Green Party NI Leader Mal O’Hara said “The environmental policy of these 5 executive parties is like fake grass. It only looks like the real thing from the distance. When you get close, you realise it’s actually detrimental to the environment.
Lough Neagh is dying before our eyes, with the responsibility lying at the feet of these 5 parties that pursued industrialised farming on behalf of big agri-food. The Executive plan for recovery is focused on awareness and education rather than fines and enforcement. They have rowed back from the commitment in New Decade New Approach to establish an Independent Enviornmental Protection Agency in their newest Programme for Government. Northern Ireland emits higher per capita emissions than anywhere else on these islands. Our air is toxic. Our soil quality is deteriorating and none of our rivers, lakes and coastal plains meet a good standard. Northern Ireland is the 12th worst place in the world for species loss. That is the responsibility for those that have been in power for 27 years and have done precious little to address it.”
Mal continued ‘It is welcome that today the Assembly voted for the creation of a Climate Commissioner, which should hold government to account on its environmental record. This is a key part of the Climate Act that Green MLAs ensured happened in 2022. Let’s hope today is a sea change in approach from the Executive parties.”
April 8, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance Canada
The Minister of Finance, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, today confirmed that Canada’s new countermeasures announced last week in response to the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States on the Canadian auto industry will come into force at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 9.
Twenty-five per cent tariffs on non- Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) compliant fully assembled vehicles imported into Canada from the United States.
Twenty-five per cent tariffs on non-Canadian and non-Mexican content of CUSMA compliant fully assembled vehicles imported into Canada from the United States.
A remission framework for auto producers that incentivizes production and investment in Canada, and helps maintain Canadian jobs, will also be implemented. Further details of this framework will be announced shortly.
Minister Champagne also announced that the government has granted a special exemption from previous tariff countermeasures on U.S. consumer and household products to the residents of Campobello Island, New Brunswick. This special exemption is in recognition of the island’s unique situation, which is only accessible by road via the United States year-round.
From the University of British Columbia: https://news.ubc.ca/2025/04/ubc-opens-gordon-b-shrum-biomedical-engineering-building/
On April 8, 2025, the University of British Columbia officially opened the doors to the Gordon B. Shrum Building, the new home for the School of Biomedical Engineering (SBME). As Canada’s first purpose-built facility for biomedical engineering, the new building brings together researchers, students, and industry partners under one roof to advance biomedical research, education, and innovation.
The five-storey, 158,000-square-foot facility includes specialized labs, collaborative research spaces, and teaching facilities to support biomedical engineering and life-sciences innovation. Researchers will use the space to develop new medical devices, artificial intelligence-driven diagnostics, and lifesaving treatments. Meanwhile, students will gain hands-on training experience to prepare them for careers in B.C.’s rapidly growing life sciences sector.
The $139.4-million project was funded through $25 million from the Government of B.C., $114.4 million from UBC, and more than $30 million in philanthropic support for SBME from donors, including the Gordon B. Shrum Charitable Fund, the Conconi Family Foundation, United Therapeutics Corporation, Dr. Jim McEwen, and Paul and Nicole Geyer.
The building is named in honour of the philanthropic legacy of Gordon B. Shrum, who graduated from UBC in 1958. Shrum, who passed away in 2018, supported novel approaches to addressing community needs. He left nearly all of his estate to charity, leading to gifts with transformational impact on health care, the environment, education, and social justice.
“We are grateful to the Government of British Columbia and our generous donors for helping make this building a reality,” said Dr. Benoit-Antoine Bacon, UBC’s president and vice-chancellor. “B.C.’s life sciences sector has emerged as a global leader, and the Gordon B. Shrum Building will play a central role in supporting critical research and the next generation of biomedical engineers who will fuel the sector’s continued growth and bring innovative health solutions to Canadians.”
Anne Kang, Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, said: “This is much more than a building. This is an important milestone in medical innovation and reflects our government’s commitment to improving health care in our province. I am excited for students and the future workers of our medical technology sector to use these state-of-the-art spaces to develop and design the groundbreaking treatment therapies and life-changing medical devices that will improve health outcomes for all British Columbians.”
Bowinn Ma, Minister of Infrastructure, said: “This world-class facility will play a crucial role in shaping the future of biomedical engineering. We’re making record investments like these that drive innovation, support industry and create important jobs right here in British Columbia.”
Designed by Canadian architecture firm Patkau Architects, the building provides a dedicated home for SBME, replacing its previously scattered locations across UBC’s Vancouver campus.
“The School of Biomedical Engineering has been transforming health care through cutting-edge research, education, and partnerships since it was established in 2017,” said SBME Director Dr. Peter Zandstra. “This state-of-the-art facility allows us to take our work to the next level—creating an environment where our faculty and partners can collaborate seamlessly and create transformative new health technologies.”
Complementing forward-looking architecture and collision spaces, the building’s visual centerpiece is a four-storey mural by biomedical artist Jen Ma. The artwork represents the multiscale nature of SBME’s research, illustrating how biology, medicine, and engineering intersect—from molecular to cellular to systems levels—to advance human health.
The new facility includes:
biomechanics labs that have robots and machinery for crash-testing research to study how head, spine, and hip injuries happen. This research, led by Dr. Peter Cripton, will help develop new ways to prevent serious trauma from falls, sports, and vehicle accidents;
the Conconi Family Biodevice Foundry, a first-of-its-kind in Western Canada, made possible by a donation from the Conconi Family Foundation, which provides tools for designing and testing medical devices. Here, Dr. Govind Kaigala and his team are developing lab-on-a-chip devices, miniature medical tools that allow researchers and doctors to detect and diagnose diseases faster;
state-of-the-art digital labs where researchers are using the power of artificial intelligence to improve diagnostic accuracy to enhance treatment outcomes. Here, Dr. Ali Bashashati is advancing AI in medical imaging to improve cancer diagnoses, helping doctors detect diseases earlier and with a greater degree of accuracy;
wet labs with specialized equipment and advanced microscopes provided by industry partnerships, where researchers like Dr. Nika Shakiba are working in stem-cell engineering to better understand diseases like cancer and diabetes, potentially leading to new cell-based therapies for these conditions;
the Jim McEwen Zone for Innovators, Creators, and Entrepreneurs — supported by UBC double alum Dr. Jim McEwen — a space equipped with 3D printers, prototyping tools, and electronic testing equipment, where students and researchers can prototype and develop new medical technologies.
Philanthropic support is also enabling SBME to recruit research expertise through the Sir Magdi Yacoub Professorship in Tissue Regeneration, made possible by a donation from the United Therapeutics Corporation. This position will drive collaborative research, education, and training in cell differentiation and tissue regeneration, with the goal of making transplantable organs and organ alternatives accessible to everyone who needs them.
With the opening of the Gordon B. Shrum Building, UBC is growing its impact in B.C.’s life sciences sector — making room for up to 10 new UBC spin-off ventures each year through SBME Innovates at the Biomedical Research Centre. SBME has already secured $10.2 million in partnership funding and helped launch several biomedical start-ups, including ScopeSys and SeraGene.
“By fusing the fields of medicine, biology and engineering, SBME is bringing new perspectives and a solutions-focused mindset to some of society’s greatest medical challenges,” said Dr. Dermot Kelleher, Vice-President of Health and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. “This new facility will elevate B.C.’s biotech sector to new heights, shaping the talent, research, intellectual property and partnerships needed to translate discoveries into lifesaving medicines.”
Dr. James Olson, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science, said: “This building is more than just a space for education and research — it’s an engine for innovation that will drive life-altering solutions. By providing cutting-edge facilities and fostering deep industry partnerships, we are empowering our SBME community to bring new health technologies from concept to reality, creating a healthier and more equitable future for all.”
For Sogand Golshahian, a fourth-year biomedical engineering student specializing in cellular bioengineering and bioinformatics, the new facility represents new opportunities to bridge classroom learning with hands-on experience in biomedical innovation.
Through SBME’s co-op and research opportunities, Golshahian has been able to apply her skills to real-world projects, from machine learning applications in neuroscience to designing a muscle spasm detection system for intensive care patients in Tanzania.
“Biomedical engineering offers a unique blend of creativity, innovation, and impact in health care,” she said. “This new facility will provide students with even more opportunities to work at the forefront of medical technology and collaborate with researchers and industry partners to solve global health challenges.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON — This morning, at the weekly House Republican Leadership press conference, Speaker Johnson discussed the Senate budget resolution, Congressional Republicans delivering on the full Trump agenda through budget reconciliation, and House Republicans’ efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting in American elections.
Watch Speaker Johnson’s full remarks here.
On the Senate Budget Resolution:
I want to make four important points about the Senate’s amendment to our house resolution: 1) The budget resolution is not the law. All this does is it allows us to continue the process begin drafting the actual legislation. It really counts, and that’s the one big, beautiful bill. 2) The Senate amendment makes no changes to the reconciliation instructions that we put into the budget resolution, so our objectives remain intact. 3) Any final reconciliation bill has to include historic spending reductions that we included in our resolution while also safeguarding essential programs. And you’ve heard a commitment from us over and over that that will happen, and the President has said it himself over and over as well. 4) Reconciliation will be a collaborative process between the House and Senate.
You’re going to see the Republican Party in both chambers working together as one team. I know that’s a rare occasion, and people don’t really know what that looks like, but we’re actually going to do it this time. The House is not going to participate in an us versus them charade. We won’t do it to secure and accomplish our mission. We’ve got to be working together and rowing in the same direction. And I’m fiercely committed to doing that and so is leader Thune and our members on both sides.
On delivering on the full Trump agenda:
Republicans have a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver relief to hard working families and set our country back on the path of prosperity. The American people desperately need us to take this action, and we will. As we wrote in a letter to our conference this weekend, time really is of the essence. There’s a lot of pressure points that are outside of our control that are forcing this action.
We’re months away from the X date on the debt limit. The border security resources are being diminished. Markets are unsettled, and the largest tax increase in American history is set to hit families and businesses at the end of this year if we do not act. And for all those reasons, we have no luxury of complacency, and we really don’t have time to dither on this thing. So, we’ll be moving that forward, and you’ll see that action this week.
On the SAVE Act:
Polling shows that nearly 90% of the American people believe that proof of citizenship should be required to vote. There are few issues in American politics that enjoy that level of bipartisan support. This should pass with a massive bipartisan margin, but watch, it won’t. The Democrats are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to justify some sort of vote against this. Last year, they argued we were too close to a federal election to make voting changes. And then they said that non-citizens don’t actually vote, and then they said the SAVE Act will somehow result in voter suppression. All that was total nonsense.
Now they’re claiming that the SAVE Act disenfranchises married women who change their last names. I mean, it’s absurd. What they’re trying to do is protect the ability of noncitizens to participate in our elections. Plain and simple, that’s what this is about. And we know it’s a crisis because the last administration, as we all well know, opened the border wide, and we had by some counts 20 million illegal aliens come into the country. There’s no mechanism in federal law, in current law, that requires states to prove citizenship. So even though it is currently against the law, only US citizens should decide US elections. There’s no way to make sure that’s actually happening. The SAVE Act is so critically important, it follows common sense, and the American people are with us. The Democrats, I predict, will not be, and they’re going to have to answer for that.
Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement today on the nomination of Elbridge Colby to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy:
“Preparing to deter or defeat an historic alignment of adversaries must be the top priority for the United States and the West. But the more we indulge the fiction that these threats are not linked, and the longer we delay overdue investments in the national defense, the more difficult the task of restoring our credibility, our military capability, and our industrial capacity will become.
“Elbridge Colby’s long public record suggests a willingness to discount the complexity of the challenges facing America, the critical value of our allies and partners, and the urgent need to invest in hard power to preserve American primacy. The prioritization that Mr. Colby argues is fresh, new, and urgently needed is, in fact, a return to an Obama-era conception of a la carte geostrategy. Abandoning Ukraine and Europe and downplaying the Middle East to prioritize the Indo-Pacific is not a clever geopolitical chess move. It is geostrategic self-harm that emboldens our adversaries and drives wedges between America and our allies for them to exploit.
“Mr. Colby’s confirmation leaves open the door for the less-polished standard-bearers of restraint and retrenchment at the Pentagon to do irreparable damage to the system of alliances and partnerships which serve as force multipliers to U.S. leadership. It encourages isolationist perversions of peace through strength to continue apace at the highest levels of Administration policymaking.
“As I have expressed repeatedly, I remain committed to supporting national security nominees whose records and views make them assets, not liabilities, in the restoration of U.S. hard power. As he gets to work, Mr. Colby will need to work swiftly to advance policy that conforms to the President’s recognition of U.S. interests from Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. I hope he will come to appreciate the essential role our allies play in advancing our collective interests, the urgent need for enduring investments in our national defense, and the linked and simultaneous challenges we face.
“Make no mistake: America will not be made great again by those who are content to manage our decline.”
Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) submitted the following op-ed to The Wall Street Journal, printed in today’s edition, on voting and election integrity:
Easier to vote, harder to cheat. That was the pitch the last time Washington passed major updates to the way America votes.
After 2000 saw one of the closest presidential elections in American history, there was a bipartisan appetite to make sure states were equipped to count votes correctly. In 2002, Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and I developed a plan to give state election authorities more resources and expert help as they navigated new technologies and reformed voting procedures. When we wrote the Help America Vote Act, we took care to reinforce—not undermine—the limits of federal involvement in America’s elections.
As a result, HAVA and the Election Assistance Commission it created are still on the books today, and thank goodness for that. Challenges to America’s elections aren’t slowing down, they’re speeding up. The Trump administration is right to focus national attention on election-security issues that enjoy wide support, from voter roll maintenance to voter I.D. requirements.
But the way measures like these are implemented matters. And the administration’s executive order on voting and election integrity risks setting them back.
In the near term, Executive Order 14248 will face constitutional scrutiny. That isn’t because the citizenship requirement for participation in elections is unclear but because the delegation of authority over election administration is crystal clear. Elections may have national consequences but the power to conduct them rests in state capitols. No public mandate, real or perceived, lets Washington tamper with this authority, not even for a worthy cause like election integrity.
In the longer term, last month’s executive order carries grave risks. The Trump administration can, and should, support state-led efforts to authenticate voter rolls, train election officials, upgrade voting technologies, and combat voter fraud. But they ought to be careful. Even a targeted federal mandate to strengthen election integrity today could make it easier for a future Democratic president and Congress to use more sweeping mandates to carry out a complete federal takeover of American elections.
In that case, expanding Washington’s role wouldn’t be a side effect, it would be the entire point. This isn’t speculation. We know exactly what Democrats want to do because they’ve tried before.
As it was first introduced in 2019, H.R. 1, the “For the People Act” was designed to gut state laws that upheld widely popular voter-I.D. requirements as well as open the door for rampant fraud with mandates for ballot drop boxes and unlimited ballot harvesting. It would hoover up state authority over redistricting, make it harder to clean inaccurate and duplicate voter registrations from the rolls, give the Internal Revenue Service sweeping new authority to consider political ideology in determining the tax-exempt status of advocacy groups, and turn even-split governance at the Federal Election Commission into a partisan majority.
Over the years, Washington Democrats’ rationale for their federal takeover evolved. Initially, with President Trump’s first election still consuming the Democratic Party’s consciousness, H.R. 1 was sold as an urgent cure for a broken system. After subsequent Democratic victories, the plan was portrayed instead as preventive maintenance.
In each iteration, it was a jaw-dropping affront to states’ authority to administer elections. We mustn’t forget how narrowly America avoided it. Had two Democratic senators not broken ranks with their party, the demise of the Senate’s legislative filibuster and the submission of American elections to the whims of unelected bureaucrats would have come as a package deal.
Unfortunately, reasonable Americans can’t expect that sort of courage the next time a Democratic president and Congress have a chance to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor. The current administration has better ways to spend its time than laying the groundwork for a leftwing election takeover.
Mr. McConnell, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Winston Peters turns a venerable 80 on April 11, but he showed no sign of retiring as New Zealand’s archetypal populist during his recent state of the nation speech. He especially enjoyed the hecklers, gleefully telling them one by one to get out.
As ever, his detractors became extras in the Winston Peters show – something of a trademark in his long political career. As well as a milestone birthday, 2025 will mark 50 years since Peters’ first election campaign in 1975.
In that first attempt, he ran unsuccessfully as the National Party candidate for the Northern Māori seat. In 1978, he won in Hunua, but only after a judicial recount. Already we can see a pattern: a dogged determination to come back and a lawyer’s litigious streak.
His political instincts were formed in that era between 1975 and 1984 under prime minister Robert Muldoon, National’s original, pugnacious populist. It implanted pride in his nation, economic protectionism, and a belief in old-fashioned “common sense” politics.
Those characteristics could also be his undoing. In 1991, Peters was sacked from Jim Bolger’s National cabinet for publicly criticising cabinet colleagues. He was later kicked out of the National caucus entirely and then vacated his seat.
As his party website explains in retrospect, he’d questioned “the neoliberal policy agenda” and paid the price. He formed NZ First in 1993 and won back the seat of Tauranga. Ever since, the party known mockingly as “Winston First” has been inextricably identified with its (thus far) one and only leader.
Winston Peters thanks supporters after winning the Tauranga seat for NZ First in 1993. Getty Images
Coalitions of the willing
Any mention of Winston Peters’ name gets a reaction, be it love, loathing or wry admiration. For the political scientist, though, his career is remarkable for its many ups and downs, and for sheer longevity.
In New Zealand’s first proportional representation election in 1996, NZ First, still only three years old, won all of the (then five) Māori electorates. With 13.4% of the party vote (its best result ever), NZ First gained 17 seats, handing Peters a kingmaker role in the government formation negotiations.
The upshot was a National-NZ First coalition, which broke up acrimoniously in 1998 after a disagreement about a proposal to sell Wellington Airport brought existing tensions between the parties to a head.
At the 1999 election, NZ First lost the five Māori seats and its party vote plummeted to 4.3%. It got back into parliament only thanks to Peters holding Tauranga by a fingernail: a mere 63 vote majority.
Dumped by Māori voters, he turned his attention to New Zealand’s growing retirement generations and climbed on board the anti-immigration bandwagon. In 2003, Peters launched an attack on “Third World immigrants” that rattled the National Party’s cage so hard it felt compelled to launch its own populist campaign.
Then National leader Don Brash’s infamous speech at Orewa in 2004 centred around an alleged “dangerous drift towards racial separatism”. The country became polarised around Māori aspirations and the Treaty of Waitangi, not dissimilar to the effect today of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Being a populist, Peters is sometimes mischaracterised as far right. But the more significant aspect of his career has been his centrist aptitude for collaborating with either National or Labour, depending on the political wind.
Between 2005 and 2008, Peters supported Helen Clark’s Labour-led government, enjoying the plum job of foreign minister. But in 2008, National’s John Key categorically refused to work with Peters in government, and NZ First fell to 4.1% at the election.
With no local electorate win this time, Peters was banished to the political wilderness. Many thought (or hoped) this would spell the end of his career. But he was back in 2011, aiming to be in opposition against Key’s National government. He succeeded in this – and confounded his critics – with a party vote of 6.6%.
Winston Peters and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern sign the coalition agreement in 2017. Getty Images
COVID and comebacks
The strategy of seeing out the Key (and successor Bill English) years on the cross benches worked well, with the 2014 election delivering a party-vote boost to 8.7%.
Peters’ next big break came after the 2017 election when he once again played kingmaker. Although National won the most seats, Peters chose a coalition with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour, with support from the Greens.
But NZ First’s voter-base had been evenly split over supporting a National-led or Labour-led government. Inevitably, the party would be punished for choosing to go with either major party. And indeed, its share dropped from 7.2% in 2017 to 2.6% in the 2020 election – its worst result ever.
Once again, Peters was cast out into the wilderness, to the undoubted delight of his many detractors. It was over, surely? As the 2023 election approached, there was considerable doubt about Peters making yet another comeback.
His party was polling better than in 2011, however, and in the end romped home with 6.1% of the vote. Peters used his bargaining power to become foreign minister and deputy prime minister in the current National-led coalition.
Some may have wondered how the wily old fox found his way back into the coop. But we can trace at least some of the reason back to a stroll Peters took through the COVID protest camp in parliament grounds in February 2022.
He said he was there to listen, whereas the Ardern government’s refusal to talk with protestors was “just going to make things much worse”. To make his day, parliament’s speaker Trevor Mallard had Peters trespassed from parliament, which only boosted his maverick reputation – and helped pave the way back to power.
Not his first rodeo
Peters courted an anti-vax, anti-globalist constituency, promising to “defend freedom” by ending vaccine mandates and holding “a credible fully independent inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID-19 response”.
Both things were going to happen anyway. But Peters won votes that might otherwise have gone to fringe protest parties, none of which got more than 1.2%.
Like a Pied Piper in a double-breasted pinstripe suit, he led the disgruntled all the way to the ballot box. One campaign video featured him in cow-cocky gear, mounting a horse and boasting “this is not our first rodeo”. Among the current generation of politicians, only he could have pulled that off.
Peters possesses a canny political instinct that combines opportunism with attention-grabbing rhetoric. He can drum up enough enthusiasm from target audiences to get his party over (or back over) the 5% MMP threshold.
His recent declaration of a “war on woke” shows he’s doing it again. He zeros in on a political pain-point to energise a support base and simultaneously enrage opponents. The latter – along with “the mainstream media” – are used as props as he campaigns from one provincial community hall to the next.
At 80, Peters is as well adapted to posting on Elon Musk’s X as he is to old-school hustings politics. And he’s showing no sign of calling it a day as he prepares to hand over the office of deputy prime minister to ACT’s David Seymour later this year.
As the 2026 election draws nearer, one thing will be certain – you can’t rule him out. Don’t be surprised if one day we see an AI-generated Winston Peters telling us this is neither his first nor his last rodeo.
Grant Duncan 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.
The federal budget deficit totaled $1.3 trillion in the first half of fiscal year 2025, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That amount is $245 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. Revenues increased by $71 billion (or 3 percent), and outlays rose by $317 billion (or 10 percent).
The change in the deficit was influenced by the timing of outlays and revenues, which decreased the deficit during the first six months of fiscal year 2024. Outlays in October 2023 were reduced by shifts in the timing of payments that were due on October 1, 2023, a Sunday. (The payments were made that September.) If not for that shift, the deficit so far this fiscal year would have been $173 billion more than the shortfall at this point last year. Part of the deficit increase in 2025 also arises from the postponement of some tax deadlines from 2023 to 2024, which boosted receipts in 2024.
In January 2025, CBO projected a deficit of $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2025, the same as the actual deficit for fiscal year 2024.
The statutory debt limit was reinstated on January 2, 2025, and set at $36.1 trillion, matching the amount of total debt that was outstanding on the prior day. On January 21, 2025, the Department of the Treasury announced a “debt issuance suspension period” and began taking “extraordinary measures” to continue financing government operations without breaching the debt limit. In March 2025, CBO estimated that if the debt limit remains unchanged, the government’s ability to borrow using extraordinary measures will probably be exhausted in August or September 2025.
overnor Kathy Hochul today announced substantial progress in combatting housing discrimination across the state. Over the past year, the New York State Division of Human Rights has awarded more than $320,000 in financial compensation to victims of housing discrimination who filed complaints with the agency. In addition to financial compensation, case resolutions also resulted in changes to policies and procedures that will curb future discriminatory actions by housing providers and their agents. Additionally, Governor Hochul announced that New York State landmarks will be lit blue today, April 8, to commemorate Fair Housing Month and celebrate the upcoming 57th anniversary of the landmark federal Fair Housing Act, which outlawed discriminatory housing practices and required localities around the country to advance fair housing policies.
“My top priority since taking office has always been to keep New Yorkers safe and that includes protecting them from unfair housing practices and discrimination, ”Governor Hochul said. “Everyone deserves a safe, affordable place to live without having to worry about any prejudices, and New York continues to combat discrimination across all areas.”
New York State Division of Human Rights Acting Commissioner Denise M. Miranda said, “New York State has always led in the fight to defend residents from discrimination. The Division of Human Rights remains committed to protecting and enforcing the laws that safeguard those looking to find their next home, or to stay in the home they love. I am proud of the work that The Division’s Housing Investigations Unit takes on to ensure no New Yorker is discriminated against while attempting to rent or buy a home.”
The New York State Human Rights Law, which meets and exceeds the protections included in the federal Fair Housing Act, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, immigration or citizenship status, favorably resolved arrest record, sealed conviction or youthful offender adjudication, military status, lawful source of income, status as a victim of domestic violence, disability, marital status, or familial status. New Yorkers who experience unlawful discrimination in housing can file a complaint with DHR online at dhr.ny.gov/complaint.
The New York State Division of Human Rights receives, investigates, and adjudicates thousands of complaints of discrimination each year. The Division’s Housing Investigations Unit is tasked with investigating all complaints relating to housing discrimination filed with the Division across the State. The Division’s Prosecutions Unit and Housing Litigations Unit then negotiate settlements and present discrimination complaints on behalf of the State at administrative hearings or in State Supreme Court.
Over the past year, DHR has awarded $321,000 in financial compensation to victims of housing discrimination who filed complaints with the agency. So far in 2025, the total amount awarded by the Division in these cases is $137,000.
In addition to the monetary awards highlighted today, remedies in housing discrimination cases resolved by DHR over the past year also include agreements by housing providers and their agents, including brokers, to complete fair housing training, create anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodations policies, publicly post fair housing information, and more. In addition to resolving the immediate case at hand, these elements of complaint resolutions help prevent similar discrimination from taking place again in the future. Filing a complaint with DHR does not guarantee a financial award or other remedy. All complaints are investigated based on their individual circumstances and remedies are secured through the agency’s complaint adjudication process.
Examples of housing discrimination complaints resolved by DHR over the past year include:
A housing services organization filed a complaint against a housing provider alleging that the housing provider discriminated against several prospective tenants who planned to pay rent using rental subsidies. As part of the settlement agreement, the respondent housing provider agreed to pay the complainant $7,000 and to provide free brokerage services to several of the complainant’s clients to help them search for and secure housing. The respondent housing provider also agreed to adopt an anti-discrimination policy, complete fair housing training, and update their website to reflect acceptance of tenants with all lawful sources of income.
An individual filed a complaint against a co-op residence, alleging that the co-op’s leadership discriminated against him and his family based on his age and his national origin. As part of the settlement of the complaint, the co-op residence agreed to pay the complainant $15,000. The respondent also agreed to create an anti-discrimination policy and post information about fair housing rights in the building, so all tenants know of their rights under the State Human Rights Law.
An individual who uses a wheelchair filed a complaint against a property management company and its agents, alleging that the respondent failed to accommodate individuals living with disabilities. As part of the settlement of the complaint, the respondents’ property management company agreed to install a ramp at the front entrance of the complainant’s residential building. The respondents further agreed to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and to complete fair housing training.
As part of Fair Housing Month, the Division of Human Rights will host an all-day conference titled “We All Belong Here” on April 9 in the Bronx to celebrate the agency’s 80-year anniversary and its continued work of advancing equity and justice for all New Yorkers. During the conference, several panel events and workshops will focus on various topics relating to the fight for fair housing practices across the State.
To commemorate Fair Housing Month, the following New York State landmarks will be lit blue tonight:
One World Trade Center
Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge
Kosciuszko Bridge
The H. Carl McCall SUNY Building
State Education Building
Alfred E. Smith State Office Building
Empire State Plaza
State Fairgrounds – Main Gate & Expo Center
Niagara Falls
The “Franklin D. Roosevelt” Mid-Hudson Bridge
Grand Central Terminal – Pershing Square Viaduct
Albany International Airport Gateway
MTA LIRR – East End Gateway at Penn Station
Fairport Lift Bridge over the Erie Canal
Moynihan Train Hall
In June 2024, Governor Hochul announced new guidance informing insurers that they are prohibited from inquiring about or making coverage decisions based on a property’s status as an affordable housing development or on the level or source of a tenant’s income within the building, such as government assistance. The guidance from the New York State Department of Financial Services follows legislation secured by Governor Hochul as part of the FY 2025 Budget to prohibit discrimination in insurance based on tenants’ source of income or the existence of affordable dwelling units within the building.
Additionally, in 2023, the Governor signed legislation to extend the statute of limitations for New Yorkers to file a complaint with DHR, allowing unlawful housing discrimination claims for incidents occurring on or after February 15, 2024 to be filed within three years of the alleged discrimination. The Governor also signed a package of nine fair housing bills designed to combat discriminatory housing practices that persist around the State, including legislation to increase penalties for unlawful housing discrimination; create a fund to support fair housing testing; and expand required trainings for real estate professionals on subjects such as legacy of segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack of access to housing opportunities.
About the New York State Division of Human Rights The New York State Division of Human Rights is dedicated to eliminating discrimination, remedying injustice, and promoting equal opportunity, access, and dignity.
The Division of Human Rights is empowered by law to investigate and prosecute systematic patterns of discrimination through its Division Initiated Action Unit (DIAU). The DIAU can, upon its own motion, initiate investigations and file complaints alleging violations of the State anti-discrimination law. Individuals can report systemic issues of discrimination by emailing the Division at [email protected].
New Yorkers experiencing harassment or discrimination are encouraged to file a complaint with the Division. If you experience any form of hate or bias in NYS, please call 844-NO-2-HATE or use our online submission form for assistance. For more information about the law or to file a complaint, please visit dhr.ny.gov, and follow the Division of Human Rights on social media: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Threads, X — formerly known as Twitter — and YouTube.
NEW BERN, N.C. – A Cary man was sentenced today to 61 months in prison for access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. Ibrahim Abiodun Aderounmu, 27, pled guilty to the charges on November 4, 2024. The court also ordered Aderounmu to pay $536,782 in restitution to the victims.
According to court documents and other information presented in court, between approximately 2020 and 2022, Aderounmu engaged in multiple access device fraud schemes involving the theft and misuse of personal identifying information (PII) of victims across the United States. The schemes resulted in attempted losses of more than $650,000.
As part of one scheme, victim PII was used to submit hundreds of applications for Chase Bank business credit card accounts. If the application was successful, the physical credit card was mailed to Aderounmu’s apartment in Cary. Aderounmu then used the credit cards to make online and in-store purchases.
The investigation into the Chase Bank scheme resulted in a search warrant of Aderounmu’s apartment. During the search, officers recovered, among other things, more than 400 access devices, including debit cards for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. According to the investigation, victim PII was fraudulently used to apply for and initiate UI benefits from multiple state workforce agencies, including in North Carolina, California, Nevada, and Arizona. If approved, the benefits were loaded onto debit cards and mailed to addresses under the control of Aderounmu and others. Aderounmu was captured on surveillance footage withdrawing the UI benefits from the debit cards at ATMs in Raleigh, Cary, and other locations in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The seized access devices also included multiple USAA debit cards in the names of victims. The investigation found that victim PII was used to open USAA accounts with addresses linked to Aderounmu. The fraudulent accounts, in turn, were funded with fraudulent check deposits, the proceeds of which were withdrawn from ATMs in Raleigh, Cary, and elsewhere.
Daniel P. Bubar, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Postal Inspection Service investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam F. Hulbig prosecuted the case for the government.
Jacksonville, Florida – United States Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe announces that Larry E. Denson, Jr. (31, Jacksonville) has pleaded guilty to wire fraud involving COVID relief fraud through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Denson faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison and payment of restitution to the United State government. Denson has also agreed to forfeit $18,190, the proceeds of the charged criminal offense. A sentencing date has not yet been set.
According to the plea agreement, in April 2021, Denson submitted a PPP loan application to a lender authorized by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to lend funds for approved PPP loan applications. The PPP loan application falsely claimed that Denson operated his own janitorial services business with a gross income of $87,312. Throughout the loan application, Denson made false statements regarding his purported payroll and operating expenses. In support of his PPP loan application, Denson submitted a fraudulent IRS form that contained false statements about expenses and income for his purported business. Upon reliance of the false statements in his PPP loan application and supporting documentation, Denson received a PPP loan for $18,190.
After receiving the PPP loan proceeds into his bank account, Denson began making withdrawals and spending the funds on personal expenses, including meals at restaurants, retail purchases, and cash withdrawals. In July 2022, Denson filed a PPP Loan Forgiveness Application, falsely stating that he had spent the $18,190 on payroll. Relying on his false statements, the SBA forgave the entire loan amount.
This case was investigated by Federal Housing Finance Agency – Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney David B. Mesrobian.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
PROVIDENCE – A Massachusetts man is scheduled to be arraigned in federal court in Rhode Island on Wednesday on attempted enticement, interstate travel, and child pornography charges contained in a superseding indictment, announced Acting United States Attorney Sara Miron Bloom.
The superseding indictment, returned by a grand jury on April 2, 2025, charges Robert Consorti, 51, of Wilmington, MA, with two counts of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity, interstate travel for the purpose of illicit sexual activity, transportation of child pornography, and possession of child pornography.
The government sought a superseding indictment following an extended investigation into Consorti’s alleged criminal conduct after his arrest in October 2024. Consorti was arrested in October 2024 when he arrived at a Warwick hotel allegedly expecting to meet with and engage in illicit sexual contact with a fourteen-year-old girl. Unbeknownst to him at the time, Consorti was communicating with a law enforcement officer posing as the girl with whom he allegedly made the arrangements. A grand jury returned an indictment on November 13, 2024, charging him with one count each of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity and interstate travel for the purpose of illicit sexual activity.
According to recently filed court documents, it is alleged that a subsequent investigation, including a review of Consorti’s electronic devices, revealed that he was in communication with dozens of minors and allegedly grooming them for sexual activity. It is alleged that in many instances, Consorti transmitted child sexual abuse material (CSAM), requested minors send him CSAM, and/or sent the minors sexually explicit images of himself.
It is further alleged that Consorti began communicating with a victim who was 12 years old at the time the communications began. Over a six-month period, Consorti allegedly traveled out of state on multiple occasions to meet with the victim and provided the victim with vapes and edible marijuana. It is alleged that Consorti repeatedly attempted to get the victim to engage in sexual activity in return for the items Consorti was providing, rather than pay in cash. Consorti allegedly persuaded the then 13-year-old to meet Consorti and to go to a local hotel to engage in sexual contact, but the defendant’s arrest prevented the meeting from occurring.
A federal indictment is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
This case has been brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psc.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney John P. McAdams.
The matter was investigated by the Rhode Island State Police ICAC Task Force and Homeland Security Investigations.
The ICAC Task Force is comprised of members of the Rhode Island State Police Computer Crimes Unit along with detectives from the Warwick Police Department, Cranston Police Department, East Providence Police Department, Pawtucket Police Department, Portsmouth Police Department, Bristol Police Department, Middletown Police Department, and Special Agents from Homeland Security Investigations.
Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty
The best-in-class summit crystalized modern conservative policy, national security, the economy, and energy dominance in the first three months of the Trump Administration
WASHINGTON—United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) last week headlined the star-studded fourth annual Cherry Blossom Policy Summit, hosted by 21st Century Policy Institute. Hagerty gave opening remarks, and moderated numerous discussions with high-ranking Trump Administration officials, his U.S. Senate colleagues, and several special guests.
Hagerty’s participation attracted the summit’s other experts to attend the marathon discussion, which served as the most relevant such gathering since November’s election.
“I was deeply honored to headline the fourth annual Cherry Blossom Policy Summit and to invite so many of my friends to join me,” said Senator Hagerty. “The discussions opened unparalleled opportunities to bring fruitful, productive, and insightful policy to light in an era that requires clear thought and communication to cut through media narratives. When 21st Century Policy Institute asked me who demonstrates the bold thinking and decisive action needed to implement President Trump’s new vision for liberty, innovation, and prosperity on the world stage, I turned to friends new and old—many now dutifully serving in the Trump Administration.”
At the summit, Hagerty engaged with the following officials he invited to join him as special guests for the event:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Energy Secretary Chris Wright
HUD Secretary Scott Turner
Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Stephen Miran
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller
Director of the Domestic Policy Council Vince Haley
“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, this Administration is stocked with some of the brightest experts in our country,” Hagerty continued. “The months since President Trump took office have been nothing short of incredible. I look forward to working hand-in-hand with this Administration as a close ally in the United States Senate, and 21st Century Policy Institute has been a key partner of mine in advancing policies that support American economic and military strength. I was also pleased that so many of my illustrious Senate colleagues, and distinguished special guests outside government, responded to the invitation to contribute at this special event.”
In addition to the many key Trump Administration speakers, Hagerty appeared alongside important Congressional colleagues, including:
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Senator Deb Fisher (R-NE)
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA)
Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH)
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
Congressman August Pfluger (R-TX-11)
Private sector guests featured at the summit alongside Hagerty included:
Marc Andreessen
Jason Cummins
Kevin O’Leary
Safra A. Catz
Alex Karp
Alex Epstein
Scott Strazik
Ruthless podcast hosts John Ashbrook, Michael Duncan, Josh Holmes, and Comfortably Smug
Hagerty helped formulate and moderate these policy discussions at the summit:
American Technological Dominance in the 21st Century
An Outlook on the U.S. Economy and Fiscal Policy
How to Strengthen the U.S. Economy for the Next Generation
The Intersection of National Security and Technology
An All of the Above Approach to U.S. Energy Dominance
Promises Made, Promises Kept
A Fresh Look at the Indo-Pacific Region
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A study published in PLOS Medicine looks at food additives type 2 diabetes incidence.
Dr Nerys Astbury, Associate Professor of Diet & Obesity, Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, said:
“This prospective study conducted in France explores the association between the amount of common mixtures of food additives and the risk of future development of type 2 diabetes.
“The study reports that there was no association between the consumption of three of the mixtures studies and type 2 diabetes. There were positive associations between the consumption of two of the mixtures investigated including a mixture including emulsifiers/gelling agents including modified starches, pectin, guar gum, carrageenan and xantham gum which the authors show were linked with the consumption of dairy desserts and fats and sauces; as well as a mixture including artificial sweeteners and acidity regulators which were linked with consumption of low-energy/diet soft drink consumption.
“Previous studies have reported associations between some of these individual food additives and risk of type 2 diabetes, but additives are commonly included in foods in mixtures where they may have interactive effects. Indeed the authors showed in their exploratory analysis that there were both synergistic and antagonist interactions between several food additives.
“One limitation of this study is that the mixtures of additives investigated include a range of different additives with different functional properties, with some additives included in more than one mixture group, meaning it is not possible to ascertain whether the effects observed can be attributed to groups of additives with similar functional properties.
“The authors controlled for typical type 2 diabetes risk factors including age, sex, body mass index, physical activity level, smoking status, educational level and profession. But it is possible that other factors that were not controlled for may have influenced the relationship.
“Some of the findings may subject to reverse causality, where the outcome (in this case type 2 diabetes diagnosis) precedes, and therefore influences the presumed cause (in this case the consumption of the food additive mixtures). For example, if a person knew they were at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, because they either had a family history of the condition, or that a doctor conducted tests to show they had pre-diabetes, they may decide to make lifestyle choices to reduce their risk of developing the condition. One thing they might decide to do is replace sugar sweetened beverages for low-energy or diet versions.
“It is important to note that by design this study can only demonstrate association, it cannot say whether the consumption of these additives (or the foods that contain then) caused or contributed to the development of type 2 diabetes. To determine causality large scale complex clinical trials are required.
“The growing interest in the effects of consuming ultra-processed foods, which contain additives to enhance taste, flavour, texture and improve shelf life of food products, means this study is important and timely and adds to the growing body of evidence of association between increased consumption of common food additives and adverse health outcomes. Further research is needed to ascertain a causal link and establish the mechanisms.”
Prof Nita Forouhi, Professor of Population Health and Nutrition, and Programme Leader of the Nutritional Epidemiology programme, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, said:
“The researchers in France once again tapped into the only existing research study that has the relevant data to investigate links between different types of food additives and risk of chronic diseases. They have extended their previous findings on the links of individual additive emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners with risk of type 2 diabetes to now identifying food additive mixtures that are frequently consumed together, reporting that the associations were not strongly driven by a unique additive alone and suggesting that interactions between types of food additives may play a role.
“The authors identified 269 food additives consumed by over 100,000 study participants, quantifying additive intakes from repeated 24h recalls over a long time using multiple sources and they hence provide probably the most comprehensive additives database to-date. Using 75 of these additives that were consumed by at least 5%of the study participants, they statistically derived five food additive mixture groups, of which two were associated modestly with the development of type 2 diabetes. It is important to note that these associations are present at population level intake doses of additives in their usual diets. However, it is unknown if additives consumed by a smaller proportion of the study population but in higher doses would have been related with the risk of type 2 diabetes. A sensitivity analysis testing this would have been informative.
“This research helps to an extent with understanding mechanisms through which ultra-processed foods (UPFs), that typically contain mixtures of additives, may be related with disease risk. This is an important research gap to fill because a lack of evidence on mechanisms by which UPFs may be related with health harms, over and above the links already established for foods high in (saturated) fat, sugar and salt, is part of the reason for withholding a specific government policy on UPF reduction in the UK.
“It is important to distinguish between additive mixtures by their food sources as we know from other research that not all UPFs are the same, with some being potentially harmful and others not. Moreover, their analysis has not accounted for the proportion of UPF in the diet. Also, the five food additive mixture groups the researchers identified were related with a limited set of food groups, largely cakes, biscuits, savoury snacks, broth, dairy desserts, fats and sauces and sugar sweetened or artificially sweetened drinks. Thus, it is unclear if additives from other food groups not identified in this study population may be relevant in other populations.
“Several of the current analyses were appropriate, such as adjusting for a comprehensive range of factors (including accounting for saturated fat, salt and added sugar), doing sensitivity analyses, checking the stability of food additive mixture intakes over time, and testing whether the additive mixtures found associated with type 2 diabetes contributed to mediating the associations between the food groups most associated with these mixtures and incidence of type 2 diabetes. But, there were also important limitations the authors did not or could not address.
“Exposure to food additives could not be validated against blood or urine biomarkers due to a lack of specific biomarkers. Many tests for interaction were performed but it is unclear if there was adequate statistical power. The data variables used in analysis, such as dietary intakes or health behaviours like physical activity or smoking and alcohol intake, are likely to vary over time but only baseline data, not time-varying data were used. The authors showed several participant characteristics in the cohort at the study baseline but did not show these characteristics by total food additive or food additive mixture types, which is relevant to understanding the appropriateness of their analytical strategy. This research included mostly women (80% of participants), so the findings in men remain under-studied. The authors acknowledge that they could not collect data on ethnicity so the generalisability of findings to different population sub-groups is unclear but there seems no strong reason to expect that findings would vary in different ethnic groups. Nonetheless, future studies in diverse populations should apply the current study methods to test the reported findings. The authors appropriately acknowledged the limitations of observational research, but such research remains an important part of the evidence base.
“More investment in research is needed to replicate the findings of this currently sole resource of the NutriNet-Sante’ study that has generated relevant data for the study of food additives. In the meantime, we should take these current findings seriously and build further upon them to help understand the mechanistic links between UPF-related additive mixtures and human health.”
Prof Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London, said:
“This new report from a French prospective study (NutriNet-Santé) is an analysis of food additive intake based on estimates of dietary intake based on recall, and subsequent risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 79% of the participants were female and the average age was 42. After 7.7 years of follow up, they found 2 out of 5 mixtures of additives were associated with very small increases in risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The first mixture was associated with an 8% increase in risk – this consisted mainly of food additives used to thicken foods and drinks (guar gum, carrageenan xanthan gum), polyphosphates (that help retain water), curcumin (a naturally occurring yellow food colour used mainly in margarine) and potassium sorbate (a preservative). The second mixture was associated with a 13% increase in risk, this consisted of a diverse mixture of additives but included several that are used in soft drinks – citric acid, sodium citrates, phosphoric acid, sulphite ammonia caramel (used in cola drinks), acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, arabic gum, malic acid, carnauba wax (a glazing agent), paprika extract, anthocyanins (purple natural colours), guar gum, and pectin.
Limitations
“This was an observational study and not a controlled trial and can only suggest associations. A major limitation of this study is that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was low over the follow up period. Over the follow-period only 1% of the 108,643 participants developed type 2 diabetes. This may well be because the average body mass index (23 kg/m2) was close to the ideal level (22.5). A potential strength claimed is that multiple estimates of dietary intake were made over the follow-up period (on average 5 occasions). However, these estimates were based on what the participants remembered eating the previous day. A daily recall only provides data for one day and is not a good measure of usual dietary intake which needs a longer period of recording (preferable taking into seasonal variations in account). Dietary recalls also lack the granularity in terms of detail regarding portion size and brand which are important for estimating the intake of food additives.
“Dietary recalls are subject to reporting bias (over-reporting fruit and vegetable intake and under-reporting food and drink that regarded being less healthy, e.g. alcohol and confectionery). The reported dietary intake of sugar is extremely high (198g, equivalent about 50 cubes of sugar per day). This raises questions regarding the reliability of intake data.
“The statistical analyses involved creating mixtures of food additives by a form of statistical analysis by computer not by a prior hypothesis. Associations of mixtures of food additives are likely to be reflective of overall dietary patterns or components (e.g. fizzy drinks). While this type of exploratory statistical analyses can be used to create new hypotheses, the results should never be used as evidence of causality.
“There seems to be no scientific basis for relating the components of these mixtures of food additives to risk of type 2 diabetes. For example, citric acid probably accounts for the bulk of food additives consumed. The body makes enormous amounts in the citric acid cycle (the Krebs cycle) to generate metabolic energy. It is also present in quite high amounts in fruit and vegetables. Gums are used as thickeners in some foods like yogurt. There is no reason to suspect that gums would have an adverse effect on risk of diabetes especially as studies have shown that gums slow glucose absorption and can improve blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The association of artificial sweetener intake with risk of diabetes is well known but not thought to be causal, as recently discussed by SACN (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners-summary).
Conclusion
“My concern is that a “toxic cocktail of food additives” narrative may detract from sensible dietary advice to maintain a healthy weight.”
Dr George Savva, Senior Research Scientist, Quadram Institute, said:
“This study adds to the evidence that people who consume more food additives associated with sugary and sweetened drinks have a higher risk of diabetes, after controlling for overall calories, sugar intake, saturated fats and other aspects of diet. A smaller association was seen for a second group associated with dairy desserts, broths, fats and sauces. Other major groups of additives, including those associated with cakes and biscuits, showed no association with incident diabetes.
“The study was large with a very detailed dietary assessment, but is limited by being non-randomised and being conducted in a volunteer cohort. The authors did try to control for demographic and lifestyle factors like exercise and smoking but this is difficult to do well. So, although the control for other aspects of diet was good, it is possible that other factors led to higher risk of diabetes in this group. Showing no association between diabetes and additives linked to cakes, biscuits and snacks may suggest that residual confounding isn’t a huge problem in this study (because if other aspects of diet and lifestyle were really causing this association we might also expect to see a positive association between diabetes and the group of additives associated with cakes and biscuits).
“Considering mixtures of additives is interesting because they are rarely consumed in isolation; as the study shows many difficult additives are often used together. The evidence was strong that consuming additives associated with sugary and sweetened drinks was particularly associated with getting diabetes later in life, but there was little evidence for any particular additive or combination of additives being the main driver of that risk.
“It is difficult to study the impact of food additives using randomised controlled trials, because they are highly prevalent in our diets and the effects are likely to take many years to manifest. So it is important to attempt to study their effects in studies like this, and to combine with evidence from other kinds of studies to understand whether and how additives might harm metabolic health.”
Prof Alan Boobis, Emeritus Professor of Toxicology, Imperial College London, said:
“My takeaway from this is that it is an observational study and as acknowledged by the authors, association does not necessarily mean causation. The findings are important in generating hypotheses, but further investigation would be necessary to inform advice to consumers. It is unclear whether the mixtures themselves or key components are involved, or whether, despite adjustments for other components of the diet, the mixtures are indicative of some other characteristics of the subjects.”
Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:
“I can see this paper leading to more scary headlines about food additives, but although the work is based on a large dataset, we need to be careful about what conclusions are drawn from it.
“As the authors themselves clearly state, the study does not prove that food additives cause diabetes. All that is reported are slight associations between certain mixtures of some additives and the likelihood of type 2 diabetes, and there are some large caveats to this.
“Firstly, an association between two factors does not mean one caused the other; it just means there appears to be an association between them.
“Secondly, the authors didn’t measure food additive intake directly. They relied on self-reporting of food intake from study participants and then estimated the additive intake from this. This is a reasonable approach, but self-reported data is often inaccurate. This means great care must be taken in interpreting the results.
“It is also not clear from the main paper how the authors classified someone as having diabetes. Diagnosis does not seem to have been done by a medical professional but rather estimated by self-reported health data and medication use from a linked database. This is far from conclusive.
“So, whilst this is an interesting theoretical study, people should not worry. In the end, all that can really be said is that, based on self-reported data and estimations of possible food additive consumption and health conditions, there is a possible, small association between two specific mixtures of additives and the likelihood of type 2 diabetes, and the error bars are pretty big on even this conclusion.”
Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, Open University, said:
“This is a complicated study in terms of the statistical and computational methods it uses. I think its results are pretty hard to interpret. The meaning of the word ‘mixtures’ in the findings is, I’d say, so different from the everyday meaning of the word as to be potentially pretty confusing. The researchers, rightly, warn that their study cannot establish whether consuming particular mixtures of food additives causes the associations with type 2 diabetes that they observed. The associations that they observed are, as the press release indicates, not very strong anyway. Also, there are questions, that might well be important, that just can’t be answered from this research.
“I take away two things from this study. First, there are some more indications that it may be important to consider potential associations between food additives and health by looking at several additives at once, rather than investigating them separately. Second, looking for such associations isn’t easy, and to do it convincingly would require other types of research than those used in this study.
“I’ll try to clarify what the researchers meant by a ‘food additive mixture’. You might expect that to mean that a participant in the study consumes a certain amount of a given set of additives, maybe two or three of them, and researchers would look at how their health is associated with consumption of this specific mixture.
“But what’s meant in this research is something wider and more complicated. The researchers collected data on how much each of the nearly 110,000 participants consumed of well over 200 different food additives. They then used a statistical method (called nonnegative matrix factorization) to summarize all this data into a score, for each participant, on five different scales that they called ‘mixtures’. And they then measured the statistical association between each of these five scores and the participants’ chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over time. They found associations between two of the scores and the risk of type 2 diabetes – the other three scores were not found to be associated with diabetes.
“The associations with diabetes risk were not particularly strong for either of these scores, though it’s difficult to explain in simple terms exactly how large they were, because of the difficulty of explaining what the actual scores are measuring.
“What makes this hard to link to an everyday idea of a ‘mixture’ is that each of the scores depends on the amounts of consumption of, potentially, a large number of different additives. Of the two ‘mixture’ scores that were found to be associated with diabetes risk, one mainly depends on the consumption of eight different additives, and the other on 14 additives, and in fact other additives than these 8 and 14 do come into the calculation as well.
“Also, two participants could get similar scores for one of these ‘mixtures’ by actually consuming different patterns of additives. So one participant could get a moderately high score on the first of these ‘mixtures’ by consuming food and drink containing a lot of modified starches but little or none of the other additives, while another participant could get the same score by consuming quite a lot of food containing other additives that contribute to this mixture, but very little or no modified starch. Others could also get the same score by a different pattern of consumption of additives that contribute to this ‘mixture’, possibly not overlapping much with the consumptions of the other two participants I’ve mentioned. In technical terms, this is an acceptable use of the term ‘mixture’, but it’s probably not what a non-scientist would think of.
“The researchers do emphasise that this study cannot establish causality. That is, although they found associations, that is, correlations, between the scores for two of their additive ‘mixtures’ and the risk of type 2 diabetes, they can’t say that it is the additive consumption that caused the differences in diabetes risk.
“That’s for several reasons. Mainly, it’s because the study is observational. The participants weren’t made to consume different patterns of additives by the researchers – they just ate what they would have eaten anyway, and the researchers recorded that as best they could (and there are always potential limitations on the accuracy of such recordings). So the observed associations could really be caused by some other factors that happen to be associated with food additive consumption, and also independently associated with diabetes risk. There’s just no way of telling what causes what, with any level of certainty, in this kind of study.
“In some circumstances, if a lot of different observational studies are all pointing in the same direction, one might be a little more confident about what’s causing what. But this is effectively the first study looking at data in this way on a major scale. As the researchers themselves say, in order to get good evidence on whether particular groups of food additives, when consumed alongside one another, do actually cause ill health, one would need to carry out studies of different kinds – so-called mechanistic studies, to learn more about what might actually be happening inside the body. This study might help a little in pointing to what further studies might be most useful, but it’s an observational study that did not itself measure anything going on inside the participants’ bodies or cells. I’m not a nutritional scientist so am not in a position to comment on how these mechanistic studies would best be done.
“The researchers did make statistical adjustments for several possibly factors that might have accounted for what they observed, and might be getting in the way of interpretations of cause and effect. But you can never adjust for everything potentially relevant, and data on some factors will simply not be available.
“In this study there’s an obvious question of whether the differences in diabetes risk could be due to the additives in people’s food and drink, or due to the non-additive parts of the food and drink that they consumed, or indeed due to other things entirely. After all, consuming a food additive generally involves consuming the food or drink that it’s been added to, and so will go along with consuming fats, sugars, proteins, fibre, and whatever else is in that food or drink.
“The researchers did investigate some aspects of this question, and did find limited evidence that the associations with diabetes risk depend on additives as well as other aspects of what’s in the food and drink, though I don’t feel that they really sorted this out very far. Anyway it would be very difficult to take account of all the possible food and drink components that are not classed as additives, as well as those that are, in a single statistical set of statistical analyses.
“Interestingly, among all the detailed results, the study found a limited amount of evidence that points to why it may be important to look at additives together rather than separately. In some cases, it appeared that consuming two additives, linked to diabetes risk, had a stronger association with the diabetes risk than you’d expect from looking at the additives separately; in other cases, it went the other way, with a lower risk from the combination of additives than you might expect from looking at them separately.”
Comments from our colleagues at the Australian SMC:
Professor Ian Rae is an expert on chemicals in the environment at the School of Chemistry at the University of Melbourne. He was also an advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme on chemicals in the environment and is former President of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
“Type 2 diabetes arises when various parts of the body becoming resistant to the normal action of insulin, which is to pack sugar away in cells.
The result is elevated blood sugar levels that can cause damage to the eyes and to organs like the liver. The chance of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, and it is associated with increased body weight, obesity and lack of physical activity, all of which track with age, too.
Exposure to chemical substances is not believed to be a cause of type 2 diabetes. The French researchers whose work is reported in this paper were testing not a single substance but instead they surveyed the effects of mixtures of additives that are commonly included in processed food, such as starch, pectin, vegetable gums, and citric acid which is also naturally present in some foods).
They identified two mixtures – of 8 and 15 constituents, respectively – that did correlate with slight effects. Only one of the mixtures included the kind of ‘chemical suspects’ that one expects to find in such studies, the two synthetic sweeteners, aspartame and sucralose. The associations between the mixtures and the condition were very weak, and similar mixtures that included many of the same constituents showed no association. Of course, association does not equal causation.
Testing a single substance for toxicity or the ability to damage our bodies in other ways is difficult enough. Only in a very few cases have pairs of substances or small groups of substances that are chemically closely related ever been tested. The results have been ambiguous, to say the least. Testing mixtures of 8 or 15 substances is just not good science. The authors themselves suggest that ‘the potential synergies and antagonisms may be of interest in future mechanistic investigations’ but that’s really just an admission that their own approach was overly optimistic in its search for a definite cause of type 2 diabetes.
Although it has involved a lot of work – not just by the 23 authors of this paper, but by the 100,000 people who were surveyed – the results are weak. I wondered why this was ever published.”
Ian has not declared any conflicts of interest.
Dr Alan Barclay is an Honorary Associate at the University of Sydney
“This French prospective cohort study identified small associations between certain mixtures of food additives and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
The mixtures of additives were identified using computer algorithms. Study participants were predominantly female (79.2%), relatively young (average age 41 years), well-educated, and within the healthy weight range (average BMI 23.6 kg/m2). Ethnic background was not reported (ethical reasons cited).
Australia’s food supply is different from France’s, and it is not known how common the additive mixtures identified would be consumed in this country, and by whom.
In Australia, type 2 diabetes occurs most commonly after the age of 45 years, in overweight or obese (BMI > 25 kg/m2) people (more frequently men than women), from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and incidence (new cases) has been decreasing over the past decade.
The observed associations are both less than 20%, so residual confounding is likely a significant problem within this study.
While novel, the generalisability of this French observational study to people at risk of type 2 diabetes living in Australia is unknown.
Our food supply is regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the types and amounts of additives permitted to be added to foods and drinks is carefully assessed and reviewed on a regular basis.”
Potential conflict of interest: I consult to the National Retail Association.
Emeritus Professor Jennie Brand-Miller AM is from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, and Director of both the Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service and Glycemic Index Foundation
“I find these results surprising because both mixtures contain substances that occur naturally in food and are recognised forms of dietary fibre (xanthan gums, guar gums and carrageenan). This means they provide fuel for our large bowel microbiome. Guar gum is a highly viscous fibre known to slow down the rate of digestion and absorption of carbohydrates, more so than any other fibre. Citric acid is found in citrus fruits, and also slows down digestion and reduces glycaemia.
Both mechanisms would therefore be expected to REDUCE the risk of type 2 diabetes, not increase it. I suspect these findings are simply chance findings because the researchers looked at so many food additives.
At present, there is a bias towards finding fault with food additives and processed foods. In Australia, all food additives other than flavours are highly regulated with substantial data to back up their safety in the amounts used in food.”
Jennie’s conflict of interest declaration: I have no direct conflicts of interest. I receive royalties from popular books about nutrition, diabetes and health. I oversee a glycemic index testing company at the USYD. I consult to the China National Research Institute of Food and Fermentation Industries, the Novo Foundation and Zoe Global.
Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologist and Senior Research Fellow from the University of Wollongong
“The authors here looked at whether diabetes risks were impacted by different mixtures of food additives. They found a very small increased risk of diabetes associated with two mixtures of additives, and no increase for the other three mixtures that they tested – these mixtures included a wide range of additives such as aspartame, guar gum, curcumin, and more.
The study is reasonably strong, but suffers from weaknesses in the underlying cohort. These results are entirely based on self-report, which is to say that the only information that the authors had on how many food additives people ate was how much they said they were eating. This form of self-report is notoriously unreliable and impossible to correct for in large epidemiological studies of this nature.
It’s also unclear what meaning these results have. The biggest risk increase in the study was seen for Mixture 5, which contained 14 different food additives including citric acid and paprika extract. But due to the complex methodology the authors used to create these mixtures, it’s not clear how you could implement these findings in your daily life. The closest the authors come is saying that it might be a good idea to reduce your soft drink intake, but we didn’t really need this study to know that. It’s an interesting piece of research, but it’s hard to see how the results could be used outside of a strictly research setting.”
Gideon has not declared any conflicts of interest.
Dr Evangeline Mantzioris is an Accredited Practicing Dietitian and the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia
“This study has looked at the impact of commonly used additives in ultra-processed foods in our food system and their association with Type 2 diabetes. This study was conducted on a large group of over 108,000 adults in France over a 7 ½ year time period. Dietary data was collected from dietary records every 6 months, and from this the intake of additives was calculated.
The researchers found that there were two groups of food additives that were linked with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. In the statistical analyses the researchers took into account the participants’ weight, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle practice and their diet.
The first group of food additives included modified starches, pectin, guar gum, carrageenan, polyphosphates, potassium sorbates, curcumin, and xanthan gum. The other group included citric acid, sodium citrates, phosphoric acid, sulphite ammonia caramel, acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, arabic gum, malic acid, carnauba wax, paprika extract, anthocyanins, guar gum, and pectin.
However, it must be remembered that this is an observational study and not an experimental study, and hence a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be drawn from it. Additionally, the intake of food additives in the diet of the participants could not be verified by any blood or urine tests.
There is a growing evidence base of the impact of UPF [ultra-processed foods] on both physical, cognitive and mental health. As well as containing low levels of nutrients, high levels of saturated and trans fats, sugar and salt, UPF also contain food additives to improve taste and shelf life of foods. This study adds to this evidence base of the health risks associated with a high intake of UPFs.”
Evangeline has not declared any conflicts of interest.
‘Food additive mixtures and type 2 diabetes incidence: Results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort’ by Marie Payen de la Garanderie et al. was published in PLOS Medicine at 19:00 UK time on Tuesday 8 April 2025.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004570
Declared interests
Dr Nerys Astbury: “No conflicts.”
Prof Nita Forouhi: “None.”
Prof Tom Sanders: “I have been retired for 10 years but during my career at King’s College London, I formerly acted as consultant for companies that made artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes.
I am a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Malaysia Palm Oil Board which involves the review of research projects proposed by the Malaysia government.
I also used to be a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Global Dairy Platform up until 2015.
I did do some consultancy work on GRAS affirmation of high oleic palm oil for Archer Daniel Midland more than ten years ago.
My research group received oils and fats free of charge from Unilever and Archer Daniel Midland for our Food Standards Agency Research.
Tom was a member of the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee that recommended that trans fatty acids be removed from the human food chain.
Member of the Science Committee British Nutrition Foundation. Honorary Nutritional Director HEART UK.
Before my retirement from King’s College London in 2014, I acted as a consultant to many companies and organisations involved in the manufacture of what are now designated ultraprocessed foods.
I used to be a consultant to the Breakfast Cereals Advisory Board of the Food and Drink Federation.
I used to be a consultant for aspartame more than a decade ago.
When I was doing research at King’ College London, the following applied: Tom does not hold any grants or have any consultancies with companies involved in the production or marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks. In reference to previous funding to Tom’s institution: £4.5 million was donated to King’s College London by Tate & Lyle in 2006; this funding finished in 2011. This money was given to the College and was in recognition of the discovery of the artificial sweetener sucralose by Prof Hough at the Queen Elizabeth College (QEC), which merged with King’s College London. The Tate & Lyle grant paid for the Clinical Research Centre at St Thomas’ that is run by the Guy’s & St Thomas’ Trust, it was not used to fund research on sugar. Tate & Lyle sold their sugar interests to American Sugar so the brand Tate & Lyle still exists but it is no longer linked to the company Tate & Lyle PLC, which gave the money to King’s College London in 2006.”
Dr George Savva: “I have no conflict of interest.”
Prof Alan Boobis: “My interests are: until recently, chair of the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT); member of the joint Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)/COT working group on plant-based drinks; member of the External Advisory Committee, Michigan State University MSU Center for Research on Ingredient Safety (CRIS); member of the Board of Directors of ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute) Europe.”
Prof Oliver Jones: “I am a Professor of Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. I don’t have any conflicts of interest to declare. However, many years ago, I worked on a project funded by the UK Food Standards Agency on the toxicity of pesticide mixtures.”
Prof Kevin McConway: “Previously a Trustee of the SMC and a member of its Advisory Committee.”
Source: United States Senator for Minnesota Amy Klobuchar
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tina Smith (D-MN) are pressing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on reports of a reduction in staff at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED) Lab in Duluth, Minnesota. The Senators called for the critical lab, which helps keep our Great Lakes water clean and safe and contributes $15 million to Minnesota’s economy every year, not to be closed and for career scientists not to be fired.
“We are very concerned about reports of impending staff reductions within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), potentially including the Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED) Lab in Duluth, Minnesota,” wrote the Senators. “Firing career scientists and shutting down a lab that leads the nation in freshwater toxicology research would have huge impacts on Minnesotans and all Americans.”
“Our entire country depends on the premier water testing protocols developed at this lab,” the Senators continued. “In addition to testing, the dedicated scientists in Duluth have developed effective tools to combat polluted water and protect human health. This dedication to science as a public service has directly led to cleaner, safer drinking water for our kids and grandkids, and these efforts will continue to be critical for years to come. Simply put, closing the lab or firing its staff without proper cause would endanger future generations of Americans.”
The full letter is available here and below.
Dear Administrator Zeldin,
We are very concerned about reports of impending staff reductions within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), potentially including the Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED) Lab in Duluth, Minnesota.
Firing career scientists and shutting down a lab that leads the nation in freshwater toxicology research would have huge impacts on Minnesotans and all Americans. Recent reporting by the New York Times indicates that the Department plans to fire up to 1,155 scientists from the ORD, potentially including some or all of the over 130 in the Duluth GLTED Lab who conduct critical research on risks to our water and ways to keep it clean and safe.
The research at the GLTED Lab directly supports EPA’s top stated priority of providing “clean air, land, and water for every American” and is central to the Duluth community. Locally, it contributes over $15 million to the economy and helps keep Lake Superior healthy. As one of the cleanest freshwater sources in the world, Lake Superior provides drinking water to cities from Duluth to Grand Marais, supports processing operations for our Iron Range taconite mines, and sustains tourism businesses along the North Shore. Minnesotans depend on Lake Superior’s health to live, work, and enjoy recreation every day.
Because of the GLTED Lab’s unique access to Lake Superior, it is well situated to address widespread water quality issues. Our entire country depends on the premier water testing protocols developed at this lab. In addition to testing, the dedicated scientists in Duluth have developed effective tools to combat polluted water and protect human health. This dedication to science as a public service has directly led to cleaner, safer drinking water for our kids and grandkids, and these efforts will continue to be critical for years to come. Simply put, closing the lab or firing its staff without proper cause would endanger future generations of Americans.
As such, we request you provide written answers to the following questions by April 11, 2025:
Will staff in Minnesota’s Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division Lab be included in the EPA’s reduction in force plans? If so:
How many Minnesota GLTED Lab staff will be fired?
Please share a list of all Minnesota GLTED Lab staff who will be fired.
Please provide a breakdown of GLTED Lab staff who will be fired and i.) were recently promoted; ii.) are veterans; iii.) were probationary employees who were previously employed; iv.) by the Federal government immediately prior to their most recent role; v.) were probationary employees who were not previously employed by the Federal government
Is EPA assessing the public health and environmental impacts of these firings? Please share any assessments EPA has conducted or describe the methods in which EPA is conducting this assessment.
How will layoffs in EPA’s Office of Research and Development impact long-term water quality, including its public health and ecological impacts? Please be specific.
What is EPA’s plan to maintain clean air and water into the future should fewer scientists be dedicated to the issue? Please be specific.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) issued a strong warning against President Trump’s newly announced “Liberation Day” tariffs, calling them a reckless economic move that will directly hurt working families, farmers, and small businesses in southern New Mexico.
“These tariffs are a tax hike on working people. They’ll continue to drive up the cost of food, kill jobs in our border communities, and threaten the industries that keep rural New Mexico running,” said Vasquez.
The policy, which includes a sweeping 25% tariff on imported automobiles and parts, and so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on countries like Mexico and Canada, is expected to disrupt key trade routes and jack up prices for everydayessentials. For New Mexico’s 2nd District—where agriculture, manufacturing, and cross-border commerce are economic pillars—the consequences will be severe.
In response, Vasquez introduced thePrevent Tariff Abuse Act,legislation that would restrict any president from using emergency economic powers to unilaterally impose tariffs on imported goods. The bill is designed to restore Congressional oversight and protect communities like those in southern New Mexico from political decisions that destabilize local economies.
“Southern New Mexico feeds the country and powers the state’s economy. These tariffs put all of that at risk,” said Vasquez. “When we punish our trading partners, we punish ourselves.”
Mexico is New Mexico’s top trading partner, responsible for over 70% of the state’s exports and 41% of its imports. Vasquez highlighted how new tariffs could lead to higher grocery prices, supply chain delays, and retaliation that hits New Mexican pecan growers, cattle ranchers, and local producers.
As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, Vasquez has consistently advocated for stable, forward-looking trade policy. He has pushed back on the administration’s tariff threats in public forums, social media, and direct letters to federal agencies.
“I’ll keep fighting for New Mexicans who get up every day to work, produce, and build,” Vasquez added. “This district deserves leadership that protects jobs and strengthens our economy—not one that plays politics with their paychecks.”
It’s clear: the world wants more Alberta. Alberta is world-renowned as a premier tourism destination, and it’s no secret why – from the majestic Rocky Mountains to the rolling golden prairies, from small-town charm to the province’s vibrant cities – there is something for everyone in Alberta.
Alberta’s government understands the importance of the province’s tourism sector, and with the creation of the Ministry of Tourism and Sport, has been investing in its success. These investments are paying off. In 2023, Alberta broke records, with annual visitor expenditures soaring to $12.7 billion – surpassing the previous record by almost 20 per cent. The province also experienced record international visitor expenditures, solidifying Alberta’s position as a key destination on the world stage.
Data from the first three quarters of 2024 shows that Alberta’s tourism sector is continuing to boom. From January to September 2024, Alberta tourism revenues have grown 10 per cent year over year, suggesting the province will once again break the record for annual visitor spending. Alberta is outperforming every other province in tourism sector growth, with data from the same period showing Alberta is advancing at a rate more than three times the national average.
“Alberta’s tourism economy is booming! It’s growing at an unprecedented rate, and we’re not slowing down anytime soon. Alberta’s government will continue working to unleash the potential of the province’s tourism industry, and the incredible tourism operators across the province will continue to show the world what we Albertans already know: Alberta is the best place in the world to live, play and visit.”
Alberta’s long-term provincial tourism strategy charts a path to growing Alberta’s visitor economy from $10 billion in annual visitor expenditures to $25 billion by 2035. The outstanding performance of Alberta’s tourism sector through 2023 and the first three quarters of 2024, coupled with Budget 2025’s continued investment in the sector and the responsible, sustainable tourism development that will occur thanks to the recently passed All-Season Resorts Act, Alberta is well on its way to achieving this goal.
“Tourism is a powerful economic driver and continues to have tangible benefits for communities and Albertans throughout our province. There has never been a better time to invest in tourism in Alberta, as the industry drives export revenues, fuels job creation, strengthens local businesses and showcases the province’s incredible natural and cultural assets to the world.”
National Tourism Week is celebrated April 7-11, highlighting the benefits of tourism for Alberta communities in supporting sustainable economic growth and jobs across the province.
Quick facts
As Alberta’s number one service export sector, tourism is a driving force in the provincial economy.
Alberta’s tourism sector employs more than 260,000 people in the province.
In 2023, Alberta broke records, with annual visitor expenditures soaring to $12.7 billion – surpassing the previous record by almost 20 per cent.
In 2023, a record-breaking approximately $3 billion was spent by international visitors to the province, solidifying Alberta’s position as a key destination on the world stage.
From January to September 2024, Alberta tourism revenues were $11.5 billion, compared with $10.5 billion for the same period in 2023 – a 10 per cent increase year over year.
In the first three quarters of 2024, Alberta’s tourism sector growth outpaced every other province, advancing at a rate more than double that of Ontario and British Columbia, and at more than three times the national average.
Statistics Canada determines spending through their Visitor Travel Survey. There is a lag of more than six months between data collection and publication of the data.
Related information
Higher ground: a tourism sector strategy
Related news
Alberta tourism soars to new heights (Sept. 25, 2024)
Alberta tourism shines on the national stage (Jan. 24, 2025)
Since 1981, National Crime Victims’ Rights Week (NCVRW) has challenged the nation to confront and remove barriers to achieving justice for all victims of crime. The U.S. Attorney’s Office uses the week to educate the public about victimization and its effects on individuals, families, friends, and communities. As the week kicked off across the nation, the District of Wyoming sentenced a case that recognized the accomplishments of the victims’ rights movement and reflected on how far it has come.
Dwayne Wahtomy Jr., age 47, of Ethete, Wyoming, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment with 10 years of supervised release for the abusive sexual contact of a child by force. According to court documents, the victim disclosed that she had been sexually abused by the defendant when she was a minor. The defendant also threatened the victim to keep her silent.
During the investigation and prosecution of the case, the victim exercised several of her statutory victim’s rights. She was notified of all hearings, was notified of the defendant’s custody status, consulted with the prosecutor about a plea offer, and provided a victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing. Wahtomy was indicted on Sept. 18, 2024, and pleaded guilty on Jan. 15. U.S. District Court Judge Alan B. Johnson imposed the sentence on April 7 in Cheyenne. The BIA investigated the crime, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron J. Cook prosecuted the case.
In 1988, the Office of Victims of Crimes (OVC) was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). According to OVC, around 5 million people become victims of violent crimes annually, including rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and more. Being a victim of these traumatic crimes can, in most cases, create long-lasting impacts on someone and can sometimes create secondary problems like loss of relationships, mental health issues, physical problems, and a negative impact on occupational and societal function. Because of the prevalence and effects of crimes and victims of crimes, communities and governments have a responsibility to come up with ways to support these victims.
The Victim Witness Program for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Wyoming, provides federal crime victims and witnesses with information, services, and support during federal prosecutions. The office is committed to ensuring that victims and witnesses of crime are treated fairly throughout their contact with the federal criminal justice system. For more information, visit: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/victim-witness-program
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. PSN is based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information, please visit Justice.gov/PSN.
WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA – Jakob Barnes, age 39, of Wheeling, West Virginia, has admitted to the unlawful possession of a firearm.
According to court documents, Barnes is prohibited from having firearms because of a prior felony conviction. During a drug-related robbery investigation, officers executed a search warrant at Barnes’ apartment on Wheeling Island and seized two firearms and ammunition.
Barnes is facing up to 15 years in federal prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Perri is prosecuting the case on behalf of the government.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Wheeling Police Department investigated.
Standing with migrants, displaced peoples, and families
People move for many reasons. Some seek opportunity. Some chase dreams. But for many, leaving home isn’t a choice—it’s the only way to survive. When war, economic collapse, persecution, or disaster make staying impossible, people must go—because the alternative is not an option.
Migration isn’t new—and it most certainly isn’t political. It’s human. From the very beginning, movement has been an evolutionary survival instinct—our most fundamental response to crisis. When danger arises, when conditions collapse, when a place can no longer sustain life, we move. We always have.
Climate crises and disasters aren’t always the reason people move—but it can be a powerful force that pushes instability past the point of no return, taking existing crises—war, poverty, political collapse—and driving them to breaking points that no one can outrun. And despite the fear mongering, most displaced people don’t cross borders—they move internally, trying to rebuild in the only homeland they’ve ever known.
What happens next, how we choose to respond, defines who we are.
Do we embrace migration for what it is—not just an act of resilience and survival, but an unshakeable driving force behind our shared history, woven into the fabric of our humanity? Or do we meet it with walls, punishment, and division—turning away from the very instinct that has carried us forward and ensured our survival for centuries?
The crisis isn’t that people are moving—it’s that systems are failing
Movement in and of itself is not a crisis. The crisis is what forces people to leave. The crisis is unchecked corporate and political greed, governments and politicians that refuse to act, and policies that persecute and make it difficult for people to survive where they are.
The real emergency isn’t that people are seeking safety—it’s that all too often bad actors in power respond in turn with brute force, racism, and scapegoating—embracing militarized borders, mass criminalization, and willful abandonment over compassion, empathy, and humanity.
They view people and families seeking refuge as a tool to be leveraged—a talking point to exploit, a crisis to manufacture, a wedge to drive between us. And the only solutions they offer are those that best serve themselves.
While “strongmen” and authoritarians like to prop up false solutions like force and derence, we know those strategies don’t work and will never honor human dignity. They believe in division and control. We believe in humanity.
A future defined by who we choose to be
We at Greenpeace USA believe that we aren’t just facing a crisis of policy—we’re facing a crisis of humanity. This isn’t about numbers, borders, or economies. It’s about humanity—who we are, what we stand for, and how we choose to meet each other in times of need.
When people are forced from their homes, we have a choice: Do we turn away and pass our fellow brothers,sisters and siblings off as expendable? Or do we extend our arms, recognizing that their survival is tied to our own?
We believe fiercely in the latter. That means:
Making it possible for people to rebuild their lives after disaster, war, and economic collapse—wherever they are. Not just cleaning up after destruction, but ensuring people and families can stay, thrive, and build something new.
Defending the right to seek safety with dignity. Expanding pathways that reflect reality—because displacement isn’t just about climate change. It’s about collapsing economies, conflict, and persecution—worsened by a world in crisis. And whether we acknowledge it or not, these forces are already reshaping the very communities we live in.
Recognizing that welcoming people doesn’t just make us stronger—it makes us whole. Communities that open their doors don’t just offer refuge—they create belonging, rebuild what was lost, and prove that humanity is not bound by borders.
Holding accountable not just polluters, but every bad actor who fuels these intersecting crises and then turns around and profits from fear. The corporations, the politicians, the power players who weaponize and exploit the suffering of our fellow people to serve their own agendas.
Solidarity in action: We have spent a half century building a culture of solidarity, proactivity, and collective action, standing alongside our neighbors in the fight for justice and human rights. But we are not just bearing witness—we are catalyzing a counter-power, forging movements bold enough to challenge the corporations and institutions that put profit over people. Through deep relationships, courageous learning, and unwavering commitment, we are building something greater than resistance alone. We are creating organized, powerful movements that stand in solidarity—not just when crisis strikes, but every day, in every struggle.
People have always moved. We always will.
The only question is whether we will meet one another with scornfulness, walls, and punishment—or with compassion, courage, and humanity. History will remember the choices we make today.
Will we turn against our neighbors? Or will we build a future where all of us belong?
We know where we stand: with working people and our communities—not with the billionaires who exploit them. We are here to win justice, not just demand it. And together, we will.
Source: State University Higher School of Economics – State University Higher School of Economics –
Photo: MIA “Russia Today”
On April 8, the MIA “Russia Today” held a round table on the topic “Threats of Artificial Intelligence for Education and the Social Sphere”, in which the rector of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, member of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (HRC) Nikita Anisimov took part. He spoke about the HSE’s experience in regulating the use of AI technologies in the educational process.
Opening the round table, Advisor to the President of Russia, Chairman of the Human Rights Council Valery Fadeev stated that modern youth actively uses neural networks. He cited data from a recent survey by the Association of Organizers of Student Olympiads, according to which 85% of students use neural networks, including 43% for writing abstracts, essays, term papers and theses. Students also consider AI to be the most important technology for Russia.
However, Valery Fadeyev himself has a different view of what is happening. “I believe that we are on the threshold of an ideological disaster, and Russian society is still underestimating this danger,” he said. The reason is that, when answering questions related to politics, for example, neural networks produce a Western narrative – ideological texts, turning into an ideological weapon.
The Russian presidential adviser used the analogy of a student library in the 1980s, which contained only Marxist literature, rather than the best works in the humanities from around the world. “Our texts and the texts of our friends make up a minimal part of the total array of materials and texts used by the neural network,” he concluded.
In turn, Nikita Anisimov noted that behind each AI there is a developer – a person who can afford to invest billions in the development of a specific technology. Such people have great business opportunities and pursue certain interests.
He recalled that the HSE University had adopted a Declaration of Ethical Principles for the Creation and Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems on its own initiative. One of these principles is transparency: if a student uses AI in their work, they are required to indicate what kind of technology it is and what conclusions were made. If deception is detected (there is a tool called “Catch a Bot” for this), the student may be expelled.
Nikita Anisimov emphasized that the university trains specialists in the field of AI and those who will definitely use it. In his opinion, methodological understanding of the use of AI in education is critically important and this is understood not only in Russia: for example, in China, at the state level, they consider it necessary to modernize educational methods and textbooks taking into account the emergence of AI as a technology.
The rector developed Valery Fadeev’s thesis that the content of a neural network is determined by the one who trained it.
“If the technology was developed in the USA, taught on a line of school textbooks published in the USA, then, naturally, it promotes certain views. But what if we load it with textbooks published in the 90s in the Russian Federation, will it be better? Therefore, it is critically important how we teach this technology, how it affects young people, adults. It is important who taught and what they taught. Artificial intelligence is only a technology, and any problem has a last name, first name and patronymic. They must be named, invited, discussed with them, introduced regulations, as we did at our university. And you know, it works. The guys are happy to tell where they used artificial intelligence, and where they wrote the work themselves,” concluded Nikita Anisimov.
The discussion was also attended by HRC member and IT entrepreneur Igor Ashmanov and IT entrepreneur Natalya Kasperskaya.
Igor Ashmanov emphasized the danger that AI poses to schoolchildren. At school, many questions require a clear answer, but a neural network cannot do this and answers differently each time, moreover, its answers are incorrect. At the same time, Russia is still lagging behind its competitors and cannot create the “right AI”. “Our digital giants take enemy engines and repackage them,” the expert explains.
Natalya Kaspersky mentioned the risks that children’s use of gadgets in general entails. These include a negative impact on health, as well as inability to communicate, underdeveloped imagination, clip thinking, short memory, etc. In her opinion, AI cannot be trusted to choose an educational trajectory; only a person can do this.
At the end of the round table, its participants answered questions from journalists. In particular, Nikita Anisimov was asked how much interest in HSE programs dedicated to AI has grown in recent years.
According to the rector, everyone should master AI technologies in their professional activities, so students of all fields and specialties at HSE take the Data Culture course. And students of educational programs dedicated to AI receive significant salaries, combining work with studies already in the second or third year. There is a huge competition for these programs, their graduates have an excellent reputation.
Nikita Anisimov concluded that AI technologies can help, for example, to win on the battlefield and increase labor productivity many times over, and this is extremely important for the country. At the same time, in the social sphere, AI should not be allowed to make decisions about people and influence their destinies.
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.
The 2024-25 Saskatchewan Post-Secondary Student Council has successfully completed its second year, with 24 students providing insights on financing post-secondary education, enhancing student success and improving specific ministry tools.
“The student council is an important resource for government to hear directly from current post-secondary students on their experiences studying in Saskatchewan,” Advanced Education Minister Ken Cheveldayoff said. “I had the pleasure of meeting several of this year’s council members and I am impressed by their aspirations and passion for post-secondary education.”
The council met four times over the 2024-25 academic year, sharing feedback and insights on a variety of higher education topics with government officials. Council members attend a wide range of post-secondary institutions across the province and represent diverse backgrounds and interests.
“Serving on Saskatchewan’s Post-Secondary Student Council was both an honour and a privilege,” Campion College Council Member and Student Maliha Jabeen Khan said. “Engaging with students from diverse backgrounds, collaborating with ministry leaders and contributing to discussions that play a role in shaping the future of education was an unforgettable experience. It reinforced the power of student voices in driving meaningful change.”
Key learnings from the 2024-25 council meetings are used to inform the Ministry of Advanced Education’s work. Feedback from students is also shared with post-secondary institutions and sector partners.
“Being part of the Post-Secondary Student Council provided me with the opportunity to share my ideas and suggestions on current student struggles in hopes to assist in creating a positive experience for future students,” Saskatchewan Polytechnic Council Member and Student Trynda Wilderman said. “Additionally, I was able to build meaningful connections with other students and hear about their experiences while in school.”
Nominations for the 2025-26 council will open in September 2025. Students interested in joining the council in the future can email AEStudentCouncil@gov.sk.ca to be directed to the correct contact at their post-secondary institution.
For more information on the Saskatchewan Post-Secondary Student Council, visit: www.saskatchewan.ca/student-council.
Legislation is being tightened to allow greater recovery of health-care costs caused by wrongdoers, to further ensure these costs fall on them and not people in British Columbia.
The Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which was brought into force in 2009, allows government to recover the costs of health-care services provided to Medical Services Plan (MSP) beneficiaries who have been injured or have died due to the negligence of a wrongdoer. These changes will ensure that government is able to recoup costs that are otherwise borne by taxpayers.
The act has been largely successful, with financial recoveries varying annually. In the 2023-24 fiscal year, approximately $6.6 million was recovered.
However, some aspects of the act currently prevent government from recovering health-care costs to the fullest extent possible. The proposed legislative amendments aim to address the gaps.
The amendments will:
narrow the circumstances in which the act does not apply because the beneficiary was injured in the course of their work;
lengthen the window of time during which a claim can be amended to include a health services claim;
expand disclosure obligations for defendants and their insurers;
define who counts as an “insurer” under the act to ensure that self-insured and mutual defence organizations must provide notice to the Province and information needed to assist cost recovery;
clarify the effect of liability waivers;
require that the Province be notified when a third-party defendant is added to the legal proceedings, and automatically include a health-care costs claim against the third-party defendant when this happens;
extend limitation periods to ensure the Province has time to begin legal proceedings after being informed of a claim; and
allow pre-judgment interest to be collected from defendants.
The Health Care Costs Recovery Act does not apply to motor-vehicle accidents where a wrongdoer is insured by ICBC, to opioid or tobacco-related wrongs or to injuries in the course of work if the beneficiary is entitled to compensation through WorkSafeBC, because these situations are addressed through other legislations.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Levin (CA-49)
April 08, 2025
The network of hydrogen hubs promotes American energy independence, lowers costs for consumers, and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs across California
Washington, D.C.– Today, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49, Rep. George Whitesides (CA-27), and Senator Alex Padilla led a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of members of Congress to urge the Department of Energy (DOE) to preserve funding for hydrogen production hubs, specifically California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES).
In a letter to the DOE, the members write:
“As bipartisan members of the California delegation, we write with concern about reports that the U.S. Department of Energy is planning to cancel the hydrogen hub award commitment made to California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES)… As California’s Hydrogen Hub, ARCHES anticipates the creation of 220,000 good paying jobs, from research and development (R&D) to manufacturing and maintenance of renewable hydrogen systems. This, in turn, promotes public-private partnerships to expand our STEM workforce.”
The letter followed reports that the Department of Energy is considering cutting funding for the development of four hydrogen production hubs. The City of Lancaster, in Rep. Whitesides’ district, was the first city to join ARCHES, alongside industry, government and academic stakeholders from across California. Their Element Resources project in Lancaster was predicted to generate over 200 construction jobs in the area.
“ARCHES is at the forefront of energy development in our state, and it is helping to create good paying jobs and lower energy costs,” said Rep. Mike Levin. “I’m proud to join my California colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to defend this project. We stand united in our efforts to protect energy projects that create jobs, lower costs, and promote energy innovation.”
“The bipartisan support for ARCHES shown in this letter underscores its importance to California and the nation,” said Rep. George Whitesides. “I’m proud to represent Lancaster, the first city to join ARCHES, and support this effort to bring many well-paid jobs to our area and California, while lowering our energy costs. I urge the DOE to support this crucial program and preserve its funding, therefore expanding our workforce and economic opportunity.”
“Kickstarting the market for hydrogen power across California will accelerate the creation of good-paying jobs while investing in key sectors across our economy,” said Senator Padilla. “Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that California’s ARCHES hydrogen hub is essential for lowering fuel costs and promoting American energy dominance and security. I will continue working hard to protect the resources I secured for ARCHES and other critical hydrogen hubs through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”
In 2023, the Department of Energy awarded the ARCHES network an initial grant under the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs) program. As part of the H2Hubs, seven recipients were funded to establish a national hydrogen network. With this and private and state matching funds, ARCHES is projected to create over 200,000 jobs in California and generate more than $2.95 billion annually in economic value from 2030.
Jefferson City — Today, Governor Mike Kehoe announced 15 Missouri counties, cities, and towns as the first to have earned Missouri Blue Shield designations. To achieve this designation, Missouri communities must demonstrate their commitment to enhancing public safety, strengthening support for law enforcement, and building sustainable public safety partnerships.
The Blue Shield Program, as outlined in Executive Order 25-03, is part of the Governor’s Safer Missouriinitiative announced on his first day in office. Achieving the Blue Shield designation allows communities to access state grants for law enforcement training and equipment as Governor Kehoe continues to work with the General Assembly to make $10 million in grant funding available for this program.
The first 15 communities include: Jefferson County, Arnold, Warrensburg, Carter County, Miller County, Sedalia, Kennett, Branson, Desloge, Johnson County, Cole County, Grandview, Vinita Park, Greenwood, and Town and Country.
“We are proud to see Missouri communities committed to supporting our administration’s top priority – improving public safety and building strong partnerships between citizens and law enforcement,” Governor Kehoe said. “We have a number of applications from additional communities that are still under review, and we encourage even more communities to apply.”
The Missouri Department of Public Safety (DPS) is administering the Blue Shield Program. Applications continue to be accepted and should be submitted by an official from the jurisdiction seeking the Blue Shield designation in coordination with the jurisdiction’s chief law enforcement officer. Applications and all supporting materials should be submitted online at this link.
DPS will review applications and make determinations and notifications for Blue Shield designations for counties, cities, and towns within two weeks of application submission. DPS encourages communities to apply early, because if grant funding is approved by the General Assembly, the department will begin accepting grant applications in July, when the fiscal year 2026 funding becomes available. Questions on the application process can be directed to Courtney Kawelaske, Courtney.Kawelaske@dps.mo.gov.
Among the Blue Shield designation eligibility criteria are:
Passage of a resolution demonstrating a commitment to public safety, including to reduce violent crime within the jurisdiction;
Extraordinary investments in public safety funding;
Community policing initiatives or local partnerships to invest in and/or improve public safety;
Law enforcement officer recruitment and retention program;
Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing crime or innovative programs that attempt to reduce crime;
Participates in regional anti-crime task forces, or a commitment to be a willing partner with these in the future; and
Compliance with Missouri crime reporting and traffic stop data requirements and other related statutes.
Blue Shield counties, cities, and towns must maintain their commitments each year to retain the Blue Shield designation via annual reporting on their ongoing efforts to support public safety to DPS. Once local governments are approved for a Blue Shield designation, they will receive a public relations toolkit to showcase their community’s commitment to public safety.
SAN ANTONIO – The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas is alerting the public of imposter scams involving individuals claiming to represent the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
During these calls, scammers may provide false badge numbers and claim to have found your phone number in the contacts list of a rescued human trafficking victim. The scammers are known to request funds through a mobile payment app.
Scammers use many tactics to sound and appear credible. They sometimes provide information like actual names of federal prosecutors and federal office addresses. They also spoof their phone numbers to appear on caller IDs as if they are calling from a government agency such as the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Remember that the U.S. Attorney’s Office will never ask you to purchase a gift card or give out a credit card number.
If you are a victim of one of these scam calls, please report the incident via https://www.ic3.gov/.
Sufficient uranium resources exist to support both the continued use of nuclear power and its significant growth through 2050 and beyond. However, timely investments in new exploration, mining operations and processing techniques will be essential to ensure that uranium becomes available to the market when needed.
These are among the main findings of the latest edition of Uranium – Resources, Production and Demand2024, commonly known as the “Red Book”, an essential global reference prepared jointly every two years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The 2024 edition of the Red Book provides the latest comprehensive review of uranium market fundamentals, based on official government data, and delivers a detailed statistical profile of the global uranium industry. Covering the calendar years 2021 and 2022, it features data on uranium exploration, resources, and production . The report also includes 62 country profiles, offering in-depth insights into mine development plans, the environmental and social dimensions of uranium mining, and national regulations and policies.
The Red Book indicates that global identified recoverable uranium resources amounted to 7 934 500 tonnes as of 1 January 2023. These represent all reasonably assured and inferred uranium resources that could be recovered at market prices ranging from $40 to $260 USD/KgU (equivalent to $15 to $100 USD/lb U3O8). Compared to the total reported in the 2022 edition, this represents an increase of less than 0.5%. Additions to the uranium resource base could however arise from undiscovered or unconventional sources, driven by the sharp rise in uranium spot prices since mid-2021 and the commitment first announced during COP28 and now signed by 31 countries to triple their nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
Worldwide domestic exploration and mine development expenditures have increased dramatically after a period of decline due to poor market conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. Annual expenditures reached USD 800 million in 2022 and preliminary data for 2023 suggest a further increase to USD 840 million.
The Red Book also provides projections for nuclear power installed capacity and uranium requirements through 2050, outlining both low-growth and high-growth scenarios, alongside an assessment of uranium supply and demand adequacy under each scenario. According to these projections, the uranium resource base is sufficient to meet the needs of a high-growth nuclear capacity through 2050 and beyond. However, this will require essential investments in new exploration, improved processing techniques and new production centres to replenish reserves.
Production increased 4% between 2020 and 2022 and the report suggests the increase will likely continue in coming years. The establishment of new production centres is anticipated to encounter significant lead times due to today’s risk-averse investment climate, and complex and lengthy regulatory processes in many uranium mining jurisdictions. Geopolitical challenges and technical difficulties related to developing new mines and milling facilities may further compound the situation. As a result, efforts must begin immediately to ensure adequate uranium supplies are available in the medium term.
Notes to editors
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is an intergovernmental agency which operates within the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It facilitates co-operation among countries with advanced nuclear technology infrastructures to seek excellence in nuclear safety, technology, science, related environmental and economic matters and law.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the world’s central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field. It works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology, contributing to international peace and security and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
The Joint NEA/IAEA Group on Uranium (UG) contributes to the preparation of each edition of Uranium – Resources, Production and Demand. The Group also co-ordinates the preparation of periodic assessments of the world’s supply of natural uranium, examines the relationship of these supplies to demand projections and recommends actions that might be taken to ensure adequate long-term supply of uranium for nuclear power development.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) joined Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and 23 Senators in writing to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tedd Lyons urging them to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a father who was living legally, under protected status, in Maryland with his family until he was wrongfully deported without due process by the Trump Administration last month to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. The Administration has admitted that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was the result of an “administrative error.”
In their letter, the Senators call on the Trump Administration to comply with the court order requiring that they facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return and ask for responses to a series of questions regarding ICE’s enforcement policies that may have led to this grave error – and what measures they will take to ensure such an incident does not occur again.
The Senators were joined on this letter by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The Senators began, “We write to express our concerns regarding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, an action which the Administration admitted in a recent court filing was an “administrative error.” It is unacceptable that anyone would be deported without proper due process, especially where an immigration judge has granted the individual protected status that explicitly prohibits his return to El Salvador. We demand that the Administration bring Mr. Abrego Garcia home immediately.
“Per court filings, Mr. Abrego Garcia came to the United States in 2011 as a teenager fleeing gang threats in his home country of El Salvador. In 2019, ICE arrested Mr. Abrego Garcia over an unfounded and anonymous allegation that he was involved with MS-13, which placed him in deportation proceedings. The U.S. immigration judge in the case ultimately found that it was in fact Mr. Abrego Garcia who was at risk of being the victim of gang violence,” the Senators wrote. “This ruling was made under the Trump Administration in 2019 and was in fact required by law under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act once the immigration judge made the factual determination that Mr. Abrego Garcia faced a likelihood of torture in El Salvador. At the time, the Trump Administration made no effort to appeal the judge’s ruling or pursue Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation further. Court filings attest that Mr. Abrego Garcia has complied with regular ICE check-ins, has no criminal charges, and has had no contact with any other law-enforcement agency since his release in 2019.
“Mr. Abrego Garcia is currently being held at CECOT, a maximum-security prison in El Salvador notorious for human rights abuses, after being deported in violation of the law to the very country where his return was impermissible,” they continued. “And when the Administration makes a mistake as severe as sending an individual with protected status to a foreign prison, it cannot simply shrug off responsibility and allege that there is nothing it can do to reunite him with his wife and child, who are American citizens.
“On Friday, a U.S. District Court judge in the District of Maryland ordered the government to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, and on Monday the Fourth Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the order. The Administration should promptly comply with the district court’s order,” the Senators urged.
The Senators closed the letter with a series of questions to Secretary Noem and Acting Director Lyons, requesting a response by April 22:
The standard and legal course for the government to take to deport someone with protected status would be to reopen the case, introduce evidence that grounds for terminating the protected status exist, and then allow an immigration judge to make a determination as to their status. Why was that course of action not taken in this case?
In the past, DHS and ICE worked to quickly return people to the U.S. who were erroneously deported. Why is DHS and ICE no longer following these well-established procedures and practices?
Vice President J.D. Vance and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt have both claimed that Mr. Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, but the government was unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to substantiate that claim to the court. Please provide any evidence of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s membership in MS-13.
Given that the Administration is reportedly paying $6 million to El Salvador to detain deported immigrants at CECOT, why does it believe that there is nothing it can do to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to his family in the United States? Please provide a copy of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador on the detention of people deported from the U.S. in CECOT.
Are there any other cases that the Administration is aware of in which an immigrant with protected status was illegally deported without due process? If so, identify those cases and explain what, if anything the government is doing to rectify those errors.
Will the Administration commit to reviewing all of the cases of its deportees to ensure that it has appropriately identified all of the errors?
What actions will the Administration take in the future to ensure that immigrants with protected status are afforded their appropriate due process?
A copy of the letter is available here and below.
Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Director Lyons,
We write to express our concerns regarding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, an action which the Administration admitted in a recent court filing was an “administrative error.” It is unacceptable that anyone would be deported without proper due process, especially where an immigration judge has granted the individual protected status that explicitly prohibits his return to El Salvador. We demand that the Administration bring Mr. Abrego Garcia home immediately.
According to court filings, on March 12, 2025, shortly after Mr. Abrego Garcia had picked up his son from the boy’s grandmother’s house, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stopped Mr. Abrego Garcia, inaccurately telling him that his protected status had changed. After giving his wife a few minutes to arrive to take custody of his son, ICE arrested and detained him without any further explanation as to the reason for his arrest. ICE then transferred Mr. Abrego Garcia and other detainees to Texas, where on March 15, 2025, they were loaded onto planes and deported to El Salvador. Mr. Abrego Garcia was reportedly on the only plane that was not sent under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act but instead was transporting migrants with formal removal orders signed by a judge. This occurred despite the fact that ICE knew, as the Administration conceded in court, that his protected legal status specifically prohibited his removal to El Salvador.
Per court filings, Mr. Abrego Garcia came to the United States in 2011 as a teenager fleeing gang threats in his home country of El Salvador. In 2019, ICE arrested Mr. Abrego Garcia over an unfounded and anonymous allegation that he was involved with MS-13, which placed him in deportation proceedings. The U.S. immigration judge in the case ultimately found that it was in fact Mr. Abrego Garcia who was at risk of being the victim of gang violence. The judge found that Mr. Abrego Garcia and his relatives credibly testified that gang members had been trying to extort his family and recruit him and his brother to join the gang, forcing his family to move multiple times, ultimately compelling both him and his brother to flee to the United States out of fear.
The immigration judge agreed that Mr. Abrego Garcia would likely face persecution if deported back to El Salvador and thus granted him a form of legally mandated protection known as “withholding of removal.” Withholding of removal, which may only be granted by an immigration judge, provided Mr. Abrego Garcia the ability to stay and work in the United States despite being the subject of a deportation order. This ruling was made under the Trump Administration in 2019 and was in fact required by law under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act once the immigration judge made the factual determination that Mr. Abrego Garcia faced a likelihood of torture in El Salvador. At the time, the Trump Administration made no effort to appeal the judge’s ruling or pursue Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation further. Court filings attest that Mr. Abrego Garcia has complied with regular ICE check-ins, has no criminal charges, and has had no contact with any other law-enforcement agency since his release in 2019.
Mr. Abrego Garcia is currently being held at CECOT, a maximum-security prison in El Salvador notorious for human rights abuses, after being deported in violation of the law to the very country where his return was impermissible. Though the Administration has admitted in court that his deportation was a mistake, it alleges that there is nothing it can do to address this injustice, given that Mr. Abrego Garcia is now in the jurisdiction of the government of El Salvador as part of an agreement to imprison U.S. deportees in exchange for financial compensation.
Your unwillingness to immediately rectify this “administrative error” is unacceptable. Under multiple Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE followed the rule of law and worked to quickly return people who were wrongfully deported, in the rare instances where such “administrative errors” occurred. The Administration’s mass deportation agenda does not transcend immigration law or the need for due process. And when the Administration makes a mistake as severe as sending an individual with protected status to a foreign prison, it cannot simply shrug off responsibility and allege that there is nothing it can do to reunite him with his wife and child, who are American citizens. On Friday, a U.S. District Court judge in the District of Maryland ordered the government to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, and on Monday the Fourth Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the order. The Administration should promptly comply with the district court’s order.
To address our concerns about this matter and to provide clarity on the Department of Homeland Security and ICE’s policy regarding the immigration enforcement actions against immigrants with protected status, we ask that your Administration answer the following questions by April 22, 2025:
The standard and legal course for the government to take to deport someone with protected status would be to reopen the case, introduce evidence that grounds for terminating the protected status exist, and then allow an immigration judge to make a determination as to their status. Why was that course of action not taken in this case?
In the past, DHS and ICE worked to quickly return people to the U.S. who were erroneously deported. Why is DHS and ICE no longer following these well-established procedures and practices?
Vice President J.D. Vance and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt have both claimed that Mr. Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, but the government was unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to substantiate that claim to the court. Please provide any evidence of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s membership in MS-13.
Given that the Administration is reportedly paying $6 million to El Salvador to detain deported immigrants at CECOT, why does it believe that there is nothing it can do to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to his family in the United States? Please provide a copy of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador on the detention of people deported from the U.S. in CECOT.
Are there any other cases that the Administration is aware of in which an immigrant with protected status was illegally deported without due process? If so, identify those cases and explain what, if anything the government is doing to rectify those errors.
Will the Administration commit to reviewing all of the cases of its deportees to ensure that it has appropriately identified all of the errors?
What actions will the Administration take in the future to ensure that immigrants with protected status are afforded their appropriate due process?
We appreciate your prompt attention to this vital matter and look forward to reviewing your fulsome, timely response.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)
April 08, 2025
Ensuring Congress Safeguards the Integrity of our Aviation System
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Norma Torres introduced the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) Protection Act, critical legislation designed to protect the safety, efficiency, and stability of the United States’ air traffic control system. This bill will ensure that decisions regarding the reduction, replacement, or outsourcing of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staff undergo thorough Congressional oversight and will prevent privatization of the air traffic control system.
“The safety of our nation’s airspace is non-negotiable. Air traffic controllers work tirelessly to ensure the smooth and safe operation of the aviation system, and their expertise is critical to the functioning of our transportation network. We have seen how DOGE is illegally trying to take control of all federal agencies. The safety of Americans shouldn’t be one,” said Congresswoman Torres. “The ATC Protection Act will hold Donald Trump and Elon Musk accountable for any decisions that could jeopardize the safety and stability of our air traffic control system. We cannot allow shortcuts or privatization to undermine the safety of our skies.”
Background: Key Provisions of the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) Protection Act:
Congressional Approval for Workforce Reduction or Outsourcing: The bill requires that if the Secretary of Transportation seeks to reduce, replace, or outsource 1% or more of the FAA’s workforce, the Secretary must first obtain explicit approval from Congress. This safeguard ensures that any changes to FAA staffing are carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not compromise the safety or efficiency of the nation’s aviation system.
Reporting and Accountability: Before seeking Congressional approval, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must submit a detailed report to Congress, outlining the rationale for any proposed workforce reductions or outsourcing. The report must include an analysis of how such decisions will impact the broader aviation and transportation systems, ensuring transparency and accountability in these critical decisions.
Protection Against Privatization and DOGE Control: The bill explicitly prohibits the privatization of the air traffic control system and ensures that the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) cannot take control of the FAA or the air traffic control system. This provision protects the public interest by keeping air traffic control operations under government oversight.
Full bill text
As a senior member of the THUD Appropriations Subcommittee with constitutional authority to oversee the funding and operation of our nation’s aviation system, Congresswoman Torres is committed to ensuring the safety of our airspace.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mehebub Sahana, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Geography, University of Manchester
The proposed dam will span the Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon, the world’s deepest.Biao Liu / shutterstock
China recently approved the construction of the world’s largest hydropower dam, across the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet. When fully up and running, it will be the world’s largest power plant – by some distance.
Yet many are worried the dam will displace local people and cause huge environmental disruption. This is particularly the case in the downstream nations of India and Bangladesh, where that same river is known as the Brahmaputra.
The proposed dam highlights some of the geopolitical issues raised by rivers that cross international borders. Who owns the river itself, and who has the right to use its water? Do countries have obligations not to pollute shared rivers, or to keep their shipping lanes open? And when a drop of rain falls on a mountain, do farmers in a different country thousands of miles downstream have a claim to use it? Ultimately, we still don’t know enough about these questions of river rights and ownership to settle disputes easily.
The Yarlung Tsangpo begins on the Tibetan Plateau, in a region sometimes referred to as the world’s third pole as its glaciers contain the largest stores of ice outside of the Arctic and Antarctica. A series of huge rivers tumble down from the plateau and spread across south and south-east Asia. Well over a billion people depend on them, from Pakistan to Vietnam.
Yet the region is already under immense stress as global warming melts glaciers and changes rainfall patterns. Reduced water flow in the dry season, coupled with sudden releases of water during monsoons, could intensify both water scarcity and flooding, endangering millions in India and Bangladesh.
The construction of large dams in the Himalayas has historically disrupted river flows, displaced people, destroyed fragile ecosystems and increased risks of floods. The Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Dam will likely be no exception.
The dam will sit along the tectonic boundary where the Indian and Eurasian plates converge to form the Himalayas. This makes the region particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, landslides, and sudden floods when natural dams burst.
Downstream, the Brahmaputra is one of south Asia’s mightiest rivers and has been integral to human civilisation for thousands of years. It’s one of the world’s most sediment-rich rivers, which helps form a huge and fertile delta.
Yet a dam of this scale would trap massive amounts of sediment upstream, disrupting its flow downstream. This could make farming less productive, threatening food security in one of the world’s most densely populated regions.
The Sundarbans mangrove forest, a Unesco World Heritage Site that stretches across most of coastal Bangladesh and a portion of India, is particularly vulnerable. Any disruption to the balance of sediment could accelerate coastal erosion and make the already low lying area more vulnerable to sea-level rise.
The Brahmaputra eventually flows into a region of fertile fields and mangrove forests. Sk Hasan Ali / shutterstock
Unfortunately, despite the transboundary nature of the Brahmaputra, there is no comprehensive treaty governing it. This lack of formal agreements complicates efforts to ensure China, India and Bangladesh share the water equitably and work together to prepare for disasters.
These sorts of agreements are perfectly possible: 14 countries plus the European Union are parties to a convention on protecting the Danube, for instance. But the Brahmaputra is not alone. Many transboundary rivers in the global south face similar neglect and inadequate research.
Researching rivers
In our recent study, colleagues and I analysed 4,713 case studies across 286 transboundary river basins. We wanted to assess how much academic research there was on each, what themes it focused on, and how that varied depending on the type of river. We found that, while large rivers in the global north receive considerable academic attention, many equally important rivers in the global south remain overlooked.
What research there is in the global south is predominantly led by institutions from the global north. This dynamic influences research themes and locations, often sidelining the most pressing local issues. We found that research in the global north tends to focus on technical aspects of river management and governance, whereas studies in the global south primarily examine conflicts and resource competition.
In Asia, research is concentrated on large, geopolitically significant basins like the Mekong and Indus. Smaller rivers where water crises are most acute are often neglected. Something similar is happening in Africa, where studies focus on climate change and water-sharing disputes, yet a lack of infrastructure limits broader research efforts.
Small and medium-sized river basins, critical to millions of people in the global south, are among the most neglected in research. This oversight has serious real-world consequences. We still don’t know enough about water scarcity, pollution, and climate change impacts in these regions, which makes it harder to develop effective governance and threatens the livelihoods of everyone who depends on these rivers.
A more inclusive approach to research will ensure the sustainable management of transboundary rivers, safeguarding these vital resources for future generations.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
