)   12,042   13,080   (5,340)
    Total comprehensive income for the period 1,881   7,122   4,074   2,036
                   
    Total comprehensive income for the period attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company 1,037   3,043   3,515   1,121
    Non-controlling interests 844   4,079   559   915
    Total comprehensive income for the period 1,881   7,122   4,074   2,036
                   

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (cont’d)
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		 For the year
    ended
    December 31,    		   For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    Unaudited
    		   Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands (except per share data)
    		   Convenience Translation into US$*
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share 0.62   (0.28)   (0.51)   0.67
    Diluted profit (loss) per share 0.62   (0.28)   (0.51)   0.67
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share continuing operations 0.62   (0.31)   (0.52)   0.67
    Diluted profit (loss) per share continuing operations 0.62   (0.31)   (0.52)   0.67
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share discontinued operation –   (0.02)   0.01   –
    Diluted profit (loss) per share discontinued operation –   (0.02)   0.01   –

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
    		   Non- controlling   Total
                                    Interests   Equity
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations    		   Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests    		   Total        
    € in thousands
                                           
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2025 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2025 25,613   86,271   (11,561)   (1,736)   8,446   5,892   5,697   118,622   10,663   129,285
    Profit for the period –   –   7,994   –   –   –   –   7,994   (1,176)   6,818
    Other comprehensive income for the period –   –   –   –   (9,329)   2,372   –   (6,957)   2,020   (4,937)
    Total comprehensive income for the period –   –   7,994   –   (9,329)   2,372   –   1,037   844   1,881
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments –   4   –   –   –   –   –   4   –   4
    Balance as at March 31, 2025 25,613   86,275   (3,567)   (1,736)   (883)   8,264   5,697   119,663   11,507   131,170
                                           
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2024 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2024 25,613   86,159   (5,037)   (1,736)   385   3,914   5,697   114,995   10,104   125,099
    Loss for the period –   –   (3,613)   –   –   –   –   (3,613)   (1,307)   (4,920)
    Other comprehensive income for the period –   –   –   –   1,088   5,568   –   6,656   5,386   12,042
    Total comprehensive income (loss) for the period –   –   (3,613)   –   1,088   5,568   –   3,043   4,079   7,122
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments –   30   –   –   –   –   –   30   –   30
    Balance as at March 31, 2024 25,613   86,189   (8,650)   (1,736)   1,473   9,482   5,697   118,068   14,183   132,251
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity (cont’d)
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
    		   Non- controlling   Total
                                    Interests   Equity
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations    		   Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests    		   Total        
    € in thousands
    For the year ended                                      
    December 31, 2024 (audited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2024 25,613   86,159   (5,037)   (1,736)   385   3,914   5,697   114,995   10,104   125,099
    Loss for the year –   –   (6,524)   –   –   –   –   (6,524)   (2,482)   (9,006)
    Other comprehensive income for the year –   –   –   –   8,061   1,978   –   10,039   3,041   13,080
    Total comprehensive income (loss) for the year –   –   (6,524)   –   8,061   1,978   –   3,515   559   4,074
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments –   112   –   –   –   –   –   112   –   112
    Balance as at December 31, 2024 25,613   86,271   (11,561)   (1,736)   8,446   5,892   5,697   118,622   10,663   129,285
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity (cont’d)
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
    		   Non- controlling
    Interests    		   Total
    Equity
                                         
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations    		   Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests    		   Total        
    Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2025 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2025 27,707   93,323   (12,506)   (1,878)   9,136   6,374   6,163   128,319   11,533   139,852
    Loss for the period –   –   8,647   –   –   –   –   8,647   (1,271)   7,376
    Other comprehensive income for the period –   –   –   –   (10,092)   2,566   –   (7,526)   2,186   (5,340)
    Total comprehensive income for the period –   –   8,647   –   (10,092)   2,566   –   1,121   915   2,036
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments –   4   –   –   –   –   –   4   –   4
    Balance as at March 31, 2025 27,707   93,327   (3,859)   (1,878)   (956)   8,940   6,163   129,444   12,448   141,892
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Cash Flow
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		 For the year
    ended
    December 31,    		   For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    Unaudited
    		   Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands
    		   Convenience
    Translation into US$*
    Cash flows from operating activities              
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Adjustments for:              
    Financing expenses (income), net (7,221)   3,167   19,247   (7,812)
    Loss from settlement of derivatives contract –   –   316   –
    Impairment losses on assets of disposal groups classified as held-for-sale –   601   405   –
    Depreciation and amortization expenses 4,238   4,084   15,935   4,584
    Share-based payment transactions 4   30   112   4
    Share of profit of equity accounted investees (1,189)   (1,286)   (11,062)   (1,286)
    Payment of interest on loan from an equity accounted investee –   –   –   –
    Change in trade receivables and other receivables   6,178   (2,342)   (8,824)   6,683
    Change in other assets (496)   –   3,770   (537)
    Change in receivables from concessions project –   315   793   –
    Change in trade payables 1,267   (68)   (31)   1,371
    Change in other payables (5,538)   2,796   4,455   (5,796)
    Tax benefit (922)   (805)   (1,429)   (997)
    Income taxes refund (paid) –   564   623   –
    Interest received 351   907   2,537   380
    Interest paid (3,408)   (1,892)   (9,873)   (3,687)
      (6,556)   6,071   16,974   (7,093)
    Net cash from operating activities 262   1,151   7,968   283
                   
    Cash flows from investing activities              
    Acquisition of fixed assets (18,550)   (9,020)   (72,922)   (20,066)
    Interest paid capitalized to fixed assets (876)   –   (2,515)   (948)
    Proceeds from sale of investments –   –   9,267   –
    Advances on account of investments –   –   (163)   –
    Proceeds from advances on account of investments –   –   514   –
    Investment in settlement of derivatives, net –   14   (316)   –
    Proceed from restricted cash, net 1,307   1,153   689   1,414
    Proceeds from investment in short-term deposits (39,132)   (28)   1,004   (42,331)
    Net cash used in investing activities (57,251)   (7,881)   (64,442)   (61,931)
                   
    Cash flows from financing activities              
    Issuance of warrants –   3,735   2,449   –
    Cost associated with long term loans (658)   (638)   (2,567)   (712)
    Payment of principal of lease liabilities (372)   (299)   (2,941)   (402)
    Proceeds from long-term loans 306   380   19,482   331
    Repayment of long-term loans (1,792)   (2,357)   (11,776)   (1,938)
    Repayment of debentures —   –   (35,845)   –
    Proceeds from issuance of debentures, net 56,729   36,450   74,159   61,366
    Net cash from financing activities 54,213   37,271   42,961   58,645
                   
    Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents (3,210)   1,667   3,092   (3,472)
    Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (5,986)   32,208   (10,421)   (6,475)
    Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of year 41,134   51,555   51,127   44,496
    Cash from disposal groups classified as held-for-sale –   (1,041)   428   –
    Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period 35,148   82,722   41,134   38,021

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Operating Segments
      Italy   Spain
    		   USA   Netherlands   Israel
    		   Total        
        Subsidized   28 MV                       reportable       Total
    Solar   Plants   Solar   Talasol   Solar   Biogas   Dorad   Manara   segments   Reconciliations   consolidated
    For the three months ended March 31, 2025
    € in thousands
                                               
    Revenues 945   786   406   3,246   –   3,477   15,061   –   23,921   (15,061)   8,860
    Operating expenses (435)   (105)   (84)   (1,024)   (305)   (3,206)   (11,693)   –   (16,851)   12,224   (4,627)
    Depreciation expenses (225)   (229)   (252)   (2,839)   –   (676)   (1,268)   –   (5,489)   1,251   (4,238)
    Gross profit (loss) 313   452   84   (617)   (305)   (405)   2,100   –   1,623   (1,628)   (5)
                                               
    Adjusted gross profit (loss) 313   452   84   (617)   (305)   (405)   2,100   –   1,623   (1,628)   (5)
    Project development costs                                         (1,045)
    General and administrative expenses                                         (1,662)
    Share of loss of equity accounted investee                                         1,189
    Other income, net                                         198
    Operating profit                                         (1,325)
    Financing income                                         11,483
    Financing income in connection                                          
    with derivatives and warrants, net                                         (376)
    Financing expenses in connection with projects finance                                         (1,375)
    Financing expenses in connection with debentures                                         (1,741)
    Interest expenses on minority shareholder loan                                         (476)
    Other financing expenses                                         (294)
    Financing expenses, net                                         7,221
    Loss before taxes on income                                         5,896
                                               
    Segment assets as at March 31, 2025 87,185   13,242   19,475   223,844   60,458   32,801   108,858   180,504   726,366   (5,126)   721,240  
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Reconciliation of Profit (Loss) to EBITDA
      For the three months
    ended March 31,    		 For the year
    ended
    December 31,    		   For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    € in thousands
    		   Convenience Translation
    into US$*
    Net profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Financing expenses (income), net (7,221)   3,312   19,651   (7,812)
    Tax benefit (922)   (828)   (1,424)   (997)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses 4,238   4,055   15,887   4,584
    EBITDA 2,913   1,619   25,108   3,151

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders

    Financial Covenants

    Pursuant to the Deeds of Trust governing the Company’s Series C, Series D, Series E, Series F and Series G Debentures (together, the “Debentures”), the Company is required to maintain certain financial covenants. For more information, see Items 4.A and 5.B of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2025, and below.

    Net Financial Debt

    As of March 31, 2025, the Company’s Net Financial Debt, (as such term is defined in the Deeds of Trust of the Company’s Debentures), was approximately €170 million (consisting of approximately €3031 million of short-term and long-term debt from banks and other interest bearing financial obligations, approximately €241.42 million in connection with (i) the Series C Debentures issuances (in July 2019, October 2020, February 2021 and October 2021), (ii) the Series D Convertible Debentures issuance (in February 2021), (iii) the Series E Secured Debentures issuance (in February 2023), (iv) the Series F Debentures issuance (in January, April, August and November 2024) and (v) the Series G Debentures issuance (in February 2025)), net of approximately €71.4 million of cash and cash equivalents, short-term deposits and marketable securities and net of approximately €3033 million of project finance and related hedging transactions of the Company’s subsidiaries).

    Discussion concerning Warning Signs

    Upon the issuance of the Company’s Debentures, the Company undertook to comply with the “hybrid model disclosure requirements” as determined by the Israeli Securities Authority and as described in the Israeli prospectuses published in connection with the public offering of the company’s Debentures. This model provides that in the event certain financial “warning signs” exist in the Company’s consolidated financial results or statements, and for as long as they exist, the Company will be subject to certain disclosure obligations towards the holders of the Company’s Debentures.

    One possible “warning sign” is the existence of a working capital deficiency if the Company’s Board of Directors does not determine that the working capital deficiency is not an indication of a liquidity problem. In examining the existence of warning signs as of March 31, 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors noted the working capital deficiency as of March 31, 2025, in the amount of approximately €0.96 million. The Company’s Board of Directors reviewed the Company’s financial position, outstanding debt obligations and the Company’s existing and anticipated cash resources and uses and determined that the existence of a working capital deficiency as of March 31, 2025, does not indicate a liquidity problem. In making such determination, the Company’s Board of Directors noted the following: (i) the execution of the agreement to sell tax credits in connection with the US solar projects, which is expected to contribute approximately $19 million during the next twelve months, (ii) the Company’s positive cash flow from operating activities during 2023 and 2024, and (iii) funds received from the investment transaction with Clal Insurance Company Ltd. that was consummated in June 2025.

     

    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series C Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series C Debentures (as amended on June 6, 2022, the “Series C Deed of Trust”), includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for two consecutive quarters is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series C Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series C Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA,4 was 6.3.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series C Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended M    arch 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series C Deed of Trust   26,972

    The Series C Debentures were fully repaid on June 30, 2025 in accordance with their terms. 

    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)

    Information for the Company’s Series D Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series D Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series D Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series D Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA5 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended M    arch 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Loss for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters6   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series D Deed of Trust   27,871
    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series E Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series E Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series E Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series E Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA7 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters8   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series E Deed of Trust   27,871
         

    In connection with the undertaking included in Section 3.17.2 of Annex 6 of the Series E Deed of Trust, no circumstances occurred during the reporting period under which the rights to loans provided to Ellomay Luzon Energy Infrastructures Ltd. (formerly U. Dori Energy Infrastructures Ltd. (“Ellomay Luzon Energy”)), which were pledged to the holders of the Company’s Series E Debentures, will become subordinate to the amounts owed by Ellomay Luzon Energy to Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

    As of March 31, 2025, the value of the assets pledged to the holders of the Series E Debentures in the Company’s books (unaudited) is approximately €40.1 million (approximately NIS 161.3 million based on the exchange rate as of such date).

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)

    Information for the Company’s Series F Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series F Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series F Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series F Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) was approximately €115.9 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.4%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA9 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters10   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series F Deed of Trust   27,871
         
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series G Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series G Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series G Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series G Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) was approximately €115.9 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.4%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA11 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters12   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series G Deed of Trust   27,871
         

    ____________________________
    1 The amount of short-term and long-term debt from banks and other interest-bearing financial obligations provided above, includes an amount of approximately €4.5 million costs associated with such debt, which was capitalized and therefore offset from the debt amount that is recorded in the Company’s balance sheet.

    2 The amount of the debentures provided above includes an amount of approximately €6.7 million associated costs, which was capitalized and discount or premium and therefore offset from the debentures amount that is recorded in the Company’s balance sheet. This amount also includes the accrued interest as at March 31, 2025 in the amount of approximately €0.8 million.

    3 The project finance amount deducted from the calculation of Net Financial Debt includes project finance obtained from various sources, including financing entities and the minority shareholders in project companies held by the Company (provided in the form of shareholders’ loans to the project companies).

    4 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series C Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef solar plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments. The Series C Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series C Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    5 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust). The Series D Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series D Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    6 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    7 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust). The Series E Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series E Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    8 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    9 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust). The Series F Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series F Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    10 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    11 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust). The Series G Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series G Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    12 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Joint Statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers on Iran and the Middle East

    Source: Government of Canada News

    June 30, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada

    We the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met in The Hague on June 25, 2025, where we discussed recent events in the Middle East.

    We reiterate our support for the ceasefire between Israel and Iran announced by U.S. President Trump, and urge all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region.

    We appreciate Qatar’s important role in facilitating the ceasefire and express our full solidarity to Qatar and Iraq following the recent strikes by Iran and its proxies and partners against their territory. We welcome all efforts in the region towards stabilization and de-escalation.

    We reaffirm that the Islamic Republic of Iran can never have nuclear weapons, and urge Iran to refrain from reconstituting its unjustified enrichment activities. We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran’s nuclear program.

    In order to have a sustainable and credible resolution, we call on Iran to urgently resume full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as required by its safeguards obligations and to provide the IAEA with verifiable information about all nuclear material in Iran, including by providing access to IAEA inspectors. We condemn calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of IAEA Director General Grossi

    We underscore the centrality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is essential that Iran remains party to and fully implements its obligations under the Treaty.

    We reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. In this context, we reaffirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: UNDRR deepens support for local resilience at the 12th European Urban Resilience Forum

    Source: UNISDR Disaster Risk Reduction

    The 12th European Urban Resilience Forum (EURESFO), held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands from 25-27 June 2025, provided an important platform for urban resilience practitioners to reinforce their commitment to accelerating local action on resilience, climate adaptation, and disaster risk reduction in the context of growing urban challenges. 

    As urban areas in Europe and beyond face cascading risks-from heatwaves and floods to geopolitical instability and infrastructure stress-UNDRR used the platform to underscore the critical role of local governments in driving meaningful disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. 

    In a video message to the Forum’s opening plenary, Kamal Kishore, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction, emphasized three global priorities: strengthening local implementation of DRR strategies, unlocking resilience financing, and scaling up community-driven innovation. 

    “If we do not reduce risk at the local level, we will not succeed in reducing losses at the global level,” he stated, calling for stronger investment and partnerships to translate plans into action. 

    UNDRR’s active engagement throughout the Forum showcased its commitment to supporting cities through the Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) initiative. Yigyeong Oh, MCR2030 Regional Focal Point for Europe and Central Asia, spoke in multiple sessions, including the opening plenary “Resilience in Crisis: Accelerating Action for a Just Future” and the panel discussion “Building Urban Resilience in an Era of Polycrisis: The Holistic Agenda.” She highlighted how MCR2030 has grown into a global movement of over 1,850 cities, supporting local governments with risk-informed governance, resilience assessments, and stakeholder collaboration. 

    “In a time of polycrisis, resilience is not a siloed agenda,” Oh noted. “Cities are facing overlapping challenges-climate shocks, economic pressures, and social inequality-and MCR2030 enables them to plan holistically, act collectively, and learn globally.” 

    UNDRR also co-moderated the workshop “Local Action to Address Extreme Heat – CitiesHitRefresh,” which addressed one of the fastest growing disaster risks in Europe. Zdravko Maxomovic from Kraljevo, an MCR2030 city from Serbia, shared its practical experiences in managing heat risks and contributing to the upcoming second edition of UNDRR’s Flames of Change report, a knowledge product documenting inclusive urban resilience solutions. 

    Nature-based solutions were another key theme. UNDRR supported the session “Collaborate, Educate, Transform: Building the Future of Nature-Based Solutions in Cities,” where Małgorzata Bartyna-Zielińska from the City of Wrocław, an MCR2030 Resilience Hub, presented its award-winning LifeCOOLCity project. The session underscored the power of peer learning through networks like MCR2030.

    Beyond technical sessions, UNDRR joined ICLEI and other partners for a side meeting with Ukrainian cities, including Lviv, an MCR2030 Resilience Hub, focused on the Ukraine Recovery Roadmap and aligning international support with local resilience priorities. 

    UNDRR also pitched the MCR2030 Climate Resilience Addendum to the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities during the pitch session, offering cities a practical tool to assess and enhance resilience to climate-related risks. 

    As the Forum concluded, a common message resonated across sessions: Europe has a unique role in shaping standards, fostering multilevel governance, and investing in long-term resilience. UNDRR reaffirmed its commitment to advancing these goals by supporting local governments with tools, knowledge, and partnerships through MCR2030 and other initiatives. With the urgency of accelerating resilience action, the Forum reinforced the need for collective action-local leadership supported by global collaboration-to ensure no city is left behind.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –