NewzIntel.com

Category: Pandemic

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ Budget 2025: anything less than a 5% increase in health funding amounts to merely standing still

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Tenbensel, Professor of Health Policy, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Health Minister Simeon Brown. Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    Minister of Health Simeon Brown claimed earlier this year that health funding in New Zealand has never been higher and that suggestions of underfunding are “fake news”.

    On the bare statistics, Brown isn’t wrong. The allocation to Vote Health has indeed increased from NZ$18.2 billion in 2018-19 to $29.6 billion in the 2024-25 budget.

    Yet for many working in the publicly-funded health system things have never seemed so bad, with daily stories of under-staffing and increasing levels of stress.

    So, how much should the government be spending on health? Any answer needs to factor in the broader context of the health system, and where we sit historically and comparatively.

    The health system is subject to significant cost pressures, few of which are unique to New Zealand. People are generally living longer, but more of that longer life span is spent in ill health.

    At the same time, New Zealand’s population profile has changed significantly over the past 40 years. There is a lower proportion of working-age people paying income tax to support those who are older.

    Technological advances, on balance, drive up health expenditure – more is possible, so more is expected. And compared with other parts of the economy, health services are labour-intensive.

    Around two thirds of health expenditure is on staff, and health workforce shortages are a global problem (again, driven by demographic change). All these factors mean health costs rise faster than inflation.

    Taking all of this into account, a recent health economics analysis calculated that to continue to deliver the same level of service in the United Kingdom (which has very similar health system characteristics to New Zealand), public spending on health would need to increase by 2.8% in real terms (above inflation) each year.

    Then we need to factor in population growth, which has recently been between 1.5% and 2% per year in New Zealand. In this context, a 4-5% increase in Vote Health amounts to merely standing still.

    People are living longer, but more of that longer life is spent in ill health.
    Getty Images

    Long-term deterioration

    We also need to put our current situation in historical and international context.

    The most appropriate indicator for international comparison is “publicly mandated health expenditure” (PMHE) as a percentage of GDP, as this excludes private expenditure (private health insurance and “out of pocket” payments).

    Total health spending typically constitutes 10-12% of GDP in high-income countries, and PMHE is typically around 8%. In the 2010s, however, New Zealand’s PMHE dropped from 7.8% (2012) to 7% of GDP (2017). Meanwhile, Australia, Canada and the UK all remained at or above 8% during that time.

    This represents a significant long-term deterioration which heightened the stress on our health system before and after the COVID pandemic.

    Even when our PMHE as a percentage of GDP is comparable to Australia and other countries, our per-capita health expenditure is significantly less because our GDP per-capita is lower.

    The most significant budget boost in recent years was in 2022. But this was largely soaked up by pay rises for health professionals that resulted from underfunding during the 2010s.

    The current government finds itself in a very tight spot. This is partly because of international economic conditions and demographic trends, but also due to self-imposed constraints.

    Even in such a large budget, there’ll be little room for major initiatives in health unless savings are found from existing areas. That is rarely feasible in health. As is true in most years, there could be up to three big-ticket items. If so, what should they be?

    What Budget 2025 should include

    First, the government needs to boost capital expenditure in health. A recent analysis by the UK Institute for Government shows that public service productivity, including in the health sector, fell sharply during and after the COVID pandemic. The New Zealand treasury reported similar productivity declines.

    The UK report concluded these declines were primarily due to physical capacity constraints – clinical staff can’t be more productive when there is not enough physical space and diagnostic equipment.

    Earlier this month, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced a $400 million increase in the annual capital allowance across all of government. Let’s see how much of the total $4 billion capital allowance is channelled into health.

    A second priority should be primary healthcare. Here, the health minister has already announced a range of initiatives, headlined by $285 million of additional performance-based funding over three years. This is a welcome commitment, and the most significant boost in primary care funding since the mid-2000s.

    However, it’s unlikely this will redress erosion over the past 20 years of primary care “capitation” funding (the amount a GP practice receives per enrolled patient).

    This funding formula also needs to be modernised to better reflect where needs are highest and account for rising acuity and complexity of conditions in primary healthcare. This would relieve some pressures on hospital emergency departments and medical wards.

    Third, investment to retain and attract health workers across the whole sector is vital. Given the demographic and epidemiological changes, proactively preparing for a mid-21st-century health workforce will require funding to support emerging models of health services, particularly in primary and community settings, including programmes such as Access and Choice and comprehensive primary and community care teams.

    These priorities, and any government commitment to them in Budget 2025, must be understood against the backdrop of sustained historical underfunding.

    The government is likely to claim health is a big winner in Budget 2025. Unless increases are significantly greater than 5%, such a claim will bring little respite to the health sector.

    In any case, the race that counts is a marathon, not a sprint. New Zealand is well back in the field, struggling not to lose further ground.

    Tim Tenbensel receives funding from the New Zealand Health Research Council.

    – ref. NZ Budget 2025: anything less than a 5% increase in health funding amounts to merely standing still – https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2025-anything-less-than-a-5-increase-in-health-funding-amounts-to-merely-standing-still-255593

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Disaster authoritarianism: how autocratic regimes deal with earthquakes

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nimesh Dhungana, Lecturer in Disasters and Global Health, Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, University of Manchester

    An earthquake that struck south-east Asia in late March is thought to have killed more than 3,000 people in Myanmar, a country ruled by a military junta that has blocked humanitarian aid and continued waging war on quake-ravaged rebel territory.

    I am interested in how authoritarian regimes handle disasters and whether they disrupt or reinforce the ruling elite’s agenda. My research has led me to Tibet, which has endured Chinese occupation since 1951 and suffered a 7.1-magnitude earthquake in early January 2025.

    Beijing controls the access of independent media and international observers in Tibet. What we know about the disaster’s impact is largely based on initial reporting by the Chinese media, which has claimed the loss of 126 lives and damage to roads and communication networks.

    Tibetan sources have, however, contended that there has been much greater destruction, including to a number of monasteries and nunneries across the region.

    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 the earthquake, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, ordered “all-out search and rescue efforts” and pledged a rapid recovery. The constrained political environment has meant that Chinese relief agencies and the Chinese state-run media have controlled the narrative, praising Beijing’s capacity for “speed and compassion” in mobilising rescue efforts while using the disaster to highlight China’s record of “good governance and putting people and their lives first”.

    These accounts not only fail to report on the civic responses to disaster, such as mutual aid networks organised by Tibetans both locally and internationally, but they tend to overlook the immediate concerns of the affected communities.

    Survivors and activists using social media to challenge Chinese media narratives of purported success in rescue and relief efforts have faced censorship and outright hostility from the Chinese authorities. A previous study, looking at the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, found that communities that were considered a challenge to Chinese authority had their demands for relief suppressed.

    Firefighters shift rubble in Shigatse on January 7 2025.
    China News Service, CC BY-SA

    The earthquake has sparked further concerns among Tibetans that Chinese authorities will use the disaster to tighten their grip on the region.

    The situation is reminiscent of the April 2010 earthquake that struck Tibet’s Yushu region, claiming more than 2,600 lives and causing significant disruption to local life. The earthquake enabled China to push its vision of modernity and development in Tibet amid allegations of corruption in relief distribution and forced relocations.

    The aftermath revealed a divergence between the Chinese interpretation of recovery and what many Tibetans saw as essential for preserving and promoting their unique cultural identity.

    In their study of the Zimbabwean state’s response to tropical cyclone Idai in 2019, anthropologist Denboy Kudejira described this phenomenon as “disaster authoritarianism”: when an authoritarian regime exploits a disaster to reassert its power. Akin to China’s model, the Zimbabwean government restricted the involvement of non-state groups in longer-term recovery efforts.

    The relative lack of attention journalists and politicians abroad pay to Tibet makes this problem more acute. For instance, the wildfires in Los Angeles erupted at the same time as the earthquake, but garnered greater and more sustained media attention that mounted scrutiny on responsible agencies. By contrast, the Tibet earthquake quickly faded from the news.

    ‘Confrontational politics emerging’

    For Tibetans, challenging disaster authoritarianism is part of a delicate political struggle. Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, called the disaster “a natural phenomenon and not the result of human activities”, while urging Tibetans not to be “angry with the Chinese”. This appears to reflect his long-held wisdom that antagonising Chinese authorities will invite further hardship for communities enduring political marginalisation.

    Others are more sceptical. Some people inside Tibet have questioned the official number of casualties reported by Beijing and pushed Chinese authorities to clarify the scale of the tragedy.

    There are signs of more confrontational politics emerging. The International Campaign for Tibet, which lobbies for self-determination for Tibetans, has labelled the disaster “the silent earthquake” and accused Chinese authorities of censoring the true nature of suffering.

    Another rights group, the Tibetan Rights Collective, has highlighted China’s interventions in Tibet that have made the region more geologically unstable, including the building of hydropower dams and roads. Recent research shows that China’s push to build infrastructure in the region has increased the risk of disasters, such as floods and landslides, for downstream communities in south Asia.

    Research a colleague and I conducted during the pandemic showed that community groups can compensate for gaps in state-led disaster responses, and alert where help is needed. But this depends on public participation and grassroots organising that, in authoritarian contexts such as Tibet and Myanmar, is heavily restricted.

    The climate crisis is increasing the risk of disasters at the same time as there is widespread fear of increasing authoritarianism globally. We should all worry about how these two trends might interact.

    Nimesh Dhungana 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. Disaster authoritarianism: how autocratic regimes deal with earthquakes – https://theconversation.com/disaster-authoritarianism-how-autocratic-regimes-deal-with-earthquakes-248188

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Britain is already becoming an ‘island of strangers’ – but immigration isn’t the driver

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Skey, Lecturer in Media and Communications, Loughborough University

    Matthew Troke/Shutterstock

    Keir Starmer’s recent speech on immigration has generated a good deal of controversy. In announcing a government white paper to cut legal migration, the prime minister said: “Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values … Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”

    As someone who has researched what gives people a sense of national belonging, I would argue there is evidence that Britain has become an “island of strangers” in the sense that people live increasingly isolated lives. But the problem has very little to do with migration.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    New public opinion research from think tank More in Common has found that 50% of Britons feel disconnected from society around them, while 44% say they sometimes feel like “strangers in their own country.” This feeling of alienation was strongest among Asian Britons.

    Some evidence suggests a relationship between diversity (ethnic and racial diversity) and lack of social cohesion, rather than migration. The More in Common polling found that 53% of those polled say multiculturalism benefits the UK’s national identity, while 47% say it harms it. But the evidence is mixed, and studies find that it is inequality, not diversity, that has the biggest effect.

    Rather than portraying the problem as solely because of immigration, the prime minister might usefully focus on other significant factors that have made people feel like strangers.

    First is the dramatic loss of community spaces and assets in recent decades in the face of local government cuts and rising property prices. Government austerity has led to a decrease in funding for local authorities of around 50% between 2010 and 2020.

    My own research in this area shows the significance of places like community centres in allowing young people from different backgrounds to come together. When they do, they feel a greater sense of belonging in their communities. Some research has also shown a link between austerity cuts to youth services and rising knife crime.

    Over the last three decades, places and spaces where people come together to participate in activities and engage with those from different backgrounds have been decimated.

    Between 2018 and 2023 in London alone, 46 community spaces permanently shut down. The public service union Unison estimates that “funding cuts have led to the closure of more than two-thirds of council-run youth centres in England and Wales since 2010”.

    Almost 800 libraries were closed during the 2010s, and more continue to disappear each year. Leisure centres are also at risk. A 2023 report by the Local Government Association suggests that 40% of council areas will lose some or all of their leisure centre services in the next two years.

    The undermining of publicly-owned community spaces has been matched in the private sector. The pub – a key marker of community identity for many – has been subject to increasing pressure.

    A recent report from industry body the BBPA claimed that “nearly 300 pubs closed across England and Wales in 2024 – an equivalent of six a week”. The group pointed to rising costs and the fact that consumer habits are changing, with younger people drinking far less.

    A lonely island

    The loss of community assets means people have fewer places to engage with others on a regular basis. There is also evidence that the pandemic and online isolation have driven high rates of loneliness affecting all age groups and generations.

    According to the Campaign to End Loneliness, in 2022 nearly 50% of UK adults reported feeling lonely occasionally, sometimes, often or always. And around 7% experience chronic loneliness.

    While levels of isolation and loneliness have gone up for all generations, it is notable that a report for the Centre for Social Justice found the problem is worst for 18- to 24-year-olds, with 29% of this age group saying they “feel a fundamental separateness from other people and the wider world”.

    Britain’s younger generations are struggling with loneliness.
    Jaromir Chalabala/Shutterstock

    When it comes to discussing community and cohesion in contemporary Britain, it is interesting that only certain groups (usually particular kinds of migrants and their offspring) are the focus. We can see this in wider political and media debates, where such groups are blamed for living separate lives or not integrating.

    I’ve written about this idea before, finding that minority groups “broadly replicate the ethnic majority in terms of their attitudes towards British identity and institutions”. More recent survey data supports this. Figures for various ethnic groups are remarkably consistent when it comes to feeling they belong in Britain – Asian (85%), black (86%) and white (84%).

    Class divide

    The idea that people in Britain are increasingly living separate lives – or in what Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, calls a segregated society – is rarely discussed in terms of inequality or class.

    And yet, the More in Common polling found that financial insecurity is one of the strongest predictors of whether Britons feel disconnected from society.

    Income inequality in Britain is widening. Recent figures show that in 2022 alone, “incomes for the poorest 14 million people fell by 7.5%, while incomes for the richest fifth saw a 7.8% increase”. Moreover, research shows a link between lower economic status and higher rates of loneliness and social isolation.

    It is perhaps these growing divisions that should really be the focus of any government strategy. Focusing on local initiatives designed to protect, or expand, community assets such as libraries and youth and outreach centres appears a much more productive means of ensuring that Britain’s isn’t completely transformed into an island of strangers.

    Michael Skey receives funding from the Arts & Humanities Research Council

    He is a member of Amnesty International

    – ref. Britain is already becoming an ‘island of strangers’ – but immigration isn’t the driver – https://theconversation.com/britain-is-already-becoming-an-island-of-strangers-but-immigration-isnt-the-driver-256724

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy on Meet The Press: Republican Tax Plan is Greatest Transfer of Wealth from the Poor and Middle Class to the Rich in the History of the Country

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    May 18, 2025

    [embedded content]

    WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday joined NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker to discuss the Trump administration and congressional Republicans’ plan to give the ultra-wealthy a giant tax break paid for by slashing Medicaid and programs millions of Americans rely on, and President Trump’s corruption of U.S. foreign policy.

    Murphy slammed the disastrous Republican tax plan: “Well, what we’re standing in the way of is the most massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich in the history of the country. This budget bill is an absolute disaster. It is going to kick over 10 million people off of their health care — Medicaid covers about a quarter of all Americans — in order to pass along a new trillion-dollar tax cut for the richest 1%. Nobody in this country is asking for that…These guys are running the economy recklessly because all they care about is the health of the Mar-a-Lago billionaire class. They only care about their corporate friends. They’re going to destroy this economy, they’re going to throw millions of people off of health care, just so that they can pass along a benefit to a small handful of very rich Americans.”

    Murphy pushed back on claims by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that the growing deficit is due to Democratic policies: “I think it’s important to remember that some of the most important legislative achievements during Joe Biden’s presidency were done in a way that reduced the deficit. In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act – which made massive investments in renewable energy, reduced prescription drug costs – was done in a way that drove down the deficit, not driving the deficit up. Most of the deficit was added under Joe Biden’s presidency was in those early days when we were still recovering from the pandemic. But there’s just no doubt that it was Donald Trump who added more to the deficit than any president in the history of the country, and he is on pace to do it for a second time. It’s going to crater the economy. And listen, it won’t have an impact on his billionaire friends. His Mar-a-Lago crowd will come out all right, but it will impact the regular people I represent in New Britain, Bristol and Bridgeport, Connecticut.”

    On Trump’s corrupt trip to the Middle East, Murphy said: “So why did he choose these three countries to go to for his first major foreign trip? It’s not because these are our most important allies, are the most important countries in the world. It’s because these are the three countries willing to pay him off. Every single one of these countries is giving Trump money — the plane from Qatar and investment in his cryptocurrency scam from the UAE, and they are asking for national security concessions in return. This is the definition of corruption. Foreign governments putting money in the President’s pocket and in the United States, giving them national concerning concessions that hurt our own security.”

    He continued: “By the way, the plane is not a gift to the American people, as the Secretary said. It is going directly to Donald Trump. That library will take a decade to build, and so once he leaves the White House until the library is built, he gets to use that plane to fly around all of his billionaire friends while his policies result in millions of Americans losing their health care and having to pay higher costs. That is the definition of corruption.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: In 14-Page Letter, Warren Demands IRS Nominee Explain Record of Corruption and Fraud, Support for Tax Policies that Hurt Working Families

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    May 19, 2025
    Warren asks former Congressman Billy Long to commit to resisting Trump’s attempts to politicize agency
    “I am deeply concerned about your ability to lead an agency as critical as the IRS and ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share, hardworking Americans can file their taxes and claim refunds, and the agency protects taxpayer privacy and retains its independence and non-partisan integrity.”
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote to Billy Long, nominee for Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with concerns over his record of supporting regressive tax policies, his acceptance of “campaign donations” from tax-dodging companies, his work promoting fraudulent tax credits, and more. Long will face senators, including Warren, at his hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on May 20, 2025. 
    Long served as a Missouri congressman from 2011 through 2023. His time in Congress ended after an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2022. He was nominated by President Trump to lead the IRS in December 2024, despite his lack of tax policy experience, and his conflicts of interest. 
    Senator Warren concerns include: 
    Long’s potential politicization of the IRS, given President Trump’s promise to use the agency against his political opponents, including, most recently, Harvard University, after the university refused to cave to the Administration’s demands to change their hiring and other practices. Senator Warren asked Long to commit to preserving the agency’s independence and non-partisan stance. 
    “[T]he IRS is a non-political and non-partisan institution, created to meet the needs of the American public, not the political whims of the President…If confirmed, you will be responsible for maintaining that independence…However, I have serious doubts that you will do so,” said Senator Warren. 
    Long’s slim tax policy experience and record of supporting regressive tax policies. Long’s record in Congress includes supporting the abolition of the IRS itself, along with the Fair Tax Act, which would overhaul the entire tax system and replace it with a regressive, 30 percent sales tax. The bill would have also slashed taxes for the rich and increased taxes for lower and middle-income taxpayers.
    “As head of the IRS, you will play an integral role in writing and enforcing tax rules, directly affecting who pays their fair share…I am concerned that your lack of experience in a role directly related to administering the tax code, paired with your focus on cutting taxes for the wealthy as a U.S. Representative, make you a dangerous pick for this position,” wrote Senator Warren. 
    Long accepting donations from tax-dodging companies, posing major ethical concerns and calling into question his fitness for the role of IRS Commissioner. Following his nomination to lead the IRS, companies, including ones tied to an allegedly fraudulent tax credit scheme referred to the IRS for criminal investigation by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, donated to Long’s failed 2022 Senate campaign. All of these companies donated to Long more than two years after he had lost the election, and the donations were enough to cover Long’s outstanding personal campaign debt of $130,000. In May 2025, Senator Warren demanded answers from these companies for these donations to Long. 
    “It is implausible to suggest that those were legitimate contributions to an ongoing campaign—one cannot run in the 2022 election more than two years later. Instead, these companies appear to be attempting to earn your indulgence and cash in on those contributions, if you are confirmed, in the form of favorable treatment and regulatory decision-making from the IRS,” said Senator Warren. 
    Long’s record of promoting the fraud-ridden Employee-Retention Tax Credit. After leaving Congress in 2023, Billy Long worked as a tax consultant, repeatedly pushing businesses to file for the ERTC, a refundable tax credit designed to support businesses that struggled as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. Long bragged about securing a $3 million faulty refund, and falsely claimed “everybody qualifies” for the credit. In January 2025, Senator Warren pressed Long to explain his involvement in this scheme.  
    “Given the widespread issues caused by ERTC mills and your role in their questionable practices, taxpayers deserve a better understanding of your work promoting these credits,” wrote Senator Warren. 
    Long’s promotion of fake “Tribal Tax Credits.” The Treasury Department and the IRS have confirmed that “tribal tax credits” do not exist. Long is affiliated with firms promoting selling these fake credits, which donated to Long’s failed Senate campaign. 
    Senator Warren asked Long to explain his role in the allegedly fraudulent tax scheme, and whether he would recuse himself from matters related to these fake tax credits. 
    Long’s potential continuation of cuts to the IRS’s Workforce. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have repeatedly targeted the IRS through mass firings at the agency. The firings have disproportionately targeted people working in collections, despite the IRS collecting 96 percent of federal revenue and the agency already being understaffed. 
    “This presents a serious problem that, if confirmed, you will have to address. A functional IRS is the backbone of a strong federal government,” said Senator Warren. 
    Senator Warren asked Long to be prepared to answer her questions at his hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on May 20, 2025. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Remarks by Director Kratsios at the National Academy of Sciences

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Remarks by Director Kratsios at the National Academy of Sciences

    REINVIGORATING AMERICA’S SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

    AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

    Washington, D.C.

    May 19, 2025

    THE DIRECTOR: Thank you, Dr. McNutt, for that kind introduction, and for hosting me here today, in what can only be called a temple of science.

    I speak to you this morning as the President’s Science and Technology Advisor, who has been given three interconnected tasks in pursuit of a Golden Age of Innovation: to maintain American technological leadership; to ensure all Americans enjoy the fruit of transformative advances in science and technology; and, a mission I believe we all share, to revitalize America’s scientific enterprise.

    In a speech last month, I explained how America’s dominant position in technology can only be maintained through a strategy of both promotion and protection. Today, I’d like to speak a little bit about our shared mission of furthering scientific advancement.

    To empower America’s researchers to achieve groundbreaking discoveries and to reinvigorate our national science enterprise, we must scrutinize our existing approach and recommit ourselves to best practices. That is my commitment to you, but also what I ask of you, to ensure America sets the Gold Standard for science in this century and the next.

    ***

    The American story has been one of exploration and discovery, inseparable from the pioneering work of America’s scientists. From the tinkering inventor at his workbench to the great teams of men and women in white lab coats working across the country in common pursuit, they have labored to uncover the mysteries of creation and enabled us to build a free and prosperous republic.

    The sweep of relentless U.S.-led scientific progress in the twentieth century flowed from Vannevar Bush’s 1945 “Science, The Endless Frontier” report, the blueprint for America’s joint Federal, corporate, and academic research effort. Bush not only provided a peacetime plan for furthering the technological developments of WWII, but planted a banner in the national imagination that in less than 25 years would become an American flag on the surface of the moon.

    But as Dr. McNutt said in her inaugural State of the Science Speech last year, there is cause for declining confidence in continued American scientific leadership. While certain fields have seen tremendous advances in recent years, from the invention of transformers and CRISPR to the observation of graphene and gravitational waves, recent studies have found that papers and patents across the sciences have become less disruptive since 1980.

    We are seeing diminishing returns. For example, despite biomedical research budgets soaring since the 1990s, scientific progress has stalled—new drug approvals have flatlined or even declined, more researchers are needed to achieve the same outputs, and workforce training has stagnated. More money has not meant more scientific discovery, and total dollars spent has not been a proxy for scientific impact.

    As in scientific inquiry, when we uncover evidence that conflicts with our existing theories, we revise our theories and conduct further experiments to better understand the truth. This evidence of a scientific slowdown should spur us to experiment with new systems, new models, new ways of funding, conducting, and using science. As Dr. McNutt pointed out last year, since Dr. Bush’s report in 1945, the scientific enterprise has changed.

    ***

    In particular, there has been a profound shift in the balance of scientific funding. Today, industry spends more than three times on R&D than does the federal government, even self-funding more basic research than the Federal government funds at universities.

    Even as it alters the model that defined the last century, private money’s growing place in America’s scientific enterprise presents opportunities. In particular, in a period of fiscal constraints and geopolitical challenges, an increase in private funding can make it easier for federal grantmaking agencies to refocus public funds on basic research and the national interest.

    What we target is what we measure, and what we measure is what we get more of. To get more bang for America’s research bucks, we need to enhance the creativity and precision of our funding. Spending more money on the wrong things is far worse than spending less money on the right things.

    Prizes, challenges, public-private partnerships, and other novel funding mechanisms, can multiply the impact of targeted federal dollars. We must tie grants to clear strategic targets, while still allowing for the openness of scientific exploration, and so shape a general funding environment that makes clear what our national priorities are.

    The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research. We cannot resign our research community and the laboratory and university staff who support them to die the death of a thousand ten-minute tasks. To assist the nation’s scientists in their vocation, we will reduce administrative burdens on federally funded researchers, not bog them down in bureaucratic box checking.

    ***

    But in addition to taking a hard look at how we fund and supervise science, we should also consider how we, the people who make up the national discovery enterprise, can recapture that spirit of relentless focus and passionate pursuit of truth that underlies all our scientific progress.

    Two brief cases will illustrate a need to recommit to what may be named Gold Standard Science. By this I mean research conforming to the principles to which we know great scientists aspire, but that are too often distorted by professional incentives and social pressures.  

    A painful episode involving Alzheimer’s research illustrates our vulnerability to scientific misconduct, especially when we fail to prioritize reproducibility, communication of error, and skepticism.

    In 2009, a celebrated biotech executive published a paper in Nature that promised to revolutionize the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. In December of 2023, the journal retracted the research, acknowledging a number of anomalies and errors, but denying conscious fraud. The retraction came after almost 15 years of questions about the original paper being ignored and suppressed, during which the paper racked up over 800 citations, misdirected huge quantities of money, and helped the researcher become president of a premier university. The paper’s irreproducibility had been demonstrated by 2012, but it took a decade to be fully addressed.

    Our scientific enterprise should celebrate and incentivize checking each other’s work, rather than discourage questioning claims of progress.

    Meanwhile, the decision to shut down schools during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a failure to confront uncertainties or to integrate the knowledge of colleagues across multiple specializations. The best available scientific evidence indicated children were neither at high disease risk nor significant infection vectors. There was every reason to anticipate remote classes and masked communication would hurt children’s development. But a closed-ranks attitude led to policies that harmed America’s students.

    Biased interpretation of science leads to bad decision making and undermines the public’s trust.

    ***

    The first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science. 

    Scientific progress advances in community and in the open, as findings are rigorously tested by others. Gold Standard Science is, therefore, first of all, reproducible and transparent. We cannot allow mistakes to persist unaddressed, poisoning the well of apparent knowledge for everyone else seeking to build on a given finding, as in the Alzheimer’s research case. To further enable this, researchers must proactively communicate errors and uncertainties. Only through this openness can each generation stand firmly on the shoulders of the giants that came before it.

    The best environment for truly groundbreaking basic research, moreover, is collaborative and interdisciplinary. As the accumulated body of general science grows decade over decade, basic epistemic humility requires relying on the expertise of colleagues outside one’s particular specializations. But even with confidence in the skill and knowledge of collaborators, the best scientist remains skeptical of a team’s findings and is conscious of the ever present need to interrogate one’s assumptions. Better practice of these principles might have saved America’s children the catastrophic disruption of pandemic school closures.

    To reinforce all of these individual virtues, Gold Standard Science is structured for falsifiability, subject to unbiased peer review, accepting of negative results as positive outcomes, and closed to conflicts of interest. Funders of research, whether in government, the academy, or industry, need to come alongside our best researchers to ensure that projects conform to these highest standards.

    ***

    At the heart of the practices that make up Gold Standard Science is a suspicion of blind consensus and a celebration of informed dissent. For the crisis of confidence in scientists stems from fear that political biases are displacing the vital search for truth.

    DEI initiatives, in particular, degrade our scientific enterprise. DEI represents an existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community. Diversity of thought is essential to scientific inquiry, empowering us to challenge entrenched assumptions and offer novel approaches to solving complex problems.

    As we seek new paradigms in fundamental science, we cannot afford for America’s scientists to be in the business of scoring points for an ideological agenda. A closed-minded political fashion preoccupied with symbolic victories divides colleagues and distorts grant application and research design.

    For example, until recently at NASA—an institution whose mission is to explore the unknown in air and space, innovate for the benefit of humanity, and inspire the world through discovery—research proposals were required to include plans for furthering “inclusion goals.” Evaluation panels for these proposals were to be 50 percent “DEI professionals.” Such requirements undermine merit-based assessment of scientists, add to administrative burdens, and distract from essential, productive work.

    Science cannot be subject to ideology, nor should scientists march blindly in lockstep.

    Blindly trusting in The Science, with a capital T and capital S, is inimical to free inquiry and open debate and is thus the enemy of scientific progress. The beginning of knowledge is the knowledge of ignorance. We seek to know, despite human limitations, and to move upward from mere opinion to the truth. It is convention, dogma, and intellectual fad that resist revision and correction.

    ***

    I believe all of us in this room share the same mission. We want America’s scientists to be the best in the world. We want to empower them to make the awe-inspiring breakthroughs that will solve tough challenges and inspire our young people to follow in their footsteps, and we want to help repair the relationship between the scientific establishment and our fellow citizens.

    I believe that this is not something that government, or industry, can do alone; the pioneering scientific enterprise Vannevar Bush built still depends on a partnership, and America’s national laboratories and universities are its crown jewels.

    We will have to work together to restore this partnership, and revitalize America’s scientific enterprise.

    With a renewed focus on Gold Standard Science, we can take the first steps to revolutionizing the way America conducts the business of discovery. And though this is a call to excellence for all of America’s scientists—in labs, in the field, and in offices across the country—it begins with me and my colleagues in government. Implementing Gold Standard Science starts in the policies and programs of Federal agencies.

    If we in government enable scientists to spend less time in the office completing administrative tasks and more time in the lab exploring scientific frontiers; if we adjust to new realities and creatively partner with industry and philanthropy; if we reject political fads and recommit ourselves to the truth: I believe we will reignite the American spirit that lit the world with Edison’s bulb, lifted the Wright brothers into the sky, and landed Armstrong on the moon.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Rising to the Challenge: Europe’s Path to Growth and Resilience

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    Speech by Alfred Kammer, Director, IMF European Department
    at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels

    May 19, 2025

    Good afternoon,

    Thank you, Karel, for the introduction and CEPS for hosting this event. I would also like to extend a warm thank you to Cinzia and Maarten for taking time out of your busy schedules, and to all of you for joining us today.

    Europe has achieved much over the last 75 years.

    The “economic miracle” of the post-WWII period brought the rapid recovery in income levels. The “Great Moderation” (1980s-2000) following the oil crises in the 1970s offered stable growth at declining inflation rates. And advances in regional integration—for example through the Single European Act in 1986–and global trade helped lift productivity and income levels in Europe. The result was income per capita in advanced European countries growing by two and a half times between 1960 and the end of the century, on par with the US.

    Europe has shown grit when it mattered. Resolute policymaking helped overcome the double blow of the Global Financial Crisis and the European debt crisis. And Europe stepped up again during the Covid-19 pandemic and the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    But more work needs to be done.

    The world is changing fast. Today, we are confronted with a more shock-prone, uncertain, and fragmented world. This adds to a series of domestic challenges in Europe. Some are longstanding: The great European project remains unfinished, the population is aging, climate change requires attention, and there is a worrying productivity gap with the most dynamic economies. Other challenges have become prominent only more recently, such as the need to bolster national and energy security. And, in many countries, there is limited fiscal space to meet these growing challenges.

    Europe must once again step up if it wants to preserve its prosperity. Kicking the can down the road will soon make it impossible to fulfill commitments to social welfare, climate action, and national defense. Delivering on these fronts is existential—Europe’s economic and social model is at stake.

    The deteriorating external environment weighs on Europe’s economic outlook.

    In our latest World Economic Outlook, we project global growth to reach only 2.8 percent this year, in part due to ongoing trade and policy uncertainty. In the United States, growth is expected to slow to 1.8 percent from heightened tariffs, economic uncertainty, and softer demand, while China’s growth forecast is lowered to 4 percent. These numbers do not reflect the latest developments, which could mean lower tariffs than assumed in April. But uncertainty remains extraordinarily high and holds back consumption and investment.

    And trade and policy uncertainty also led us to downgrade growth in Europe despite some offsetting factors: Germany plans to ramp-up infrastructure spending and European defense spending is projected to increase significantly.

    • For the euro area, we expect growth at 0.8 and 1.2 percent in 2025 and 2026, a reduction of 0.2 percentage points in both years since our January projection. Growth in the more trade-exposed CESEE region slows by even more, reaching 2.4 in 2025 and 2.7 in 2026, a downgrade of 0.6 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively.
    • High frequency indicators and euro area GDP flash estimates (excluding volatile figures for Ireland) in the first quarter of the year are consistent with our projections.

    Inflation is decelerating and approaching targets, driven by lower energy prices and tepid demand.

    There are notable risks around the baseline.

    First, an escalation of trade tensions would further weaken external demand and increase uncertainty.

    Second, a reconfiguration of supply chains could impact activity and inflation. In our view, trade diversion to Europe from countries more affected by US tariffs is a small risk on aggregate. But it could lead to losses in export shares for specific sectors in some countries, especially those CESEE countries with persistent real wage growth.

    A third risk is a delay in the necessary fiscal consolidation, which could reignite concerns about repayment capacity.

    So, how can Europe rise to these challenges and secure its prosperity?

    Europe needs an ambitious and concerted push to advance long-stalled reforms to boost growth and economic resilience.

    Action should be carried out both at the EU level to deepen the single market, and domestically to make product and labor markets more growth friendly.

    The forthcoming EU budget for 2028-2034 should support and incentivize the reform push and meet the growing need for European public goods.

    This reform effort must be anchored in a steady macro-policy response and open trade policies.

    Let me look at some of the details.

    Starting with macroeconomic policy…

    …central banks should continue to normalize monetary policy while remaining focused on durably reaching price stability targets. The ECB should lower its policy rate to 2 percent this summer and maintain it there, barring major shocks. In CESEE countries, where inflation is still higher and more persistent, central banks should ease cautiously.

    Fiscal policymakers will have to find ways to accommodate rising spending needs in a sustainable way. In countries where public debt is already high, consolidation is warranted, and reprioritization is necessary to accommodate new spending needs.

    Regarding trade policy, Europe—and indeed everyone—needs more trade.

    The global trade regime has shifted, and some reallocation of resources and reconfiguration of value chains appear inevitable. At the same time, it is important to not over-react.

    For example, while US-China tariffs may divert some trade to Europe, we estimate that even with April’s high tariff rates the aggregate effects would be small—to the order of 0.25 percent of EU GDP or about 3 percent of extra-EU imports. Although the effects could be more pronounced in certain industries, it is far from clear whether safeguard measures are required. Where measures are deployed, they must align with WTO principles, be time-limited, and clearly communicated.

    Europe should avoid tariff escalation; and it should protect people, not stand in the way of structural change.

    Let me now turn to the structural policies Europe needs to boost growth and resilience.

    I will focus on EU and domestic reforms with the highest urgency and potential. I will emphasize their complementarity and the need to pursue comprehensive reform packages to enhance political support.

    I will also highlight the key role that the next EU budget can play in supporting the reform effort, and ultimately secure Europe’s prosperity.

    First, it is high time to reboot the EU single market.

    Europe has come a long way, but the EU single market remains far from complete. For instance, it can take up to 6 months for an EU worker who relocates to another EU country to be legally employed there. Large differences across bankruptcy procedures discourage cross-border investment, while having national stock markets introduces vast inefficiencies in the allocation of capital across the continent. This fragmentation increases costs and hurts business dynamism and growth.

    Full integration of the single market would yield tremendous benefits. Our modeling work shows that a 10 percent reduction in barriers to intra-EU goods trade and multinational production would lift GDP by around 7 percent [4]. But we need to take concrete steps in this direction. In a forthcoming paper [5], we list four priority areas:

    1. Adopting high-quality insolvency rules within a 28th regime for firms to simplify the regulatory landscape
    2. Advancing the capital markets union to boost venture capital and equity investment
    3. Increasing labor mobility across the EU, and
    4. Better integrating the European electricity market

    Presenting these reforms as a package may increase the buy-in from member states that see benefits in some areas more than others, while remaining realistic on feasibility.

    We find that just this package of selected actionable measures could raise EU GDP by approximately 3 percent over the next 10 years—a significant downpayment on the full potential gains from completing the single market.

    Second, advancing EU and domestic policy actions together would magnify the growth impact of reforms.

    In another paper to be published in a few days [6], we also highlight the significant potential gains from domestic reforms.  A package of reform priorities addressing policy gaps in labor markets, business regulation, and credit and capital markets could boost output by approximately 5 percent in advanced European economies and up to 7 percent in CESEE countries over the medium term.

    A coordinated reform effort at both domestic and EU levels would likely yield benefits that exceed the cumulative returns from isolated actions in the two areas. For example, advancing the capital markets union would boost the effect of domestic initiatives to support innovative startups. And improving skill levels at the national level will amplify EU R&D efforts.

    Across all areas, think smart and big. Structuring reforms as “packages” in which everyone can see direct benefits can enhance domestic political support and facilitate successful implementation.

    Third, the EU budget has the potential to be a powerful lever for advancing policy priorities across both the European Union and its member states.

    The EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) has helped tackle shared challenges—promoting economic convergence through cohesion policy and strengthening resilience via NextGenerationEU. To meet existing and emerging challenges, we suggest that the 2028–2034 MFF be revamped along three key lines [7].

    1. Prioritize European public goods. The EU budget should allocate more resources to key areas of shared strategic interest—such as R&D, the clean energy transition, energy security, and defense. These are domains where collective investment delivers greater efficiency and cost savings compared to national-level efforts. To meet these needs, expenditure targeted at European public goods would need to increase from 0.4 percent of GNI to 0.9 percent.
    2. Maximize the budget impact. With over 50 programs, the current EU budget is fragmented, limiting its effectiveness. Consolidating programs around core EU priorities and shifting toward a performance-based budgeting model would enhance efficiency, improve coordination among member states, and better align national reforms with EU-level objectives.
    3. Strengthen financing through enhanced own resources and borrowing capacity. Establishing borrowing as a regular financing tool—backed by robust own resources for repayment—would enable more strategic, long-term investment while spreading the financial burden more evenly across time and member states.

    Fourth, a more integrated Europe is also a more resilient Europe.

    The spike and volatility in energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with last month’s blackouts in Spain and Portugal, underscore the urgency of a coordinated European energy policy and establishing an integrated energy infrastructure.

    On the financial side, advancing the capital markets union would not only channel savings into productive investment, but also facilitate portfolio diversification and significantly improve risk sharing.

    Fiscal policy—particularly the EU budget—has an important role to play in supporting energy integration and risk sharing.

    Let me conclude by stressing that Europe stands at a critical junction.

    The world is changing, and Europe must once again demonstrate its ability to step up and deliver. Strengthening –and, yes, even upholding—prosperity requires a decisive and concerted reform push at both domestic and EU levels that enhances growth and resilience while maintaining openness to the world.

    It is time to act now. It is time to act together.

    References

    [1] Eble, Stephanie, Alexander Pitt, Irina Bunda, Oyun Erdene Adilbish, Nina Budina, Gee Hee Hong, Moheb T Malak, Sabiha Mohona, Alla Myrvoda, and Keyra Primus. 2025. “Long-Term Spending Pressures in Europe,” IMF Departmental Papers 2025/002.

    [2] Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, Steven J. Davis. 2016. “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, Pages 1593–1636.

    [3] Boehm, Christoph E., Andrei A. Levchenko, and Nitya Pandalai-Nayar. 2023. “The Long and Short (Run) of Trade Elasticities,” American Economic Review 113 (4): 861–905.

    [4] Baba, Chikako, Ting Lan, Aiko Mineshima, Florian Misch, Magali Pinat, Asghar Shahmoradi, Jiaxiong Yao, and Rachel van Elkan. 2023. “Geoeconomic Fragmentation: What’s at Stake for the EU,” IMF Working Paper 2023/245, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    [5] Arnold, Nathaniel, Allan Dizioli, Alexandra Fotiou, Jan Frie, Burcu Hacibedel, Tara Iyer, Huidan Lin, Malhar Nabar, Hui Tong, and Frederik Toscani. Forthcoming. “Lifting Binding Constraints on Growth in Europe. Actionable Priorities to Deepen the Single Market,” IMF Working Paper.

    [6] Budina, Nina, Oyun Adilbish, Diego Cerdeiro, Romain Duval, Balázs Égert, Dmitriy Kovtun, Anh Thi Ngoc Nguyen, Augustus Panton, and Catalina Michelle Tejada. Forthcoming. “Europe’s National-Level Structural Reform Priorities,” IMF Working Paper.

    [7] Busse, Matthias, Huidan Lin, Malhar Nabar, and Jiae Yoo. Forthcoming. “Making the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework Fit for Purpose,” IMF Working Paper.

    [8] Darvas, Zsolt, and Conor McCaffrey. 2024. “Management of debt liabilities in the EU budget under the post-2027 MFF,” November 2024.

    [9] Draghi, Mario. 2024. “The future of European competitiveness,” September 2024.

    [10] Cimadomo, Jacopo, Massimo Giuliodori, Andras Lengyel, Haroon Mumtaz. 2023. “Changing patterns of risk-sharing channels in the United States and the euro area,” ECB Working Paper No 2849.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER:

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/05/19/sp051925-ak-rising-to-the-challenge-europe-path-to-growth-and-resilience

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 19 May 2025 Departmental update WHO’s strategic engagement with philanthropies: advancing global health and resilient health systems

    Source: World Health Organisation

    Philanthropic support plays a vital role in enabling countries to build stronger health systems and advance towards health equity. From vaccine equity and pandemic preparedness to primary health care, the contributions of philanthropic partners help drive progress across WHO’s key priorities.

    The importance of philanthropic support was underscored by Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, in his recent remarks to the Philanthropy Asia Summit, held in Singapore on 5–7 May 2025. In his remarks, he expressed his appreciation to the Temasek Foundation and the Philanthropy Asia Alliance for organizing the Summit while highlighting the importance of philanthropy in strengthening global health, supporting country self-reliance, and partnering with WHO to address health challenges in an increasingly turbulent world.

    At the Summit, Dr Tedros thanked His Excellency President Tharman and Singapore, for its leadership in global health and its support to WHO. Dr Tedros stated that Singapore and the Temasek Foundation were amongst the first to pledge support to WHO’s Investment Round.“We look forward to your continued leadership and partnership as we work together to realize WHO’s founding vision: the highest attainable standard of health – not as a luxury for some, but a right for all”, said Dr Tedros.

    During the Investment Round, WHO has sought to expand its donor base, including by engaging strategically with philanthropic organizations. As Dr Tedros noted, partnerships with philanthropies help countries to strengthen essential health services and make sustainable progress towards universal health coverage.

    Philanthropic actors play a vital role in improving global health outcomes, providing significant resources and expertise needed to build stronger and more accessible health-care systems. Investments made by philanthropic partners often complement and amplify the work of governments, international organizations and other stakeholders in the global health community.

    Philanthropy can be particularly effective in supporting innovative or high-risk research that may not be funded though more traditional funding sources. Philanthropic actors are effective partners when it comes to raising awareness and advocating for policies to improve global health outcomes, address health disparities and promote health equity.

    Looking ahead, philanthropic collaboration will remain central to achieving the goals outlined in WHO’s Fourteenth General Programme of Work. Developing strong partnerships with philanthropic actors allows WHO to leverage the strengths of a range of global health players to bring better health to people and maximize impact.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Manchester Man Sentenced for Defrauding State and Federal Taxpayers of Nearly $300K in Pandemic Relief Funds

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CONCORD – A Manchester man was sentenced for his involvement in a scheme to fraudulently obtain CARES Act funds from the United States government and the State of New York, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

    Kyereem Sackey, age 25, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty to 18 months in federal prison and 3 years of supervised release.  Sackey was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $295,167.  In January 2025, Sackey pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of bank fraud.

    “The defendant exploited a national crisis for personal gain,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack. “He stole nearly $300k in pandemic relief funds that were meant to support struggling families and small businesses. This office will continue to investigate and prosecute those who stole from the government during the pandemic and intentionally depleted the public fisc for personal profit.”

    “While the entire world was focused on dealing with a pandemic, Kyereem Sackey was selfishly focused on exploiting programs designed to help people struggling financially to instead enrich himself,” said Kimberly Milka, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division. “With today’s sentence, Mr. Sackey has been held accountable for cheating taxpayers, and the FBI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to identify and bring to justice those who have committed similar crimes.”

    “Kyereem Sackey and his co-defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain New York Department of Labor pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits and Small Business Administration Payroll Protection Program loans. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who seek to exploit these critical benefit programs,” said Jonathan Mellone, Special Agent-in-Charge, Northeast Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General.

    According to the court documents and statements made in court, Sackey used social media to conspire with others to file false and fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. Sackey filed unemployment insurance claims in the State of New York on behalf of a co-defendant, which he was not entitled to.  When the money was deposited into the co-defendant’s bank account, a portion of the money was sent to Sackey and another co-defendant.  Sackey and his co-defendants filed approximately $50,000 in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims.  In addition to the claim made on behalf of his co-defendant, Sackey filed claims on behalf of a dozen individuals as well as himself resulting in more than $250,000 in fraudulent unemployment benefits to be paid by the State of New York.

    Sackey also used a co-defendant’s information to apply for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans using a false and fraudulent business that did not exist.  Sackey provided the bank with false documents, including fabricated tax documents.  Court records show that Sackey fraudulently applied for and obtained more than $30,000 in PPP loans.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General led the investigation.  Valuable assistance was provided by the Manchester Police Department.  Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Kennedy is prosecuting the case.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Covid-19 death tolls in Europe highlight stark regional differences in 2020 and 2021

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Florian Bonnet, Démographe et économiste, spécialiste des inégalités territoriales, Ined (Institut national d’études démographiques)

    The political decisions made during 2020 and 2021 to combat the Covid-19 pandemic profoundly altered daily life. Professionally, societies faced partial unemployment and widespread adoption of remote work; personally, individuals endured lockdowns and social distancing measures. These interventions aimed to reduce infection rates and ease pressure on healthcare systems, with the primary public health goal of minimizing deaths.


    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!

    More than five years after the pandemic began, what do we know about its impact on human longevity? Here’s a closer look.

    A decline in global life expectancy

    Initial assessments of the pandemic’s toll have been refined over time. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report published in May 2024, global life expectancy declined by 1.8 years between 2019 and 2021, erasing a decade of progress. These estimates rely on “excess mortality”, a metric that measures the difference between observed mortality during the pandemic and expected mortality in its absence.

    Excess mortality can be quantified using different indicators, such as the number of excess deaths. However, comparing this indicator between countries of different sizes and age structures can be challenging. Another informative metric is the loss of life expectancy at birth, calculated globally by organisations such as the WHO.

    The regular calculation, publication and dissemination of excess mortality indicators are vital for comparing the pandemic’s impact across countries at the national level. However, it is important to recognise that the pandemic did not affect all areas within countries equally. Variability in the severity of the pandemic’s impact often stemmed from differing confinement strategies implemented to contain the virus.

    This uneven distribution highlights the need to quantify these indicators at a more granular geographical level. Such localised analysis can reveal the regions most severely affected, providing valuable insights into the pandemic’s effects and enabling the development of targeted response strategies.

    In a series of studies conducted in 2024, we introduced an innovative method to calculate excess mortality at the regional level. We used this method to estimate excess mortality in 561 European regions in 2020 and expanded the scope to 569 regions across 25 countries in 2020 and 2021. The findings, based on loss of life expectancy at birth, reveal stark contrasts in the pandemic’s impact across Europe.

    In 2020, significant declines in life expectancy were observed in northern Italy and Spain

    Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of estimated losses of life expectancy in 2020. These losses were highest in northern Italy and central Spain. In the Italian regions of Bergamo and Cremona, life expectancy dropped by nearly four years, while Piacenza experienced a decline of three and a half years. In Spain, the regions of Segovia, Ciudad Real, Cuenca and Madrid saw losses of approximately three years.

    The losses were even more pronounced among men (data not presented here), who were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In Cremona, the decline in life expectancy among men reached nearly five years, while in Bergamo, it was close to four and a half years.

    Figure 1: Estimated loss of observed life expectancy at birth (e0) in 2020 across 569 regions in 25 European countries. Estimates are for both sexes combined.
    Fourni par l’auteur

    Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, along with eastern Sweden and northern and eastern France, also experienced significant, though less severe, declines. In France, the Paris region and areas near the German border recorded the highest losses, ranging from 1.5 to 2 years.

    In contrast, other regions saw much smaller impacts. This is particularly true for southern Italy, much of Scandinavia and Germany, southern parts of the United Kingdom, and western France. In these regions, observed life expectancy is close to what would have been expected in the absence of the pandemic. In France, the implementation of lockdown measures in March and November likely prevented the pandemic from spreading across the entire country from the initial clusters in the north and east.

    In 2021, a shift in the pandemic toward Eastern Europe

    Figure 2 shows the estimated losses of life expectancy in 2021. At a glance, the regions most affected by excess mortality during the Covid-19 pandemic differed significantly from those in 2020. The most substantial losses were concentrated in Eastern Europe.

    Figure 2: Estimated loss of observed life expectancy at birth (e0) in 2021 across 569 regions in 25 European countries. Estimates are for both sexes combined.
    Fourni par l’auteur

    Among regions where life expectancy declined by more than two years, 61 of Poland’s 73 regions, 12 of the Czech Republic’s 14 regions, all eight Hungarian regions, and seven of Slovakia’s eight regions were affected. In contrast, only one Italian region and one Spanish region experienced losses exceeding two years, despite these countries being heavily impacted in 2020.

    Germany saw much greater losses in 2021 than in 2020, particularly in its eastern regions, where declines often exceeded 1.5 years. In southern Saxony, Halle and Lusatia, losses approached two years. Conversely, Spain and Scandinavia recorded the lowest declines in life expectancy.

    In France, the losses were more uniform than in 2020, generally ranging from 0 to 1.5 years. The highest loss occurred in the Parisian suburbs, particularly Seine-Saint-Denis, where life expectancy fell by 1.5 years – or two years for men.

    What is the overall assessment for these two years?

    To determine the overall impact of 2020 and 2021 in terms of life expectancy loss, we used an indicator that sums up the years of life lost due to the pandemic over this two-year period. This method allows us to rank the 569 European regions.

    The regions most affected were Pulawy, Bytom and Przemyski in southeastern Poland, along with Kosice and Presov in eastern Slovakia. Among the top 50 regions, Eastern Europe dominated, with 36 Polish regions, six Slovakian regions, two Czech regions, one Hungarian region, and both Lithuanian regions included. Italian regions such as Cremona, Bergamo and Piacenza also ranked high, falling between the 15th and 30th positions. In France, Seine-Saint-Denis ranked 81st, while all other French regions were outside the top 100.

    It is crucial to analyse the impact of a crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic at a fine geographical scale, as within-country disparities can be significant. This was particularly evident in Italy in 2020, where the north was far more affected than the south, and in Germany in 2021, with stark differences between the west and the east.

    Our study highlighted the severe impact of the pandemic in specific European regions, where life expectancy losses exceeded three years. The most affected regions shifted over time, moving from areas with traditionally high life expectancy (such as northern Italy, central Spain and the greater Paris region) in 2020 to regions with traditionally lower life expectancy (Eastern Europe) in 2021. France was relatively spared compared to the rest of Europe, with the notable exception of Seine-Saint-Denis.

    The coming years will be critical in determining whether life expectancy levels can return to their long-term trajectories or if the pandemic has caused lasting structural changes in certain regions.

    Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

    – ref. Covid-19 death tolls in Europe highlight stark regional differences in 2020 and 2021 – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-death-tolls-in-europe-highlight-stark-regional-differences-in-2020-and-2021-246374

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 19 May 2025 Departmental update HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections agenda at the Seventy-eighth World Health Assembly

    Source: World Health Organisation

    The Seventy-eight World Health Assembly (WHA78) takes place on 19−27 May 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland. 

    Elimination awards

    During the plenary session on Monday, 19 May, the Director-General will award Botswana for achieving gold tier status on the path to elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV as a public health problem.

    Botswana was already the first country in the world to meet the criteria for silver tier status on the path to elimination of HIV, in 2021. Now, Botswana is the first country to achieve gold tier status, by reaching stringent targets for HIV prevalence among new mothers, HIV incidence among newborns, and service coverage for antenatal care, HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy. 

    Official side events

    Several official side events on HIV, viral hepatitis and STIs will take place during the WHA78. These events require access to the Palais de Nations and only accredited delegated can access. You can find more details in WHO’s page dedicated to WHA78 official side events.

    Date and time

    Event title and details

    Description

    Monday, 19 May

    19:30–20:50

    Getting the world back on track: Ending AIDS by 2030 still possible!

    Location: Palais des Nations – Room/Salle VIII

    Organizers: International AIDS Society (IAS), PATH, GNP+

    The side-event will focus on the significant challenges facing the global HIV response, particularly in the light of recent funding cuts. It will explore how countries are addressing funding gaps and forging regional and national partnerships to sustain HIV programmes, while identifying innovative financing models.

    The discussion will focus on the consequences of the funding cuts, strategies for ensuring the continuity of HIV services and the importance of domestic resource mobilization to achieve the goal of ending AIDS by 2030.

    Wednesday, 21 May

    18:00–19:20

    Uniting in Global Solidarity for Hepatitis Elimination: Acting to Prevent Liver Cancer in Support of the NCD Agenda.

    Location: Palais des Nations – Room/Salle VII

    Organizers: Pakistan, Tanzania, Coalition for Global Hepatitis Elimination, African Union, World Hepatitis Alliance, Medicines Patent Pool

    The integration of hepatitis vaccination, diagnostics and treatment within existing frameworks for UHC and PHC will advance progress toward the global goals of hepatitis elimination and cancer prevention.

    The WHA offers a critical opportunity to raise awareness and drive commitment to achieve the elimination of hepatitis and reduction of liver cancer globally. This platform can also provide a basis to launch a Coalition of Member States dedicated to raising the visibility of hepatitis and accelerating global efforts to eliminate it.

    Friday, 23 May

    18:00–19:20

    The contribution of selfcare to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights.

    Location: Palais des Nations Room/Salle VIII

    Organizers: Belgium, Uruguay, Luxembourg, Global Network of People Living with HIV

    This side event will explore how self-care interventions are transforming the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) landscape, supporting primary health care (PHC) and advancing universal health coverage (UHC). Evidence-based self-care interventions for SRHR are recommended by WHO for all economic contexts. Self-care interventions offer practical, empowering solutions to overcome persistent barriers to advance quality SRHR for all.

    This side event will highlight the multidimensional benefits of self-care interventions through concrete examples, including impact at national level, and innovation.

    Non-official side events

    A large number of non-official side events will take place during WHA78 in different venues across Geneva. These events are convened by a diverse range of partner organizations with the technical support from WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STIs (HHS). 

    Date and time

    Event title and details

    Description

    Wednesday, 21 May

    18:30–20:30

    A new era of HIV prevention: Accelerating access to long-acting technologies through sustainable prevention systems and financing.

    Location: UNAIDS / WHO D building – Kofi Annan Room

    Organizers: UNAIDS (in collaboration with UNFPA, WHO and UNDP), the Federal Republic of Brazil and the Netherlands

    This high-level dialogue organized by the Global HIV Prevention Coalition (GPC) aims to galvanize political leadership, financing, and coordinated action to drive a transformational HIV prevention push.

    The meeting will serve as a platform for Ministers of Health, global health partners, pharmaceutical companies, and civil society to explore opportunities to expand access to new long-acting prevention technologies as a powerful addition to existing effective options.

    Registration

    Virtual participation: Livestream on YouTube

    Thursday, 22 May

    18:30–20:30

    Communities at the heart of global health and health security: why sustained funding for community-led health systems matters now more than ever

    Location: UNAIDS / WHO D building – Kofi Annan Room

    Organizers: Coalition PLUS, Frontline AIDS, UNAIDS and WHO

    This high-level discussion will focus on the critical role that communities play in shaping global health and health security policies. In light of ongoing global health challenges, including pandemics, rising health inequities, funding cuts, and the increasing burden on health systems, it is now more important than ever to prioritize community-led health systems.

    Registration:

    In person

    Virtual

    Furthermore, throughout WHA78 week, the HHS Department will engage informally with Member States to provide an overview of the process for revising the Global Health Sector Strategies on HIV, viral hepatitis, and STIs (2022–2030), and to discuss preparations for the mid-term review, which is scheduled to be presented at the World Health Assembly in 2026. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Recruitment consultant sentenced after fraudulently using Covid loans for personal purposes

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Recruitment consultant sentenced after fraudulently using Covid loans for personal purposes

    Suspended sentence for Bounce Back Loan fraudster

    • Rico Iheagwara fraudulently applied for two £20,000 Bounce Back Loans during the summer of 2020  

    • Iheagwara’s SJR Recruitment Limited company was not trading at the time of the applications 

    • SJR Recruitment was placed into liquidation in 2021 with liabilities of more than £67,000

    A recruitment consultant who fraudulently spent Covid support funds for personal purposes has been handed a suspended sentence. 

    Rico Iheagwara secured two Bounce Back Loans worth £20,000 each from different banks for his Essex-based SJR Recruitment Limited company when businesses were only entitled to a single loan under the scheme. 

    Iheagwara, 36, of River Meads, Stanstead Abbotts, Hertfordshire, was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, for fraud when he appeared at St Albans Crown Court on Friday 16 May. 

    He was also ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and 15 days of rehabilitation activity. 

    David Snasdell, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said: 

    Rico Iheagwara blatantly abused a taxpayer-backed scheme designed to support genuine small businesses through the pandemic. He knew he was not entitled to support yet continued with his fraudulent applications nonetheless. 

    Iheagwara’s business was not trading at the time of his application so he was not entitled to a single penny from the scheme, let alone the £40,000 he fraudulently secured. 

    Tackling Covid support scheme abuse remains a key priority for the Insolvency Service and we will not hesitate to prosecute fraudsters such as Iheagwara who stole from the public purse during a national emergency.

    SJR Recruitment was incorporated in January 2017 with Iheagwara as its sole director. The company’s registered office address was on High Road in Loughton. 

    Iheagwara was also the sole signatory on both company bank accounts which were opened in May 2020, just one month before his first fraudulent application. 

    For both applications, made in June and July 2020, Iheagwara claimed the company’s turnover was £82,000. 

    Iheagwara transferred the first £20,000 loan into his personal account on the same day he received the funds. For the second loan, he moved all £20,000 into his personal account the following day. 

    None of the £40,000 was used for the economic benefit of his business. Insolvency Service analysis of bank statements suggested that the funds were used for everyday expenses and paid to various family members. 

    In interviews, Iheagwara said he spent the funds on rent, paying off personal finance and supporting his children. 

    SJR Recruitment went into liquidation in April 2021. No repayments were made on the loans. 

    The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

    Further information

    Updates to this page

    Published 19 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Secretary-General’s video message to the 78th World Health Assembly

    Source: United Nations – English

    strong>Download the video:
    https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/downloads2.unmultimedia.org/public/video/evergreen/MSG+SG+/SG+5+May+25/3374144_MSG+SG+78TH+WORLD+HEALTH+ASSEMBLY+05+MAY+25.mp4

    Excellencies,

    I am pleased to send my warm greetings to this 78th World Health Assembly.

    In a divided world, you are uniting behind a shared goal to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable.

    That is the longstanding mission of the World Health Organization. 

    And it is especially crucial at a time of deep reductions in funding for health and development – even while military spending reaches record highs.

    Now more than ever, our world needs a coherent global health architecture that responds rapidly to crises and strengthens protection and wellbeing for all.  

    The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted deep gaps in collective preparedness – and served as a powerful reminder that no one is safe until everyone is safe.

    The WHO Pandemic Agreement builds upon these lessons – and reflects the power of multilateralism in action.

    After years of negotiation and compromise, you have come together to consider this landmark agreement, recognizing that global health emergencies demand global responses.

    If adopted, this will be only the second international health convention under the WHO Constitution after the Global Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into force 20 years ago.

    So I urge you to make history:

    To strengthen global preparedness against pandemics;

    To ensure equity and solidarity in responding to health threats;

    And to uphold the promise of health as a fundamental human right – for this generation and the next.  

    But health is about more than emergencies.

    The upcoming high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases and the promotion of mental health offers a crucial opportunity to improve countless lives.

    Progress towards Universal Health Coverage is essential to building resilient systems grounded in primary care – and delivering on the 2030 Agenda.

    I also urge you to match ambition with resources – by strengthening investment in the World Health Organization and ensuring the sustainability and predictability it needs to build a healthier, safer, and fairer world for all.

    Thank you.
     

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Global: When friendship is treated as essential, what happens to young adults who don’t have any?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Laura Eramian, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University

    All participant names in this story are pseudonyms.

    What does it mean to have few or no friends in a time when social connection is seen as key to a healthy and fulfilling life? This is the question at the centre of our recent research study on modern friendship in an Atlantic Canadian city.

    Friendship is having a cultural moment. From journalists to physicians, a wide range of experts have pointed to friendship and social connection as being vital for people to live good and healthy lives and as a way to combat a growing “loneliness epidemic.”

    But not everyone experiences friendship in the same way. Andrew, a student in his mid-20s who took part in our study, identified as having no friends. He told us:

    “I do feel sad and lonely a lot. But I also feel kind of at peace, because I’m pretty introverted. I do want my alone time. So I kind of struggle going back and forth between liking not having friends and then also hating it. It’s just those two are always in conflict.”

    Andrew’s experience reflects the broader tensions many people feel about modern friendship. While friendship is widely valued, western culture also prizes self-sufficiency and sees virtues in introversion.

    These ideals can affirm a desire for solitude, but they don’t stop people from worrying about the negative effects of living friendless lives. These conflicting messages can leave people unsure of how to feel about living without friends.

    Ready to make a change? The Quarter Life Glow-up is a new, six-week newsletter course from The Conversation’s UK and Canada editions. Every week, we’ll bring you research-backed advice and tools to help improve your relationships, your career, your free time and your mental health – no supplements or skincare required. Sign up here to start your glow-up at any time.

    Exploring friendlessness in adulthood

    In our study, we interviewed 21 men and women to understand experiences of friendlessness. Over half were in the “quarter life” phase, meaning they were in their 20s or 30s. They ranged from young professionals, to students, to minimum wage workers.

    Some participants had rich family lives, professional lives or spousal relationships. Others were almost entirely socially isolated. Still, all participants saw lacking friends as something they struggled with, thought about or needed to justify to others.

    Some participants had strong family ties, but still struggled with friendships. Young parents spend time with their daughter on Family Day in Vancouver in 2018.
    (Shutterstock)

    Research has shown that being alone doesn’t always mean people are lonely and that people may give different meanings to their solitude.

    Since we recruited “friendless” rather than “lonely” people for our study, we didn’t assume that people without friends were lonely. Instead, we aimed to understand how they experienced life without friends.

    Why people struggle to make friends

    Participants in our study reported a range of challenges to making friends, as well as insights into what it’s like not to have them.

    Challenges included lacking regular encounters with others due to the structures of school or work or having quit social media and lost touch with friends. Some were disappointed by friendships in the past, or reported other priorities over making friends.

    For example, Tim, a lawyer in his 30s, explained there are many “metrics” of a good life, and that he had no friends because he had chosen to put his time into his career and family.

    Melissa, an administrative assistant in her 20s, felt she always ended up in “lopsided” friendships where she gave more than she received.

    Andrew explained that he no longer had friends at university after moving out of residence, a problem compounded by the public health restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    However, the pandemic didn’t necessarily cause new friendship challenges. Most of our participants said they already had no friends, so lockdown orders didn’t change anything.

    Friendless but not always lonely

    Our study revealed two key narratives people told about the relation of friendlessness to loneliness. On the one hand, they reported intense loneliness and said they suffered without friends. On the other hand, people said having no friends afforded opportunities for self-sufficiency and independence.

    Crucially, there was no clear distinction between participants who claimed to be lonely or not lonely. Rather, participants often told conflicting stories of feeling lonely without friends or feeling good about being alone or self-reliant.

    Participants reported a range of challenges to making friends, as well as insights into what it’s like not to have them.
    (Shutterstock)

    Melissa, for example, talked about her profound loneliness, yet also spoke with pride about how she has learned to get herself out of any situation because she had no one to rely on.



    Read more:
    Lonely extroverts, happy hermits: why being alone isn’t the same as being lonely – and why it matters

    Regardless of the degree of loneliness they reported, our quarter-life participants often felt shame or stigma for being friendless. Some of our participants imagined others thought there was something wrong with them.

    If you have experienced these feelings, you aren’t alone. While people may blame themselves or feel shame, as social scientists, we believe the causes of friendlessness or loneliness are bigger than individuals and their choices.

    Making friends isn’t just a personal challenge

    To formulate solutions to social disconnection, it’s not enough to simply ask, “why don’t people just go and make friends?” While friendship often appears to be a matter of personal choice and mutual liking, like all social relationships, it can be enabled or constrained by the broader ways our societies are organized.

    If there is a loneliness epidemic, it can’t be understood solely as a matter of individual choice or the pitfalls of social media or other technology. It also needs to be seen as a structural condition born of infrastructural and policy failures that require collective solutions to address.

    A better question might be: is friendship accessible to people? Are there enough free, inclusive public spaces where people can gather to meet or make friends? How do the rigid, often unpredictable work schedules faced by many young adults make it difficult to cultivate friendships?

    You may recognize these barriers in your own life and feel disconnected not because you aren’t trying, but because the conditions for connection are so often missing.

    If our society values friendship as much as it claims in the quest to combat loneliness, then collectively we could be doing much more to create social spaces and policies that enable social connection.

    Laura Eramian receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Peter Mallory receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. When friendship is treated as essential, what happens to young adults who don’t have any? – https://theconversation.com/when-friendship-is-treated-as-essential-what-happens-to-young-adults-who-dont-have-any-253814

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kathryn Rhine, Associate Professor of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    A large number of children are born with HIV in Nigeria. Kristian Buus/Corbis News via Getty Images

    A little over two decades ago, addressing Nigeria’s HIV crisis topped U.S. President George W. Bush’s priorities. Africa’s most populous nation had 3.5 million HIV cases, and the disease threatened to destabilize the region and ultimately compromise U.S. interests. These interests included securing access to Nigeria’s substantial oil reserves, maintaining regional military stability and protecting trade partnerships worth billions.

    Following years of agitation from AIDS activists, Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, in 2003. This U.S.-led HIV treatment program has since saved tens of millions of lives around the globe.

    While living in Nigeria for my work as a medical anthropologist, I witnessed PEPFAR’s rollout and saw firsthand how the powerful therapies it provided transformed Nigerian lives. The women I worked with told me they could finally put aside the fears of death or abandonment that had consumed their days. Instead, they could focus on a newly expanded horizon of possibilities: building careers, finding love, having healthy children.

    Now, however, a serious threat to preventing and treating HIV worldwide looms. The Trump administration’s decision to substantially restrict access to a vital HIV prevention tool – PEPFAR-funded preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP – would cut off ongoing treatment for millions of people and block future access for countless others who need this protection.

    The Trump administration aims to cut HIV prevention funding.

    The timing is devastating: Scientists recently made a major advance in HIV prevention. Named the 2024 Breakthrough of the Year by the journal Science, the drug lenacapavir offers six months of HIV protection with one injection. Unlike previous PrEP options that required daily pills, which created significant barriers to consistent access and adherence, this twice-yearly injection dramatically simplifies prevention.

    By undermining access to a treatment that has been essential to reducing HIV rates, the Trump administration’s new restrictions threaten to derail two decades of bipartisan investment in eliminating HIV globally. The consequences extend well beyond individual lives.

    Afterlife of aid

    “Some people that have it, they choose to be wicked and just spread it all around,” confided Elizabeth, a woman I interviewed during my time in Nigeria. I am using a pseudonym to protect her privacy. “They say, ‘Somebody gave it to me, so I am going to spread it too.’ But if they know that they can live positively with the virus, it would reduce their evil thoughts.”

    Elizabeth’s words reveal a concerning dynamic: When hope for treatment disappears, a dangerous desperation can take its place. Patients who feel abandoned by health care systems might lose motivation to protect others from HIV. They may also stop seeking medical care, abandon prevention measures and turn away from future aid.

    Cultural anthropologists use the phrase “the afterlife of aid” to describe what happens after global aid programs are withdrawn or drastically reduced. Communities are left not just without resources but with a lasting sense of betrayal that undermines their willingness to seek help, creating cycles of skepticism that can persist for generations.

    Treatment as hope

    In my fieldwork, I’ve witnessed how managing life with the virus involves far more than taking medications. It requires carefully navigating personal relationships, family obligations, cultural expectations and hopes for the future.

    Many of the women I worked with had contracted HIV from their husbands or boyfriends. Some even suspected their partners’ positive status but were unable to protect themselves. Before these medications, women – both HIV positive and HIV negative – had to choose between risking rejection or risking transmission.

    The welfare of entire families depends on access to HIV medication. Here, a woman who is the sole provider of several children takes antiretroviral treatment.
    Saurabh Das/AP Photo

    Elizabeth and David’s story illustrates these challenges. They had been together for more than a year when David proposed. “When I sensed he was serious about marriage, I knew I had to tell him my status,” Elizabeth told me during one of our many conversations. Though initially shocked, he remained committed to their relationship.

    Elizabeth had maintained a decade of careful adherence to her HIV treatment, but the couple still struggled with consistent condom use. David described using condoms as akin to “eating candy with the wrapper still on it.” He also was eager to have a baby. While PrEP had greatly reduced transmission risk, it placed the full burden of protecting her husband on Elizabeth.

    The path Elizabeth navigated highlights how Nigerian cultural expectations complicated their situation. When proving one’s fertility is often considered essential to establishing gender identity, the pressure to have sex without protection created additional tension. Moreover, Elizabeth’s need to balance her own health needs with her husband’s desires reflected the delicate negotiation many Nigerian women face between personal well-being and marriage.

    As Elizabeth prepared for the birth of their child, she expressed both joy and anxiety: “I have to stay healthy for both of them now.”

    Politicizing global health

    Previous interruptions in aid foreshadow what’s at stake when shifts in U.S. political priorities compromise global health funding.

    Consider the global spike in maternal and child mortality when President Ronald Reagan instituted the Mexico City Policy, often referred to as the “global gag rule.” It blocked U.S. funding to all international nongovernmental organizations that provided or even referred abortion services.

    This policy has been repeatedly implemented by Republican administrations – including those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump during his first term – and subsequently rescinded by Democratic presidents, creating a disruptive cycle of funding uncertainty. Among these affected organizations are recipients of PEPFAR funds.

    The human cost of this policy pendulum is measurable and significant. Researchers have found that when this law is enacted, nations across the globe suffer increased death rates for newborns and mothers as well as jumps in HIV cases. In countries heavily dependent on U.S. aid, the Mexico City Policy has resulted in approximately 80 additional child deaths and nine additional maternal deaths per 100,000 live births annually and about one additional HIV infection per 10,000 uninfected people.

    The Trump administration reinstated the global gag rule in 2017.
    Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

    My research in Nigeria also reveals the fragile progress that now hangs in the balance. Before treatments arrived, HIV ravaged Nigerian communities. In 2001, nearly 6% of the population had HIV, totaling around 3.5 million people. The Hausa language reflected this trauma: Terms for AIDS also meant “lifeless body” and “nearby grave.”

    Following the rollout of HIV treatments, Nigeria’s cases dropped dramatically – by 2010, prevalence had fallen to 4.1%. Declines continued steadily as treatment access expanded from 360,000 people in 2010 to over 1 million by 2018. This progress was heavily dependent on international support, with PEPFAR and other global donors providing over 80% of the US$6.2 billion spent fighting HIV in Nigeria between 2005 to 2018.

    In 2019, around 1.3% of the population had HIV, or 1.9 million people.

    From personal choice to global security

    What’s at stake isn’t just increasing HIV rates. The Trump administration’s reductions in foreign aid threaten to unravel over two decades of U.S. investment in global security and economic growth.

    Public health crises rarely stay contained within national boundaries. When health systems fail in West Africa, diseases can quickly spread overseas and require costly emergency responses. The 2014 Ebola outbreak demonstrated this reality, when cases reached America and prompted a $5.4 billion emergency response. Similarly, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, which infected around 60 million Americans, showed how quickly infectious diseases circle the globe when surveillance and containment systems are inadequate.

    Inconsistent aid, in turn, undermines American global leadership and creates openings for competing powers to establish their influence. China has actively exploited these gaps, establishing bilateral trade with Africa reaching $295 billion in 2024. While the U.S. reduced its global health engagement during previous administrations, China expanded its global health diplomacy, partnering on issues ranging from infectious disease prevention and control to health emergency response and health technology innovation.

    Meanwhile, restrictions in PrEP access risk recreating the same impossible choices women faced at the advent of the epidemic: choosing between disclosing their status and risking abandonment; accepting unprotected sex and risking transmission, or refusing unprotected sex and risking violence or loss of economic support.

    I believe the result is a far less safe world where preventable suffering continues, hard-won progress unravels and the promise of an AIDS-free generation remains unfulfilled.

    Kathryn Rhine has received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Wenner Gren Foundation, the American Philosophical Society, the West African Research Association, the American Council of Learned Societies, Fulbright programs, the National Science Foundation, and the National Security Education Program. These views are her own and not those of her institution.

    – ref. Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs – https://theconversation.com/cutting-hiv-aid-means-undercutting-us-foreign-and-economic-interests-nigeria-shows-the-human-costs-253705

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: King Cosponsors Bipartisan Legislation to Avoid Drug Shortages, Improve Health Emergency Response

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) is joining bipartisan legislation to ensure the United States is well positioned to mitigate potential prescription drug shortages and respond to future health emergencies. More specifically, the Mapping America’s Pharmaceutical Supply (MAPS) Act would improve federal coordination and visibility for essential medicine supply chains by proactively identifying and addressing supply chain shortfalls or weaknesses.

    The bipartisan MAPS Act would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in coordination with relevant agencies and the private sector, to regularly update, maintain, and publish a list of essential medicines. Using the Essential Medicines List, the federal government would be required to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of these supply chains to assess the key ingredients needed to manufacture essential medicines, overreliance on high-risk foreign sources, sole-sourced products, current domestic manufacturing capabilities, cybersecurity threats, and any other gaps that may reduce the federal government’s ability to identify health and national security risks related to our essential medicine supply chains.

    “As we work to protect our communities from a future public health emergency, researching and understanding the prescription drug supply chain is a simple way to help Americans stay healthy and safe – since access to medication is such a critical component to modern care,” said Senator King. “The bipartisan Mapping America’s Pharmaceutical Supply (MAPS) Act would help prevent prescription drug shortages, ensure that our country is reducing its dependence on foreign adversaries for essential medicines, while also protecting the American public from the effects of a future pandemic. I am grateful to my colleagues in both parties for putting the safety and health of the American people first.”

    In addition, HHS, through public-private partnerships, would be required to map all essential medicine supply chains – from the key ingredients needed to manufacture drug products to their distribution in hospitals and pharmacies – creating end-to-end visibility in these supply chains. The bill would also require the Department of Defense (DoD) to submit reports to Congress on drug products that rely on China for critical inputs and finished dose forms.

    The bill is supported by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Angels for Change, the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, United States Pharmacopeia, and CivicaRx. Below are statements in support of the bill.  

    “ASHP strongly supports the MAPS Act. By requiring the Department of Health and Human services to coordinate with other agencies and the private sector to map the pharmaceutical supply chain, threats to the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain can be identified and addressed before they place patients at risk,” said Tom Kraus, Vice President of ASHP Government Relations. 

    “ASCO applauds the introduction of the MAPS Act, which would provide needed tools to gain better visibility into the supply of critical prescription drugs in the United States,” said Eric P. Winer, MD, FASCO, Board Chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology. “We support efforts to recognize potential drug shortages earlier and to relay information to stakeholders to help them prepare for and mitigate possible supply challenges. The bipartisan work of Senators Peters, Ernst, Cotton, Kaine, Lankford and King, on this important legislation, advances these efforts.” 

    “Angels for Change proudly supports the MAPS Act—a vital step toward ending drug shortages and protecting patients,” said Laura Bray, Founder and Chief Change Maker of Angels for Change. “This bipartisan legislation will strengthen transparency and coordination across the entire drug supply chain, helping to detect and prevent disruptions before they impact care. Building the reliable supply chain patients deserve will require collaboration across government and industry. We applaud Senators Peters, Lankford, Ernst, Cotton, Kaine, King, and Scott for their leadership in prioritizing the safeguarding of Essential Medicines that will benefit all US patients.” 

    Joining King on this legislation are Senators Gary Peters (D-MI), James Lankford (R-OK), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Rick Scott (R-FL).

    Senator King has consistently worked to increase transparency of prescriptions drugs. Earlier this year, he introduced bipartisan legislation to modernize and streamline drug testing protocols for better patient outcomes. Last year, he also introduced bicameral legislation to prohibit direct-to-consumer drug advertising of pharmaceutical drugs in the first three years after the drug receives Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Additionally, Senator King has introduced legislation to prohibit pharmaceutical drug manufacturers from claiming tax deductions for consumer advertising expenses.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s video message to the 78th World Health Assembly

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    Download the video:
    https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/downloads2.unmultimedia.org/public/video/evergreen/MSG+SG+/SG+5+May+25/3374144_MSG+SG+78TH+WORLD+HEALTH+ASSEMBLY+05+MAY+25.mp4

    Excellencies,

    I am pleased to send my warm greetings to this 78th World Health Assembly.

    In a divided world, you are uniting behind a shared goal to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable.

    That is the longstanding mission of the World Health Organization. 

    And it is especially crucial at a time of deep reductions in funding for health and development – even while military spending reaches record highs.

    Now more than ever, our world needs a coherent global health architecture that responds rapidly to crises and strengthens protection and wellbeing for all.  

    The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted deep gaps in collective preparedness – and served as a powerful reminder that no one is safe until everyone is safe.

    The WHO Pandemic Agreement builds upon these lessons – and reflects the power of multilateralism in action.

    After years of negotiation and compromise, you have come together to consider this landmark agreement, recognizing that global health emergencies demand global responses.

    If adopted, this will be only the second international health convention under the WHO Constitution after the Global Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into force 20 years ago.

    So I urge you to make history:

    To strengthen global preparedness against pandemics;

    To ensure equity and solidarity in responding to health threats;

    And to uphold the promise of health as a fundamental human right – for this generation and the next.  

    But health is about more than emergencies.

    The upcoming high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases and the promotion of mental health offers a crucial opportunity to improve countless lives.

    Progress towards Universal Health Coverage is essential to building resilient systems grounded in primary care – and delivering on the 2030 Agenda.

    I also urge you to match ambition with resources – by strengthening investment in the World Health Organization and ensuring the sustainability and predictability it needs to build a healthier, safer, and fairer world for all.

    Thank you.
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jefferson, Liquidity Facilities: Purposes and Functions

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, President Bostic, for that kind introduction and for the opportunity to talk to this group today.1 I am delighted to be here, and I look forward to discussions at this important conference.
    The theme of today’s conference is developments in financial intermediation and potential implications for monetary policy. As this conference embarks on a larger discussion of the role of banks and nonbanks in various market segments—including credit markets, Treasury and money markets, and payments—I believe it is worth taking a step back to explore an important background factor, which is how and why central banks provide liquidity.

    The provision of liquidity by central banks is a foundational element of financial intermediation. Central banks should be able to provide liquidity effectively for the financial system to function smoothly. Today, I will take this opportunity to discuss some aspects of liquidity provision by the central banks. Of course, the main forms of liquidity provided by central banks—namely, currency and bank reserves—are the foundation of safe liquidity in the economy. It is vital for a central bank to make clear that it stands ready to provide liquidity should stress emerge. But a central bank must also take steps to minimize moral hazard. “Moral hazard” in this context refers to the concern that publicly provided liquidity might encourage private financial institutions to take on excessive risk.
    What I would like to focus on in this speech are two types of liquidity provision that aim to reduce the frictions associated with the basic operations of banks. The first type of liquidity is intraday credit, which is key in handling payment system frictions during the day, and the second one is overnight credit, which deals with a range of frictions.2 I will also highlight some design features of broadly similar liquidity facilities in three other advanced economies: the U.K., Japan, and the euro area. I believe it is valuable to look at other central banks’ experiences with liquidity provision, which entails recognizing the important differences that exist across jurisdictions and mandates and considering what lessons can be learned.
    At their core, liquidity facilities support the smooth operation and stability of the banking system, the effective implementation of monetary policy, and the furtherance of a safe and efficient payment system. This activity in turn supports the flow of credit to businesses and households. Last year, the Federal Reserve Board issued a public request for information (RFI) seeking to identify operational frictions in these facilities, and those comments are under review. I hope that today’s discussion about how facilities operate in the U.S. and around the globe can further that dialogue among participants at this conference.
    How It Works in the U.S.Let me start by discussing how liquidity provisions work in the U.S., as summarized in slide 3. Banks maintain deposit accounts at the Federal Reserve (Fed). The balances in these accounts, known as reserves, are the most liquid assets that banks have and are used to meet payment flows as households and business customers of banks carry out their regular business. Banks often experience mismatches in the timing of payment inflows and outflows, which could occasionally cause the balance in a bank’s account at the Fed to become negative. To help institutions manage this mismatch and promote the smooth functioning of the payment system, the Fed extends intraday credit, also known as daylight overdrafts.
    Intraday credit facilities provide temporary credit to depository institutions such as commercial banks and credit unions to foster the smooth functioning of the payment system. If a bank temporarily lacks the funds to process payments, it can use intraday credit to avoid delaying payments until it has sufficient liquidity. The Fed provides intraday credit on both a collateralized and an uncollateralized basis. Collateralized intraday credit is provided free of charge, whereas uncollateralized credit incurs a fee. Since this type of credit is provided on an intraday basis, the Fed expects banks to have positive balances in their accounts by the end of the operational day. If a bank has a negative balance at the end of day, it incurs an overnight overdraft and pays a penalty.
    The Fed also provides overnight credit through the discount window to approved counterparties against a broad range of collateral. This type of liquidity provision is designed to mitigate short-term misallocations of liquidity. For example, a bank may need to settle a large payment at the end of the day, but it may temporarily have insufficient funds in its account to do so. To meet the payment obligation, the bank could borrow in private interbank markets—in which financial institutions lend funds to each other on a short-term basis—or from the central bank. The rate on overnight credit also helps central banks with monetary policy implementation. In addition, overnight liquidity facilities often serve as a first line of defense against stresses, and they stand ready to provide liquidity when institutions face outflows.
    All discount window loans are collateralized, and a wide range of bank assets, including a variety of loans and securities, are eligible to serve as collateral.3 The Fed operates three separate facilities under the discount window: primary credit, secondary credit, and seasonal credit.
    The first one, primary credit, is available to generally sound banks at a rate that is currently set at the top of the target range for the federal funds rate. Providing liquidity at this rate supports the implementation of monetary policy because institutions can turn to the Fed if conditions tighten in money markets that might otherwise push overnight money market rates above levels that would be consistent with the Fed’s target range. As I noted earlier, primary credit also helps deal with idiosyncratic funding challenges that banks might be experiencing. Most of the funding provided is on an overnight basis; however, funding is available for up to 90 days.
    The next one, secondary credit, is available to banks that are not sufficiently healthy to have access to primary credit. It is available at a higher rate, features higher haircuts on collateral, and is limited to overnight credit.4
    The third facility, seasonal credit, provides short-term liquidity to smaller institutions that experience sizable seasonal fluctuations in their balance sheets. Typically, these are banks located in agricultural or tourist areas.
    Short-Term Credit Provision across JurisdictionsLooking at central banks’ experiences across jurisdictions provides useful insights about different approaches to providing liquidity.5 Central banks choose a combination of interest rates, collateral requirements, collateral valuation practices, and other design features to encourage usage of facilities while minimizing undesired consequences—in particular, moral hazard. For example, a central bank facility that provides liquidity at an attractive interest rate could be very effective in ensuring that shocks to the financial system do not disrupt the flow of credit but may potentially increase moral hazard. If that facility only accepted a narrow set of high-quality collateral, however, then the moral hazard associated with it could be reduced. Alternatively, the usage of a facility that charges an interest rate above the market rate (a so-called penalty rate) is likely limited, but if the facility accepted a broad range of collateral, usage can be encouraged.6 In these two examples, the counterbalancing choices are with respect to the interest rate charged and the eligible collateral. Different central banks might prefer one approach over the other depending on specific aspects of their frameworks and banking systems.
    Of course, there are challenges in comparing liquidity facilities across jurisdictions given important differences with respect to central banks’ legal authorities, monetary policy frameworks, the size of the economy and financial sector, and institutional structures. This divergence is also true across the four advanced economies that I will consider today: the U.S., the U.K., Japan, and the euro area. There can be large differences in each jurisdiction’s banking sector and central bank balance sheets relative to the size of their economies, highlighting the need to use caution when comparing aspects of their liquidity provision.
    With that caveat in mind, let’s look at the design features of some foreign central bank liquidity facilities that are fairly similar to the Fed’s discount window. As shown in figure 1, the Bank of England (BOE) operates two such short-term facilities: an operational standing facility and a discount window. The operational standing facility features lower rates but restricts acceptable collateral to high-quality, highly liquid sovereign debt. The discount window facility accepts a broader range of collateral but charges a higher rate.
    Which facility an eligible borrower turns to in the U.K. depends on the sorts of collateral that are being pledged. In the U.S., whether an institution has access to primary or secondary credit depends on the condition of the borrower. The BOE monitors borrower conditions, and the Fed also sets haircuts on collateral based on asset riskiness. The differences in design considerations could influence how eligible borrowers integrate these facilities into their regular liquidity management practices.
    The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has two facilities: one that provides overnight loans and another that provides somewhat longer-term funding up to three months. Because the BOJ has been operating a system with a very large supply of reserves for some time, its lending facilities tend not to be used extensively, other than in stress periods.
    The European Central Bank (ECB) operates a marginal lending facility quite similar to the Fed’s discount window. It can meet the idiosyncratic funding needs of individual banks and serves as a ceiling on interbank rates and thus helps the ECB implement monetary policy. This facility is an important element of the ECB framework even though the ECB’s approach to monetary policy implementation involves providing the banking system with a sizable amount of reserves through weekly (repo) lending operations.7
    The international differences show that central banks can accomplish their objectives using facilities with quite different designs. As I noted earlier, one of the vital purposes of a short-term liquidity facility is to be able to provide support to the banking systems during stress. The Fed, the BOE, the BOJ, and the ECB have been able to do so. Figure 2 shows short-term credit provision over time for the four central banks: the BOJ, the green line; the Fed, the black line; the ECB, the blue line; and the BOE, the red line.8 Each line is the monthly short-term credit outstanding as a share of central bank assets in 2019. This figure illustrates a few important points.
    First, at most times, use of the short-term central bank liquidity facilities is modest. Second, central bank provision of short-term liquidity can increase very rapidly during times of stress.9 For example, the Fed and the ECB provided substantial short-term liquidity during the 2007–09 financial crisis. Third, the figure also illustrates that stress is not always global in nature and peak usage does not necessarily coincide. For instance, short-term liquidity provision rose in the euro area during the European sovereign debt crisis that began in late 2009 and peaked in 2012, but it did not increase much in the U.S. Similarly, short-term liquidity provision increased in the U.S. during the March 2023 banking stress episode, but it did not increase in the euro area. I also want to highlight that during stress events, central banks complement their regular short-term standing liquidity facilities with other facilities. Therefore, stress events may not necessarily result in an increase in liquidity provision through a short-term standing facility.
    Now let’s turn to more recent developments. Over the past few years, as central banks have shrunk their balance sheets, liquidity has been gradually reduced, which has made the existing liquidity provision tools more relevant. The BOE and the ECB have indicated that they are moving toward operating frameworks in which short-term liquidity providing repo operations will play a key role.10
    The Fed has stated that it will continue to operate in an ample-reserves regime. In this regime, the primary credit rate is positioned to be slightly above the rate expected to prevail in interbank markets so use of the discount window should typically remain modest. Still, the facility remains available to be used. Figure 3 shows the discount window credit as a share of Fed assets over the past decade. As you can see from this figure, over the past few years, the discount window has been used more than was the case before the pandemic. Increased usage may be due to the discount rate being set closer to private market rates than was the case before the pandemic, the availability of longer maturity loans, and shifts in communication.
    Intraday Credit Provision across JurisdictionsJust as there are differences with respect to the provision of overnight liquidity across central banks, there are also differences in the provision of intraday credit. One difference is with respect to unresolved intraday overdrafts. As I noted earlier, it is possible for banks to incur overnight overdrafts if they fail to take such action as requesting an overnight loan, although overnight overdrafts are not considered business as usual and carry a penalty rate in the U.S., currently set at the primary credit rate plus 400 basis points.11 The BOJ does something quite similar. By charging a high penalty on overnight overdrafts, both the Fed and the BOJ discourage overdrafts.
    In contrast to the Fed and the BOJ, the ECB and the BOE can automatically convert most of the intraday overdrafts into an overnight loan from the business-as-usual facility seamlessly, without action on the part of the bank, against the same collateral at the end of the day.12 That feature creates a greater similarity between intraday credit and overnight credit in those jurisdictions. The relationship between intraday credit and overnight credit is going to be an important one for central banks amid developments in payment systems, including advances in technology and the expansion of payment system operating hours.
    ConclusionToday, I provided an overview of the Fed’s provision of liquidity through the discount window and intraday credit and highlighted some similarities and differences across jurisdictions. In summary, the Fed’s discount window and intraday credit facilities have many features that are similar to those found in other central bank facilities. While differences in institutional, legal, and financial system structures across jurisdictions make central bank short-term lending context specific, looking at the experiences of central banks across other jurisdictions is informative, as central banks share similar goals and face similar challenges when it comes to liquidity provision.
    The Fed is continually assessing and striving to improve the operational aspects of discount window and intraday credit. The Federal Reserve System has made several important advancements to ensure that liquidity provision meets the needs of the 21st century economy. For example, Reserve Banks have worked to streamline the use of electronic files when establishing access to the discount window and made technological advancements in the process for requesting a discount window loan. The Federal Reserve System launched a convenient online portal called “Discount Window Direct” for requesting and prepaying discount window loans that is generally accessible to banks 24–7. To improve familiarity with the discount window, Reserve Banks have conducted outreach to banks and made efforts to guide them in using the program.
    To complement these efforts, the Board issued an RFI last September seeking input on the operations of the discount window and intraday credit. Any issues identified in the responses to the RFI can help the Fed understand further improvements that may promote efficiency and reduce the burden on banks.
    I look forward to hearing insights you may have into central banks’ liquidity facilities and how these issues intersect with the topics that will be discussed at this conference. Thank you!
    ReferencesArseneau, David, Mark Carlson, Kathryn Chen, Matt Darst, Dylan Kirkeeng, Elizabeth Klee, Matt Malloy, Benjamin Malin, Emilie O’Malley, Friederike Niepmann, Mary-Frances Styczynski, Melissa Vanouse, and Alexandros P. Vardoulakis (2025). “Central Bank Liquidity Facilities around the World,” FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 26.
    Jefferson, Philip N. (2024a). “A History of the Fed’s Discount Window: 1913–2000,” speech delivered at Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina, October 8.
    Jefferson, Philip N. (2024b). “The Fed’s Discount Window: 1990 to the Present,” speech delivered at the Charlotte Economics Club, Charlotte, North Carolina, October 9.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. I refer to primary credit lending as overnight lending for simplicity even though banks are able to borrow for maturities of up to three months. The vast majority of primary credit lending is overnight. See Jefferson (2024a) and (2024b) for a summary of the evolution of the discount window. Return to text
    3. Examples of assets that may serve as collateral include, but are not limited to, U.S. Treasury securities, investment-grade corporate bonds, U.S. government agency-backed mortgage securities, commercial and industrial loans, commercial real estate loans, agricultural loans secured by farmland, one- to four-family mortgage loans, and auto loans. For more detail on assets that may serve as collateral, please see Federal Reserve Banks (n.d.), “Collateral Eligibility – Securities and Loans,” Discount Window Direct. Return to text
    4. The Fed lends less than the fair market value of the collateral provided to manage the credit risk associated with its lending operations. For example, if a bank needs a loan of $100, a portfolio of securities valued at $200 may be required to be posted if the discount or haircut associated with that portfolio is 50 percent. The difference between the amount that the Fed will lend on a particular asset and the fair market value of that asset reflects the haircut, or margin. These haircuts differ, for instance, with the historical price volatility and credit risk associated with the asset. Information on the haircuts for different assets may be found at Federal Reserve Banks (n.d.), “Collateral Valuation,” Discount Window Direct. Return to text
    5. See Arseneau and others (2025). Return to text
    6. A penalty rate in the Board’s emergency lending regulation is defined as a rate that is higher than the market rate in normal circumstances, affords liquidity in unusual and exigent circumstances, and encourages repayment of the credit and discourages use of the program or facility as the unusual and exigent circumstances that motivated the program or facility recede and economic conditions normalize. See Regulation A—Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, 12 CFR pt. 201.4(d)(7) (2024). Return to text
    7. See Isabel Schnabel (2024), “The Eurosystem’s Operational Framework,” speech delivered at the Money Market Contact Group meeting, Frankfurt, Germany, March 14. Return to text
    8. Values in figure 2 represent the marginal lending facility for the euro area, the complementary lending facility for Japan, the operational standing lending facility for the U.K., and primary credit for the U.S. Return to text
    9. See Jefferson (2024a) for a longer historical perspective on the Fed’s liquidity provision over time. Return to text
    10. See, for example, B (2024), “Transitioning to a Repo-Led Operating Framework,” discussion paper (London: BOE, December 9).
    See, for example, Schnabel, “The Eurosystem’s Operational Framework.” Return to text
    11. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2023), Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (PDF), (Washington: Board of Governors), p. 33. Return to text
    12. The BOE is a special case because, for most institutions, intraday overdrafts are seamlessly converted into an overnight loan if the institution signed up to use the operational standing facility in advance. Institutions that have not signed up in advance and end the day with an overdrawn reserve account face an overdraft charge of 2 percent plus the Bank Rate or another rate set at discretion. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: 180 Degree Capital Corp. Issues Q1 2025 Shareholder Letter

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MONTCLAIR, N.J., May 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — 180 Degree Capital Corp. (NASDAQ:TURN) today issued the following Q1 2025 Shareholder Letter:

    Fellow Shareholders,

    As discussed in our press release issued on April 14, 2025, we ended the first quarter of 2025 with a net asset value per share (“NAV”) of $4.42. We are pleased with our performance in Q1 2025, that we believe favorably positions 180 Degree Capital as we continue to make progress on the steps required to complete our proposed Business Combination with Mount Logan Capital Inc. (“Mount Logan”). For those of you who may not have had a chance to listen to our joint call with the team from Mount Logan or to review the presentation deck that summarizes the proposed transaction, both can be found at https://ir.180degreecapital.com/ir-calendar/detail/2908/180-degree-capital-and-mount-logan-capital-proposed-merger. Our excitement for the potential of this transaction to create value for our shareholders has only grown since we announced this proposed Business Combination and conducted this joint call.

    We noted in a press release issued on May 7, 2025, that we filed an amended preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding our proposed Business Combination with Mount Logan includes Mount Logan’s financial statements which were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the US, or US GAAP. The conversion of Mount Logan’s financial statements from International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, to US GAAP is an important milestone as now we are in a position to be able to speak freely with current and potential investors regarding historical financial performance and apples-to-apples comparisons of Mount Logan to its publicly traded peers. This conversion to US GAAP also resulted in favorable improvements in historical financial metrics, including an increase in Mount Logan’s reported fee-related earnings in 2024 under IFRS to approximately $9.1 million under US GAAP, and an increase in the reported shareholder equity value of Mount Logan as of December 31, 2024, under IFRS to approximately $104.1 million under US GAAP.

    We believe that the availability of Mount Logan’s US GAAP financial statements will add to the strong indications of support we have received from initial conversations with our shareholders following the filing of our initial joint proxy statement/prospectus in late March 2025. We believe our investors who have signed voting agreements and/or provided indications of support already understood the potential that we believe exists to create significant value for shareholders of 180 Degree Capital through this Business Combination even before Mount Logan’s US GAAP financial statements were available. We appreciate all of this support and patience as we move steadily through the SEC review process, toward the start of soliciting votes, and the ultimate goal of the completion of our proposed Business Combination.

    As mentioned earlier, our belief about the potential of our proposed Business Combination to create significant shareholder value for 180 Degree Capital shareholders has only grown stronger since our initial announcement in January 2025. This belief is amplified by numerous significant shareholders who have voiced their support for our proposed Business Combination to us, as well as new shareholders who were drawn to invest in 180 Degree Capital based on what we believe to be a shared view that our proposed Business Combination is a unique opportunity for future value creation. We continue to believe that converting to an operating company will make 180 Degree Capital’s net asset value a floor for our stock price rather than the ceiling as it is for most closed-end funds. The pro forma combination of our businesses, based on 180 Degree Capital’s net asset value and Mount Logan’s equity value, respectively as of December 31, 2024, less estimated merger-related expenses and other estimated adjustments, yields a combined entity with an estimated shareholder equity value of nearly $140 million. While the ultimate ratio of ownership between 180 Degree Capital and Mount Logan shareholders will be based on 180 Degree Capital’s net asset value at closing of the Business Combination, if the transaction closed on December 31, 2024, the portion of this equity value ascribed to 180 Degree Capital shareholders would equate to more than 180 Degree Capital’s net asset value as of that date. This fact is only one of the multitude of reasons we are so excited about this proposed transaction and its potential opportunity to create meaningful value for 180 Degree Capital’s shareholders.

    To remind everyone of our original views and comments included in our Q4 2024 Shareholder Letter issued on February 14, 2025, Mount Logan has the following attributes that we believe will provide value to 180 Degree Capital shareholders:

    • Mount Logan has what we believe to be an outstanding management team comprised of its CEO, Ted Goldthorpe, its Co-Presidents, Matthias Ederer and Henry Wang, and its CFO, Nikita Klassen;
    • Mount Logan’s asset management platform has approximately $2.4+ billion of assets under management (as of September 30, 2024) that we believe generates predictable fee revenue that can be used to benefit the growth of the combined company and its shareholders;
    • Mount Logan has operational leverage and unique investment access through its association with BC Partners, a leading global private equity and credit firm;
    • Mount Logan is focused on what we believe is the fast-growing market of private credit;
    • We believe that Mount Logan remains undiscovered by the majority of investors due to it being listed on the Cboe Canada exchange rather than a US national exchange; and
    • We believe Mount Logan is significantly undervalued by public market investors.

    For 35 years, I have been a value investor attempting to uncover great companies that I believe are trading below their intrinsic value. As we spent more time with Ted and his colleagues over the past 10 months, it became abundantly clear to us that: 1) we believe Mount Logan is one of these great undiscovered and undervalued companies and 2) the combination of our two companies has the potential to unlock substantial value for 180 Degree Capital shareholders by:

    1. Providing a path to a combined entity that, based on combined shareholder equity as of December 31, 2024, and an estimated distribution of ownership as of the date of the announcement of the Business Combination, would result in 180 Degree Capital shareholder’s portion of the combined shareholder equity being higher than our NAV as of the date of signing of the definitive agreement on January 16, 2025, and as of March 31, 2025.

      For those of our investors who feel more comfortable assessing value based on net asset value/book value, we note that publicly traded comparable companies to what would be our combined company often trade at multiples of book value rather than discounts. For those investors who are comfortable or more interested in valuing based on operating company metrics, we believe the valuation of our combined business will be based on a multiple of fee-related revenues attributed to earnings from the management of permanent and semi-permanent capital vehicles. Other similar businesses commonly trade at significantly higher multiples of operating metrics than the multiple implied by the value of Mount Logan set by the terms of our proposed Business Combination.

    2. Changing to an asset-light operating company that leverages an association with BC Partners enables economies of scale that are not possible at 180 Degree Capital’s current size; and
    3. Substantially increasing the available capital for us to be able to leverage our relationships with small and microcapitalization public companies, to develop capital structure solutions that seek to unlock value and generate favorable risk-adjusted returns.

    As the table below shows, we believe our shareholders have benefited from our ability to generate positive returns on our investments since we took over management of 180 Degree Capital. These returns were offset by material declines in the legacy private portfolio that we inherited.

    Public Portfolio
    Contribution to Change in NAV
    (Q4 2016-Q1 2025)    		 Legacy Private Portfolio
    Contribution to Change in NAV
    (Q4 2016-Q1 2025)
    +$3.35/share -$2.41/share
      TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total (Excluding SMA Carried Interest) TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total (Including SMA Carried Interest) Change in NAV Change in Stock Price Russell Microcap Index Lipper Peer Group Average
    Inception to Date
    Q4 2016 – Q1 2025    		 +198.7% +218.3% -37.0% -4.1% +44.3% +66.1%

    On a relative basis, our gross total return for Q1 2025 of +4.5% compares favorably to the –14.4% total return for the Russell Microcap Index.1 The difference between our gross total return and our net total return, or change in NAV, of -4.7% to $4.42 as of March 31, 2025, was primarily the result of expenses related to our Business Combination, including almost $300,000 in additional professional fees resulting from the public efforts to derail our proposed Business Combination. Our day-to-day operating expenses declined by over 30% from Q1 2024.

    Public Portfolio Performance in Q1 2025

    The slide below shows the basis for our investment performance in Q1 2025:

    Ticker Symbol Shares Owned @ 12/31/24 Net Shares Purchased (Sold) During Quarter Shares Owned @ 3/31/25 Value @ 12/31/24 Cash (Invested) Received from Sales / Dividends Value @ 3/31/25 Value + Cash Received Total Q/Q Net Change % Change
    ACNT 377,750 (10,890) 366,860 $4,223,245 $133,731 $4,644,448 $4,778,179 $554,934 13.1%
    AREN 992,992 0 992,992 $1,330,609 $0 $1,717,876 $1,717,876 $387,267 29.1%
    AVNW 0 10,200 10,200 $0 ($210,768) $195,534 $195,534 ($15,234) (7.2%)
    BCOV 1,053,580 (1,053,580) 0 $4,583,073 $4,688,431 $0 $4,688,431 $105,358 2.3%
    CVGI 410,000 0 410,000 $1,016,800 $0 $471,500 $471,500 ($545,300) (53.6%)
    IVAC 1,046,597 (1,046,597) 0 $3,558,430 $4,293,141 $0 $4,293,141 $734,711 20.6%
    LTRX 656,139 12,572 668,711 $2,703,293 ($34,949) $1,665,090 $1,665,090 ($1,073,151) (39.2%)
    MAMA 0 20,000 20,000 $0 ($122,552) $130,200 $130,200 $7,648 6.2%
    PBPB 1,091,206 0 1,091,206 $10,279,161 $0 $10,377,369 $10,377,369 $98,209 1.0%
    PBPB/WS 80,605 0 80,605 $351,558 $0 $327,256 $327,256 ($24,301) (6.9%)
    RFIL 472,506 0 472,506 $1,847,498 $0 $2,216,053 $2,216,053 $368,555 19.9%
    SCOR 400,451 0 400,451 $2,338,634 $0 $2,751,098 $2,751,098 $412,465 17.6%
    SNCR 854,788 0 854,788 $8,205,965 $0 $9,308,641 $9,308,641 $1,102,677 13.4%
    SNCR-RS 12,000 12,000 24,000 $103,665 $0 $222,784 $222,784 $119,119 114.9%
    Total Other   $0 ($193,561) $185,350 $185,350 ($8,211) (4.2%)
    Total Public Portfolio $40,541,931 $8,553,473 $34,213,199 $43,328,502 $2,224,746  
    Public Portfolio Gross Total Return (Excluding Carried Interest from SMA) 4.5%
    Public Portfolio Gross Total Return (Including Carried Interest from SMA) 4.5%

    I, as the largest individual shareholder of 180 Degree Capital, and Daniel as a top-ten shareholder, could not be more excited about the future of the combined entity. We are not the only ones who understand the potential for value creation from this Business Combination. Some of our largest shareholders have signed either voting agreements or non-binding indications of support, that when combined with ownership of management and the board, account for approximately 27% of our outstanding shares in the aggregate. We appreciate the time and consideration these shareholders spent to understand the merits of this proposed Business Combination and their support for it. We also appreciate the time and interest of new shareholders who have become interested in 180 Degree Capital’s common stock because of the proposed Business Combination.

    We believe the proposed Business Combination to be the best opportunity to build value for all shareholders of 180 Degree Capital. We believe strongly in its future under the leadership of Ted and his colleagues. I have been an investor in the public markets for 35 years, during which time investors entrusted me with billions of dollars of capital. We are interested in building true value for shareholders over the short and long term. We believe this combination achieves both of these objectives. We look forward to discussing these updates to our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus and to having robust conversations with all of our current and potential future shareholders. Feel free to reach out to us at any time and thank you, as always, for your support.

    All the best,

    Kevin M. Rendino
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

    The table below summarizes 180 Degree Capital’s performance over periods of time through the end of Q1 20251:

      Quarter 1 Year 5 Year Inception to Date
      Q1 2025 Q1 2024- Q1 2025 Q1 2020- Q1 2025 Q4 2016- Q1 2025
    TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total Return
    (Excluding SMA Carried Interest)    		 4.5% 5.6% -6.8% 198.7%
    TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total Return
    (Including SMA Carried Interest)    		 4.5% 0.8% 43.8% 218.3%
             
    Change in NAV -4.7% -14.3% -30.5% -37.0%
             
    Change in Stock Price 8.2% -7.5% -2.6% -4.1%
             
    Russell Microcap Index -14.4% -7.0% 76.1% 44.3%
    Russell Microcap Growth Index -17.8% -5.0% 43.5% 29.6%
    Russell Microcap Value Index -11.3% -6.0% 106.7% 57.7%
    Russell 2000 Index -9.5% -4.0% 86.2% 65.3%
    Lipper Peer Group -10.1% -6.6% 113.2% 66.1%


    About 180 Degree Capital Corp.

    180 Degree Capital Corp. is a publicly traded registered closed-end fund focused on investing in and providing value-added assistance through constructive activism to what we believe are substantially undervalued small, publicly traded companies that have potential for significant turnarounds. Our goal is that the result of our constructive activism leads to a reversal in direction for the share price of these investee companies, i.e., a 180-degree turn. Detailed information about 180 Degree Capital and its holdings can be found on its website at www.180degreecapital.com.

    Press Contact:
    Daniel B. Wolfe
    Robert E. Bigelow
    180 Degree Capital Corp.
    973-746-4500
    ir@180degreecapital.com

    Additional Information and Where to Find It

    In connection with the proposed Business Combination, 180 Degree Capital intends to file with the SEC and mail to its shareholders a proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the “Proxy Statement”), containing a form of WHITE proxy card. In addition, the surviving Delaware corporation, Mount Logan Capital Inc. (“New Mount Logan”) plans to file with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 (the “Registration Statement”) that will register the exchange of New Mount Logan shares in the Business Combination and include the Proxy Statement and a prospectus of New Mount Logan (the “Prospectus”). The Proxy Statement and the Registration Statement (including the Prospectus) will each contain important information about 180 Degree Capital, Mount Logan, New Mount Logan, the Business Combination and related matters. SHAREHOLDERS OF 180 DEGREE CAPITAL AND MOUNT LOGAN ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS CONTAINED IN THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED OR WILL BE FILED WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THESE DOCUMENTS CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT 180 DEGREE CAPITAL, MOUNT LOGAN, NEW MOUNT LOGAN, THE BUSINESS COMBINATION AND RELATED MATTERS. Investors and security holders may obtain copies of these documents and other documents filed with the applicable securities regulatory authorities free of charge through the website maintained by the SEC at https://www.sec.gov and the website maintained by the Canadian securities regulators at www.sedarplus.ca. Copies of the documents filed by 180 Degree Capital are also available free of charge by accessing 180 Degree Capital’s investor relations website at https://ir.180degreecapital.com.

    Certain Information Concerning the Participants

    180 Degree Capital, its directors and executive officers and other members of management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the Business Combination. Information about 180 Degree Capital’s executive officers and directors is available in 180 Degree Capital’s Annual Report filed on Form N-CSR for the year ended December 31, 2024, which was filed with the SEC on February 14, 2025, and in its proxy statement for the 2024 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“2024 Annual Meeting”), which was filed with the SEC on March 1, 2024. To the extent holdings by the directors and executive officers of 180 Degree Capital securities reported in the proxy statement for the 2024 Annual Meeting have changed, such changes have been or will be reflected on Statements of Change in Ownership on Forms 3, 4 or 5 filed with the SEC. These documents are or will be available free of charge at the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov. Additional information regarding the persons who may, under the rules of the SEC, be considered participants in the solicitation of the 180 Degree Capital shareholders in connection with the Business Combination will be contained in the Proxy Statement when such document becomes available.

    Mount Logan, its directors and executive officers and other members of management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Mount Logan in favor of the approval of the Business Combination. Information about Mount Logan’s executive officers and directors is available in Mount Logan’s annual information form dated March 13, 2025, available on its website at https://mountlogancapital.ca/investor-relations and on SEDAR+ at https://www.sedarplus.com. To the extent holdings by the directors and executive officers of Mount Logan securities reported in Mount Logan’s annual information form have changed, such changes have been or will be reflected on insider reports filed on SEDI at https://www.sedi.ca/sedi/. Additional information regarding the persons who may, under the rules of the SEC, be considered participants in the solicitation of the Mount Logan shareholders in connection with the Business Combination will be contained in the Prospectus included in the Registration Statement when such document becomes available.

    Non-Solicitation

    This letter and the materials accompanying it are not intended to be, and shall not constitute, an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made, except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This letter and the materials accompanying it, and oral statements made from time to time by representatives of 180 Degree Capital and Mount Logan, may contain statements of a forward-looking nature relating to future events within the meaning of federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expects,” “intends,” “will,” “should,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “would,” “forecasts,” “seeks,” “future,” “proposes,” “target,” “goal,” “objective,” “outlook” and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions). Forward-looking statements are not statements of historical fact and reflect Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s current views about future events. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements about the benefits of the Business Combination involving Mount Logan and 180 Degree Capital, including future financial and operating results, Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the Business Combination, and other statements that are not historical facts, including but not limited to future results of operations, projected cash flow and liquidity, business strategy, payment of dividends to shareholders of New Mount Logan, and other plans and objectives for future operations. No assurances can be given that the forward-looking statements contained in this press release will occur as projected, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and assumptions that involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, the ability to obtain the requisite Mount Logan and 180 Degree Capital shareholder approvals; the risk that Mount Logan or 180 Degree Capital may be unable to obtain governmental and regulatory approvals required for the Business Combination (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect New Mount Logan or the expected benefits of the Business Combination); the risk that an event, change or other circumstance could give rise to the termination of the Business Combination; the risk that a condition to closing of the Business Combination may not be satisfied; the risk of delays in completing the Business Combination; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; the risk that the cost savings and any other synergies from the Business Combination may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; the risk that any announcement relating to the Business Combination could have adverse effects on the market price of Mount Logan’s common stock or 180 Degree Capital’s common stock; unexpected costs resulting from the Business Combination; the possibility that competing offers or acquisition proposals will be made; the risk of litigation related to the Business Combination; the risk that the credit ratings of New Mount Logan or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect; the diversion of management time from ongoing business operations and opportunities as a result of the Business Combination; the risk of adverse reactions or changes to business or employee relationships, including those resulting from the announcement or completion of the Business Combination; competition, government regulation or other actions; the ability of management to execute its plans to meet its goals; risks associated with the evolving legal, regulatory and tax regimes; changes in economic, financial, political and regulatory conditions; natural and man-made disasters; civil unrest, pandemics, and conditions that may result from legislative, regulatory, trade and policy changes; and other risks inherent in Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s businesses. Forward-looking statements are based on the estimates and opinions of management at the time the statements are made. Readers should carefully review the statements set forth in the reports, which 180 Degree Capital has filed or will file from time to time with the SEC and Mount Logan has filed or will file from time to time on SEDAR+.

    Neither Mount Logan nor 180 Degree Capital undertakes any obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. Any discussion of past performance is not an indication of future results. Investing in financial markets involves a substantial degree of risk. Investors must be able to withstand a total loss of their investment. The information herein is believed to be reliable and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty is made, expressed or implied, with respect to the fairness, correctness, accuracy, reasonableness or completeness of the information and opinions. The references and link to the website www.180degreecapital.com and mountlogancapital.ca have been provided as a convenience, and the information contained on such websites are not incorporated by reference into this press release. Neither 180 Degree Capital nor Mount Logan is responsible for the contents of third-party websites.

    1. Past performance is not an indication or guarantee of future performance. Gross unrealized and realized total returns of 180 Degree Capital’s cash and securities of publicly traded companies are compounded on a quarterly basis, and intra-quarter cash flows from investments in or proceeds received from privately held investments are treated as inflows or outflows of cash available to invest or withdrawn, respectively, for the purposes of this calculation. 180 Degree Capital is an internally managed registered closed-end fund that has a portion of its assets that are fair valued on a quarterly basis by the Valuation Committee of its Board of Directors, and 180 Degree Capital does not have an external manager that is paid fees based on assets and/or returns. Please see 180 Degree Capital’s filings with the SEC, including its 2024 Annual Report on Form N-CSR for information on its expenses and expense ratios.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Education Secretary gives keynote speech at Education World Forum

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Speech

    Education Secretary gives keynote speech at Education World Forum

    Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s speech on the use of EdTech to improve opportunity in education at the Education World Forum.

    Hello everyone, and thank you all for being here.

    It’s wonderful to see everyone together in the same place – the biggest gathering of education ministers anywhere in the world!

    And what a fitting location. Just next door is the Methodist Central Hall, where almost 80 years ago the United Nations General Assembly met for the first time.

    And we also sit in the shadow of Westminster Abbey, a place which marks the memories of so many inspirational figures, men and women who still light up our classrooms centuries on.

    Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, and Charles Darwin are all buried there.

    Jane Austen and the three Brontë sisters each have a plaque – next to the statue of William Shakespeare.

    And close by lies the grave of Charles Dickens, whose stories I grew up reading, whose characters I loved.

    Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Pip and his great expectations.

    The abandoned children of Victorian London, held back, time and again, by the tough luck of a bad start.

    I was always drawn to Dickens because he was never afraid to confront social injustice.

    The daily, grinding poverty that kept opportunity out of the reach of millions.

    There’s been plenty of progress since those darker days.

    And thankfully, London looks very different today.

    But much of the inequality, the injustice remains.

    Opportunity still lies beyond the grasp of too many people – here in this country and around the world too.

    We have so far to go on our journey to cut the link between background and success.

    That’s our job as education leaders, to give not just some children but all children the opportunity to succeed, regardless of background, to make that old dream new again for each generation.

    There are well over a hundred countries and territories represented here today. Well over a hundred different education systems. Well over a hundred different sets of challenges.

    But we can come together around one common cause. Opportunity.

    That’s what education is all about. Opportunity for all children – to learn, to discover, to go on and live a good life.

    So that every child knows, deep down in their bones, that success belongs to them.

    That’s my mission for the children of this country, it’s the mission of our government. Because background shouldn’t mean destiny.

    But the barriers we face are huge – here in the UK and across the globe.

    250 million children still out of school around the world.

    70% of children in low- and middle-income countries unable to read at the end of their basic education.

    A pandemic that saw schools all over the world close their gates, classrooms empty, playgrounds silent, a global generation of children falling behind.

    Challenges of this scale demand the fresh solutions of the future, not the stale systems of the past.

    We must squeeze every last drop of value out of every last pound of funding.

    And technology will lead the way.

    The opportunities of EdTech are huge. It’s a wave of innovation that can lift the learning of billions.

    But to be clear about what technology can do, first we need to be clear what it cannot do.

    It can’t replace great teachers.

    They are the heart, they are the soul of every school.

    That was true 500 years ago. It’ll be true in 500 more.

    Education is a deeply human gift, given by one generation to the next.

    Opportunity passed from one generation to the next.

    But EdTech can take that gift and make it stronger, spread it further, share it with more children.

    It can be the radical force that brings the very best education into every city, every town, every village, every school, every classroom in the world.

    It can help us to reach learners who might otherwise be left out – because they have a disability, their parents are poor, they don’t speak a certain language, or simply because they’re a girl.

    EdTech can help us tear down those barriers.

    Here in this country, we’re using it to free up teachers time to spend more time teaching.

    For children that means more attention, higher standards, better life chances.

    For teachers – less paperwork, lower stress, fewer drains on their valuable time. 

    My department is continuing to support Oak National Academy, an online hub of resources for teachers, whose AI lesson assistant is helping teachers to plan personalised lessons in minutes.

    Making the most of teacher time is one of the challenges we all face.

    Another is attendance – getting children back in the classroom, especially since covid.

    Our response is rooted in our world-class data, where schools can use an interactive dashboard to drive early intervention.

    And it’s working. We’ve lost 3 million fewer days to absence this year than last.

    And now we’re using AI to go further and faster.

    Just last week we launched a brand new AI-powered tool, which we think is amongst the first of its kind in the world.

    Every mainstream school in the country can access reports right now to benchmark their attendance against 20 similar schools.

    They highlight what schools are doing well, and where they need targeted intervention and support.

    That’s the kind of cutting-edge insight schools need to get attendance moving.

    But, despite its huge power, we know that AI isn’t a magic wand.

    EdTech can light up the next century of education – and I believe it will – but there are no guarantees.

    So getting AI on the right track now is the most important challenge for global education in a generation.

    And we have far to go to deliver the scale of progress that I know is possible.

    Our evidence-base is too narrow, too shallow, too concentrated in certain parts of the world, too focused on certain parts of the system.

    More research is needed; better research is needed.

    On impact.

    On value.

    On sustainability.

    And on safety.

    We need to come together to grow a global, collective consensus – a suite of effective tools, built on top-class evidence.

    That’s how, together, we can make sure EdTech and AI deliver the very best learning for children.

    And on this the UK will lead the way.

    This government’s EdTech hub – led by our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office – brings together research and policy organisations working to bridge the EdTech evidence gap.

    The Hub is here to support and empower government leaders, giving you the evidence that you need to roll out and scale up EdTech effectively and responsibly.

    The Hub is leading, and the UK is funding, the AI Observatory and Action Lab – supporting leaders in low- and middle-income countries to use AI in education.

    And we are continuing the change here at home with our new Content Store Project.

    We’re pooling a vast range of high-quality content – from curriculum guidance to teaching resources, from lessons plans to anonymised pupil work.

    And we’re making it available to AI companies to train their tools – so that they can generate top quality content for use in our classrooms.

    And we’re putting AI to work in a way that’s most useful for teachers, and most beneficial for students.

    But now we want to go further, to share our expertise, to work with our partners around the world to grow that collective consensus.

    So I am delighted to announce today that we are funding the development of global guidelines for generative AI in education.

    Working closely with partners at the OECD, we are shaping the global consensus on how generative AI can be deployed safely and effectively to boost education around the world.

    But everyone here today will know that guidelines are only ever as good as their implementation.

    Because what really matters is firm action in our classrooms, not abstract promises on a page.

    That’s why today I can announce that the UK will host an international summit on generative AI in education in 2026.

    Education leaders from around the world will come together to implement these guidelines – for the benefit of our children, young people and learners the world over.

    And we’ll continue to build the evidence base at home too.

    So I’m pleased to announce today that my department is investing more than a million pounds to test the Edtech we’re using in schools and colleges.

    Working with the Open Innovation Team, we’ll be engaging the sector to understand what works.

    We’ll look at how tools, including AI, can improve things like staff workload, pupil outcomes and inclusivity.

    Evidence must be at the heart of all we do, on EdTech and right across education.

    Here in the UK, we’re lucky to have the Education Endowment Foundation.

    The Foundation is at the forefront of research on how children learn.

    And my officials work hand in hand with their experts to make sure all our policies and programmes are driven by the very best evidence.

    We need to be at the top of our game.

    We’ve spoken about the challenges specific to education, but there are wider global challenges, that spill into our schools and colleges.

    Growing economic uncertainty, shifting labour markets, the flood of disinformation around social media.

    These are shared challenges that demand shared solutions.

    Solutions powered by technology, backed by evidence.

    But collaboration is key. We can’t do this alone.

    Learning from each other, sharing evidence, sharing data.

    The UK is here to convene, to accelerate and to celebrate all that is best in global education.

    And in the coming months we’ll publish our refreshed International Education Strategy.

    At its heart will be collaboration.

    Building partnerships that are meaningful, partnerships that matter, partnerships that, above all else, make a difference in the lives of the people we serve.

    That’s what sets apart those men and women whom we remember in Westminster Abbey. They made a difference in people’s lives.

    The scientists and engineers, the poets and playwrights, the doctors and nurses.

    Most of their deeds were done and dusted centuries ago. But their legacy lives on.

    EdTech is now bringing the wonders of the Abbey to a whole new generation of children.

    From the Anglo-Saxons to the Tudors, from the majesty of coronations to the drudgery of everyday medieval life.

    Abbey experts run virtual classrooms and virtual tours for schools unable to visit in person – so that every child can learn about this building which has been at the heart of our national life for a thousand years.

    So that no child has to miss out.

    That’s what EdTech is all about, what education is all about, opportunity for all of our children.

    Because let’s not forget, this is for them.

    For every child, for every young person, for every adult around the world who deserves the opportunity to learn.

    That’s why we have to get this right.

    That’s why so many of you have come here today from so far away.

    And that’s why I am so thankful that you have.

    Because together I know that we can make a difference.

    So it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Education World Forum 2025.

    And I look forward to working together with you as we build stronger, bolder, better education together.

    Thank you.

    DfE media enquiries

    Central newsdesk – for journalists 020 7783 8300

    Updates to this page

    Published 19 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: CBAK Energy Reports First Quater 2025 Unaudited Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DALIAN, China, May 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBAT) (“CBAK Energy,” or the “Company”) a leading lithium-ion battery manufacturer and electric energy solution provider in China, today reported its unaudited financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025.

    First Quater of 2025 Financial Results

    Net revenues1 were $34.9 million, representing a decrease of 41% compared to $58.8 million in the same period of 2024. The substantial decline primarily stems from our Dalian facilities, where a major portion of customers are in the residential energy supply sector. These facilities are currently undergoing a product portfolio upgrade, transitioning from Model 26650 to Model 40135. Customers who previously purchased Model 26650 are now in a transitional phase of testing and validating the new Model 40135. We anticipate a gradual recovery as both existing and potential customers complete the validation of Model 40135.

    Among these revenues, detailed revenues from our battery business are:

    Battery Business   2024
    First Quater    		     2025
    First Quater    		     % Change
    YoY
    Net Revenues ($)   44,837,869     20,363,338     -54.6
    Gross Profits ($)   18,458,522     4,720,102     -74.4
    Gross Margin   41.2 %   23.2 %   –
    Net Income ($)   11,682,429     336,861     -97.1
    Net Revenues from Battery Business on Applications ($)                
    Electric Vehicles   480,181     537,507     11.9
    Light Electric Vehicles   1,510,292     2,844,874     88.4
    Residential Energy Supply & Uninterruptable supplies   42,847,396     16,980,957     -60.4
    Total   44,837,869     20,363,338     -54.6
    1 Net revenues consist of the Company’s self-operated battery business and Hitrans, which was acquired in 2021, an independently managed raw materials business.


    Cost of revenues     was $30.14 million, representing a decrease of 24.7% from $40.0 million in the same period of 2024.

    Gross profit was $4.8 million, representing an decrease of 74.43% from $18.78 million in the same period of 2024. Gross margin was 13.7%, compared to 31.9% in the same period of 2024.

    Operating loss amounted to $2.86 million, compared to an operating income of $10.3 million in the same period of 2024.

    Net loss attributable to shareholders of CBAK Energy was $1.58 million, compared to net income attributable to shareholders of CBAK Energy of $9.8 million in the same period of 2024.

    Basic and diluted loss per share were both $0.02, compared to basic and diluted income per share of $0.11 in 2024.

    Zhiguang Hu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, commented, “As anticipated, we experienced a significant 41% year-over-year decline in net revenues. This decrease was expected, as Model 26650 — a cell developed in 2006 and still produced at our Dalian facilities — has become largely outdated. Both existing and potential customers are currently transitioning from Model 26650 to the more advanced Model 40135. We are confident that, upon completing the construction of new manufacturing lines for Model 40135 in the second half of this year, and as customers finalize product validation, our revenues will begin to recover gradually.”

    Jiewei Li, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Board, added, “As Mr. Hu emphasized, we expect to recover once the product portfolio upgrade at our Dalian facilities is completed. Meanwhile, our Nanjing facilities continue to experience strong growth momentum, driven by robust market demand for Model 32140, our most advanced and flagship product to date. Additionally, we are in the final stages of securing a long-term order from one of our key customers, which we hope to finalize and share with our shareholders in the near future.”

    Conference Call

    CBAK Energy’s management will host an earnings conference call at 9:00 AM U.S. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 2025 (9:00 PM Beijing/Hong Kong Time on May 19, 2025).

    For participants who wish to join our call online, please visit:
    https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/wfu5unoh

    Participants who plan to ask questions during the call will need to register at least 15 minutes prior to the scheduled call start time using the link provided below. Upon registration, participants will receive the conference call access information, including dial-in numbers, a unique pin, and an email with detailed instructions.

    Participant Online Registration:
    https://register-conf.media-server.com/register/BIb49b754e574a43e68068965ba0234966

    Once completing the registration, please dial-in at least 10 minutes before the scheduled start time of the conference call and enter the personal pin as instructed to connect to the call.

    A replay of the conference call may be accessed within seven days after the conclusion of the live call at the following website: https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/wfu5unoh

    The earnings release and the link for the replay are available at ir.cbak.com.cn

    About CBAK Energy

    CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBAT) is a leading high-tech enterprise in China engaged in the development, manufacturing, and sales of new energy high power lithium and sodium batteries, as well as the production of raw materials for use in manufacturing high power lithium batteries. The applications of the Company’s products and solutions include electric vehicles, light electric vehicles, energy storage and other high-power applications. In January 2006, CBAK Energy became the first lithium battery manufacturer in China listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. CBAK Energy has multiple operating subsidiaries in Dalian, Nanjing, Shaoxing and Shangqiu, as well as a large-scale R&D and production base in Dalian.

    For more information, please visit ir.cbak.com.cn

    Safe Harbor Statement

    This press release contains “forward-looking statements” that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this press release, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, strategy and plans, and our expectations for future operations, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Our actual results may differ materially or perhaps significantly from those discussed herein, or implied by, these forward-looking statements.

    Any forward-looking statements contained in this press release are only estimates or predictions of future events based on information currently available to our management and management’s current beliefs about the potential outcome of future events. Whether these future events will occur as management anticipates, whether we will achieve our business objectives, and whether our revenues, operating results, or financial condition will improve in future periods are subject to numerous risks. There are a significant number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from statements made in this press release, including: significant legal and operational risks associated with having substantially all of our business operations in China, that the Chinese government may exercise significant oversight and discretion over the conduct of our business and may intervene in or influence our operations at any time, which could result in a material change in our operations and/or the value of our securities or could significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors and could cause the value of such securities to significantly decline or be worthless, the effects of the global Covid-19 pandemic or other health epidemics, changes in domestic and foreign laws, regulations and taxes, the volatility of the securities markets; and other risks including, but not limited to, the ability of the Company to meet its contractual obligations, the uncertain markets for the Company’s products and business, macroeconomic, technological, regulatory, or other factors affecting the profitability of our products and solutions that we discussed or referred to in the Company’s disclosure documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov, including the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as in our other reports filed or furnished from time to time with the SEC. You should read these factors and the other cautionary statements made in this press release. If one or more of these factors materialize, or if any underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results, performance or achievements may vary materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, other than as required by applicable law.

    For further inquiries, please contact:

    In China:

    CBAK Energy Technology, Inc.
    Investor Relations Department
    Email: ir@cbak.com.cn

    CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
    As of December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2025
    (Unaudited)
    (In US$ except for number of shares)
     
      December 31,
    2024    		     March 31,
    2025    		  
    Assets          
    Current assets          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 6,724,360     $ 4,052,010  
    Pledged deposits   54,061,642       43,482,693  
    Term deposits   4,237,090       5,530,030  
    Trade and bills receivable, net   32,938,918       40,835,093  
    Inventories   22,851,027       30,803,486  
    Prepayments and other receivables   20,004,966       17,991,265  
    Receivables from former subsidiary   12,399       9,011  
    Income tax recoverable   566,458       455,342  
    Total current assets   141,396,860       143,158,930  
                   
    Property, plant and equipment, net   85,486,829       84,283,683  
    Construction in progress   42,526,859       51,527,443  
    Long-term investments, net   2,246,494       2,313,725  
    Prepaid land use rights   11,075,973       11,056,715  
    Intangible assets, net   382,962       268,398  
    Deposit paid for acquisition of long-term investments   15,864,318       15,949,095  
    Operating lease right-of-use assets, net   3,237,849       2,906,652  
    Total assets $ 302,218,144     $ 311,464,641  
                   
    Liabilities              
    Current liabilities              
    Trade and bills payable   84,724,386       93,398,948  
    Short-term bank borrowings   26,087,350       29,301,628  
    Other short-term loans   335,715       335,905  
    Accrued expenses and other payables   58,285,635       50,305,373  
    Payable to a former subsidiary, net   419,849       418,211  
    Deferred government grants, current   556,214       559,186  
    Product warranty provisions   23,426       23,000  
    Operating lease liability, current   1,268,405       1,159,373  
    Total current liabilities   171,700,980       175,501,624  
                   
    Long-term bank borrowings   –       4,131,890  
    Deferred government grants, non-current   7,580,255       10,272,610  
    Product warranty provisions   420,688       417,565  
    Operating lease liability, non-current   2,449,056       2,397,859  
    Total liabilities   182,150,979       192,721,548  
                   
    Commitments and contingencies              
                   
    Shareholders’ equity              
    Common stock $0.001 par value; 500,000,000 authorized; 90,083,396 issued and 89,939,190 outstanding as of December 31, 2024; and 90,083,868 issued and 89,939,662 outstanding as of March 31, 2025   90,083       90,083  
    Donated shares   14,101,689       14,101,689  
    Additional paid-in capital   247,842,445       247,869,511  
    Statutory reserves   1,230,511       3,042,602  
    Accumulated deficit   (122,605,730 )     (125,997,055 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (14,919,345 )     (14,248,434 )
        125,739,653       124,858,396  
                   
    Less: Treasury shares   (4,066,610 )     (4,066,610 )
                   
    Total shareholders’ equity   121,673,043       120,791,786  
    Non-controlling interests   (1,605,878 )     (2,048,693 )
    Total equity   120,067,165       118,743,093  
                   
    Total liabilities and shareholder’s equity $ 302,218,144     $ 311,464,641  

     

    CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. and Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
    For the three months ended March 31, 2024 and 2025
    (Unaudited)
    (In US$ except for number of shares)
     
      Three months ended
    March 31,    		  
      2024     2025  
    Net revenues $ 58,822,432     $ 34,938,901  
    Cost of revenues   (40,041,385 )     (30,137,167 )
    Gross profit   18,781,047       4,801,734  
    Operating expenses:              
    Research and development expenses   (2,815,518 )     (3,023,961 )
    Sales and marketing expenses   (1,724,032 )     (896,050 )
    General and administrative expenses   (4,092,527 )     (3,804,137 )
    Allowance of credit losses and bad debts written off, net   114,013       58,395  
    Total operating expenses   (8,518,064 )     (7,665,753 )
    Operating income (loss)   10,262,983       (2,864,019 )
    Finance income, net   9,663       45,120  
    Other income, net   367,438       712,792  
    Share of (loss) income of equity investee   (18,824 )     55,125  
    Income (loss) before income tax   10,621,260       (2, 050,982 )
    Income tax expenses   (1,048,786 )     –  
    Net income (loss)   9,572,474       (2, 050,982 )
    Less: Net loss attributable to non-controlling interests   263,976       471,748  
    Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders of CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. $ 9,836,450     $ (1,579,234 )
                   
    Net income (loss)   9,572,474       (2,050,982 )
    Other comprehensive income (loss)              
    – Foreign currency translation adjustment   (1,906,048 )     699,844  
    Comprehensive income (loss)   7,666,426       (1,315,138 )
    Less: Comprehensive loss attributable to non-controlling interests   274,223       442,816  
    Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. $ 7,940,649     $ (908,322 )
                   
    Income (loss) per share              
    – Basic $ 0.11     $ (0.02 )
    – Diluted $ 0.11     $ (0.02 )
                   
    Weighted average number of shares of common stock:              
    – Basic   89,925,024       89,938,690  
    – Diluted   90,123,965       89,938,690  

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney

    I. Noyan Yilmaz, Shutterstock

    Societies increasingly rely on scientists to guide decisions in times of uncertainty, from pandemic outbreaks to the rise of artificial intelligence.

    Addressing climate change is no different. For governments wanting to introduce ambitious climate policies, public trust in climate scientists is pivotal, because it can determine whether voters support or resist those efforts.

    So do people trust climate scientists, and what affects levels of trust? Our new study shows climate scientists are less trusted than other types of scientists globally. But there are profound variations in this trust gap between countries, and within them.

    Finding ways to increase trust in climate scientists is crucial if the world is to implement effective policies to avert dangerous global warming.

    Low trust in climate scientists may hinder effective climate science communication and reduce public engagement with climate solutions.
    Mozgova, Shutterstock.

    Examining trust in science

    We collaborated with an international team of researchers to analyse data from one of the largest cross-national surveys of public attitudes toward science. The dataset includes responses from nearly 70,000 people across 68 countries. It offers a rare global snapshot of how people perceive scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular.

    Each of these people rated their trust in climate scientists on a five-point scale, with a five indicating very high trust and a one being not trusted at all.

    Trust in scientists more generally was assessed using a 12-item questionnaire that measured perceptions of expertise, integrity, benevolence and openness. The responses were averaged to create a composite trust score. Higher scores reflected higher levels of trust.

    We found trust in scientists was moderately strong worldwide, as it was above the midpoint of the scale (averaging 3.6 out of 5). But trust in climate scientists was slightly lower (averaging 3.5). The difference between the two scores is what we call the “trust gap”.

    In 43 of the 68 countries, the trust gap was statistically significant, with people reporting lower trust in climate scientists than in scientists in general.

    The size of the trust gap varied between countries. In Europe, Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) and North America the gap tended to be smaller. Larger gaps emerged in parts of Latin America and Africa.

    The Democratic Republic of the Congo had the widest gap, with climate scientists trusted less than in any other country. This may reflect local concerns that global climate agendas — often supported by international scientists — prioritise resource extraction for foreign renewable energy demands over local interests. Such feelings may be particularly acute in regions where mining has brought limited community benefit.

    Six countries bucked the trend. Climate scientists were more trusted than scientists overall in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Egypt, Israel and Germany.

    In China and Germany, this may reflect strong investment in green energy, high levels of public support for climate action, and the visible role climate scientists play in shaping policy.

    What’s going on here?

    Not surprisingly, people with more positive views of science tended to express higher trust in scientists and even more so, climate scientists. But people with dim views of scientists were less trusting of climate scientists.

    Age also played a role. Older people tended to trust scientists more than younger people. But younger people were more likely to trust climate scientists.

    Climate scientists were generally less trusted than scientists regardless of gender. While men reported slightly lower trust in scientists than women did, the difference was not statistically significant.

    Among all the variables we examined, political orientation emerged as one of the strongest factors associated with trust in climate scientists. People with right-leaning or conservative views reported lower trust in climate scientists compared with those with more left-leaning or liberal views.

    However, the meaning of terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” can vary considerably between countries. For example, in Australia, the Liberal Party is politically right-leaning. But in the United States, “liberal” typically refers to left-leaning or progressive views. This variation makes cross-national comparisons complex and requires careful interpretation of results.

    As a particular person’s political orientation shifted further to the right, the trust gap between climate scientists and scientists widened.

    In 28 countries across the Americas, Europe and Oceania, right-leaning orientation was associated not only with lower trust in climate scientists than people who leaned to the left, but also with a larger gap between trust for scientists generally and trust for climate scientists.

    In a smaller subset of countries, particularly in parts of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, the pattern reversed – right-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in climate scientists than their left-leaning counterparts.

    These findings suggest it is not political orientation alone that drives public trust, but how climate issues are framed in political discourse. In many Western countries, public messaging around climate change — particularly from conservative parties and media — has cast doubt on the credibility of climate science. This politicisation, often amplified by vested interests such as fossil fuel lobbies, may help explain the erosion of trust among some conservative groups.

    Closing the trust gap

    Trust alone will not solve the climate crisis, but it plays a crucial role in shaping how societies respond to scientific guidance.

    Ambitious, evidence-based policies require public support to succeed. A persistent trust gap — no matter how small — can undermine that support and help explain why many governments continue to fall short of their climate targets.

    Closing the trust gap through transparent communication, inclusive public engagement, and consistent political leadership is essential for turning awareness into action.

    Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science.

    Ben Newell receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-are-trusted-globally-just-not-as-much-as-other-scientists-heres-why-256441

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney

    I. Noyan Yilmaz, Shutterstock

    Societies increasingly rely on scientists to guide decisions in times of uncertainty, from pandemic outbreaks to the rise of artificial intelligence.

    Addressing climate change is no different. For governments wanting to introduce ambitious climate policies, public trust in climate scientists is pivotal, because it can determine whether voters support or resist those efforts.

    So do people trust climate scientists, and what affects levels of trust? Our new study shows climate scientists are less trusted than other types of scientists globally. But there are profound variations in this trust gap between countries, and within them.

    Finding ways to increase trust in climate scientists is crucial if the world is to implement effective policies to avert dangerous global warming.

    Low trust in climate scientists may hinder effective climate science communication and reduce public engagement with climate solutions.
    Mozgova, Shutterstock.

    Examining trust in science

    We collaborated with an international team of researchers to analyse data from one of the largest cross-national surveys of public attitudes toward science. The dataset includes responses from nearly 70,000 people across 68 countries. It offers a rare global snapshot of how people perceive scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular.

    Each of these people rated their trust in climate scientists on a five-point scale, with a five indicating very high trust and a one being not trusted at all.

    Trust in scientists more generally was assessed using a 12-item questionnaire that measured perceptions of expertise, integrity, benevolence and openness. The responses were averaged to create a composite trust score. Higher scores reflected higher levels of trust.

    We found trust in scientists was moderately strong worldwide, as it was above the midpoint of the scale (averaging 3.6 out of 5). But trust in climate scientists was slightly lower (averaging 3.5). The difference between the two scores is what we call the “trust gap”.

    In 43 of the 68 countries, the trust gap was statistically significant, with people reporting lower trust in climate scientists than in scientists in general.

    The size of the trust gap varied between countries. In Europe, Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) and North America the gap tended to be smaller. Larger gaps emerged in parts of Latin America and Africa.

    The Democratic Republic of the Congo had the widest gap, with climate scientists trusted less than in any other country. This may reflect local concerns that global climate agendas — often supported by international scientists — prioritise resource extraction for foreign renewable energy demands over local interests. Such feelings may be particularly acute in regions where mining has brought limited community benefit.

    Six countries bucked the trend. Climate scientists were more trusted than scientists overall in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Egypt, Israel and Germany.

    In China and Germany, this may reflect strong investment in green energy, high levels of public support for climate action, and the visible role climate scientists play in shaping policy.

    What’s going on here?

    Not surprisingly, people with more positive views of science tended to express higher trust in scientists and even more so, climate scientists. But people with dim views of scientists were less trusting of climate scientists.

    Age also played a role. Older people tended to trust scientists more than younger people. But younger people were more likely to trust climate scientists.

    Climate scientists were generally less trusted than scientists regardless of gender. While men reported slightly lower trust in scientists than women did, the difference was not statistically significant.

    Among all the variables we examined, political orientation emerged as one of the strongest factors associated with trust in climate scientists. People with right-leaning or conservative views reported lower trust in climate scientists compared with those with more left-leaning or liberal views.

    However, the meaning of terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” can vary considerably between countries. For example, in Australia, the Liberal Party is politically right-leaning. But in the United States, “liberal” typically refers to left-leaning or progressive views. This variation makes cross-national comparisons complex and requires careful interpretation of results.

    As a particular person’s political orientation shifted further to the right, the trust gap between climate scientists and scientists widened.

    In 28 countries across the Americas, Europe and Oceania, right-leaning orientation was associated not only with lower trust in climate scientists than people who leaned to the left, but also with a larger gap between trust for scientists generally and trust for climate scientists.

    In a smaller subset of countries, particularly in parts of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, the pattern reversed – right-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in climate scientists than their left-leaning counterparts.

    These findings suggest it is not political orientation alone that drives public trust, but how climate issues are framed in political discourse. In many Western countries, public messaging around climate change — particularly from conservative parties and media — has cast doubt on the credibility of climate science. This politicisation, often amplified by vested interests such as fossil fuel lobbies, may help explain the erosion of trust among some conservative groups.

    Closing the trust gap

    Trust alone will not solve the climate crisis, but it plays a crucial role in shaping how societies respond to scientific guidance.

    Ambitious, evidence-based policies require public support to succeed. A persistent trust gap — no matter how small — can undermine that support and help explain why many governments continue to fall short of their climate targets.

    Closing the trust gap through transparent communication, inclusive public engagement, and consistent political leadership is essential for turning awareness into action.

    Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science.

    Ben Newell receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-are-trusted-globally-just-not-as-much-as-other-scientists-heres-why-256441

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The re-emergence of polio in Papua New Guinea shows global eradication remains elusive

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

    Last week the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a polio outbreak in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

    The highly infectious virus was found in two healthy, polio-vaccinated children who were screened following detection of the virus during routine wastewater sampling in Lae, PNG’s second largest city. Wastewater samples are also positive in the capital Port Moresby, indicating the potential of spread around the country.

    The strain has been identified as circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2, similar genetically to a strain circulating in Indonesia.

    So what does this mean? And what will happen now in PNG?

    First, what is polio?

    Polio, or poliomyelitis, is a highly contagious disease caused by the poliovirus. It primarily affects children.

    Most infections don’t cause significant symptoms and go largely unnoticed. But less than 1% of infections result in paralysis.

    Poliovirus is spread by person-to-person contact or the ingestion of contaminated virus from faeces. The virus multiplies in the gut of people who are infected, and they shed the virus in their stool for several weeks. In this way it can spread through a community, especially in areas with poor sanitation.

    A recent review also suggested a greater role for transmission via respiratory particles than we previously thought.

    Wild poliovirus (as distinct from vaccine-derived poliovirus, which we’ll discuss shortly) was a major public health issue prior to the rollout of vaccination in 1950s. This campaign led to the virtual elimination of the disease in rich countries such as Australia.

    Since the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched in 1988, cases have decreased by 99% globally. Wild poliovirus remains endemic only in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Polio is caused by the poliovirus.
    Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

    Polio vaccines

    There are two types of vaccines – the oral polio vaccine and the inactivated polio vaccine.

    Delivered as two drops in the mouth at least four times in early childhood, the oral vaccine contains a live-attenuated (weakened) form of the poliovirus. It triggers a strong immune reaction in the gut that slows the replication of wild poliovirus, and reduces shedding in the stool, limiting transmission.

    The oral vaccine does carry a small risk of the weakened vaccine strain causing paralysis. This occurs in
    roughly one in 2.7 million doses of the oral vaccine administered, usually at the first dose.

    The inactivated polio vaccine (part of the routine immunisation program in Australia) contains an inactivated or dead form of the poliovirus, which is unable to cause polio in the recipient.

    Given as an injection, this vaccine stimulates the immune system to produce protective antibodies in the blood against poliovirus. Three doses of the inactivated vaccine are highly protective against developing symptoms and paralysis from polio.

    However, this vaccine is thought not to be as effective as the oral vaccine at preventing infection and shedding in the gut. Therefore, it doesn’t prevent transmission.

    What is vaccine-derived poliovirus?

    As the weakened poliovirus in the oral vaccine is still shed in the stool, it can spread in communities with poor sanitation. The vaccine strain can mutate to a form that can cause paralysis, like wild poliovirus. The result, circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus, is a problem particularly when polio immunisation rates are low.

    The risk of international spread of vaccine-derived poliovirus has been assessed as high by the WHO and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were outbreaks in 39 countries in 2023–24.

    A novel oral polio vaccine, nOPV2, which is less likely to mutate, has been used in outbreaks of vaccine-derived poliovirus since 2021.

    Routine vaccination with the inactivated polio vaccine is key to preventing vaccine-derived poliovirus, and is recommended by WHO. The polio endgame will involve this transition from the oral vaccine to the inactivated vaccine.

    In 2019, all countries had introduced the inactivated vaccine. However uptake remains low because of a lack of resources and inadequate access to health services in poor countries.

    What happens now in PNG?

    The PNG government has responded swiftly to activate its polio emergency response plan, supported by partners including WHO, UNICEF and the Australian government.

    Notably, PNG’s vaccination rate is among the lowest in the world, with only about 50% of children born each year receiving the recommended childhood vaccines, including the oral polio vaccine. To induce herd immunity and prevent outbreaks of disease, coverage should be at least 95%.

    PNG was declared polio free in 2000. But there was an outbreak in 2018 of vaccine-derived polio type 1 with 26 cases across nine provinces. The outbreak was brought under control through supplementary rounds of vaccination, enhanced surveillance, and expanded communication and community engagement.

    There are many lessons to be learned from the successful response to the 2018 polio outbreak. These three pillars of the response remain relevant:

    • mass vaccination (using nOPV2)
    • enhanced surveillance for cases and wastewater sampling
    • communication (through traditional and social media) and localised community engagement.

    Further research will be crucial to understand where transmission is occurring and target the response accordingly. This includes the question of potential for spread between Indonesia and PNG – a neglected health security issue.

    How about the risk in Australia?

    While the risk of spread of polio in Australia is low, the virus does not respect borders, and we cannot become complacent.

    Australia’s overall coverage with the inactivated vaccine is close to 95% but there has been a concerning decline in childhood immunisation since the COVID pandemic. Australia must address this and maintain its polio wastewater monitoring system.

    Supporting PNG and working with other countries towards global polio eradication is the best way Australia can protect itself.

    This outbreak is a timely reminder that the last mile in the global eradication of polio remains elusive. As we emerge from a pandemic, the need for international cooperation, strengthening health systems and responding swiftly to health emergencies such as polio couldn’t be stronger.

    Michael Toole has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Victorian Government and the Australian Government via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Fredrick Charles 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. The re-emergence of polio in Papua New Guinea shows global eradication remains elusive – https://theconversation.com/the-re-emergence-of-polio-in-papua-new-guinea-shows-global-eradication-remains-elusive-256899

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The re-emergence of polio in Papua New Guinea shows global eradication remains elusive

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

    Last week the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a polio outbreak in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

    The highly infectious virus was found in two healthy, polio-vaccinated children who were screened following detection of the virus during routine wastewater sampling in Lae, PNG’s second largest city. Wastewater samples are also positive in the capital Port Moresby, indicating the potential of spread around the country.

    The strain has been identified as circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2, similar genetically to a strain circulating in Indonesia.

    So what does this mean? And what will happen now in PNG?

    First, what is polio?

    Polio, or poliomyelitis, is a highly contagious disease caused by the poliovirus. It primarily affects children.

    Most infections don’t cause significant symptoms and go largely unnoticed. But less than 1% of infections result in paralysis.

    Poliovirus is spread by person-to-person contact or the ingestion of contaminated virus from faeces. The virus multiplies in the gut of people who are infected, and they shed the virus in their stool for several weeks. In this way it can spread through a community, especially in areas with poor sanitation.

    A recent review also suggested a greater role for transmission via respiratory particles than we previously thought.

    Wild poliovirus (as distinct from vaccine-derived poliovirus, which we’ll discuss shortly) was a major public health issue prior to the rollout of vaccination in 1950s. This campaign led to the virtual elimination of the disease in rich countries such as Australia.

    Since the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched in 1988, cases have decreased by 99% globally. Wild poliovirus remains endemic only in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Polio is caused by the poliovirus.
    Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

    Polio vaccines

    There are two types of vaccines – the oral polio vaccine and the inactivated polio vaccine.

    Delivered as two drops in the mouth at least four times in early childhood, the oral vaccine contains a live-attenuated (weakened) form of the poliovirus. It triggers a strong immune reaction in the gut that slows the replication of wild poliovirus, and reduces shedding in the stool, limiting transmission.

    The oral vaccine does carry a small risk of the weakened vaccine strain causing paralysis. This occurs in
    roughly one in 2.7 million doses of the oral vaccine administered, usually at the first dose.

    The inactivated polio vaccine (part of the routine immunisation program in Australia) contains an inactivated or dead form of the poliovirus, which is unable to cause polio in the recipient.

    Given as an injection, this vaccine stimulates the immune system to produce protective antibodies in the blood against poliovirus. Three doses of the inactivated vaccine are highly protective against developing symptoms and paralysis from polio.

    However, this vaccine is thought not to be as effective as the oral vaccine at preventing infection and shedding in the gut. Therefore, it doesn’t prevent transmission.

    What is vaccine-derived poliovirus?

    As the weakened poliovirus in the oral vaccine is still shed in the stool, it can spread in communities with poor sanitation. The vaccine strain can mutate to a form that can cause paralysis, like wild poliovirus. The result, circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus, is a problem particularly when polio immunisation rates are low.

    The risk of international spread of vaccine-derived poliovirus has been assessed as high by the WHO and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were outbreaks in 39 countries in 2023–24.

    A novel oral polio vaccine, nOPV2, which is less likely to mutate, has been used in outbreaks of vaccine-derived poliovirus since 2021.

    Routine vaccination with the inactivated polio vaccine is key to preventing vaccine-derived poliovirus, and is recommended by WHO. The polio endgame will involve this transition from the oral vaccine to the inactivated vaccine.

    In 2019, all countries had introduced the inactivated vaccine. However uptake remains low because of a lack of resources and inadequate access to health services in poor countries.

    What happens now in PNG?

    The PNG government has responded swiftly to activate its polio emergency response plan, supported by partners including WHO, UNICEF and the Australian government.

    Notably, PNG’s vaccination rate is among the lowest in the world, with only about 50% of children born each year receiving the recommended childhood vaccines, including the oral polio vaccine. To induce herd immunity and prevent outbreaks of disease, coverage should be at least 95%.

    PNG was declared polio free in 2000. But there was an outbreak in 2018 of vaccine-derived polio type 1 with 26 cases across nine provinces. The outbreak was brought under control through supplementary rounds of vaccination, enhanced surveillance, and expanded communication and community engagement.

    There are many lessons to be learned from the successful response to the 2018 polio outbreak. These three pillars of the response remain relevant:

    • mass vaccination (using nOPV2)
    • enhanced surveillance for cases and wastewater sampling
    • communication (through traditional and social media) and localised community engagement.

    Further research will be crucial to understand where transmission is occurring and target the response accordingly. This includes the question of potential for spread between Indonesia and PNG – a neglected health security issue.

    How about the risk in Australia?

    While the risk of spread of polio in Australia is low, the virus does not respect borders, and we cannot become complacent.

    Australia’s overall coverage with the inactivated vaccine is close to 95% but there has been a concerning decline in childhood immunisation since the COVID pandemic. Australia must address this and maintain its polio wastewater monitoring system.

    Supporting PNG and working with other countries towards global polio eradication is the best way Australia can protect itself.

    This outbreak is a timely reminder that the last mile in the global eradication of polio remains elusive. As we emerge from a pandemic, the need for international cooperation, strengthening health systems and responding swiftly to health emergencies such as polio couldn’t be stronger.

    Michael Toole has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Victorian Government and the Australian Government via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Fredrick Charles 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. The re-emergence of polio in Papua New Guinea shows global eradication remains elusive – https://theconversation.com/the-re-emergence-of-polio-in-papua-new-guinea-shows-global-eradication-remains-elusive-256899

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Video: The Next Pandemic: Are We Ready? | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep fissures in our global preparedness to health emergencies — from unequal access to vaccines to a lack of coordinated response. The World Health Organization (WHO) is proposing a new pandemic agreement to ensure we’re better equipped next time.

    In this video, we break down the WHO pandemic treaty, why it matters, and how it aims to prevent, detect, and respond to future pandemics.

    Discover how countries are coming together to build a safer future through international health law.

    Because no one is safe until everyone is safe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dvLQUVmARU

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Happy International Museum Day!

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    This Sunday, the entire world celebrates International Museum Day. The world rightfully owes the appearance of this holiday to our country. In 1977, at the XI General Conference of the International Council of Museums, which was then held in Moscow and Leningrad, the director of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts Irina Antonova proposed establishing International Museum Day, which began to be celebrated the following year. To date, about 37 thousand museums from 158 countries have joined the celebration.

    The first museum can be considered the Alexandria Museion, founded in the 3rd century BC in Egypt. It was a cultural, research and religious center, which also included one of the largest ancient libraries. The first Russian museum was the Kunstkamera, founded by Peter I in 1714. The largest museum in the world is the Russian Hermitage, the area of which is just under 101 thousand square meters. And the title of the most popular museum has been held by the French Louvre for many years. Before the pandemic, it was visited by over 10 million people a year, now the number of visitors is again approaching these figures.

    In 2025, the theme of the festival – “The Future of Museums in Rapidly Changing Communities” – is dedicated to social, technological and environmental changes in the modern world. Despite the fact that museums preserve the past, they are not ossified structures at all and quickly adapt high technologies to their needs, creating interactive exhibitions and sensory spaces, using virtual and augmented reality, equipping storage rooms with advanced temperature and humidity control systems.

    The State University also has its own museum dedicated to the history of management education in Russia. The first exhibition of 66 exhibits was opened in 2007, and now the museum contains more than 800 different items.

    Traditionally, the Night of Museums is timed to coincide with this holiday, when after sunset the expositions can be visited for free. Now you know how to spend this evening with interest and benefit.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • FDA approves Novavax COVID vaccine with new conditions

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine, but placed additional conditions on individuals who would be able to receive the vaccine.
     
    According to the approval letter, the license restricts the use of the vaccine called Nuvaxovid to individuals aged 65 and older, and those between 12 and 64 who have at least one underlying condition that increases their risk of developing severe illness from COVID.
     
    The letter did not specify what qualified as an underlying condition.
     
    The FDA also deferred submission of pediatric studies from birth to less than 12 years for the application, as pediatric studies had not been completed.
     
    Novavax CEO John Jacobs said the approval was a “significant milestone” that solidifies a path for people to access the vaccine.
     
    The vaccine’s prospects were thrown into doubt after the FDA missed its April 1 target to approve the shot. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attributed the delay to the shot’s composition in a CBS interview earlier that month.
     
    Novavax, whose protein-based shot uses an older technology, missed out on the pandemic vaccine windfall – enjoyed by rivals Moderna and Pfizer which make messenger RNA-based vaccines – due to manufacturing issues and regulatory hurdles.
     
    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Readout of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s US-Africa Policy Working Group Meeting on Dismantling of USAID

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN)

    Today, US-Africa Policy Working Group Chairwoman Ilhan Omar hosted a Member-level briefing detailing the devastating human impacts of Donald Trump and DOGE’s dismantling of USAID and cuts to humanitarian and development assistance.

    Members were briefed on the real-world consequences of the short-sighted and cruel policies of the Administration, including the abrupt termination of food assistance to the world’s hungriest people, and the increased likelihood of infectious diseases and pandemics reaching into the United States of America.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Criticizes Trump’s ‘Small, Insular, Mercenary’ Foreign Policy, Discusses Rebuilding American Foreign Assistance

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
    WASHINGTON – Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, condemned the Trump administration’s wholesale dismantling of American foreign assistance and its abrupt departure from generations of bipartisan American foreign policy consensus. He underscored the various ways the administration’s cuts are costing lives and disrupting work critical to American interests around the world. Schatz also outlined ways in which the foreign assistance enterprise could be reformed to be more disciplined and effective going forward.
    “The existing tools of American foreign policy have served us, and the world, well,” said Senator Schatz, a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “American leadership has deterred conflict and forged peace; cured diseases and slashed poverty. It has advanced equality, unleashed unprecedented economic prosperity, and powered extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. The world order we’ve established, flawed as it is, and as episodically counterproductive as our actions have been, is far better than the alternatives. But we now have a president and Secretary of State in Marco Rubio who are racing to shatter it.”
    Senator Schatz continued, “Legitimate, lawful, and lasting reform is not just possible, but necessary. For foreign assistance, that means rethinking what we do, where we do it, and how we do it. I’m not arguing that we shrink the scope of our ambitions or the scale of our investments. What I am advocating for is a more disciplined approach.”
    “Whether this moment is a requiem or a recess for American leadership is up to all of us. Because for all of the chaos and suffering of the past 4 months, we’re still in a position to rebuild the enterprise. We can still return to being the indispensable nation, as Madeleine Albright used to say. But that requires recapturing our ambition to once again be big, and bold, and expansive, and engaged, and innovative. And it demands a forceful rejection of the false choices being presented about strength and greatness and patriotism,” Senator Schatz concluded.
    A copy of Senator Schatz’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, is below. Video is available here.
    Good evening, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here with all of you, and I want to thank the Council on Foreign Relations for having me.
    The toll of President Trump’s foreign policy, both on a human level and in policy terms, is rising every day. Children are starving. Mothers are passing HIV onto their newborns. Countries that were partners for decades are now turning to China for help. And our friends and allies, feeling confused and betrayed, are moving on without us.
    But this moment also raises an essential question about the future. Which is: what does a modern American foreign policy – one that is smart and strategic – look like? How do we adapt to reflect the lessons of recent decades and face future challenges?
    And here’s the truth. The existing tools of American foreign policy have served us, and the world, well. American leadership has deterred conflict and forged peace; cured diseases and slashed poverty. It has advanced equality, unleashed unprecedented economic prosperity, and powered extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. And so while I get the gravitational pull towards newness, we don’t need to outsmart ourselves, either.
    The world order we’ve established, flawed as it is, and as episodically counterproductive as our actions have been, is far better than the alternatives. But we now have a president and Secretary of State in Marco Rubio who are racing to shatter it.
    President Trump’s narrow and transactional view of the world is not news to anyone. What is genuinely surprising is that Secretary Rubio is aligning himself so closely with it. This is someone who, up until 4 months ago, was an internationalist. Someone who believed in America flexing its powers in all manners, but especially through foreign assistance. And yet, he is now responsible for the evisceration of the whole enterprise. He’s a colleague. I voted for him. And what I’m trying to understand is: what happened? Has he suddenly changed his mind on all of this? Or is someone else in charge?
    We could have done this well – and together. If the goal was to reform foreign assistance, rather than gut it from top to bottom, then the administration was pushing on an open door. In fact, my first meeting with Lindsey Graham at the start of the year when I became Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations was about reforms. What’s working and what’s not? Does our work match our priorities? How can we better align our investments and our objectives? But you don’t fix something by burning it down.
    Legitimate, lawful, and lasting reform is not just possible, but necessary. For foreign assistance, that means rethinking what we do, where we do it, and how we do it. The objectives are the same as they’ve always been – keeping Americans safe, strengthening American businesses overseas, saving lives, and promoting rights and freedoms. The question is: how do we pursue them?
    And it’s through things like PEPFAR which is the most successful global health program in history. It’s saved 26 million lives to date and enabled local health systems to combat the spread of diseases, making the whole world safer and healthier. But because of the administration’s indiscriminate cuts to HIV testing and treatment, thousands of children have already died, and an estimated half a million more could die in the next 5 years. 2030 was our goal to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But we’re now moving backwards with more – not fewer – people dying. Kids are dying because we walked away.
    Our work in the Indo-Pacific is important for several reasons – geopolitics, security, trade, climate. But our security partnerships with Vietnam, for example, are possible because of USAID’s health and climate programs which also help address the legacies of the Vietnam War. Abandoning those projects overnight hurts both of our countries.
    And on foreign military financing, which has helped make us the security partner of choice globally, the administration initially froze billions of dollars, forcing our allies to beg for the money that they count on.
    Going forward, the task is two-fold: restoring the things that were clearly working. And that requires processes that actually work and staff who are allowed to work. But most of all, it requires Secretary Rubio’s undivided attention. And then second, we have to look at what we can be doing better.
    And that starts with doing fewer things. Not less, but fewer – and there is a big difference. I’m not arguing that we shrink the scope of our ambitions or the scale of our investments. What I am advocating for is a more disciplined approach. Just because there’s a lot of great and worthy work that we could be doing doesn’t mean we should be the ones doing it. We’re not a private foundation.
    Second, we have to reduce our overreliance on big contractors with high overhead. Contractors shouldn’t be bigger than the agencies that oversee them. And less overhead means more money in the field, actually helping people. Along those lines, we need to stop overregulating our implementing partners and be more flexible about how money is spent.
    Third, there’s a lot of private capital flowing in the world. The challenge sometimes is getting it to flow to the places and projects that we want it to. But we can help fix that with grant dollars that help private sector-led projects pencil out. It’s a good example where the U.S. government doesn’t have to assume the majority of the burden. But we can be smarter about leveraging our resources to achieve outcomes that are in our interest.
    And finally, where possible, we should work to transfer the delivery of basic services – food, water, education – to partner governments. Otherwise, our development programs aren’t actually development programs. They’re service delivery programs with no end in sight. And that’s not helping anyone.
    This isn’t an exhaustive list, but those are the kinds of reforms we should be working toward in our annual appropriations bill. Now, the good news is that there’s longstanding, bipartisan support for this bill. Because leaders and members on both sides of the Capitol understand that we can’t do foreign policy without the tools of foreign policy. It doesn’t matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. You need tools to implement your policies. And so we’re starting to work toward a bill on that basis, and we have a hearing on it next week with Secretary Rubio.
    President Trump’s version of America – small, insular, mercenary – is fundamentally un-American. It’s antithetical to not just our belief, but the world’s belief, in America as the promised land. And it defies generations of American leadership which helped defeat the Nazis, rebuild Europe, prevent nuclear Armageddon, and take down terrorists.
    But whether this moment is a requiem or a recess for American leadership is up to all of us. Because for all of the chaos and suffering of the past 4 months, we’re still in a position to rebuild the enterprise. We can still return to being the indispensable nation, as Madeleine Albright used to say. But that requires recapturing our ambition to once again be big, and bold, and expansive, and engaged, and innovative. And it demands a forceful rejection of the false choices being presented about strength and greatness and patriotism.
    We didn’t become the most powerful nation in human history by walling ourselves off from the world or by trying to extort friends and monetize every relationship. We’re the good guys. And that’s important for its own reasons – separate and apart from geopolitics, though it’s helpful with that too. Being the good guys is foundational to how we move through the world. It’s not woke or left or soft. It has been the perennial, bipartisan consensus since our founding.
    Getting back to that is going to require all of us to do our part. And I really mean that. Many of you here have dedicated your lives to promoting our values and interests. Your work and your voice matter, now more than ever. This is a hard time, but it’s not the hardest of times. We’ve survived greater challenges before, and we can do it again. To save America as we know it, we all have a role to play, both in Congress, but especially outside of it. And as my colleague Sarah McBride’s dad said, if everyone has just a little bit of courage, then no one has to be a hero. So let’s get to it. Thank you.

    MIL OSI USA News –