NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Africa: SARS records historic R2.3 trillion in gross revenue collection

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    SARS records historic R2.3 trillion in gross revenue collection

    The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has announced preliminary gross revenue collection of some R2.3 trillion as at the end of March, representing a year-on-year growth of 6.9%.

    The record collection was announced by the SARS Commissioner Edward Kieswetter who briefed the media on Tuesday.

    Preliminary net revenue results totalled R1.855 trillion with refunds totalling some R447.7 billion.

    “Net revenue of R1.8551 trillion is a growth of R114 billion higher, a growth of 6.6% against the prior year and exceeds the revised estimate by R8.8 billion. Which is, we believe in the current environment, a very credible outcome delivered by SARS,” he said.

    Kieswetter emphasised that the results are due to the diligent work delivered by the revenue services’ 13 000 workers.
     

    “Without the people, we are nothing. We focussed on creating a more conducive environment for our staff during this period. We introduced the notion of employee engagement with a very deliberate and intentional programme to drive that. When we measured [employee engagement] in 2019/20, it was 61.6% and…has gone up to 71%.

    “These indicators…don’t speak about money but it speaks about building an institution that can give confidence about the sustainability of giving effect to the mandate and the confidence with which we can project the revenue,” he said.

    The Commissioner described the revenue service as a “national treasure” in making sure that South Africa’s democracy is funded. 

    “Whilst we administer laws, our higher purpose is about enabling government to build a capable state that fosters economic growth and social development, serving the wellbeing of all South Africans.

    “Without the important institution of SARS, our democracy would be unfunded. SARS is a national treasure that belongs to all of us and should never be taken for granted,” Kieswetter said. – SAnews.gov.za

    NeoB
    Tue, 04/01/2025 – 15:16

    498 views

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch’s LOCAL Foods Act Reintroduced with Bipartisan Support

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the bipartisan Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local (LOCAL) Foods Act, legislation to update the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906’s (FMIA) ‘Personal-Use Exemption’ to better support small-scale meat producers in rural communities. The LOCAL Foods Act would codify current USDA guidance on Personal-Use and Custom Exemptions, allowing consumers to buy live animals from producers and designate agents to handle the slaughter and processing of their meat.  
    “Small, Vermont-sized farms have produced locally-grown produce and farm-fresh meat for their neighbors and community for years, but regulations designed for large-scale farms have made that increasingly difficult. We need to cut through red tape and help our rural producers compete in the marketplace. This bipartisan bill will help support our local producers and help local customers access fresh, locally-sourced products,” said Sen. Peter Welch. 
    “If you’re purchasing livestock for personal consumption, you shouldn’t have to jump through the same regulatory hoops present in the commercial meat market,” said Senator Lee. “This bipartisan, commonsense legislation gives freedom to farmers and ranchers of every size to feed themselves and their communities without going through unnecessary steps to please the government.” 
    The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires all meat in the United States to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, the small number of USDA-inspected slaughterhouses creates bottlenecks for producers, especially small-scale producers that have to compete for slaughterhouse time with much larger operations. To address this, the LOCAL Foods Act will amend Personal-Use and Custom Exemptions to allow producers to sell a live animal to a consumer. The consumer will then have the freedom to either hire someone or slaughter and process the meat themselves, helping farmers to avoid bottlenecks to continue providing their communities with locally sourced food.  
    In 2013, Vermont adopted an on-farm slaughter law similar to the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s guidelines to allow owners to slaughter their livestock on the farm where it was raised while upholding food safety standards. This law helps reduce costs and emissions from animal transport, alleviate pressure on backlogged slaughterhouses, increase farm viability, and improve animal welfare and food security. However, USDA retains the authority to eliminate Vermont’s on-farm slaughter inspection program if the state fails to meet federal standards.  
    In 2018, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service issued updated guidelines to create an avenue for producers to sell their produce locally and without an inspection. This guidance gives livestock owners the option to slaughter livestock themselves, or have an agent slaughter their livestock on the farm where it was raised. This change also allows producers to sell a live animal to a consumer, have it slaughtered on the farm, and then processed at a custom processing facility. Custom processing facilities are inspected periodically, in contrast to round-the-clock inspectors that are present at USDA-certified facilities.  
    The LOCAL Foods Act is endorsed by the Farm Action Fund, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, HOPE for Small Farm Sustainability, Kentucky Black Farmers Association, National Family Farm Coalition, and Rural Vermont.
    “This legislation will reduce financial and regulatory burdens on small farmers, thereby improving consumers’ access to local foods,” commented Judith McGeary, regenerative farmer, lawyer, and Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. “Many consumers want to buy from local farmers instead of massive corporations, but farmers are blocked by burdensome regulations written by and for agribusiness.”  
    “The LOCAL Foods Act protects the rights of farmers to sell directly from their farm and the rights of consumers to access the foods of their choice from the source of their choice, achieving the kind of food freedom so many desire for themselves, their families, and their communities,” said Christine Dzujna, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund’s Policy Manager. 
    “On-farm slaughter aligns with the growing demand for locally-sourced food that respects community traditions,” said Diana Padilla, owner operator of Yahweh’s All Natural Farm and Garden and Executive Director of HOPE for Small Farm Sustainability, “Through my work with farmers in my community, and as a beef farmer myself, I’m seeing increased demand from people who want to buy their meat directly from a farmer they personally know. The LOCAL Foods Act is a straightforward solution that will put more money in farmers’ pockets while fostering meaningful connections between producers and their customers.”   
    “Modernizing the personal-use exception reflects the realities of diverse communities demanding access to local food that honor their traditions,” said Kenya Abraham, member of the Kentucky Black Farmers Association. “We are observing a growing demand to access local producers like me, but we need legislation that gives us an incentive to continue our operations.”  
    “Securing the independence of farmers and consumers is key to building a healthy food system,” commented Antonio Tovar, Senior Policy Associate at the National Family Farm Coalition. “When consumers are effectively forced to access their food from corporations, it makes us vulnerable to a weak and unreliable market. The LOCAL Foods Act offers a real opportunity to start building a food system allowing freedom of choice.” 
    “Updating the personal-use exemption to be based on ownership aligns with current USDA standards and is needed to protect the rights of livestock owners, producers, and itinerant slaughterers to practice on-farm slaughter in compliance with their state regulations,” said Caroline Sherman-Gordon, a small farmer and Rural Vermont’s Legislative Director. “The LOCAL Foods Act protects farmers from arbitrary change to regulations, offering them the stability they need to plan and grow their businesses.” 
    Learn more about the LOCAL Foods Act.  
    Read and download the full text of the bill.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Former mayor of Les Irois, Haiti convicted of visa fraud

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    BOSTON – The former mayor of Les Irois, Haiti was convicted March 28 by a federal jury in Boston of illegally obtaining a permanent resident card, commonly referred to as a green card, by means of a false statement. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation found he concealed the fact that he ordered and carried out or materially assisted in extrajudicial and political killings and other acts of violence against the Haitian people.

    Jean Morose Viliena, 52, was convicted of three counts of visa fraud. Sentencing is scheduled for June 20, 2025. Viliena was indicted by a federal grand jury in March 2023.

    “Viliena knowingly lied to conceal his violent past, deceiving immigration authorities to come to the United States. The brave witnesses who came forward to testify in this case relayed their experiences of extreme violence and oppression committed by Viliena and his associates. Thanks to their testimony, his fraud has been uncovered, and he will now face consequences for his violence and deception,” said ICE Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge New England Michael J. Krol.

    “The political corruption and violence that the people of Haiti endured at the direction of Jean Morose Viliena, is appalling,” said United States Attorney Leah B. Foley. “The United States is not where you come to hide from your crimes. Today’s conviction is proof that running away from your crimes and lying to federal officials will catch up to you. I applaud the courage of the witnesses who spoke up about the abuse they suffered as a result of Viliena.”

    “Today a jury found that Jean Morose Viliena lied his way into gaining entrance into the United States after committing unspeakable acts of violence in Haiti,” said Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Matthew R. Galeotti. “The Justice Department will not stand for human rights violators illegally entering and roaming the streets of our communities. Thank you to the brave victims and witnesses who helped our law enforcement partners and prosecutors begin to hold Viliena accountable for his crimes.”

    “The men and women of CBP work diligently alongside our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to ensure the safety of the people in our communities. Emigrating to the United States is a privilege and if you conceal your criminal conduct to deceive your way into this country, you will ultimately be detected, held accountable and brought to justice,” said Jennifer De La O, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boston Field Office.

    According to court documents, Viliena was the mayor of Les Irois, Haiti from December 2006 until at least February 2010. As a candidate and as mayor, Viliena was backed by a political machine called Korega, which exerts power throughout the southwestern region of Haiti through armed violence. Viliena personally supervised his mayoral staff and security detail and led an armed group in Les Irois aligned with Korega. Under Viliena’s direct supervision, the Korega militia enforced Viliena’s policies by various means, including by targeting political opponents in Les Irois through armed violence.

    According to the indictment, as mayor, Viliena was involved in several instances of violence. The first occurred July 27, 2007 when a witness spoke at a judicial proceeding in Les Irois on behalf of a neighbor who had been assaulted by Viliena. In reprisal for that testimony, that evening, Viliena led an armed group to that witness’ home, where Viliena and his associates shot and killed the witness’ younger brother, and then smashed his skull with a large rock before a crowd of bystanders.

    The second incident occurred in or around April 2008, when a group of local journalists and activists founded a community radio station. According to court documents, Viliena opposed establishment of the radio station and, on April 8, 2008, mobilized members of his staff and the Korega militia to forcibly shut down the radio station and seize its broadcasting equipment. At that time, Viliena distributed firearms to the Korega militia members, some of whom also carried machetes and picks.

    On the day of the attack on the radio station, Viliena pistol-whipped an individual with his gun and struck him with his fists. When the individual tried to flee, Viliena ordered one of his associates to shoot and kill him. Shots were fired which hit the individual in the leg. The individual spent several months in various hospitals and his leg was later amputated above his knee. Another individual, also a citizen of Haiti, became a target of Viliena because of his association with the radio station. On the day of the attack of the radio station, that individual was present and when he tried to flee, he was hit by a bullet in the face. He required months of intensive medical treatment, including two surgeries to extract shotgun pellets from his face, which left him permanently blind in one eye. According to court documents, pieces of shotgun pellets remain in the individual’s scalp and arms.

    On June 3, 2008, Viliena presented himself at the U.S. Embassy Consular Office in Port au Prince, Haiti where he applied for a visa to enter the United States. The form specifically requires that each applicant state whether they have “ordered, carried out or materially assisted in extrajudicial and political killings and other acts of violence against the Haitian people.” Viliena falsely responded that he had not. Viliena thereafter swore before a U.S. Consular Officer that the contents of the application were true and signed the application. According to court documents, the U.S. Department of State approved Viliena’s visa application.

    On July 14, 2008, Viliena entered the United States and was later granted lawful permanent residence status and received a permanent resident card. Viliena used his permanent resident card on numerous occasions to enter the United States.

    The charge of visa fraud provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.

    The investigation was led by ICE HSI New England and CBP New England with the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service Boston Field Office and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Fraud Detection and National Security Division. This matter was investigated with the assistance of the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center. Valuable assistance was provided by the Malden Police Department.

    The Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center is led by ICE and leverages the expertise of criminal investigators, attorneys, historians, intelligence analysts and federal partners to provide a whole of government approach to prevent the U.S. from becoming a safe haven for individuals who commit war crimes, genocide, torture and other human rights abuses around the globe. Currently, ICE has more than 180 active investigations into suspected human rights violators and is pursuing more than 1,945 leads and removals cases involving suspected human rights violators from 95 different countries. The center has issued more than 79,000 lookouts since 2003, for potential perpetrators of human rights abuses and stopped over 390 human rights violators and war crimes suspects from entering the U.S.

    Individuals can report suspicious criminal activity to the ICE Tip Line 24 hours a day, seven days a week by dialing 866-DHS-2-ICE or (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form. Highly trained specialists take reports from both the public and law enforcement agencies on more than 400 laws enforced by ICE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: 2024 ACT Women’s Awards almost here

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    Finalist Mijica Lus is the Founder of the Aurosokwo Project.

    The 2024 ACT Women’s Awards will be announced on Thursday 7 March.

    The awards recognise those who have demonstrated an outstanding contribution to improving the status and lives of girls and women in the ACT.

    They celebrate the achievements of women who are excelling in their field and making a significant impact in helping girls and women achieve their full potential.

    The award categories are:

    • ACT Woman of the Year
    • Senior Woman of the Year (aged over 60 years)
    • ACT Young Woman of the Year (aged between 16 and 24 years).

    Congratulations to the 2024 ACT Women’s Awards’ finalists:

    • Dr Lubna Alam – Co-founder, ALO Enlightened Women
    • Joanne Farrell – Founder and Managing Director, Build Like a Girl
    • Mijica Lus – Founder, Aurosokwo Project
    • Philippa Moss – CEO, Meridian ACT
    • Delfina Shakespear – Football Match Official
    • Glenda Stevens – Founder, Fearless Women
    • Prof Dipti Talaulikar – Founder, Sakhi
    • Selina Walker – Ngunnawal Leader.

    Finalist Delfina Shakespear, an elite match official with Capital Football and Football Australia, thinks the annual awards are important.

    “It enables women to have a platform to talk about what they do, because as women sometimes we go about our business and don’t really talk about it more broadly,” she said.

    Fellow nominee Professor Dipti Talaulikar, a clinical haematologist and professor at the ANU, as well as being the Founder of Sakhi said: “I was very touched with the nomination when I first heard about it. But the journey, the support that the government and the ACT’s Women Office provides is just amazing. The things you get to learn, the other women you get to meet, to hear their stories is just absolutely amazing. So, if you know anyone who is doing good work in the community, please nominate them.”

    For more information on the ACT Women’s Awards and Honour Roll, visit ACT Woman of the Year and Honour Roll – ACT Government

    Dr Lubna Alam – Co-founder, ALO Enlightened Women

    Joanne Farrell – Founder and Managing Director, Build Like a Girl

    Philippa Moss – CEO, Meridian ACT

    Delfina Shakespear – Football Match Official

    Glenda Stevens – Founder, Fearless Women

    Prof Dipti Talaulikar – Founder, Sakhi

    Selina Walker – Ngunnawal Leader

    Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:


    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Isabel Doverty appointed as the interim Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    News story

    Isabel Doverty appointed as the interim Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

    Isabel Doverty has been appointed as the interim Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA).

    Isabel Doverty has been appointed as the interim Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA). Isabel will take up the role on 1 April 2025 and will serve as interim Chair until 31 December 2025.

    Isabel was appointed as  an independent member of  the Committee in January 2021 after an open competition. She was formerly Global Head of Human Resources, Wholesale Banking, at Standard Chartered Bank. She is also an independent member of the State Honours Committee. Throughout her private sector career she has held senior HR roles in the energy and financial services sectors, specialising in employee relations, organisational change, and executive level recruitment. Isabel also served as an independent Civil Service Commissioner from 2015 – 2020. 

    The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is an independent advisory Non Departmental Public Body sponsored and funded by the Cabinet Office. It is responsible for providing independent advice on applications submitted under the government’s Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, the most senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left public office.

    Updates to this page

    Published 1 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Innovation key to water-secure future

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    Chief Executive John Lee

    I am pleased to join you today for the opening of the International Water Pioneers Summit. Gathered here are nearly 400 high-profile professionals and senior government officials from Hong Kong, Mainland China, Asia and around the world. Present here to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Dongjiang’s water supply to Hong Kong and to work together to ensure a sustainable water supply for us all.

    Hong Kong’s water story is one of transformation, illustrating how a city with a limited water resource, can turn geographic and resource limitations into engineering triumphs.

    Hong Kong’s water story is also one of deep and abiding ties. Because without the strong bonds and blood relations between Hong Kong and the Mainland, the engineering, and the water it made possible, would not have taken place. Certainly not in the 1960s.

    As for the engineering, the main challenge was geography. Dongjiang is more than 50km away from Hong Kong. That meant building an 83km water channel, crossing half a dozen mountains. The water had to be lifted, via multi-stage pumping stations, from 2m above sea level to 46m at the highest point.

    And the project was completed in less than one year. At 4pm on March 1, 60 years ago, the supply of Dongjiang water to Hong Kong began.

    For the past six decades, Dongjiang has provided 70% to 80% of the water needed by Hong Kong.

    And the engineering feats continued. Because of our increasing demand for water, the Dongjiang-Shenzhen Water Supply Scheme, as it is presently known, was expanded three times from the 1970s to the 1990s. It was improved again in the early 2000s. These raised Hong Kong’s annual water supply ceiling from the original 68.2 million cu m, to today’s 820 million cu m, a rise of 12 times.

    We are eternally grateful for the enormous commitment and technical ingenuity, by the country and all our compatriots involved.

    We like Dongjiang water. For good reason. It meets the highest national standard for surface water used for human consumption. No less essential, it continues to flow, fuelling Hong Kong’s economic miracle, supporting our economy and community, while helping to ensure our city’s sustainable development and long-term prosperity.

    The theme of this summit is “Smart Water, High-Quality Development”. That tells me that if we want to ensure a sustainable water supply, we need to invest in its future, and do it innovatively.

    Hong Kong has long been recognised for its infrastructure prowess. Indeed, Hong Kong’s infrastructure was ranked among the top 10, globally, in the World Competitiveness Yearbook last year.

    Our major water supply projects include High Island Reservoir, Hong Kong’s largest reservoir, and the Tseung Kwan O Desalination Plant, the first waterworks in Hong Kong to adopt advanced reverse osmosis desalination technology.

    As an international centre of innovation and technology (I&T), we are keen on applying I&T to water management. Last year, we set up a Digital Water Office to drive the digitalisation of our water supply services.

    The office promotes the use of smart devices, digital twin technology and artificial intelligence, to gradually gain full automation of operations in our waterworks installations.

    Innovation in infrastructure development will power our water-secure future. Our goal is to establish Hong Kong as an international infrastructure centre, that serves our city and China, our country.

    Speaking of our country, let me add that it has built numerous water conservancy projects. And I am sure you will hear more about them in today’s summit.

    I am grateful to the organisers of today’s International Water Pioneers Summit. Grateful too, to our distinguished speakers and moderators, here in Hong Kong from all over the world.

    While you are here, I invite you to take full advantage of all that Hong Kong has to offer, in arts and culture. You can start right here, in West Kowloon Cultural District, Hong Kong’s largest arts development.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I wish you all a rewarding summit and an enjoyable and memorable stay in Hong Kong.

    Chief Executive John Lee gave these remarks at the International Water Pioneers Summit on April 1.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Provincial funding boosts support for deafblind people

    Deafblind people in B.C. will continue to receive vital intervener services thanks to more than $654,000 in additional funding to support the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) Deafblind Community Services and the Wavefront Centre for Communication Accessibility.

    Deafblind people require support to mitigate communication barriers resulting from dual loss of sight and hearing. Interveners provide specialized communication supports to people who are deafblind, making it easier for them to navigate day-to-day activities, such as grocery shopping, banking and attending appointments. Interveners support individuals who are deafblind using a variety of communication methods, including American Sign Language (both visual and tactile), two-hand manual, voiceover, print-on-palm and large-print notes.  

    This funding builds on more than $1.1 million provided to CNIB since 2022 to support a pilot initiative for intervener services. The new investment will extend intervener services for another year and will support more deafblind adults by funding the Wavefront Centre in addition to CNIB Deafblind Community Services.

    Learn More:

    For information about the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in B.C., visit: https://www.cnib.ca/en?region=bc

    For information about the WaveFront Centre for Communication Accessibility, visit: https://www.wavefrontcentre.ca/

    For information about the Accessible British Columbia Act and its implementation, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/about-the-bc-government/accessibility/legislation

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Funding Available for First Nations And Métis Community Partnership Projects

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on April 1, 2025

    Eligible Organizations and Groups can Apply for Funding up to $45,000 from the First Nations and Métis Community Partnership Projects Fund

    Today, the Government of Saskatchewan is announcing that grant applications are open for the First Nations and Métis Community Partnership Projects fund. Grants up to $45,000 are available for innovative, community based First Nations and Métis projects that promote safe communities, strong families, student achievement or economic growth.

    “Our government is proud to deliver support to First Nations and Métis communities and organizations for projects that directly benefit Indigenous people throughout the province,” Minister Responsible for First Nations, Métis and Northern Affairs Eric Schmalz said. “These projects, led by Indigenous communities and organizations, help build safe communities, support strong families, improve student achievement and drive economic growth, supporting a stronger Saskatchewan.”

    The spring deadline to submit project applications under the First Nations and Métis Community Partnership Projects fund is May 31.

    This grant program is open to:

    • First Nation Band Councils and Tribal Councils;
    • Métis Nation–Saskatchewan locals and regions;
    • Indigenous representative organizations and Indigenous non-profit organizations;
    • Municipalities; and
    • Non-Indigenous non-profit organizations seeking authentic partnerships with Indigenous communities or whose primary programs/services benefit First Nations or Métis clientele.

    In 2024-25, nine community partnership projects received a combined total of more than $200,000 in funding.

    For full eligibility requirements, to submit an application, or view a list of previously funded projects, visit: saskatchewan.ca. 

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Responsibility for all fire functions moves to MHCLG

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    News story

    Responsibility for all fire functions moves to MHCLG

    Greater clarity and accountability will be brought to fire and building safety from the transfer of Ministerial responsibility from the Home Office to MHCLG

    Greater clarity and accountability will be brought to fire and building safety from today (1 April) thanks to the transfer of Ministerial responsibility for all fire functions from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

    Bringing these responsibilities together will strengthen coordination, improve policy implementation, and reinforce the government’s commitment to making homes, buildings and communities safer.  

    The change delivers on a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report, which advised that fire and building safety should be overseen by a single department.  

    The Minister for Building Safety and Local Growth who will be taking on responsibility for fire functions Alex Norris said:  

    “Ensuring the safety of people in their homes and communities is a top priority for this government. By bringing all fire and building safety responsibilities under one department, we are reinforcing accountability, improving coordination, and taking decisive action to protect lives.  

    “I would like to thank Dame Diana Johnson for her work in this important area. I look forward to working with fire and rescue services and key stakeholders to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendations and drive forward the reforms needed to keep people safe. 

    “This is a significant step in delivering meaningful change, making our buildings safer, and strengthening our country’s resilience for the future.” 

    Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson said:

    “It has been an honour and privilege to serve as Minister for Fire.

    “I would like to express my utmost gratitude to the brave firefighters in our fire and rescue services, who selflessly dedicate themselves to protecting the public from fire every day.

    “I would also like to thank the government officials and stakeholders from across the sector I have worked with over the past nine months. Their drive to make the sector stronger has been invaluable and I am certain my good friend Alex Norris will also benefit from their advice.”

    Following the publication of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report on 4 September 2024, the Prime Minister acknowledged the failings that led to the tragedy and reaffirmed the government’s commitment to implementing the necessary reforms. This transfer of Ministerial responsibility for all fire functions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government represents an important part of this work, and the government will continue to drive forward the necessary reforms to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell can never happen again. 

    Notes to editors: 

    • The Home Office will retain management of the Airwave Service Contract on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and will continue to oversee the Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

    Updates to this page

    Published 1 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: South and Central Asia Subcommittee Chairman Huizenga Delivers Opening Statement at Hearing on Censorship

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-321-9747

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga delivered opening remarks at a subcommittee hearing titled, “How the Global Engagement Center Censored Americans.”

    Watch Here

    -Remarks- 

    This subcommittee is tasked with examining the public diplomacy functions of the State Department, commonly referred to as the R family of bureaus and offices. In December of 2024, Congress terminated an office within that family—the Global Engagement Center, also known as GEC—after its exposure coming out of an investigation that was done by this committee. The GEC was initially authorized for the statutory purpose of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts.

    Despite that mandate, for years the GEC instead deployed its shadowy network of grantees and sub-grantees to facilitate the censorship of American voices—especially if those voices were conservative and refused to align with the left-leaning establishment politics. Worst of all, this was being done using U.S. taxpayer dollars—your dollars.

    In the same month the GEC was terminated, the Biden State Department restructured the office into a “counter-foreign information manipulation and interference hub,” also known as R-FIMI. The question we will be exploring today is whether this restructuring is actually in name only. Put simply: whether you call it GEC or R-FIMI, the State Department should never—and if I can help it, will never again—be in the business of silencing American voices.

    Freedom of speech is a God-given right enshrined in the First Amendment of our nation’s Constitution. It is a right that President Trump and his administration are committed to zealously protecting. On his first day in office, President Trump signed the Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship executive order. This executive order makes clear that no federal government employees or taxpayer dollars may be used to engage in or facilitate the unconstitutional censorship of American citizens.

    As the chairman of the subcommittee, I plan to introduce legislation that will codify that executive order. I’m hopeful that my colleagues will join me in enshrining these vital First Amendment protections into law.

    I want to thank the panel for being here today. Ms. Jankowitz, thank you for your time. You publicly supported and even spearheaded censorship efforts under the previous administration—out of what some called the “Ministry of Truth.” Some had labeled you the Disinformation Czar—or I guess technically, Czarina. It is crucial that the American public receive answers and accountability for the actions taken by their own government to silence their voices.

    Mr. Taibbi and Mr. Weingarten, your valiant reporting helped unearth the GEC’s role in the censorship of Americans. Mr. Taibbi, your groundbreaking work on the Twitter Files pulled back the curtain on how the federal bureaucracy colluded with—and in some cases pressured—social media companies to target American citizens engaged in protected political speech. Mr. Weingarten, your impactful work has unearthed how the GEC and its implementing partners deployed blacklists to obliterate conservative news publications—publications that the Biden administration disagreed with.

    We, as Americans and as policymakers, must never allow these dark days of mass censorship to happen again. That is my goal.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: H.R. 747, Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act of 2025

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    H.R. 747 would amend the Fentanyl Sanctions Act to designate certain foreign entities and government officials as foreign opioid traffickers if they are found to be involved in the opioid industry in the People’s Republic of China and they fail to take steps to prevent opioid trafficking. Entities and officials so designated would be subject to sanctions.

    In addition, the bill would require the Administration to report annually to the Congress on its work to prevent foreign opioid trafficking, including its investigations of certain entities in China; that requirement would end after 2029. H.R. 747 also would require regular reporting by the Administration on its use of authorities provided in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to address the conditions that led to the declaration of national emergencies in the United States related to drug trafficking.

    Under current law, the Administration can impose sanctions on Chinese entities and officials for involvement in opioid trafficking. If the enactment of H.R. 747 leads the Administration to broaden those sanctions, more people would be denied visas by the Department of State, resulting in an insignificant decrease in revenues from fees. Although most visa fees are retained by the Department of State and spent, some collections are deposited into the Treasury as revenues. Denying foreign nationals entry into the United States also would reduce direct spending on federal benefits (emergency Medicaid or federal subsidies for health insurance, for example) for which those people might otherwise be eligible.

    The bill would block transactions involving certain assets either in the United States or under the control of people or entities in the United States. Under the bill, any person or entity violating those prohibitions would be subject to civil or criminal monetary penalties. Such penalties are recorded as revenues, and a portion can be spent without further appropriation.

    On the basis of data about similar sanctions, CBO estimates any additional sanctions imposed under the bill would affect a small number of people. Thus, enacting H.R. 747 would have insignificant effects on revenues and direct spending, and would, on net, reduce deficits by insignificant amounts over the 2025-2035 period.

    Using information about the cost of reports similar to those required by the bill, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 747 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2025-2030 period. Such related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

    H.R. 747 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by expanding the scope of authority for the Administration to regulate transactions between entities in the United States and foreign entities and officials of foreign governments who would be subject to sanctions under the bill. That expansion would result in additional burdens on individuals and entities, such as banks, in the United States that are required to monitor and report on foreign transactions and to block access to certain assets owned by sanctioned entities. It also would prohibit transactions between entities in the United States and sanctioned parties that otherwise would be permitted under current law.

    The cost of the mandate would be any income or profit lost as a result of the bill’s enactment. CBO expects that because a small number of people or entities would be affected, the loss of income from any incremental increase in restrictions imposed by the bill would be small as well. CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($206 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).

    H.R. 747 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.

    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Emma Uebelhor (for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by Christina Hawley Anthony, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Secretary of State letter to the First Minister of Wales

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Correspondence

    Secretary of State letter to the First Minister of Wales

    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, has written to the First Minister of Wales regarding welfare reform and its impact in Wales.

    Documents

    Secretary of State letter to the First Minister of Wales

    HTML

    Secretary of State letter to the First Minister of Wales

    ODT, 101 KB

    This file is in an OpenDocument format

    Details

    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, has written to the First Minister of Wales regarding welfare reform and its impact in Wales.

    Updates to this page

    Published 1 April 2025

    Sign up for emails or print this page

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Nominations Open for The Lieutenant Governor’s Post-Secondary Teaching Award

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on April 1, 2025

    The Government of Saskatchewan is now accepting nominations for the Lieutenant Governor’s Post-Secondary Teaching Award. This provincial award recognizes post-secondary educators who excel in teaching and are dedicated to providing high-quality education.

    “I am pleased and honoured to support this prestigious awards program,” Lieutenant Governor Bernadette McIntyre said. “I encourage nominations of our province’s outstanding post-secondary educators in appreciation of their significant contributions to their students and their profession.”

    Nominations are open between April 1 and June 30, 2025. Nominations are peer-to-peer and are endorsed by the President, Vice-President, Provost or Designate of publicly funded post-secondary institutions in Saskatchewan. Nominees must be actively teaching and demonstrate commitment to enhancing student engagement and learning, have a strategic and intentional approach to teaching practices and continually strive for teaching improvement.

    “The Government of Saskatchewan is proud to recognize the dedication and leadership of our post-secondary educators,” Advanced Education Minister Ken Cheveldayoff said. “This award is our way of thanking the exceptional educators who enrich our post-secondary sector and play a key role in shaping the future leaders of our province.”

    Recipients of this award are recognized under four categories:

    • Distinguished Teaching Award
    • Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Teaching Award
    • Indigenous Teaching Excellence Award
    • Innovative Teaching Award

    Award recipients will be announced in the fall of 2025. For more information about the award, eligibility and nomination process, visit: www.saskatchewan.ca/government/heritage-honours-and-awards/lieutenant-governors-post-secondary-teaching-award. 

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: WA co-leads multistate suit against HHS, Sec. Kennedy to overturn cuts to public health grants

    Source: Washington State News

    OLYMPIA — Attorney General Nick Brown today joined a coalition of 24 states in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for abruptly and illegally terminating $11 billion in critical public health grants to the states.

    The grant terminations, which came with no warning or legally valid explanation, have quickly caused chaos for state health agencies that rely on these critical funds for a wide range of urgent public health needs such as infectious disease management, fortifying emergency preparedness, providing mental health and substance abuse services, and modernizing public health infrastructure.

    “We can’t make America healthy by spreading preventable diseases,” Brown said. “Aside from the illegality of these actions, the administration is also choosing to neglect the biggest public health challenges, including substance abuse and mental health crises, facing our communities.”

    Washington stands to lose more than $159 million from these cancellations by HHS. If the funding is not restored, important state public health programs and initiatives will have to be dissolved or disbanded. Washington’s Department of Health has already had to cancel its Care-A-Van mobile health clinics that provide health care, including vaccinations and health education, to historically underserved communities. The program prioritizes rural areas, BIPOC communities, immigrants and refugees, unhoused populations, children and schools, and other vulnerable populations.

    These federal awards terminations also threaten Washington’s Health Care Authority’s network of regional Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organizations, which provide behavioral health services to low-income non-Medicaid individuals with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders, populations disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The HHS cuts threaten the urgent public health needs of states around the country at a time when emerging disease threats—such as measles and bird flu—are on the rise, Brown warned.

    Congress authorized and appropriated new and increased funding for these grants in COVID-19-related legislation to support critical public health needs. Many of these grants are from specific programs created by Congress, such as block grants to states for mental health and substance abuse and addiction services. Yet, with no legal authority or explanation, Secretary Kennedy’s HHS agencies on March 24 arbitrarily terminated these grants “for cause” effective immediately, claiming that the pandemic is over and the grants are no longer necessary.

    In their lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, the coalition of states assert that the mass terminations violate federal law because the end of the pandemic is not a “for cause” basis for ending the grants, especially since none of the appropriated funds are tied to the end of the pandemic. HHS’ position, up until a few days ago, was that the end of the pandemic did not affect the availability of these grant funds. HHS has not pointed to any failure on the part of the states in complying with their agreements with HHS that would warrant the federal government’s unlawful terminations.

    With this lawsuit, the coalition is seeking a temporary restraining order to invalidate HHS’s and Secretary Kennedy’s mass grant terminations in the suing states, arguing that the actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The states are also asking the court to prevent HHS from maintaining or reinstating the terminations and any agency actions implementing them.

    Attorneys General Brown, Phil Weiser of Colorado, Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, Rob Bonta of California, and Keith Ellison of Minnesota are co-leading the litigation. They are joined by the Attorneys General of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

    The lawsuit can be found here.

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Serial Robber Pleads Guilty to Multiple Armed Robberies

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

                WASHINGTON – David Crocker, 25, of Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to multiple armed robberies and firearms charges stemming from a series of robberies near Anacostia Park in 2023, announced U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., Chief Jessica M. E. Taylor, of the United States Park Police, and Chief Pamela Smith, of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

                Crocker pleaded guilty yesterday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to two counts of armed robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Crocker also pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a silver and black pistol on November 10, 2023. Sentencing is scheduled for June 4, 2025, before the Honorable Andrea Hertzfeld. As part of his sentence, Crocker will be required to register as a gun offender.

                According to the government’s evidence, the defendant robbed two individuals at gunpoint on December 18, 2023, in the vicinity of Anacostia Park. In the first offense, the defendant robbed an individual at gunpoint in the 2200 block of Fairlawn Avenue, SE.  Crocker brandished a black and silver pistol and took the victim’s phone, keys, and wallet before demanding the PINs to the victim’s Cash App account and credit cards.

                Later the same day, the defendant robbed a different individual on the Anacostia Railroad Bridge.  Crocker brandished the same silver and black pistol and took the victim’s bicycle, cell phone, keys, and wallet.  The defendant again demanded the PINs to the victim’s Cash App account and credit cards. United States Park Police officers stopped and arrested Crocker moments later. They recovered the proceeds of the robbery and the silver and black pistol from the defendant.

                This case was investigated by the United States Park Police and the Metropolitan Police Department. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kraig Ahalt for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is the risk of brain injury from contact sports being overstated by the media?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian Yates, Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, University of Bath

    PeopleImages/Shutterstock

    More and more people are worried about the long-term effects of contact sports on the brain. In football (soccer), studies have found that repeatedly heading the ball can lead to memory problems and an increased risk of serious brain diseases. This has led to rules limiting heading the ball in youth leagues and calls to protect professional players in similar ways.

    In American football, research shows a high number of former players have a brain condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). This has prompted the National Football League (NFL) to change some rules and introduce better safety equipment.

    Rugby, a sport known for its hard collisions, is also becoming more aware of head injuries. As a result, new rules require players to rest after a concussion – and there are stricter rules about preventing head contact during games.

    Some older players are taking legal action because of the brain injuries they suffered. Lawyers are representing over 500 former players from both rugby union and rugby league, claiming that repetitive head impacts during their careers caused long-lasting brain damage.

    The lawyers argue that the sports’ governing bodies failed to protect these former players from the effects of blows to the head.

    A recent BBC article said that “almost two-thirds of the claimants in a concussion lawsuit against rugby league authorities” had symptoms of CTE. Two-thirds is a lot, but is it really that surprising?

    It’s important to remember that the players in this lawsuit are a self-selecting sample. These people have been chosen for inclusion in the class action lawsuit precisely because they have evidence of brain damage. We should expect a high prevalence of conditions like CTE in this sample. So we must be careful not to infer something about all rugby players that is not supported by the data.

    However, perhaps the BBC article is not so troubling, since the condition for selection – that the players were part of the lawsuit – is clearly stated. More problematic are articles in which the conditions for the selection of the studied sample are not so clearly laid out.

    Another BBC article, published in 2023, summarised the results of studies investigating the prevalence of CTE in the brains of deceased rugby players. It reported that “68% of the brains had traces of the brain condition CTE”. This might suggest to readers that CTE is very common among all rugby players.

    In American football, the problem appears to be even more prevalent. In 2017, the BBC ran an article with the headline: Brain disease affects 99% of NFL players in study. The piece led with the sentence: “A study of American football players’ brains has found that 99% of professional NFL athletes tested had a disease associated with head injuries.”

    This sounds extremely alarming and might lead readers to surmise that nearly all professional NFL players will develop CTE. The study also surveyed the brains of college and high-school students, concluding: “Of the 202 total players, 87% were found to have traces of CTE,” giving the impression that most American football players at all levels might expect to develop CTE.

    Selection bias

    CTE research is difficult because the disease can only be diagnosed by examining samples of a patient’s brain tissue after their death. Consequently, for the NFL study, researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine, who conducted the research, drew their sample from the VA Boston Healthcare System’s “brain bank”.

    The bank, established to better understand the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma, holds hundreds of donated brains potentially damaged through sporting or military activities.

    And herein lies the problem. Many of the brains held in the bank were donated by families who suspected that their loved ones had CTE. The study hugely overrepresented players who were likely to have CTE in comparison to the general American football-playing population.

    To their credit, the scientists who conducted this research were at pains to point out their sample was not representative and should not be used to draw population-level conclusions.

    In particular, the conclusion that many sports fans reading the headlines will have come to – that a huge proportion of American football players will suffer from CTE – is not supported by the study. Somehow, that message got lost between the research article and the media’s reporting of it.

    The eye-catching statistics about the prevalence of CTE in rugby players, derived from a study at the University of Glasgow, are the result of a similar misrepresentation of the underlying research. In this case, the brains that were analysed came from three brain banks (from Scotland, the US and Australia).

    All of these repositories take donations of brains from people who were more likely to have suffered from neurological conditions, and so are unlikely to be representative of the underlying population of ruby players.

    The weight of evidence linking repetitive blows to the head to brain harm (particularly to CTE) is growing stronger. Studies comparing footballers to the general population show the increase in neurological conditions among football players is probably not a statistical fluke.

    However, if we seek to truly understand the risks of undertaking these contact sports, loved by billions, then we need to look beyond the startling headlines. Selection bias, caused by a disparity in the reasons why brains are donated for study, means it’s not enough just to sample from the brains we have available in order to establish an estimate of the prevalence of such diseases.

    Instead, we need to understand who is missing from the studied population, and use that information to infer how a potentially biased sample might cause the statistics we read in the headlines to be unrepresentative.

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

    – ref. Is the risk of brain injury from contact sports being overstated by the media? – https://theconversation.com/is-the-risk-of-brain-injury-from-contact-sports-being-overstated-by-the-media-253378

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Activists living in exile could strengthen Canada’s democracy — if given the right support

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Philip Leech-Ngo, Visiting Professor, Ethics and International Development, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    Mounting threats to Canadian sovereignty, particularly — but not exclusively — from United States President Donald Trump, have sparked renewed calls for national resilience.

    Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico and inflammatory rhetoric have fuelled a wave of patriotism and nationalism.

    However, true independence goes beyond economic concerns. It’s about cultivating, committing to and preserving democratic values, including the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and ways of governance that ensure every person is valued, represented and belongs.

    Historically, Canada has provided refuge to those who have risked everything to oppose authoritarian regimes, including activists living in exile.

    Activists-in-exile are individuals who have been forced to flee their countries due to their work defending human rights, advocating for democratic governance, rooting out corruption, peacebuilding, demanding environmental protection and practising independent journalism, among other endeavours.

    These individuals bring with them not only their personal stories and attitudes of resilience, but also their expertise in governance, human rights and social justice. As Canada faces growing challenges and uncertainty, they represent a tremendous potential asset to help Canada defend democracy and promote sustainable peace and development.

    A vital force for democracy

    Despite their displacement, activists-in-exile continue to play a crucial role in global democratic movements. Unlike traditional diaspora groups focused on cultural preservation, activists-in-exile engage in direct political advocacy and often work to expose foreign interference, counter disinformation and support democratic movements from afar.

    Our initiative, Voices in Exile, researches activists-in-exile and amplifies their contributions and advocates for policies that recognize their particular roles in defending democracy and social justice. Their efforts combat corruption, foster peace and protect human rights and well-being.

    An introduction to the Voices in Exile project.

    These individuals have championed women’s rights, campaigned against genocide and fought for free expression and accountable governance. Many continue their advocacy in exile, shaping public discourse and influencing policies both in Canada and abroad.

    By welcoming these activists, Canada could strengthen its own institutions — domestically and abroad — and make them more resistant to the forces that undermine democracy, justice and freedom worldwide. Their work is critical in resisting authoritarianism and countering both digital and physical foreign interference.

    Overlooking activists-in-exile

    Despite their potential, activists-in-exile are often overlooked or met with skepticism in Canada.

    Some Canadian politicians, like federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, have framed their views of patriotism as a matter of national security and economic self-sufficiency, warning against foreign influences. Poilievre recently said immigrants should “leave the war behind” when coming to Canada, implying their past struggles should be forgotten upon arrival.

    This is certainly easier said than done, especially in an age where technology can keep people instantly connected across borders. It’s unrealistic and unfair to expect newcomers simply to forget who supported them in their hour of need or the communities that continue to suffer in their absence. They are also unlikely to surrender ongoing interests or their basic values.

    Through our work with Voices in Exile, we have learned that many newcomers involuntarily leave behind family, livelihoods and status, only to face significant hurdles re-establishing themselves in Canada. While some activists-in-exile persist and continue to be impactful, they often do so under unnecessary constraints that limit their full potential.

    If legitimate concerns about professional qualifications and social stability exist, they can be addressed through tailored support systems. While Canada provides resettlement for a limited number of human rights defenders, there is no program to engage with them once they arrive. This needs to change.

    At the same time, activists-in-exile should not be treated solely as victims or as potential risks, particularly in light of growing transnational repression. Instead, their specialized knowledge and skills should be recognized as a force to strengthen democracy both in Canada and their countries of origin.

    A strategic investment

    Recognizing and supporting activists-in-exile would be a strategic investment for Canada, not an act of charity. Many have become educators, researchers and policymakers, shaping debates on governance and security.

    Others have founded organizations, launched media platforms and built networks that support democracy movements globally. As our project Voices in Exile shows, many activists-in-exile also contribute to Canada’s economy, and work in law, social and psycho-social services, and the media landscape.

    Beyond being a matter of principle, welcoming activists-in-exile is a move that would strengthen Canada’s leadership in the global fight for democracy. Their integration into Canadian society aligns with Canada’s longstanding role in promoting democratic ideals on the world stage.

    Yet, despite their vast potential, there is no tailored public policy or dedicated institution to harness this human capital in a way that aligns with Canada’s democratic commitments. The existing guidelines for supporting human rights defenders are insufficient for supporting activists-in-exile.

    Canada should support exiled activists by facilitating collaboration among these individuals and Canadian public, academic, community, government and civil society organizations. In addition, Canada should establish a legal framework that allows activists-in-exile to contribute to the development of foreign policy. A dedicated fund should also be created that offers financial support for their activist efforts.

    As global authoritarianism continues to rise, the question is not whether we should acknowledge activists-in-exile — it is whether we have the wisdom to lead by example and invest in recognizing and supporting them.

    Philip Leech-Ngo receives funding from Open Societies Foundation

    Frederick John Packer has received funding from SSHRC and OSF.

    Nadia Abu-Zahra has received funding from SSHRC and OSF.

    – ref. Activists living in exile could strengthen Canada’s democracy — if given the right support – https://theconversation.com/activists-living-in-exile-could-strengthen-canadas-democracy-if-given-the-right-support-251440

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Dogs see their world through smell – and scientists are starting to translate it like never before

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jacqueline Boyd, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Nottingham Trent University

    Lorenzooooo/Shutterstock

    Scent is how dogs largely experience the world, a lot like the way we humans rely on sight. We know little about how dogs interpret scent, but thanks to a recent study, we may be getting closer to understanding what a dog’s nose actually knows.

    Dogs are primed to detect smells. The average dog’s nose has more than 10 million scent receptors in their nose, compared to humans, who only have about 6 million.

    This makes the canine nose more than 10, 000 times better at detecting scents than we are. They can detect minute quantities of scent. For example, forensic detection dogs can detect 0.01 microlitres of gasolene. A microlitre is one millionth of a litre.

    Humans have exploited dogs’ olfactory superpowers in a number of ways, which has no doubt contributed to the deep relationship we have developed with our canine companions over 40,000 years living together.

    Dogs still join us as hunting partners, sniffing out food. They work beside us as vital members of crime-fighting teams, finding illicit substances, as medical colleagues for disease detection, and as partners in conservation efforts, finding rare and endangered species.

    Despite the widespread involvement of dogs as natural scent detectors, we remain largely oblivious as to how dogs interpret what they smell and how they perceive the world in which they live.

    We don’t know much about dogs’ experience of smell – but we know they’re good at it.
    Sundays Photography/Shutterstock

    Exploring the brain activity of dogs when they are exposed to specific smells can help identify which of their brain regions are associated with scent detection. This helps scientists understand what the dog is experiencing, which might help us enhance the selection and training of sniffer dogs.

    Until now, scientists needed expensive equipment to study dogs’ brains and research methods that required dogs to stay still. This means we know less about the brains of active working dogs who might struggle to remain motionless for long periods.

    But we can’t simply apply the data from dogs who can cope with sitting still since dog breeds have differences in their training and scenting skills.

    Sensing scents

    The recent study I mentioned at the beginning of this article uses a new, cheap and non-invasive method to explore how the canine brain responds to scent. The researchers think that this method – known as AI speckle pattern analysis – will help us identify how dog brains react to scents and what it means for how dogs perceive and respond to the world around them in future research too.

    The researchers developed an optical sensor to target three brain areas involved in canine scent discrimination: the amygdala, olfactory bulb and hippocampus. The amygdala is responsible for emotional responses to stimuli.

    The olfactory bulb is involved with odour processing and the hippocampus is associated with memory formation.

    The equipment used in the study consisted of a high resolution digital camera linked to a computer, plus a green laser. Laser light, capable of penetrating dog fur and skull bone, was shone on the heads of four relaxed, blindfolded study dogs who were exposed to four different scents: alcohol, marijuana, menthol and garlic. These substances all appear to evoke similar olfactory responses in dogs.

    As laser light was reflected from the three brain areas, the camera detected interference as a distinct “speckle” pattern. The camera made recordings for five seconds, repeated four times for each scent.

    AI analysed differences in the speckle patterns from the different brain regions to create models of how the brain regions of the dogs responded to each scent.

    It’s not just sniffing

    The study results highlighted the importance of the amygdala for canine scent discrimination. This suggests that there could be an emotional component to how dogs sense their environment. Taste and odour detection are also known to be linked to memory formation and emotional state in humans.

    Because dogs appear to experience emotional responses to scents, training methods and experiences might need to take this into consideration. For example, dogs often link the characteristic aroma of the veterinary surgery with less-than-fun situations.

    Dogs in training for scent detection would also probably benefit from being in a positive emotional state when they are exposed to training odours.

    This research could even pave the way to developing specialised equipment for detecting and translating the olfactory responses of dogs. Mobile equipment that works rapidly could allow us to interpret what dogs’ noses are telling them in real time.

    This isn’t as far-fetched as it may sound. If you’ve seen the Disney movie Up, you probably remember Dug the dog who wore a bark translation collar. Well, scientists have developed a real collar that claims to tell you what your dog’s vocalisations mean.

    It’s difficult to say how accurate it is without analysing the data the collar’s AI was trained on, but the database is growing as more dogs use the collars. If the collars do prove accurate, it might not be too long before wearable technology can tell us exactly what our dogs are saying and smelling.

    Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Kennel Club (UK) through membership and as advisor to the Health Advisory Group. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583) and she also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis, in addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University.

    – ref. Dogs see their world through smell – and scientists are starting to translate it like never before – https://theconversation.com/dogs-see-their-world-through-smell-and-scientists-are-starting-to-translate-it-like-never-before-252659

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: East Asia is challenging Silicon Valley – by being like Silicon Valley used to be

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Vice Dean, Global Engagement | Associate Professor in Political Economy and Entrepreneurship, King’s College London

    East Asia’s tech scene is enjoying considerable success. imtmphoto / Shutterstock

    Silicon Valley has been a universal symbol of innovation for decades. Because of its reputation, governments around the world have tried to foster their own versions by investing heavily in tech hubs.

    These efforts, which include Silicon Beach in Los Angeles, Silicon Island in Malaysia and Silicon Roundabout in the UK, have not always worked. But some places, particularly parts of east Asia, have seen their own Silicon Valleys flourish.

    China has the world’s second-largest venture capital market, scores of startups, and cutting-edge tech to challenge Silicon Valley. Japan and Korea have also become some of the most active corporate venture capital investors in the world.

    At the same time, these challenger ecosystems possess some of the attributes of Silicon Valley in its heyday. More, in some ways, than Silicon Valley itself does these days.

    The scale of Silicon Valley remains unparalleled, at least for now. In 2024, the region’s market capitalisation (the value of companies’ publicly traded shares) had reached US$14.3 trillion (£11 trillion). This is comparable to the entire GDP of China, the world’s second-largest economy.

    But Silicon Valley is no longer a counter-cultural world of startups in garages, where small, disruptive organisations build world-changing products on a shoestring. It has morphed into a land of Goliaths, not Davids.

    Cups of instant noodles have, for many, been replaced by açaí bowls, and office all-nighters with wellbeing workshops and digital detox retreats. Stalwart investors, such as Sequoia’s Mike Moritz, have complained that Silicon Valley tech workers have become “lazy and entitled”.

    Silicon Valley is a region in northern California that is a global centre for technology and innovation.
    Peter Hermes Furian / Shutterstock

    Meanwhile, the work ethic and laser focus of tech workers elsewhere has advanced. About ten years ago, Chinese tech’s working hours were described as “996” – working from 9am to 9pm six days a week. They are now referred to as “007”, a schedule where employees work from midnight to midnight, seven days a week.

    ‘Good artists copy, great artists steal’

    The history of Silicon Valley is one of hungry challengers disrobing the big, boring incumbents. Apple raised equity investment from Xerox, then a leading print production corporation, and used the access to Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center to take inspiration from the company’s plans for a computer that had a graphical user interface. Apple later refined the software for the Macintosh, giving it its edge.

    In 1996, Jobs famously said: “Picasso had a saying – ‘Good artists copy; great artists steal’ – and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

    Today, the Goliaths leading Silicon Valley have huge intellectual property portfolios to defend. And they are outraged when their tech is taken. OpenAI, the American company that made ChatGPT, has even asked the US government to declare Chinese AI firm DeepSeek “state controlled” and to outlaw its use in the US. Huawei and Bytedance’s TikTok have faced similar calls in the past.

    In western media, much of the focus on the moment DeepSeek disrupted the AI landscape has been about how it rattled Silicon Valley. But there has been less coverage on how it has instigated instant rivals within China.

    Days after Deepseek’s release, Chinese tech company Alibaba announced that its AI model was superior. And China recently launched Manus, a fully autonomous AI agent that fully replaces rather than assists humans.

    China’s answer to Silicon Valley is what Taiwanese businessman, Kai-fu Lee, calls “gladiatorial entrepreneurship”. This is where founders constantly innovate because as soon as their product is released, they know it will be copied and reverse engineered. The system as a whole benefits from the intense competition, the way Silicon Valley did in its ascent.

    The students have become the teacher

    Silicon Valley used to be known for its counter culture and its outsized vision of how tech can transform the globe. This is epitomised by Masayoshi Son, a former student of Silicon Valley from east Asia who is the founder and CEO of Japanese firm SoftBank.

    He first came to Silicon Valley in the early 1980s and quickly integrated into the Silicon Valley way of business. Son launched his own startup when he returned to Japan, modelled on what he experienced in the few years he lived in California. With this, Softbank was born as a software distributor.

    SoftBank’s Vision Fund is now the largest venture capital fund in the world, with over US$100 billion (£77.5 billion) in capital. Son’s giant fund and impatient style of investing have contributed to change in Silicon Valley. Ballooning valuations and the use of exploding term sheets (investment offers that expire within a matter of days) are increasingly the norm.

    Son is stylised as a classic outsider. Gambling Man, a recently published book from the former editor of the Financial Times, Lionel Barber, details how Son is not “really Japanese” (he’s ethnically Korean) and has long touted this challenger narrative.

    Now as one of the biggest investors in Silicon Valley, he is pushy, confrontational and has a huge vision for how technologies such as AI can change the world. He is the purveyor of that grand vision and an advocate for the risk-taking that is synonymous with “classic” Silicon Valley.

    Meanwhile, China’s AI gladiators innovate constantly in their bid to overtake the once hungry American behemoths who are now forced to call on the state to help shore-up their position. The contrasting trajectories raise questions about who should now become more like whom if they are to win the global technology race.

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

    – ref. East Asia is challenging Silicon Valley – by being like Silicon Valley used to be – https://theconversation.com/east-asia-is-challenging-silicon-valley-by-being-like-silicon-valley-used-to-be-251854

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Salafi Muslims are going into politics instead of trying to change the world through religious education or jihadi violence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Guy Robert Patrick Eyre, Research Fellow, Alwaleed Centre, University of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh

    Pseudonyms are used in this article to protect the anonymity of the research participants.

    I met Sheikh Ahmed at a small mosque in central Morocco in October 2016. He told me: “We used to believe that Islam forbids all modern politics. We believed that politics was a western practice that divides Muslims and distracts them from worship.”

    Ahmed is a proponent of Salafism, a form of Islamic “fundamentalism” and one of the most influential religious movements of the past 40 years. He continued: “But from 2011, we began to understand that Islam in fact requires us to enter politics.”

    Salafi attacks perpetrated by al-Qaida and the so-called Islamic State (IS) have led to enormous interest in Islamic fundamentalism among western analysts, policymakers and journalists. This commentary has tended to understand Salafism to be a broadly static global ideology, inherently opposed to modern politics and largely detached from what is happening in the neighbourhoods in which its followers live and worship.

    During eight years of in-depth research on Salafi groups in north Africa, I found something significant. In response to the “Arab Uprising” protests that shook north Africa and the wider Arab world between 2010 and 2012, many north African Salafis – including Ahmed – began to rethink their ideological convictions. Many decided their goal of changing the world required neither “apolitical” religious education nor violence. Instead, many began to participate in parliamentary politics.

    Also known as “Wahhabism”, Salafism emerged in Islamic institutions and universities in Saudi Arabia and the wider Arab Gulf by the 1960s. Despite being widely regarded as a Saudi Arabia-centred ideology, Salafism has since been adopted – and, importantly, adapted – by a large number of pious Muslims in north Africa, the wider Muslim world, and the west.

    Salafis share a religious doctrine that calls on Muslims to revive an “authentic” approach to Islam centred on strict monotheism. Salafis have traditionally argued, therefore, that Muslims should reject modern politics. Instead, they must dedicate themselves to applying the beliefs and practices of the first generations of Muslims in all aspects of their lives.

    Nevertheless, Salafis have long disagreed over how exactly to apply this doctrine to society and politics. Should they focus on religious education and preaching in an effort to form an “authentic” Muslim community? Or should they criticise their political rulers or revolt?

    Jihadi Salafis respond to this dilemma by supporting the use of revolutionary violence. They see it as a means of fighting westernisation and unseating “un-Islamic” rulers. By contrast, mainstream “quietist” Salafis reject both politics and violence as “immoral” practices. Instead, they seek to change the world through religious preaching and by offering strict loyalty to political rulers as a matter of faith.

    From the late 1970s until the late 2000s, Salafism gradually spread from the Arab Gulf into North Africa. This took place as Moroccan, Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian students returned to their countries of origin after studying in Saudi Arabia and the broader Arab Gulf. Back home, many established quietist Salafi movements.

    To different extents, North African regimes thought their “apolitical” beliefs and loyalty to governments made them useful allies. Consequently, quietist Salafis were generally allowed to expand their religious activities. By the late 1990s, they had gained significant local followings.

    In tandem, North African jihadi Salafis returned from the insurgency in Afghanistan (1978-92) and also built followings in their home countries. Jihadi Salafi militants led violent attacks against both local and western targets in north Africa. Consequently, they were harshly repressed by security forces.

    After the Arab Spring: choosing politics

    The Salafi rejection of politics was dramatically upended by the Arab Uprising protests between late 2010 and 2012. Dictators in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt were swiftly deposed. While the Moroccan monarchy was not overthrown, to appease the demonstrators it relinquished some control over the political system and introduced limited reforms.

    Determined to take advantage of these new political openings, many quietist and former jihadi Salafis across North Africa suddenly turned political. They established political parties, ran for political office, and forged new political alliances. Perhaps most spectacularly, a new Salafi party in Egypt captured a quarter of the vote in the 2011-12 parliamentary elections.

    In neighbouring Libya, mounting political instability following the downfall of its former president, Muammar Gaddafi, in 2011 saw quietist and former jihadi Salafis win positions within local ministries and establish informal police forces. Quietist and former jihadi Salafis in Morocco and Tunisia also joined, formed alliances with, and established political parties.

    This rapid politicisation of North African Salafism challenges long-held assumptions about Islamic fundamentalism. Salafis are not inherently apolitical, and their approach to politics and violence is not set in stone by a global, Saudi Arabia-influenced religious doctrine.

    Rather, they are pragmatic and flexible. The large political openings in North Africa brought about by the Arab Uprisings pushed them to rethink their core religious beliefs as they sought to expand their influence.

    As such, rather than being an idiosyncratic and uniquely dogmatic movement, Salafis are much like other ideological religious movements. They are savvy political players who can adjust their strategies and “universalist” worldviews according to the current situation, wherever they live.

    Dr. Guy Robert Eyre receives funding for his research on North African Salafism from the Gerda Henkel Foundation.

    – ref. Salafi Muslims are going into politics instead of trying to change the world through religious education or jihadi violence – https://theconversation.com/salafi-muslims-are-going-into-politics-instead-of-trying-to-change-the-world-through-religious-education-or-jihadi-violence-247259

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: When farmers and scientists collaborate, biodiversity and agriculture can thrive – here’s how

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Charles Masquelier, Associate Professor in Sociology, University of Exeter

    The Burren mountains, Ireland. Pusteflower9024/Shutterstock

    The Burren region of County Clare, Ireland, is famous for its distinctive limestone habitat, coastal landscape, rich wildlife and unusual archaeology. Several hundred farmers also manage livestock on this land.

    As social scientists, we’ve been investigating how farmers engage with environmental management and biodiversity renewal in England and Scotland because there is an ongoing nature crisis, with accelerating species extinctions, loss of habitat and harmful pollution.

    Our findings show that giving farmers greater opportunities to draw on their knowledge and experiences encourages better environmental results than conventional farming incentives.

    Many environmental campaigners, including author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot, don’t see farming as a way to help solve the biodiversity crisis.

    But one EU-funded initiative, the BurrenLife project, has revolutionised how farmers and scientists collaborate by tackling reluctance or wariness and shifting mindsets through the practice of “conservation farming”. This developed into an “agri-environment” (nature-friendly farming) initiative called the Burren Life programme which incentivises farmers in Ireland to prioritise nature by boosting endangered bird populations or restoring specific habitats.

    Most (70%) of UK land is used for agriculture. Therefore success in tackling the biodiversity crisis depends on the active involvement of farmers.

    From the 1980s successive UK governments have paid farmers to restore nature and mitigate the effects of climate change in the form of voluntary agri-environment schemes. These schemes, such as Countryside Stewardship and the Sustainable Farming Incentive, provide financial incentives for farmers to help restore biodiversity by, for example, planting flower-rich hay meadows.

    But despite the billions of pounds invested and significant uptake by farmers, biodiversity continues to decline and more work needs to be done to improve farmers’ participation.

    Research suggests that the lack of effectiveness of those schemes is influenced by their limited capacity to inspire long-term changes in farming practices.

    The clash between local knowledge and scientific expertise concerns us. Existing agri-environment schemes are prescriptive with limited options for farmers. This, combined with polarisation between farmers and conservationists about rewilding for example, means that local knowledge of farmers tends to be excluded from environmental decisions.

    While conservation scientists hold essential knowledge for tackling the biodiversity crisis, farmers know their land best. Often this knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation. Historically, however, agri-environmental management in the UK has operated on the basis of prescriptions informed by scientific expertise that don’t consider the land characteristics or specific context of particular farms.

    Wildflower strips along the edges of field provide valuable habitat for pollinators such as bees.
    yanikap/Shutterstock

    By joining an agri-environment scheme, farmers are expected to take actions such as planting crops that can manage soil erosion and improve soil health, or managing hedgerows, which can act as wildlife highways. While farmers can choose which actions to take, such payment-by-action schemes don’t offer much scope to adapt environmental solutions to their knowledge of the land.

    Crucially, the lack of consistent monitoring provides farmers with few opportunities to report back on the success or failure of actions they have taken to recover nature. According to our research, farmers often feel their valuable on-the-ground knowledge is being ignored.

    Unusually, the Burren Life programme relies on environmental targets that are co-designed by scientists and farmers. The co-design process involves farmer and adviser jointly walking the farm. Farmers explain what they’d willingly do to improve the condition of the land. The adviser then maps the activities they think will bring environmental benefits and devises an environmental plan accordingly.

    Every year, farmers are given the opportunity to decide what they’d like to do. The presence of a local office of advisers means that support for management decisions is always available and feedback aimed at improving their environmental plan is consistently encouraged. Farmers are also involved in the monitoring of other farmers’ actions.

    Secrets of success

    Our research undertaken as part of the Renew project, which aims to develop solutions for biodiversity renewal in the UK, shows a strong appetite in the English uplands for the kind of flexible, farmer-centred, results-based approach promoted by the Burren Life programme.

    The Burren Life programme was highly successful in many respects. It delivered major improvements in habitat quality and fostered long-term behaviour change among participating farmers.

    It incentivised farmers to take ownership of their actions for nature conservation and restoration. They were encouraged to share their local knowledge through farm visits, annual programme reviews, feedback opportunities and monitoring exercises. That local knowledge could then be considered alongside scientific expertise by people making management decisions. The Burren Life programme effectively reconciled the farming perspective with the scientific one, in the form of conservation farming.

    It has delivered impressive value for money. The total amount spent on the Burren Life programme totalled €12.3 million (£10.3 million). Over ten years, this has resulted in habitat and landscape improvements worth €32.8 million.

    Despite its success, several Burren farmers still regard environmental programmes as antithetical to farming so co-creation is a key step in inspiring people to get involved in projects like these. And replicating conservation farming beyond the Burren will require a tailored approach that considers the environmental and cultural characteristics of each countryside community.

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

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Charles Masquelier receives funding from the government-funded body know as UKRI. This funding is for the RENEW project, which adopts a ‘people-in-nature’ approach to biodiversity renewal across the UK.

    Carolyn Petersen receives UKRI funding as part of the RENEW project, which adopts a ‘people-in-nature’ approach to biodiversity renewal across the UK. She is also involved in a Defra-funded evaluation of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in England.

    Matt Lobley receives UKRI funding as part of the RENEW project and us involved in evaluations of Defra Environmental Land Management schemes

    – ref. When farmers and scientists collaborate, biodiversity and agriculture can thrive – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/when-farmers-and-scientists-collaborate-biodiversity-and-agriculture-can-thrive-heres-how-250333

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why a presidential term limit got written into the Constitution – the story of the 22nd Amendment

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Satta, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, Wayne State University

    No president other than Franklin D. Roosevelt has held office for more than two terms. Walter Leporati/Getty Images

    Only one person, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has ever served more than two terms as president of the United States. This is for two reasons.

    First, prior to Roosevelt’s election to a third term in 1940 there was a longstanding American tradition that presidents not serve more than two terms.

    This tradition was established by the decisions of early presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison not to seek a third term. This tradition was later adopted by other presidents.

    Second, after Roosevelt died in office in 1945 during his fourth term, Congress and the people of the United States decided to turn the long-standing tradition that presidents should not serve more than two terms into a part of constitutional law.

    This was done through the passage and ratification of the 22nd Amendment, which became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1951.

    Only after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, who died in 1945 in his fourth term and whose casket is seen here, did the U.S. codify the two-term limit on presidents.
    AP photo

    Intent is clear

    The key provision of the 22nd Amendment reads as follows: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

    The intent is clear. No one is supposed to serve more than two full terms as president.

    The only way someone can serve more than two terms is if they served less than two years in a previous term in which they weren’t elected president.

    Here’s an example: If a vice president becomes president during the final year of a term because the president died, that vice president could still run for two terms. But that exception is still meant to bar anyone from serving more than a total of 10 years as president.

    It is worth understanding why the two-term tradition was considered so important that it was turned into constitutional law the first time it was violated.

    Starting the tradition

    Commentators often cite George Washington’s decision not to seek a third term as president as establishing the two-term tradition. Political scientist and term limit scholar Michael Korzi gives a lot more credit to the nation’s third president, Thomas Jefferson.

    Jefferson was outspoken in favor of the two-term tradition. As Korzi notes, this was, in part, because “Jefferson saw little distinction between a long-serving executive in an elective position and a hereditary monarch.” In other words, a president without term limits is too much like a king.

    John Trumbull’s portrait of U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, who believed that a president who was willing to break the two-term tradition was too ambitious.
    John Trumbull/GraphicaArtis, Getty Images

    Jefferson saw a president who was willing to break the two-term tradition as power hungry, and he hoped that the American people would not elect such a president. This led him to write in his autobiography in 1821 that “should a President consent to be a candidate for a 3d. election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views.”

    Jefferson also worried that without term limits, presidents would stay in office too long into their old age and after they had lost their ability to govern effectively. This led him to write that without term limits, there was a danger that “the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard.”

    Subsequently, presidents tended to abide by the two-term tradition. And in the few cases where presidents decided to seek a third term, their own parties would not give them the nomination.

    That remained true until Roosevelt ran for, and won, both a third and a fourth term as president during World War II.

    The 22nd Amendment

    Roosevelt’s violation of the two-term tradition prompted Congress and the states to turn the tradition into a formal matter of constitutional law.

    A major concern motivating the amendment was the same one that motivated Jefferson: to prevent a president from becoming a king. Multiple members of Congress identified the same concern during congressional sessions in the 1940s.

    Sen. Chapman Revercomb from West Virginia stated that power given to a president without term limits “would be a definite step in the direction of autocracy, regardless of the name given the office, whether it be president, king, dictator, emperor, or whatever title the office may carry.”

    Similarly, Rep. Edward McCowen from Ohio said that the 22nd Amendment would be “a great step toward preventing a dictatorship or some totalitarian form of government from arising.”

    And Rep. John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee stated that only by adoption of the 22nd Amendment “can the people be assured that we shall never have a dictator in this land.”

    Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947. It took less than four years for the necessary three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, which became law on Feb. 27, 1951.

    President Donald Trump has repeatedly talked about getting a third term as president.
    Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

    Tyrants and term limit violations

    In the 1980s, political scientist Juan Linz identified that presidential systems are less stable than other forms of democracy, such as parliamentary systems. The difference seems to be that presidential systems concentrate more power in the hands of a single person, the president. This makes it easier to remove the checks and balances that democracies depend on.

    As scholars have noted, violation of presidential term limits and other methods of increasing executive power are a common form of democratic backsliding – state-led debilitation or elimination of the political institutions that sustain a democracy.

    Law professor Mila Versteeg and her colleagues have shown that in recent years presidents around the globe have used various tactics to try to violate presidential term limits. These tactics include trying to amend their country’s constitution, trying to get the courts to reinterpret the constitution, finding a replacement leader who the former president can control once out of office and attempting to delay elections.

    They note that most of the time when a president’s attempt to violate term limits fails it is “because the attempt encountered widespread popular resistance.” They conclude that this finding implies that “broad resistance movements” may be the best means to prevent violation of presidential term limits.

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

    – ref. Why a presidential term limit got written into the Constitution – the story of the 22nd Amendment – https://theconversation.com/why-a-presidential-term-limit-got-written-into-the-constitution-the-story-of-the-22nd-amendment-253421

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Feenstra-led Legislation to Keep Partisan Politics out of IRS Unanimously Passes U.S. House of Representatives

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act – introduced by U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Hull) – unanimously passed the U.S. House of Representatives.

    “American taxpayers expect and deserve the best customer service and case outcomes when filing their federal taxes. However, an outdated restriction imposed on the National Taxpayer Advocate prevents her from hiring the team that she needs to do her job. My bill clarifies that it is within the purview of the National Taxpayer Advocate to hire attorneys that report specifically to her,” said Rep. Feenstra. “These attorneys help conduct oversight, ensure taxpayers are being treated fairly, and inform Congress of taxpayer challenges at the IRS. With this improvement, American families will benefit from fewer headaches when dealing with the IRS and a more accountable government. We must keep partisan politics out of the IRS and focus solely on positive outcomes for taxpayers.”

    “At a time when the IRS has singlehandedly undermined its own credibility in the eyes of taxpayers, it is vital that we protect the independence and the integrity of the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate. This legislation ensures the American people can have faith in that entity to represent their best interests and can trust that its legal advice is not unduly influenced by the IRS,” said Chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Jason Smith. “I commend Representative Feenstra for his leadership on this issue and for being a tireless fighter for the rights of American taxpayers.”

    The National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act would clarify that it is within the purview of the National Taxpayer Advocate to hire attorneys that specifically report to her and support her efforts to serve taxpayers and work with caseworkers.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEWS: Under Musk’s Plan for Social Security, 67,000 Americans Will Die Waiting for Disability Benefits

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
    WASHINGTON, April 1 – Ahead of the Senate Finance Committee’s vote to advance Trump’s nominee to be Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Senate Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, today released new findings exposing the stark reality of Elon Musk’s plans to cut the SSA by up to 50 percent. These disastrous cuts are taking place at a time when Social Security’s staff is already at a 50-year low. 
    Under Musk’s policies, the number of people who will die waiting for benefits could more than double from nearly 30,000 in 2023 to up to 67,000. Average wait times for Social Security disability benefits will nearly double from an average of 236 days in February of 2025 to 412 days. 
    “President Trump and Elon Musk have suggested that ‘millions and millions’ of dead people receive Social Security checks. That is an outrageous lie designed to undermine Americans’ faith in Social Security,” said Sanders. “Here’s the truth: 30,000 people die a year waiting for an understaffed Social Security to approve disability benefits. The Trump-Musk plan to cut Social Security’s staff by up to 50 percent will make this tragic reality even worse, and Frank Bisignano is there to see it through. We cannot let that happen.” 
    In 2023, 5,252 full time employees were responsible for making disability determinations at SSA, a workforce which has steadily decreased from previous years. Even before DOGE started making cuts to SSA, the number of people who died waiting for a benefit decision grew from 10,000 to 30,000 from 2017 to 2023. Meanwhile, Americans have had to wait longer than ever to get their benefits. During that same time, the average wait time for a decision grew exponentially – from 111 days to 217 days. In February 2025, Americans had to wait an average of 236 days for a determination. 
    Instead of making the federal government work for the American people, the Trump administration and Elon Musk want to make SSA less efficient by cutting as much as 50 percent of its staff. Using SSA data and regarding initial decisions disability benefits for 2025, Musk’s reported plans to lay off Social Security employees will result in:
    Nearly 67,000 people dying and
    A 412 day wait.
    Sanders concluded: “Instead of slashing Social Security’s staff, closing down Social Security field offices, we should be making it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the Social Security benefits that they have earned and deserve.” 
    Read the full report here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: CNB ends the first phase of its monetary policy review with an international workshop and will now start work on developing a new forecasting model

    Source: Czech National Bank

    The first phase of the review of the CNB’s monetary policy analytical and modelling framework has been completed successfully. The CNB brought this phase to a close today with an international workshop attended by top foreign economists led by Claudio Borio, the former Head of the Monetary and Economic Department at the Bank for International Settlements. In the next step, the central bank will develop a new forecasting model to supplement its existing tools. It will also put into practice other recommendations made by domestic and foreign experts who have evaluated the CNB’s past monetary policy. The aim is to enhance the CNB’s analytical and modelling framework so that, among other things, it can better withstand the current environment of unexpected economic shocks.

    The CNB is now entering the second phase of its monetary policy review. This will build on the first phase, which the CNB began by having its analytical and modelling framework assessed independently for the first time ever. Based on the experts’ recommendations, it then strengthened the role of research in the Research and Statistics Department and made other organisational changes to prepare the CNB for the key period ahead. At an international workshop in Prague today, CNB representatives presented the steps taken so far and the outlook for the future. They also discussed the way forward with leading foreign economists with experience of monetary policy reviews in other countries.

    “Looking ahead, the toughest challenges for monetary policy regimes may well be still to come. For one, the political environment is becoming less conducive to a stability-oriented monetary policy. Over time, a dangerous expectations gap has been developing between what monetary policy can deliver and what it is expected to deliver. But inflation targeting regimes cannot afford to stay still,” said Claudio Borio, the former Head of the Monetary and Economic Department at the Bank for International Settlements, who also attended the CNB workshop.

    In the second phase, the CNB will put into practice the recommendations contained in the assessments prepared by expert teams led by Professor John Muellbauer from the University of Oxford, Roman Šustek from Queen Mary University of London and Professor Martin Mandel and Associate Professor Karel Brůna from the Prague University of Economics and Business. These assessments identified deficiencies in the CNB’s current modelling framework and emphasised the need to strengthen the role of economic research at the central bank and to increase the emphasis on the use of available data sources. “Theories and models are valuable to a central bank only to the extent that they facilitate an informed and sufficiently comprehensive debate – one that helps us understand the evolving economic story in the short, medium and long run,” said CNB Deputy Governor Jan Frait. In his opinion, the reviews have shown that the CNB’s current tools cannot fulfil this role to the full.

    “We need analyses that are not only technically accurate, but also sensitive to economic, social and political realities – analyses that reflect emotions as well as facts and figures. To achieve this, we should be open to different points of view, be prepared to reassess our positions when major changes occur, and invest in people who are able to come up with new approaches and ideas based on knowledge of cutting-edge economic research,” added Deputy Governor Frait.

    The main innovation will be an alternative macroeconomic forecasting model to be developed by the Research and Statistics Department at the CNB. The Department was established on 1 January 2025 through the merger of the Economic Research Division of the Monetary Department and the Financial Research Division of the Financial Stability Department with the then Statistics and Data Support Department. “The CNB is currently an outlier internationally. Most other central banks rely on two or more models for monetary policy purposes, whereas we currently use only one central DSGE model. Where a central bank does have a single model, with few exceptions, it is not a DSGE one,” said CNB Deputy Governor Eva Zamrazilová, giving one of the reasons for supplementing the central DSGE model with another powerful forecasting tool.

    The Czech National Bank expects the initial results of the development of the alternative model to emerge before the end of this year. However, according to Eva Zamrazilová, it could take two to three years to complete the entire process, including testing and validation of the proper functioning of the new tool. “We don’t want to rush anything. We will put the emphasis on top quality, not speed, because this is a major step as regards Czech monetary policy,” added Deputy Governor Zamrazilová.

    In addition to the development of an alternative model, the monetary policy review will be reflected in practice on other levels, such as research. According to Bank Board member Jan Kubíček, the expert assessments have not only identified problem areas in the existing modelling framework, but are also an illuminating source of inspiration for the future development of the CNB. “Major advancements have been made around the world in the field of analytical instruments. The monetary policy review gives us an opportunity to take them and use them to our advantage,” said Jan Kubíček, adding that via the CNB, all individuals and companies in the Czech Republic stand to benefit from the results of the monetary policy review in the future.

    Jakub Holas
    Director, Communications Division

    Programme

    9.00 Opening Remarks
    Aleš Michl, Governor, Czech National Bank
    9.05 Keynote Speech: Adjusting Inflation Targeting Frameworks
    Claudio Borio, former Head of Monetary and Economic Department, Bank for International Settlements
    10.05 Panel Discussion: Analytical and Forecasting Frameworks for Inflation Targeting: Lessons Learned
    Chair: Eva Zamrazilová, Deputy Governor, Czech National Bank
    Panellists:
    Óscar Arce, Director General Economics, European Central Bank
    Huw Pill, Chief Economist, Bank of England
    Jan Kubíček, Board Member, Czech National Bank
    11.45 Panel Discussion: Chair: Jan Frait, Deputy Governor, Czech National Bank
    Panellists:
    John Muellbauer, Nuffield College, Oxford University & INET, Oxford
    Roman Šustek, Queen Mary University of London & Centre for Macroeconomics (LSE)
    Jakub Matějů, Deputy Executive Director, Monetary Department, Czech National Bank

    Related links

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Car industry settles competition law case

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Car industry settles competition law case

    Car manufacturers and industry bodies have reached a settlement with the CMA after admitting to breaking competition law in relation to vehicle recycling, and related advertising claims.

    • Ten manufacturers – BMW, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot Citroen, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen – and 2 trade bodies have been fined a total of £77,688,917
    • These manufacturers illegally agreed not to compete against one another when advertising what percentage of their cars can be recycled
    • The manufacturers also illegally colluded to avoid paying third parties to recycle their customers’ scrap cars

    Following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), 10 manufacturers and 2 trade bodies have admitted their involvement in the illegal behaviour and agreed to pay fines totalling over £77 million.

    Mercedes-Benz, which was also involved in these agreements, is exempt from paying a financial penalty as it alerted the CMA to its participation via the authority’s leniency policy.

    The European Commission (EC) launched a parallel probe alongside the CMA in March 2022. The EC has today issued its own decision imposing fines for breaches of EU law.

    Advertising claims

    Amongst other sustainability information, manufacturers are legally required to include details on recyclability in their advertising materials, so customers can take this into account when considering a vehicle’s green credentials before buying.

    In this case, the CMA found that all manufacturers illegally agreed that they would not advertise if their vehicles went above the minimum recyclability requirement of 85% (even if the actual percentage was higher). With the exception of Renault, the manufacturers also agreed not to share information with their customers about the percentage of recycled material used in their vehicles.

    Failing to compete against one another in this way is illegal. It also meant customers buying a car from one of these manufactures were unable to fully compare the green credentials of vehicles when buying, which could have affected their choice.  This kind of behaviour may also lower the incentive for companies to invest in green initiatives.

    Most manufacturers took part in this practice from May 2002 to September 2017, with Jaguar Land Rover joining in September 2008. The agreement was set out in a document called the ‘ELV Charta’ – sometimes referred to as a “gentleman’s agreement” – and sought to “avoid a competitive race” amongst the manufacturers in relation to advertising claims of this kind. This agreement was referenced in emails, internal documents and meeting minutes, and certain manufacturers challenged others when they breached this agreement.

    Buyers’ cartel

    Vehicle manufactures must offer their customers a free service for recycling their old or written-off vehicles having no or negative market value (known in the industry as ‘end-of-life vehicles’ or ELVs), and this service is regularly outsourced to third parties.

    The CMA’s investigation revealed that certain manufacturers were involved in what is known as a ‘buyers’ cartel’ in relation to this service.

    From April 2004 to May 2018, 8 manufacturers – BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot Citroen, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen – agreed amongst themselves that they would not pay companies to handle the recycling of their customers’ ELVs. This effectively meant the companies providing this service were unable to negotiate a price with manufacturers.

    While companies supplying this recycling service can often make money from ELVs, for example, by retrieving and selling the used parts and raw materials, how profitable it is can vary depending on the price of scrap metal at any given time.

    Other companies and bodies later joined the unlawful agreement, including the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), Nissan and Mitsubishi in 2006, and Jaguar Land Rover in 2016.

    Colluding to agree prices in this manner is illegal. It can impact the incentives for other companies to invest – for example, in better and greener technologies.

    Trade association involvement

    Two trade associations, ACEA and the SMMT, were involved in both illegal agreements.

    The manufacturers used ACEA meetings to facilitate these arrangements, with the association itself chairing meetings and intervening when manufacturers acted outside of the terms.

    The SMMT also attended these meetings and likewise became involved by settling a handful of disputes.

    Lucilia Falsarella Pereira, Senior Director of Competition Enforcement at the CMA, said:

    Agreeing with competitors the prices you’ll pay for a service or colluding to restrict competition is illegal and this can extend to how you advertise your products. This kind of collusion can limit consumers’ ability to make informed choices and lower the incentive for companies to invest in new initiatives.   

    Today’s fines show our commitment to taking action when competition law is broken. In accordance with our leniency policy, we’ve given discounts to those who came forward with information and co-operated at an early stage, which helps to get the swiftest outcomes.

    We recognise that competing businesses may want to work together to help the environment – in those cases our door is open to help them do so.

    Settlement and fines

    All of the car makers and industry bodies, except for Mercedes-Benz (which has been granted immunity from penalties), have now settled with the CMA – meaning they have admitted to taking part in illegal behaviour and agreed to pay fines totalling £77,688,917.

    Following the launch of the CMA’s investigation, the SMMT, Stellantis (the current owner of Peugeot Citroen, Vauxhall and Opel) and Mitsubishi approached the CMA for leniency and, as a result, have received a percentage reduction to their fines.  

    The fines for each company/industry body are:

    Car manufacturer / Industry body Fine for advertising infringement Fine for buyers’ cartel infringement Total (including any % reductions for leniency and/or settlement)
    BMW £10,660,781 £400,144 £11,060,925 (20% settlement reduction)
    Ford £12,949,433 £5,592,496 £18,541,929 (20% settlement reduction)
    Jaguar Land Rover £4,575,812 £50,592 £4,626,404 (20% settlement reduction)
    Peugeot Citroen (and owner Stellantis) £2,952,867 £2,237,080 £5,189,948 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
    Mitsubishi £746,465 £152,066 £898,531 (25% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
    Nissan and Renault (formerly the same business group) £6,348,132 (shared fine); £2,800,646 (sole liability for Nissan) £3,631,695 (shared fine) £9,979,826 (shared total) and £2,800,646 (sole liability for Nissan) (20% settlement reduction)
    Toyota £3,941,996 £560,764 £4,502,760 (20% settlement reduction)
    Vauxhall and Opel £1,510,715 £670,412 £2,181,127 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
    Vauxhall and Opel (and former owner General Motors) (GM is fined only as owner of both firms during part of the infringement) £1,829,904 £1,037,145 £2,867,049 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
    Vauxhall and Opel (and owner Stellantis) (Stellantis is fined only as owner of both firms during part of the infringement) £22,704 £100,369 £123,072 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
    Volkswagen £13,472,404 £1,283,496 £14,755,900 (20% settlement reduction)
    ACEA £91,200 £22,800 £114,000 (20% settlement reduction)
    SMMT £31,200 £15,600 £46,800 (35% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
        TOTAL £77,688,917

    The manufacturers and industry bodies have until 2 June 2025 to pay their fines.

    Notes to editors

    1. In its decision, the CMA has found a single and continuous ‘by object’ infringement of section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998 (i.e. that the conduct had, as its object, the restriction or distortion of competition within the UK). The CMA has not made any finding as to whether the conduct at issue had the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition, or any effect on customers.
    2. The CMA’s decision concerns the restriction of competition in the UK, whereas the EC’s decision is concerned with the restriction of competition in the EU (excluding the UK). The EC’s investigation focused on the same parties as the CMA, but did not include the SMMT.
    3. Under the CMA’s leniency policy, a business that has been involved in cartel activity may be granted immunity from penalties or a reduction in penalty in return for reporting the cartel activity and assisting the CMA with its investigation.
    4. When deciding the financial penalties, the CMA took into account a number of factors, including the seriousness of the illegal behaviour, its duration and each manufacturer’s size and UK turnover in the relevant market. Importantly, differences in fines should not be taken to indicate relative culpability.
    5. A buyers’ cartel is where members of a cartel – or companies buying a service or product – agree amongst themselves how they will individually interact with suppliers. In this case, the manufacturers involved mutually agreed the price that they would each individually pay for recycling services (zero), thereby preventing the providers of recycling services from negotiating a higher price.
    6. All trade associations must operate within the law and the CMA created guidance to help them navigate their obligations – more information can be found here: What do trade associations need to know about competition law?
    7. During the period of the agreements, Renault and Nissan formed part of the same business group. Since 8 November 2023, they no longer form part of the same business group. They are therefore jointly and severally liable for part of the fine, with Nissan being solely liable for an additional amount (in relation to the advertising infringement).
    8. The CMA has created guidance on how competing businesses can collaborate within the law, specifically when it comes to green agreements: Green Agreements Guidance.
    9. Anyone who has information about a cartel is encouraged to call the CMA cartels hotline on 020 3738 6888 or email cartelshotline@cma.gov.uk.
    10. All enquiries from journalists should be directed to the CMA press office by email on press@cma.gov.uk or by phone on 020 3738 6460.
    11. All enquiries from the general public should be directed to the CMA’s General Enquiries team on general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk or 020 3738 6000.

    Updates to this page

    Published 1 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Introduction of escape fee threshold for welfare benefits work

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    News story

    Introduction of escape fee threshold for welfare benefits work

    Changes are being made to the remuneration of welfare benefits controlled work to introduce an escape fee threshold

    Amendments are being made to Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) to introduce an escape fee threshold for the remuneration of controlled work in the welfare benefits category of law.   

    Currently, welfare benefits providers under the 2024 Standard Civil Contract are paid a standard fixed fee of £208 (with no escape fee threshold) per case.  

    Table 1, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Regulations is being amended to include the existing welfare benefits fee of £208 and introduce an escape fee threshold of three times the standard fixed fee (i.e. £624) for controlled work matters being claimed in this category of law. Table 7 (Welfare Benefits Standard fixed fee), Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Regulations will be removed. 

    These amendments to the remuneration of welfare benefits work are set out in the following Statutory Instrument (SI): The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The SI will come into force on Thursday 1 May 2025 and these changes will not apply to cases where the application for civil legal service is made before this date.  

    Changes have been made to the Controlled Work and Administration (CWA) reporting system to support the introduction of the escape fee threshold in the welfare benefits category of law and will be in place for a Thursday 1 May 2025 go-live date.

    Further Information

    The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

    Information on claiming escape cases can be found here: Escape cases electronic handbook – GOV.UK

    Updates to this page

    Published 1 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Trump Tariffs on Canada Jeopardize Aerospace, Defense, and Manufacturing Sectors While Threatening National Security

    Source: US GOIAM Union

    Brian Bryant, International President of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), representing 600,000 workers, and David Chartrand, IAM Canadian General Vice President, today issued a strong rebuke of President Trump’s tariffs, warning of severe economic consequences and job losses across the United States and Canada:

    “President Trump’s scatter-shot tariffs are a direct assault on American and Canadian workers. They will destabilize critical sectors like aerospace and manufacturing, jeopardizing hundreds of thousands of jobs and undermining national security.

    “These tariffs will not bring our jobs home. They will raise prices on everything. They will wreck our supply chains on both sides of the border. And they will put our members’ jobs at risk.

    “For decades, we have witnessed the erosion of millions of well-paying, high-skilled U.S. and Canadian jobs as corporations outsourced production to countries with lax labor standards. The administration’s trade policies will accelerate this decline, outsourcing thousands of IAM Union aerospace and defense jobs into low-wage positions. 

    “We cannot stand idly by while reckless policies destroy our supply chains, destabilize economies, and imperil the livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers, including over 100,000 aerospace workers across both nations. This administration’s isolationist approach ignores the interconnected nature of the U.S. and Canadian economies and national security.

    “Our union continues to emphasize the urgent need for a collaborative and strategic approach to tariffs. This approach must involve government, business, and labor unions and develop a comprehensive strategy that strengthens and expands critical sectors in the U.S. and Canada. 

    “Workers must be part of the solution to ensure that trade policies benefit our communities, not multinational corporations seeking to exploit cheap labor abroad.

    “The IAM Union pledges to fight against these harmful tariffs, vowing to prevent a repeat of past trade failures that resulted in widespread economic devastation and increased risks to national security.

    Share and Follow:

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Unlawful Termination of $11 Billion in Critical Public Health Funding

    Source: US State of California

    9th lawsuit against Trump Administration argues that abrupt termination of federal funds is unlawful 

    Funding was appropriated by Congress in response to COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that U.S. is better prepared for future public health threats 

    OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced co-leading a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over the unlawful termination of $11 billion in critical public health funding. Beginning on March 24, 2025, HHS abruptly, with no advance notice or warning, issued termination notices to state and local public health agencies across the country, purporting to end federal funding for grants that provide essential support for a wide range of urgent public health needs, including identifying, tracking, and addressing infectious diseases; ensuring access to immunizations; and modernizing critical public health infrastructure. The federal funding was appropriated by Congress to ensure the United States is better prepared for future public health threats. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the lawsuit by the attorneys general alleges that the termination notices are unlawful in several ways under the Administration Procedures Act (APA). The coalition is also seeking a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo and immediately restore the public health funding due to the irreparable harm that their respective states and their local health jurisdictions would otherwise suffer. California stands to lose more than $972 million from these cancellations by HHS.

    “Over and over, I’ve made clear that my office will only take legal action against the Trump Administration when it breaks the law. Unfortunately, but predictably, that has happened once again,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Congress explicitly authorized funding for the grants at issue to help keep our country healthy and protect us from future pandemics. HHS and its Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., cannot unilaterally do away with that critical federal funding. My fellow attorneys general and I are committed to defending the rule of law. We know how high the stakes are in our respective states — thousands of jobs and key public health programs and initiatives could be eliminated.” 

    According to the Trump Administration, funding for the grants is “no longer necessary” because the grants were appropriated through one or more COVID-19 related laws, and the COVID-19 pandemic is over. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general allege: 

    • The termination notices violate the APA because they are contrary to law. The foreseeable end of the COVID-19 pandemic is not a lawful basis to terminate “for cause.” Terminations “for cause” are only permissible based on a grant recipient’s “material failure” to comply with the applicable terms and conditions of the grants and agreements. The Trump Administration has never alleged, much less demonstrated, any failure by the fund recipients to comply with the applicable terms and conditions of the grants and agreements. In addition, federal law requires the HHS Secretary to “provide to the State involved adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing” prior to terminating Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grants, which fund mental health and substance abuse services. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. provided absolutely no notice or opportunity for a hearing before terminating the grants, effective immediately.
    • The termination notices further violate the APA because they are arbitrary and capricious. Among other things, they assumed, with no legal or factual support, that all appropriations in COVID-19 related laws were only intended for use during the pandemic. In fact, HHS granted numerous extensions to the performance period of many grants issued to Plaintiff States and their local health jurisdictions, some of which were scheduled to end as late as June 2027. The termination notices are also arbitrary and capricious because they failed to undertake any individualized assessments of the grants or cooperative agreements, including any analysis of the benefits of this public health funding or the dire consequences of termination. 
    • The Trump Administration’s unlawful withholding of funds has already caused substantial confusion and will result in immediate and devastating harm to their states, their local health jurisdictions, their residents, and public health writ large.

    Without this essential public health funding, vital programs that serve millions of Californians, including children, rural communities, and nursing homes, will be jeopardized. For example, the federal government terminated over $800 million that the California Department of Public Health intended to use, in part, to vaccinate 4.5 million children statewide and assist hospitals in directing injured and ill patients to available health facilities during all types of emergencies, where efficient routing saves lives. The California Department of Health Care Services is set to lose over $119 million, which the state needs to support key programs, including substance use disorder prevention and early intervention services for youth in at least 18 counties. And the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health will lose over $45 million that was slated, in part, to strengthen the County’s efforts to prevent the spread of measles, and seasonal and avian influenza. 

    Attorney General Bonta is co-leading the litigation with the attorneys general of Colorado, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Washington. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. 

    A copy of the complaint is available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján, Colleagues Urge AG Bondi to Appoint A Special Counsel to Investigate Trump Administration Signal Chat National Security Breach

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) joined U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and 28 Senate Democrats in urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a Special Counsel to thoroughly and impartially investigate whether any of the government officials involved in the Signal chat security breach violated federal criminal law. On March 24, The Atlantic’s editor in chief reported that President Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Waltz had included him in a group text chain with several high-ranking national security officials where highly sensitive, classified, or controlled information was shared and discussed over Signal—an unsecure commercial messaging app.
    “In addition to the reckless inclusion of a journalist in the chat, we are deeply concerned about this serious breach in the proper handling of such information and deliberations,” the Senators wrote. “Appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate where the Department may have a conflict of interest or extraordinary circumstances are present, a criminal investigation is warranted, and it is in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to investigate the matter. Such circumstances are clearly present here.”
    The Signal chat group started by Mr. Waltz included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, among at least 18 other high-ranking government officials. In addition to discussing the sensitive foreign policy implications of military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, these officials proceeded to discuss key operational information regarding the precise timing of the planned attacks, the types of military aircraft and munitions to be used, and the targets and results of the strikes as they occurred. An unprecedented security breach of this magnitude involving top senior government officials presents the kind of extraordinary circumstances clearly contemplated by the Special Counsel regulations.
    “These officials conducted a highly sensitive discussion, including of clearly classified or controlled information, over the commercial messaging app Signal, including in some instances on personal devices and while traveling in foreign countries, rather than using the secure U.S. government channels and facilities that are designed and required for the sharing of such information. Despite subsequent claims to the contrary by you, President Trump, and several of the officials involved, including in testimony before Congress, some of the information they shared and discussed over Signal would almost certainly be considered classified or, at a minimum, controlled, prior to and in the immediate aftermath of an impending strike,” the Senators wrote.
    In the letter, the Senators raised concerns if the Signal chat violated federal law. For example, gross negligence in handling national defense information may violate the Espionage Act. Importantly, other laws, including the Federal Records Act, require the preservation of certain government records. Destruction of government records or property may constitute a violation of various criminal statutes. Subsequent statements to Congress and testimony before the Houseand Senate Intelligence Committees by several of the officials involved raise additional concerns about potential violations of federal criminal laws that prohibit making false statements to Congress, committing perjury in testimony to Congress, inducing another person to commit perjury, or conspiring to commit any of the foregoing actions.
    “During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you assured the American people that everyone will be held to ‘an equal, fair system of justice’ if you were confirmed as Attorney General, and that ‘no one is above the law.’ As the individuals most seriously implicated in this incident include senior officials at the highest levels, including several of your fellow cabinet members, appointment of a Special Counsel is necessary to ensure that the investigation and any ensuing prosecutions are fair, impartial, and independent and that no official, regardless of seniority or political affiliation, is above the law. The people of this country deserve the assurance that this matter will be taken seriously and addressed swiftly. To do so, we urge you to appoint a Special Counsel immediately,” the Senators concluded.
    The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Chris Coons (D-DE), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), John Fetterman (D-PA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),  Ed Markey (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Gary Peters (D-MI).
    Full text of the letter is available here and below:
    Dear Attorney General Bondi:
    On March 24, The Atlantic’s editor in chief reported that President Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Waltz had included him in a group message chain with several high-ranking national security officials where highly sensitive, classified, or controlled information was shared and discussed over Signal—an unsecure commercial messaging app. In addition to the reckless inclusion of a journalist in the chat, we are deeply concerned about this serious breach in the proper handling of such information and deliberations. Given the extraordinary circumstances of this shocking incident and the significant public interests at stake, it is imperative that you immediately appoint a Special Counsel to thoroughly and impartially investigate whether any of the government officials involved violated federal criminal law.
    Appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate where the Department may have a conflict of interest or extraordinary circumstances are present, a criminal investigation is warranted, and it is in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to investigate the matter. Such circumstances are clearly present here.
    The Signal chat group started by Mr. Waltz included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, among at least 18 other high-ranking government officials. In addition to discussing the sensitive foreign policy implications of military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, these officials proceeded to discuss key operational information regarding the precise timing of the planned attacks, the types of military aircraft and munitions to be used, and the targets and results of the strikes as they occurred. An unprecedented security breach of this magnitude involving top senior government officialspresents the kind of extraordinary circumstances clearly contemplated by the Special Counsel regulations.
    These officials conducted a highly sensitive discussion, including of clearly classified or controlled information, over the commercial messaging app Signal, including in some instances on personal devices and while traveling in foreign countries, rather than using the secure U.S. government channels and facilities that are designed and required for the sharing of such information. Despite subsequent claims to the contrary by you, President Trump, and several of the officials involved, including in testimony before Congress, some of the information they shared and discussed over Signal would almost certainly be considered classified or, at a minimum, controlled, prior to and in the immediate aftermath of an impending strike.
    These shockingly reckless breaches of security protocols for safeguarding sensitive and classified information clearly warrant an investigation into whether any of the government officials involved violated federal laws pertaining to the proper safeguarding and preservation of such information. For example, gross negligence in handling national defense information may violate the Espionage Act. Importantly, other laws, including the Federal Records Act, require the preservation of certain government records. Signal allows users to schedule messages for deletion after certain time periods and Mr. Waltz appears to have set the chat messages to delete initially after one week and then later in the chat changed the setting to delete messages after four weeks. Destruction of government records or property may constitute a violation of various criminal statutes. Subsequent statements to Congress and testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committeesby several of the officials involved raise additional concerns about potential violations of federal criminal laws that prohibit making false statements to Congress, committing perjury in testimony to Congress, inducing another person to commit perjury, or conspiring to commit any of the foregoing actions.
    Even prior to his first Administration, President Trump campaigned for the need to prosecute and “lock up” individuals who allegedly “bypass government security” or “sent and received classified information on an insecure server.” Further, as an avowedly loyal and zealous advocate for the President, you echoed these same sentiments prior to your confirmation. Given the extraordinary nature of this security breach by senior Trump Administration officials, the likelihood that these actions needlessly endangered American lives and our nation’s security, the importance of putting our nation’s security before partisan political interests, and the range of federal criminal laws that may have been violated, it is imperative that the Department of Justice conduct a thorough investigation to assess the extent of the damage and determine whether any criminal charges are warranted against any of the government officials involved.
    During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you assured the American people that everyone will be held to “an equal, fair system of justice” if you were confirmed as Attorney General, and that “no one is above the law.” As the individuals most seriously implicated in this incident include senior officials at the highest levels, including several of your fellow cabinet members, appointment of a Special Counsel is necessary to ensure that the investigation and any ensuing prosecutions are fair, impartial, and independent and that no official, regardless of seniority or political affiliation, is above the law.
    The people of this country deserve the assurance that this matter will be taken seriously and addressed swiftly. To do so, we urge you to appoint a Special Counsel immediately.

    MIL OSI USA News –