[BOISE] – Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced today that the new Trump Administration’s Department of Justice is dismissing any further action against Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, argued in Idaho v. United States.“It has been our position from the beginning that there is no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s Defense of Life Act,” said Attorney General Labrador. “The goal of each is to save lives in every circumstance, both the mother and their unborn child. We are grateful that meddlesome DOJ litigation on this issue will no longer be an obstacle to Idaho enforcing its laws. Idaho will continue defending life as intended by the legislature and our people.” After the passage of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice sued Idaho, refusing to accept the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Dobbs which remanded abortion policy to the individual states. The Biden DOJ claimed that federal law under EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act), a 1986 federal statute designed to provide stabilizing treatment at emergency rooms regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, somehow instead mandated abortions, in contravention of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. The Idaho Supreme Court made it very clear that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act permits an abortion based on the subjective, good-faith medical judgement of a doctor who believes the life of the mother is threatened. Neither a doctor’s certainty nor immanency of death is required for this judgement. Idaho has argued that EMTALA does not mandate a standard of care, nor requires abortion, but specifically states that emergency rooms are to treat both mothers and their unborn children.
CHICAGO — A former executive of a Chicago-area non-profit organization has pleaded guilty to a federal fraud charge for her role in misappropriating $1.8 million intended to support the charity’s work with underprivileged youth.
BARBARA HARRIS served as the Executive Director of the Center for Community Academic Success Partnerships (CCASP), which received government grants and other funds to provide after-school programs to schools in the Chicago area. The grants included funds from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, a federal program offering financial support for academic enrichment opportunities. The 21st Century program issued grants to its local administrator, the Illinois State Board of Education, which in turn disbursed the funds to CCASP.
Harris stated in a plea agreement that from 2012 to 2017, she schemed with another CCASP executive, TONY BELL, to submit grant applications that inflated CCASP’s projected annual expenses and falsely claimed that the organization would receive services from five subcontractors. In reality, Harris knew that the subcontractors, two of which were other non-profit groups run by Harris and Bell, provided no actual services to CCASP. The fraud scheme resulted in approximately $1.8 million in actual loss to the Illinois Department of Education.
Harris further admitted in the plea agreement that from 2021 to 2023, she participated in a separate fraud scheme that bilked the federally funded AmeriCorps VISTA program, which awarded grants to non-profit organizations working to bring communities out of poverty. Harris, who at the time of this scheme was serving as Co-Executive Director of the non-profit South Suburban Community Services, submitted grant applications falsely representing that VISTA members would work for SSCS developing programs aimed at bringing economic opportunities to the south suburbs of Chicago. Harris knew that the VISTA members would actually be used at SSCS to support already-funded job training and afterschool violence prevention programs. Harris fraudulently obtained approval for eleven VISTA members to work at SSCS, none of whom performed services in accordance with their VISTA assignment descriptions, causing a loss to the VISTA program of $98,699.
Harris, 55, of South Holland, Ill., pleaded guilty on Feb. 27, 2025, to a wire fraud charge. U.S. District Judge Andrea R. Wood set sentencing for July 11, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.
Harris’s guilty plea was announced by Morris Pasqual, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, John F. Woolley, Special Agent-in-Charge of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General’s Midwestern Regional Office, Douglas S. DePodesta, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the FBI, Ramsey Covington, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation in Chicago, and Stephen Ravas, Acting Inspector General of the AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General. The Illinois Office of Executive Inspector General provided valuable assistance. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kristen Totten and Caitlin Walgamuth.
Bell, 64, of Matteson, Ill., has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, money laundering, and wire fraud. He is awaiting trial. The public is reminded that the indictment against Bell is not evidence of guilt. Bell is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that the Justice Department has opened a civil pattern or practice investigation into the University of California (UC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation will assess whether UC has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, religion and national origin against its professors, staff and other employees by allowing an Antisemitic hostile work environment to exist on its campuses.
“This Department of Justice will always defend Jewish Americans, protect civil rights, and leverage our resources to eradicate institutional Antisemitism in our nation’s universities,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
“Our country has witnessed a disturbing rise of Antisemitism at educational institutions in California and nationwide,” said Acting Associate Attorney General and Department of Justice Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle. “The Department of Justice is committed to upholding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and protecting Jewish Americans as we investigate this potential pattern of discrimination.”
Leading Task Force member and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Leo Terrell said, “Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks in Israel, there has been an outbreak of antisemitic incidents at leading institutions of higher education in America, including at my own alma mater at the UCLA campus of UC. The impact upon UC’s students has been the subject of considerable media attention and multiple federal investigations. But these campuses are also workplaces, and the Jewish faculty and staff employed there deserve a working environment free of antisemitic hostility and hate. The President, the Attorney General and this Task Force are committed to combatting antisemitism for all Jewish Americans.”
The employment discrimination investigation will be conducted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. Under Title VII, the Justice Department has the authority to initiate investigations against state and local government employers where it has reason to believe that a “pattern or practice” of employment discrimination exists.
Collaboration between the Justice Department and other federal agencies plays an important role in combating antisemitism in schools and college campuses. The Department coordinates with other federal agencies as part of the multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, as well as when sharing enforcement jurisdiction with other agencies. For state and local governments and related entities like public universities, the Department of Justice shares enforcement authority under Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC receives, investigates, and conciliates EEOC charges against state- and local-government employers, before referring those charges to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for potential litigation.
“The EEOC is committed to partnering with the Department of Justice to stamp out the scourge of anti-Semitism on campus workplaces,” said EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas.
Statement by UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem on International Women’s Day (8 March 2025)
Investments in the health and rights of women and girls have changed the world, bringing us closer to equal voices and expanded choices than ever before. Women have taken giant strides forward – and are not going back.
The march forward for equal rights is unstoppable. It will continue until gender equality reaches all women and girls, everywhere.
Commitments made to advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development and the 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women ignited 30 years of progress – particularly on sexual and reproductive health. Activists and allies in every part of the world have mobilized to make motherhood safer and empower women with more choices about their fertility. Their advocacy has led an overwhelming majority of countries to pass laws against domestic violence.
These and other gains are historic achievements that have transformed women’s lives. Every aspect of women’s empowerment, from education to workforce participation to political leadership, depends on the foundation of well-being and autonomy provided by sexual and reproductive health. And when women and girls thrive, so do their families, communities and our world.
By unleashing the potential of half of humanity, gender equality leads to safer and more prosperous societies for everyone. This is affirmed in longstanding and binding international law agreements that most countries have signed, and is proven by rigorous evidence. Yet millions of women and girls are still left behind – every three seconds an adolescent girl is married somewhere in the world. There is not a single country in the world that has yet reached full gender equality. Investment in gender equality is a fraction of what it needs to be – even though we know it would yield trillions of dollars in economic gains and immeasurable social benefits.
Unjust laws and regulations still constrain rights, and healthcare services fail to match needs. Every 10 minutes a woman or girl dies at the hands of an intimate partner or family member. That single statistic tells us everything about how little progress has been made in stopping violence driven by misogyny and discrimination, and what society chooses to prioritize.
Increasing armed conflict and climate disasters amplify risks and inequalities, as women and girls face higher rates of unintended pregnancy and maternal mortality, and violence and child marriage soar.
This International Women’s Day is a call to march forward, with urgency and in solidarity, for all women and girls in all their diversity. Despite the many challenges, we have seen in our own lifetimes how much change is possible, and we have international law and fundamental human rights on our side. We have examples of change, and evidence of the benefits. These are powerful tools to achieve equality. Let’s use them.
UNFPA will continue to work with partners and allies, with governments and civil society, to uphold women’s rights. We will not rest until everyone can make their own choices about whether and when to have children. Until no woman dies while pregnant or giving birth. Gender equality will transform our world, for people today and tomorrow, for the benefit of all.
NEWARK, N.J. — On Feb. 26, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel joined U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the Port of New York/Newark in conducting an unannounced inspection of a CBP-bonded warehouse in North Bergen, New Jersey, to ensure individuals working in government-regulated facilities were lawfully present and permitted to work in the United States. ICE and CBP worked alongside the FBI Newark Field Office, DEA New Jersey Division, and ATF, to ensure that all facility personnel were acting in compliance with U.S. employment laws.
This operation resulted in the discovery of 16 individuals who were present in the U.S. illegally. The individuals were apprehended and placed under administrative arrest.
“This operation underscores HSI’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding the integrity of our trade infrastructure and, in turn, the wellbeing of the public at-large,” said ICE Homeland Security Investigations Newark Special Agent in Charge Ricky J. Patel. “ICE HSI Newark is proud to stand side-by-side with our law enforcement partners to ensure the safety of our neighborhoods and our livelihoods.”
“In the current threat climate, enforcement efforts like this are critical,” added CBP Acting Port Director Jeffrey Greene. “Holding our trade industry partners accountable provides a baseline for operational proficiency. This baseline allows us to be laser focused on our broader enforcement efforts — keeping bad actors and bad things from harming our country.”
Additionally, this operation was conducted in part to determine whether imported merchandise was properly secured. Unannounced inspections serve to identify unauthorized manipulations of commercial merchandise within bonded areas, noncompliance with customs regulations, and unauthorized access by employees who lack the authority to access the bonded areas.
ICE is the federal agency responsible for upholding the laws established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which requires employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of all individuals they hire. These laws help protect jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminate unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthen public safety and national security.
Under federal law, employers are required to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals they hire, and to document that information using the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9. ICE uses the I-9 inspection program to promote compliance with the law, part of a comprehensive strategy to address and deter illegal employment. Inspections are one of the most powerful tools the federal government uses to ensure that businesses are complying with U.S. employment laws.
ICE’s worksite enforcement strategy includes leveraging the agency’s other investigative disciplines, since worksite investigations can often involve additional criminal activity, such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, document fraud, worker exploitation and/or substandard wage and working conditions.
ICE uses a three-pronged approach to worksite enforcement: compliance, from I-9 inspections, civil fines and referrals for debarment; enforcement, through the criminal arrest of employers and administrative arrest of unauthorized workers.
Governor Shapiro Signs Executive Order to Fill Critical Public Service Vacancies in Pennsylvania by Recruiting Talented, Experienced Federal Employees and Streamlining Hiring Process
Governor Josh Shapiro signed Executive Order 2025-01 to help fill critical vacancies in the Commonwealth workforce with experienced former federal employees who have specialized expertise in important fields like civil engineering, nursing, corrections, accounting, and more. The Governor’s Executive Order directs the Office of Administration to accept federal government experience as equivalent to Commonwealth work experience for civil service roles, ensuring former federal employees with valuable experience can more easily apply for essential vacant positions with the Commonwealth. The Executive Order focuses on adding workforce in already-funded job positions to serve Pennsylvanians more efficiently and effectively.
As part of this Executive Order, the Shapiro Administration will also begin an aggressive effort to recruit federal employees into Pennsylvania’s workforce, launching a new website with key information about exciting state government opportunities that align with their experience and hosting virtual and in-person job fairs for federal employees. That effort builds on the Shapiro Administration‘s work to streamline Commonwealth hiring processes, open the doors of opportunity for those who want to serve, and recruit a team that represents all of Pennsylvania. As a result of that work so far, the Shapiro Administration has reduced hiring times by 32 percent and filled nearly 600 previously vacant permitting, licensing, and certification (PLC) jobs.
The Governor signed the Executive Order at the second annual Commonwealth Job Fair in Harrisburg, where over 40 state agencies provided job seekers with information about public service careers and hundreds of open positions to nearly 900 registered attendees.
“Under my Administration, we’ve worked to speed up hiring, fill essential vacancies, and recruit more qualified employees who have helped us cut processing times, reduce wait lists, and deliver results for the people of Pennsylvania,” said Governor Shapiro. “Right now, Pennsylvania still has 540 critical jobs to fill – and we have an opportunity to recruit federal workers and veterans who have significant experience and expertise in all of these fields because they’ve held these jobs already at the federal level or in the military. Under this Executive Order, my Administration will consider relevant federal work experience as equivalent to Commonwealth work experience so skilled, experienced federal employees can pre-qualify for existing open positions with the Commonwealth – while continuing to protect pathways for veterans to continue their service.”
Speaker list: Governor Josh Shapiro Commissioner Pam Iovino, State Civil Service Commission Jonathan Skripka, Commonwealth employee Representatived Justin Fleming Representative Carol Hill-Evans Secretary of Administration Neil Weaver
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kieran File, Associate Professor, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick
Motor sport’s governing body the FIA (International Automobile Federation) has not ruled out extending its recent swearing ban to Formula One (F1) team radio communication. Last month FIA president Mohammed Sulayem said the body could “shut down the radios of live communication” over the issue.
At first glance, this might seem like a minor issue of professionalism. After all, athletes in many sports are expected to control their language.
For some, the idea that drivers need to swear during races may seem unconvincing, given that emotions can be expressed through other word choices. Many people are not permitted to swear in their workplaces, so why should F1 drivers be an exception?
But research suggests that banning drivers from swearing during races could have wider effects. It may disrupt how they regulate their emotions in Formula One’s extreme environment.
It could also affect how they communicate efficiently with their teams, and how they shape their identities as racing drivers – functions that swearing, arguably, serves in live racing communication.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Experimental and lab-based studies suggest that swear words are processed differently to other words. They have been linked to brain regions responsible for processing emotion, threat detection and survival responses.
Given that F1 drivers operate in an intense, high-stakes environment where rapid decision-making and threat assessment are key, this connection may suggest that swearing is a natural response under pressure.
Some studies also suggest that swearing activates the fight-or-flight response, triggering physiological changes like increased heart rate, faster breathing and adrenaline release. The fight-or-flight response is an instinctive mechanism that helps humans react to danger.
For F1 drivers, who must remain highly alert while making critical decisions at extreme speeds, this connection between swearing and physiological arousal could play a role in maintaining focus and performance under pressure.
Beyond cognitive and emotional regulation, swearing may also increase pain tolerance, which has clear implications for F1 drivers enduring G-forces, mental strain and long stints behind the wheel in a very cramped space. Banning swearing could interfere with drivers’ instinctive mechanism for coping with extreme conditions involved in racing.
Swearing and communication
Beyond these more cathartic functions, swearing, arguably, plays a crucial role in interpersonal team communication, particularly in the high-pressure environment of live racing. In Formula One, where split-second decisions can define the outcome of a race, communication between driver and engineer must be concise, clear and unambiguous.
Research suggests that swearing, far from being just an emotional outburst, serves several pragmatic functions that may enhance communication in such high-stakes environments. One key function of swearing in interpersonal communication is that it acts as an “attention getter”.
Studies have shown that swear words command more cognitive focus than neutral words, making them particularly effective in cutting through noise and grabbing attention when urgency is required. For drivers, an expletive-laden message may serve as an immediate cue for the race engineer and the wider racing team to prioritise a response.
The strong response from drivers may also reflect the inextricable link between language and identity, and that, at a deeper level, this swearing policy may challenge how they construct their identities as racing drivers.
F1 drivers are socialised into the sport, often from a young age, learning not just how to drive but how to talk and interact like racing drivers. Perhaps due to these cathartic and team communication functions, swearing may have become an assumed way of claiming and performing the identity of a racing driver.
People (and communities) resist imposed changes to their language, especially when it is seen to alter how they present themselves. Seen in this way, the proposed swearing ban is more than a simple matter of professionalism. It is an external attempt to reshape how drivers construct and “perform” their identities within their sport.
Entertainment value
It is also worth mentioning the potential effects on the entertainment values of such a ban. One of the biggest shifts in modern F1 has been the opening up of the team radio communications to the public.
Once a private channel for strategy and decision-making, it is now part of the entertainment package – broadcast, clipped and replayed for millions of fans. This has given audiences insight into the intensity of racing, but it has also altered the meaning of driver communication, turning functional exchanges into public performances.
Yet team radio is not designed for entertainment: it is for the vital, two-way flow of information during racing events. So any decision about what is broadcast should be a negotiation, not a policy imposed on speech itself.
It should also see the broadcasters accommodating the norms of the environment rather than the other way around. The FIA’s approach treats this as a regulatory issue rather than a broadcasting one, placing restrictions on competitors instead of reconsidering how private communication is curated for public access.
Viewed in this context, this ban may inadvertently create a contradiction in F1’s wider media strategy. The sport wants the authenticity of raw radio exchanges but not the discomfort of unfiltered emotion.
A swearing ban risks making team radio feel sanitised and staged, diminishing the very sense of access that made it compelling and exciting in the first place.
Kieran File 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster
US president Donald Trump sees himself as a born negotiator with a knack for driving a hard bargain and striking a good deal. When it comes to trade, his approach is clearly positional, and negotiations are treated as zero-sum games with winners and losers.
Imposing tariffs – or threatening to do so – is his preferred way of exerting influence over US trading partners. While tariffs are unilaterally imposed – and not the result of negotiations – they can be interpreted as an opening gambit to gain leverage in trade negotiations further down the line.
Since taking office, Trump has already announced a series of sweeping new tariffs, including an across-the-board steel and aluminium tariff to be effective from March 12.
As the biggest trading partner of the US, the EU is concerned. Yet the EU is also a formidable negotiator.
Negotiations are very much part of the EU’s DNA. They are the bloc’s preferred way of engaging with third countries, and in trade the European Commission negotiates on behalf of the member states, projecting a unified EU front. With more trade agreements in place than any other country or regional bloc, it is considered a champion of a liberal global trade order.
Unlike Trump, the EU prefers a more open approach. Negotiations are considered win-win games, with a focus on relation-building and trying to understand where the other party comes.
Its response to the provocation from Washington has been rapid and strategic. Even so, the EU has already found that the only option with Trump is to play him at his own game.
The art of other deals
Sticking with what it knows best, the EU has hurried to conclude trade negotiations with other partners to offset some of the economic losses resulting from potential US tariffs, and to demonstrate its continued commitment to trade liberalisation and international cooperation.
Since Trump’s election, the EU has finalised negotiations for a groundbreaking trade deal with Mercosur – a South American trade bloc bringing together Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. This agreement –- if ratified – will create a market of 800 million citizens and boost trade and political ties between the two regions.
Indirectly rejecting Trump’s “America first” approach, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, stressed how the EU-Mercosur agreement is a political necessity, “bringing together like-minded partners that believe in openness and cooperation as engines of economic growth”.
This reaction is similar to the EU’s response to the isolationist approach taken by Trump during his first administration. Most significantly, it then reached an extensive free trade agreement with Japan.
Cecilia Malmström, the EU trade commissioner at the time, highlighted how the EU and Japan were “”sending a strong signal to the world that two of its biggest economies still believe in open trade, opposing both unilateralism and protectionism”.
It was also the first time the EU used a trade agreement to commit to the Paris agreement on climate change – a commitment that was replicated in the EU-Mercosur agreement. This again, was a way of taking a stance against Trump’s broader rejection of multilateralism and withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
Although not intentionally, Trump has triggered an expansion of the EU’s network of trade agreements. But while these are significant, they cannot fully protect the EU from the effects of US-imposed tariffs. After all, the EU and the US are each other’s largest trading partners, and they have the world’s most integrated economic relationship.
For that reason, the EU has engaged in intensive diplomacy to try to avert the looming tariffs, and to lure the US to the negotiating table. It has expressed openness to lowering tariffs on industrial goods, including cars, while insisting such a move needs to form part of a broader negotiated deal, compatible with the rules of the WTO. However, these efforts have been to no avail.
This has left the EU with no choice but to adopt Trump’s positional approach and threaten to impose retaliatory measures. In response to the economic pressure exerted by Trump in his first term, the EU has expanded its arsenal of punitive measures, including an anti-coercion instrument that allows for rapid retaliation.
There has long been strong resistance to use such measures as it runs counter to the EU’s traditionally open negotiating approach, but the tone in Brussels has now hardened.
A tit-for-tat tariff war would negatively affect businesses and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. During his first term Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium, and the EU responded with targeted tariffs on goods, such as American whiskey and jeans.
This was followed by a political agreement, opening the door for trade talks. While a trade deal never materialised, it demonstrates how both the US and the EU recognised the need for a de-escalation of the dispute, and a return to the negotiating table.
This time around, the looming tariffs are more comprehensive, and they would have more far-reaching implications. The question is how long – and how damaging – the trade war will be before the parties return to the negotiating table. After all, that’s where you reach a deal.
Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén 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.
During a wide-ranging 90-minute speech to the US congress of March 4, Donald Trump revisited his determination to “get” Greenland “one way or the other”. Trump said his country needed Greenland “for national security”. While he said he and his government “strongly support your right to determine your own future” he added that “if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America”.
Trump’s ambitions regarding Greenland and its considerable mineral wealth are just one of a raft of issues in the first six weeks of his second term that have plunged European global politics into disarray.
As the White House ramps up the pressure on Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to allow the US access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, the US president is also talking about “cutting a deal” with Russian president Vladimir Putin. That deal would not only mean territorial losses for Kyiv, but would prepare the ground for a potentially far-reaching economic partnership between the White House and the Kremlin.
Currently, Trump and Putin are primarily focused on Ukrainian territory and mineral assets. But discussions have also begun on where else “deals” might be made, including in the Arctic.
A carve up of the Arctic is an attractive proposition for the two countries given the importance both leaders attach to mineral resource wealth. As in the case of Ukraine, such an approach would reflect Trump’s predisposition for transactional geopolitics at the expense of multilateral approaches.
In the Arctic, any deal would effectively end the principle of “circumpolar cooperation”. This has, since the end of the cold war, upheld the regional primacy of the eight Arctic states (A8) that have cooperated to solve common challenges.
Since the Arctic Council was established in 1996, the A8 has worked on issues of environmental protection, sustainable development, human security and scientific collaboration. That harmony has been crucial in an era in which climate change is causing the rapid melting of Arctic ice.
Notably, the Arctic Council played an instrumental role in negotiating several legally binding treaties. These include agreements on search and rescue (2011), marine oil pollution preparedness (2013) and scientific cooperation (2017). It also supported the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries agreement (CAO) signed in 2018 by the Arctic Ocean states with Iceland, the EU, China, Japan and South Korea.
The Arctic Council – and more broadly, circumpolar cooperation – withstood the geopolitical aftershocks of Russia’s seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine between 2014 and 2015. But Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine left trust teetering on the precipice.
Within a month, European and North American members had pressed pause on regular meetings of the Arctic Council and its scientific working groups, isolating Moscow. Some activity eventually resumed at the working group level in virtual formats, but full engagement with Russia has remained conditional on a military withdrawal from Ukraine. Meanwhile, hefty sanctions were imposed by the US and Europe, including targeting Russian Arctic energy projects.
Russia’s response was to enhance its relationships with others. Countries such as Brazil, India, Turkey and Saudi Arabia now work with Russia in the Arctic on commercial and scientific projects. This pivot raised concerns among Nato allies about a stronger and challenging Russia-China presence across the Arctic. But the second Trump administration has changed the calculus. There’s now the threat of a new Arctic order based on the primacy – not of the A8 – but on a reset of US-Russia relations.
Change of focus
Trump’s signing of an executive order on February 4 to determine whether to withdraw support from international institutions may lead the White House to conclude there is no place for the Arctic Council. Its longstanding focus on climate change and environmental protection is anathema to the Trump administration, which has already withdrawn from the Paris agreement and is destroying domestic climate-related science programmes.
The longstanding commitment of the A8 to circumpolar cooperation, or even a narrow A5 (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US) view of the primacy of the Arctic Ocean coastal states, is likely to be dismissed by the White House, which favours the embrace of great power politics. While many have warned that the Arctic Council can’t survive without Russia, losing US interest and support would surely be its death knell.
In this landscape of “America first”, the prospect of Washington and Moscow dividing the Arctic and its resources seems increasingly realistic. In such a situation, the international treaties signed by the A8, and the CAO may also be at risk. Denmark may find itself excluded altogether from Arctic affairs if Trump gets his way over Greenland. At any rate, all the Nordic Arctic states are likely to struggle to make their voices in the region heard.
A key question for European Nato and EU members is whether Trump would worry about Russian dominance in the European Arctic if it brought US-Russia economic cooperation to extract the region’s wealth? Might Trump even be supportive of Russian attempts to revisit the terms of the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty, which ultimately gave Norway sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago (albeit with some limitations), if that too meant jointly unlocking Svalbard’s mineral resources let alone the wealth of the Arctic seabed?
What room, if any, would a deal leave for Indigenous people to be heard, or for international scientific collaboration on critical challenges related to climate and biodiversity?
If we have learned anything in the tumult of recent weeks, it is that European countries, individually and collectively, struggle to exercise strategic influence over contemporary geopolitical events. If Trump and Putin do begin negotiations over the Arctic, Europe may simply have to accept the end of the Arctic Council and circumpolar cooperation.
Climate science, environmental protection, sustainable development and the ability of Indigenous people to decide their future would all suffer. The UK and Europe meanwhile will be left to consider what, if anything, can be done to defend Arctic interests.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reintroduced the Federal Prisons Accountability Act. The legislation would bring greater accountability to federal prisons by requiring the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to be confirmed by the Senate. Currently, the BOP Director is not subject to Senate confirmation, despite having significant authority over taxpayer dollars and federal personnel.
“The Director of the Bureau of Prisons oversees a massive budget and thousands of employees, including many Iowans. It’s a significant responsibility that requires serious oversight to protect inmates and employees from mismanagement or abuse. Requiring the BOP Director to face Senate confirmation would bring much needed transparency and accountability to the federal prison system,” Grassley said.
“The Senate plays a vital role in staffing the federal government, evaluating the qualifications of more than a thousand presidential nominees to ensure transparency and accountability. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons oversees thousands of employees and a multi-billion-dollar budget, and should be subject to Senate review and confirmation as well. Our bill would extend the Senate’s advice and consent role to the Bureau of Prisons Director and expand supervision over this federal agency. The thousands of Americans – and hundreds of Kentuckians – employed by the Bureau of Prisons deserve Senate oversight and an added layer of protection from harm,” McConnell said.
Background:
The Federal Prisons Accountability Act of 2025 would require the President to appoint the BOP Director with the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation would also limit a BOP Director’s tenure to a single, 10-year term.
Unlike most Department of Justice (DOJ) administrators and directors, the BOP Director is appointed by the Attorney General – not the President – without Senate consideration. The BOP Director supervises the federal prison employees who serve in over 120 facilities across the country. This legislation would subject the Director to the same congressional scrutiny as other top law enforcement agency chiefs within the DOJ, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Director and the Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator.
-30-
Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released investigative findings detailing the full scope of the Obama-Biden State Department’s pervasive obstruction of FBI law enforcement efforts before, during and after the Iran Nuclear Deal negotiations. According to legally protected whistleblower disclosures, FBI arrest efforts against high-level Iranian targets were severely hampered until President Trump took office in 2016; Trump’s election “result[ed] in an immediate move back toward normal enforcement of the law against the Iran regime and its supporters.”
“This report offers chilling evidence the Obama-Biden administration jeopardized our national security and demoralized the morale of FBI agents who were working to keep Americans safe,” Grassley said. “Democrats’ historic refusal to get tough on Iran emboldened its regime and allowed Tehran to continue funding global acts of terrorism, like what we saw on October 7, 2023. We should all be breathing a sigh of relief President Trump is back in the White House to restore American strength on the world stage and hold Iran accountable for its evil acts.”
Per a legally protected whistleblower disclosure: “The State Department and Obama-Biden administration officials persistently and systematically derailed criminal and national security investigations, creating a shadow amnesty program that protected scores of additional Iranian criminals. FBI offices abandoned dozens of Iran-related investigations and U.S. Attorneys shut down prosecutions after recognizing the State Department and DOJ obstruction would thwart effective enforcement efforts.”
Read Grassley’s staff report HERE.
Findings:
Unclassified FBI email records show the State Department, under the leadership of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, repeatedly blocked FBI officials from executing arrests on individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Per an FBI official, in at least once instance, “Secretary of State [Kerry] personally told DOJ officials that they were to stand down on an arrest.” Kerry’s actions flew in the face of his sworn testimony to Congress; ahead of the Iran Nuclear Deal’s signing, Kerry promised Congress the deal would not prevent the U.S. from using its authorities to hold Iran accountable “for terrorism, human rights, missiles or any other non-nuclear reason.”
FBI officials elevated their concerns regarding the State Department’s obstruction to the highest rungs of DOJ leadership – including then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch – to no avail. As arrest opportunities passed, one FBI official wrote, “We are all beside ourselves on asking the field to stand down on a layup arrest, however as it stands right now we all have to sit back and wait until all the US and Iran negotiations resolve themselves.”
A State Department official characterized the absurdity of the Obama-Biden administration’s inactive law enforcement posture, writing to an FBI official, “it’s a little like WTF that [the arrest is] being held up (if you’ll excuse the phrasing). However it is what it is.”
Ultimately, FBI officials resigned to take steps documenting the State Department’s stonewalling “should there ever be a special investigation/hearing etc. on why FBI could not action law, and potentially prevent [a] national security incident.”
The Biden-Harris administration last year failed to muster a response to Grassley’s initial findings regarding this obstruction. Today’s report provides the fullest public account of the Obama-Biden State Department’s unlawful actions.
-30-
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
Nothing about Donald Trump’s hasty and illegal attempted dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—and with it, the decapitation of American power—is remotely efficient. Just this week, USAID’s now-former Inspector General found that there is currently half a billion dollars’ worth of American-grown food stranded at ports and warehouses across the country, on the verge of spoiling. That’s corn and rice and lentils and soybeans, grown in Iowa and Kansas and Texas and Oklahoma, that would have otherwise fed children in a school in Bangladesh or famished refugees at a camp in war-torn Sudan. (The Inspector General was subsequently fired for disclosing this information.)
Similarly, there’s no efficiency being achieved by obstructing one of the most successful global health programs in history—the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief—which has saved 26 million lives over the past two decades. PEPFAR currently provides HIV treatment to over 20 million people around the world, meaning every day aid isn’t flowing inches us closer to the very outbreaks we’ve worked so hard to prevent.
Whether it’s delivering clean water to communities across Africa; or promoting economic development through education in Mali and small business support in El Salvador; or providing life-saving care in Thailand and Syria; or fighting human trafficking in Nepal and Liberia, thousands of USAID workers and contractors make miracles big and small happen every day.
But USAID succeeds as more than just a moral matter. Each year, it pours billions of dollars back into the U.S. economy, supporting farmers and businesses that provide food and other supplies. It also helps fight terrorist groups and drug cartels that endanger Americans, while deepening American values and interests in every corner of the globe. But perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of USAID’s work is its singular ability to forge relationships with unlikely partners which help combat the harmful influence of adversaries like China and Russia.
It’s no surprise, then, that Beijing and Moscow are now cheering on our sudden retreat. They’re not wasting any time filling the void, either. Within days of USAID’s closure, China sent aid and dispatched workers to take on projects we’ve abandoned in the Indo Pacific and Africa. Intended or not, that will be the enduring consequence of this episode of chaos: an emboldened China, all-too-eager to exploit American isolation to grow its own power and influence.
Like any organization, USAID is not perfect. There are inefficiencies and redundancies, and evolving challenges and emerging technologies present opportunities for improvement. It’s also entirely legitimate to question whether U.S. funding is aligned with our current priorities and interests and seek to adjust it as needed within the four corners of the law. Doing that is one of Congress’ most fundamental responsibilities—and something I was eager to work on when I became the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid last month.
But the abrupt and total shutdown of USAID—in defiance of multiple federal laws through which it was codified and funded—reveals a simple truth: The Department of Government Efficiency is not actually about achieving efficiency. Rather, it’s about Trump trying to wish away whichever parts of the government he doesn’t like. Were a purge of this nature to happen in a country halfway around the world, we would rightly call it an authoritarian takeover. The fact that it’s happening at our own doorstep doesn’t change that.
Much of what DOGE claims to have newly unearthed are either outright lies or were already publicly available for all to see. Worse, there’s no telling what funding they deem unnecessary—except for vague, baseless descriptions like “woke” and “radical” and “criminal.”
The way to make reforms is through the lawmaking process—not the lawbreaking process. If you believe that a program needs to be narrowed in scope, reformed a great deal, or even eliminated altogether, the way to do that is by proposing a law—not by rampaging the federal government and stripping it for parts. Our government with three separate but co-equal branches exists precisely to prevent this kind of anarchy operating under a thin veneer of fiscal responsibility and shrewd cost-cutting.
Moving fast and breaking things may be an acceptable way to conduct business at a tech company. But a break now, fix later strategy doesn’t work when you’re the leader of the free world. What’s on the line is not advertising revenue and the user experience, but lives and livelihoods. Hundreds of millions of them, in fact. People will die, diseases will spread, and famine will grow. Trump is trying to hoodwink Americans into thinking the only way to achieve efficiency is by exacting maximum chaos and cruelty. It’s a false choice and we must reject it.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON – Tonight at 9:00 p.m. ET/4:00 p.m. HT, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) will meet with nonprofit organizations that serve communities harmed by President Donald Trump’s funding freeze and federal workers in Hawai‘i who were recently laid off through no fault of their own, as part of President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s unprecedented assault on the federal workforce. They will discuss how Trump’s moves to stop federal funding and fire thousands of workers across the country have negatively impacted Hawai‘i residents, communities, and our local economy.
“Hawai‘i’s nonprofits and federal workers care for veterans, protect our national parks and other public lands, and provide essential services that keep people safe and healthy. They serve the public and keep our government running. Instead of recognizing the critical work they do, they have been unfairly and illegally attacked by President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. Hawai‘i’s federal workers and their families deserve better,” said Senator Schatz.
The virtual meetings will include former federal workers and nonprofits in Hawai‘i that provide essential health care and education services, and help preserve Hawai‘i’s wildlife and environment.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON — During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing today, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, called attention to President Donald Trump’s unlawful efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), warning that it puts millions of lives and American interests at risk.
“Because we haven’t had Secretary Rubio here to talk about the evisceration of USAID, it is important for everybody to understand exactly what happened,” said Senator Schatz. “The so-called Department of Government Efficiency had said that they’re going to feed USAID to the woodchipper. That does not sound like a good faith review.”
Citing USAID’s own internal memos, Schatz outlined the dire consequences of Trump’s closure of the agency, including up to 18 million additional cases of malaria per year leading to as many as 166,000 deaths; 200,000 children paralyzed with polio annually with hundreds of millions of infections; a million children left without treatment for severe malnutrition each year; and more than 28,000 new cases of deadly diseases like Ebola and Marburg annually.
“Does the United States of America, under any president, support 18 million additional cases of malaria? Is that who we’ve become? Is that America first?” Senator Schatz continued. “We’re going to disagree about a lot in the foreign policy space, but we should not disagree about abiding by the law. We should not disagree that babies, when we can prevent it, should not get HIV/AIDS from their moms. I am just hoping, I am praying, I am begging that we can get back to a bipartisan consensus that we don’t cut off our nose to spite our face. We are the good guys. We do not cause death on purpose.”
The full text of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.
I’ve been in the Senate for more than ten years. Only one other time, I’ve not asked a question. I’m not going to ask a question. I think it’s very important that all of us, because we haven’t had Secretary Rubio here to talk about the evisceration of USAID, it is important for everybody to understand exactly what happened.
I’m just going to lay out the facts here. First of all, it’s important to understand that the so-called Department of Government Efficiency had said that they’re going to feed USAID to the woodchipper. That does not sound like a good faith review. They said it was going to be a 90-day review. And then when a federal court said that they had to not violate the Foreign Assistance Act and the appropriations law and the Prompt Payments Act and the Impoundment Act, they came back, and they eliminated 5,800 programs at AID and another 4,000 at State. Flatly illegal.
Any administration is within their rights, maybe even obliged, to review and reform spending. The way to review and reform spending is in this building. Senator Graham, the chairman of the SFOPS committee, and myself, as the ranking member of the SFOPS committee, had a very constructive conversation about how to better align the State Department’s objectives with USAID’s objectives.
And by the way, this has been a bipartisan complaint over many, many administrations that they are not sufficiently aligned and that we’re not targeting economic assistance, foreign military financing, and humanitarian aid as precisely as we ought to. And maybe even that some of the NGOs and for-profits that deliver the aid ought to be held accountable, just like in the Defense Department, just like any other department for reducing their overhead costs.
I said, ‘I’m in.’ Two days later, they send 94% of employees home. Secretary Rubio reassures us multiple times, most of us on this committee on a bipartisan basis, ‘Don’t worry, there’s a waiver process.’ There is a waiver process. The problem is the building is shut down and nobody has access to their emails. You cannot process a waiver for life-saving humanitarian aid with no personnel.
And so if there is an effort to reform USAID, to tighten up what it is that we do, to make sure that… and everybody, by the way, has, since I got on this committee and before, everybody talks about how smart China is for having Belt and Road, for making friends across the planet and how cheap it is to do this kind of diplomacy compared to the Department of Defense.
And we admire that, and we ponder it, and we say we should do our own version of that. That’s USAID. It’s also parts of the State Department. And so I am all in for a 90-day review. But I just want everybody to understand what is happening now. A, what is happening is illegal. It is violating the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. It is violating the Impoundment Control Act, and it is violating annual appropriations bills. So first of all, it’s illegal.
Second of all. According to USAID’s own internal memos, this closure will result in up to 18 million additional cases of malaria per year. Because of the United States’ illegal decision to shutter this agency. I can’t believe that this has taken on some sort of partisan vibe. Does the United States of America, under any president, support 18 million additional cases of malaria? Is that who we’ve become? Is that America first?
We’re going to disagree about a lot in the foreign policy space, but we should not disagree about abiding by the law. We should not disagree that babies, when we can prevent it, should not get HIV/AIDS from their moms. And we should not disagree about a basic premise of foreign policy and the exercise of American might, which is: sometimes the smartest thing for us to do is to show up with help. We have been doing this on a bipartisan basis, and we have to get back to that.
This idea of a waiver process is fine, except it’s not working. This idea of a 90 day review is fine, except in the meantime, we’ve eviscerated the program. And so I understand none of you are in the government. But I am just hoping, I am praying, I am begging that we can get back to a bipartisan consensus that we don’t cut off our nose to spite our face. We are the good guys. We do not cause death on purpose.
Pauline Donalda c1906A film created by an Aberdeen academic exploring the life of a soprano whose musical rise was supported by a former University chancellor has won awards and been included in the official selection of a number of international film festivals.
Madame Donalda by Professor Alan Marcus, Chair in Creative and Cultural Practice, examines the life of Pauline Lightstone, who performed as Madame Donalda. Filmed in Montreal, London and Aberdeen, it has generated much international interest.
Donalda’s stage name was a tribute to Donald Smith, who became Lord Strathcona (1820-1914) a Scottish-born Canadian businessman who became a leading philanthropist after making his fortune from investments in land, railways, and banking.
Born in Forres, Moray, in 1899 he was appointed Lord Rector of the University of Aberdeen and later became its Chancellor.
As a 15-year-old, the purity of Pauline’s voice was recognised during musical rehearsals at a synagogue and she was then awarded a place at the Royal Victoria College (RVC), originally the women’s college at McGill University.
Lord Strathcona was a champion of women’s education at McGill and was a proponent of the education of women and furthering women’s opportunities.
He agreed to support Pauline’s ‘fully rounded musical education’ including study at Conservatoire de Paris.
Lord Strathcona’s second benefaction to the College was made under his middle name of Donald and the women supported by ‘the Donalda Endowment’ proudly called themselves ‘the Donaldas’ – a tradition adopted by Pauline Lighthouse who appeared on stage as Pauline Donalda.
After a successful debut in Nice, France, in 1904, her artistic career quickly took off. In 1905, she sang at London’s Covent Garden for the Queen and at The Brussels Royal Opera House.
These performances earned her tremendous acclaim and for many years she sang the leading operatic roles at Covent Garden and the great opera houses of Europe. She also toured Britain and sang at Aberdeen’s Musical Hall. When World War I broke out, she suspended her international career and organised benefit concerts to support the war effort.
From 1922 she devoted herself to teaching voice and in 1942 founded the Opera Guild of Montreal, which went on to stage the first Canadian performances of many operas.
Professor Marcus, whose own father Rudy Marcus received his degrees from McGill including an honorary doctorate, and at 101 is the oldest living Nobel laureate (Chemistry, 1992) in North America, said he was inspired by a story which pulls together many threads of his own life.
“I was told the story of Madame Donalda aka Pauline Lightstone by a great uncle of mine some 35 years ago when I learned that she was a relative of ours, and it made a sufficient impression on me that I was hopeful one day I might be able to tell it in film form,” he added.
“The key elements of the story involving a daughter of European immigrants to Montreal, who against the odds rose to become in her early-20s one of the great sopranos of her day, adapts well to film, because through moving image and sound one can provide a more vivid impression and sense of presence.
“During the years of research and drawing upon archives in London, Montreal and Ottawa, I was able to piece together through news items and her personal correspondence and much archival imagery, the various components of Donalda’s life.
“What was unexpected was the Aberdeen connection and the fact that her patron, from whom she took her stage name, Madame Donalda, was a keen proponent of women’s education and served both as Chancellor of McGill, where she studied, and the University of Aberdeen. The personal connection I and my family have with Aberdeen and McGill added an immediacy to the story.”
The film has received Best Documentary and Best Editing awards at the Experimental Dance and Music Film Festival 2024 in Toronto, the Best Classical Music film award at the Buenos Aires 11th Music Film Festival 2025, and official selection at ten other film festivals including the Los Angeles Film and Documentary Awards 2024.
Professor Marcus said: “It is gratifying that the film has been included in various international film festivals and won awards, but what I hope is that when people view the film they not only learn of Donalda’s talents and be intrigued with her extraordinary accomplishments, but also be enthralled by the short performances in her old recordings, and more recently through the participation in the film of Bulgarian soprano, Sofia Dimitrova, who brings the musical pieces to life with great passion.”
In any negotiation, understanding your counterpart’s style is paramount. The Ukraine conflict, and especially the heated discussion between presidents Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, has revealed a critical disconnect between the two administrations.
Volodymyr Zelensky later called the fiery showdown with President Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance “regrettable” and wrote to Trump to say he was ready to negotiate. But the Ukrainian president and his European allies have approached talks from a principles-based position. In terms of negotiating style, this means they tend to emphasise multilateral mechanisms, such as collegial decision-making, long-term relationship-building and cultural sensitivity.
Trump is a businessman and operates from a fundamentally different negotiation paradigm. Unfortunately, this misalignment has significant implications for Ukraine’s strategic position and for European security.
Research my colleagues and I conducted, comparing US and Italian negotiation styles, has shown that US negotiators typically use a more competitive, transactional approach. They might appear unilateral or domineering but are also adept at connecting different parts of a deal and trading concessions across issues to achieve their goals.
Trump, however, combines this with highly competitive tactics and emotional rhetoric. Unlike typical US negotiators who are thought to avoid emotional expression, as shown in our study, Trump uses anger and confrontation to dominate discussions and control narratives.
He frames negotiations in zero-sum terms, where every deal must have a clear winner and loser. This reinforces his public image as a strong leader.
And most importantly, Trump appears to negotiate selectively. He enters discussions only when he believes he holds the stronger position.
Our study shows that Americans prioritise bottom-line outcomes and use competitive tactics when they perceive themselves to be in positions of power.
Trump exemplifies this approach but adds his own distinctive elements – emotional pressure, public posturing and an unwavering commitment to his positions until a more favourable alternative emerges.
Zelensky’s miscalculation
President Zelensky’s primary negotiation error has been attempting to engage in a principles-based negotiation with a counterpart who favours transactional deal-making. When Zelensky appeals to democratic principles, territorial integrity and international law, he’s speaking a negotiation language that Trump doesn’t understand.
Classic negotiation research suggests Zelensky should have structured negotiations around US economic interests rather than western unity or moral imperatives.
Trump has made clear that he will protect Ukraine and Europe only insofar as it serves these economic interests. Zelensky is negotiating from a dependant position (Ukraine needs aid to survive). As such, the key is making the deal appealing to the stronger party while protecting his own interests.
In our study, we also found that the Italian negotiators often emphasise emotional engagement, treating counterparts as collaborators rather than adversaries. They tend to focus on mutual interests and their approach balances technical considerations with human relationships.
It is underpinned by principles such as liberal values and adherence to international norms. This chimes with other findings on the evolution of negotiation styles within the EU.
But this approach can be ineffective against Trump’s confrontational, power-based tactics. Emotional engagement may be misinterpreted as a weakness, and consensus-driven approaches fail when the counterpart insists on domination.
The liberal world order appears unprepared to negotiate at Trump’s level. It still expects rational, interest-based discussions rather than emotionally charged confrontations.
The rest of the world will have to adapt to Trump’s approach.
The EU’s experience negotiating Brexit provides a relevant template for addressing the Ukraine conflict. The appointment of Michel Barnier as chief negotiator, backed by a bloc of 27 nations, proved effective despite initial scepticism.
A similar approach could work for Ukraine. Appointing an authoritative chief negotiator with a clear mandate could be successful. Barnier, economist and former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi or ex-German chancellor Angela Merkel are obvious candidates. This structure might neutralise Trump’s preference for one-on-one, power-based deals and force negotiations on terms more aligned with European interests.
But to engage Trump, European and Ukrainian leaders need to reframe their approach.
First, proposals should be presented in terms of economic benefits. Trump prioritises trade, jobs and business opportunities over security or moral arguments. The negotiation landscape should emphasise the actual distribution of aid to Ukraine, highlighting that European nations collectively have provided substantial financial and humanitarian support.
Second, objective data and power-based arguments are better than moral appeals. Economic impact assessments and strategic calculations will resonate more effectively than principles-based reasoning.
Third, competitive tactics should be matched with controlled confrontation. Emotional engagement must be strategic, reinforcing firm but pragmatic positioning rather than appearing defensive.
Finally, win-win scenarios will allow Trump to claim victory. Trump negotiates to win, and deals must enable him to declare personal success in front of his own supporters.
The path forward requires strategic adaptation, not ideological entrenchment. Zelensky and European leaders must recognise that negotiating with Trump demands an understanding of his approach to international relations, perhaps favouring pragmatism over idealism.
A crucial insight from previous research on Trump’s negotiation behaviour is this: he rarely backtracks explicitly but frequently pivots to new objectives when they become more appealing. This should inspire European leaders to develop attractive alternatives that serve both Trump’s interests and Europe’s security needs.
Deal-making may not be the most desirable approach to geopolitical negotiations, but Trump’s return to power makes it the current reality. After decades of business negotiators learning from politicians, we now face a reversal. Political negotiators must learn from business tactics.
In the high-stakes arena of international security, understanding your counterpart’s negotiation style isn’t just good practice – it may be essential for survival. The lessons from Trump’s first term suggest that principled stands alone won’t secure Ukrainian or European interests. Pragmatic deal-making (underpinned with principles) offers a more promising path forward.
Andrea Caputo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The US president, Donald Trump, is set to introduce a “gold card” visa that would allow wealthy foreigners to buy permanent US residency – and a path to citizenship – for US$5 million (£3.9 million).
Speaking at the Oval Office on February 25, Trump said: “I think it’s going to be very treasured. I think it’s going to do very well. And we’re going to start selling, hopefully, in about two weeks.”
US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has touted the plan as a way to raise revenue to bring down US national debt, which currently stands at over US$36 trillion. As Trump put it when answering questions from reporters at the White House: “We’ll be able to sell maybe a million of these cards, maybe more than that. And if you add up the numbers, they’re pretty good. As an example, a million cards would be worth US$5 trillion.”
Trump has also suggested that the gold-card holders can help stimulate the US economy. “They’ll be wealthy, and they’ll be successful, and they’ll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes,” he said. When asked whether Russian oligarchs would qualify for the visa, Trump responded: “Hey, I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people. It’s possible.”
The idea that wealthy foreigners can address a nation’s faltering economy is not new. Trump’s gold visas will themselves replace the current EB-5 immigrant investor visa, which offers permanent US residency in return for job-creating investments of at least US$1 million.
In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, various European nations also floated similar golden visa schemes as a means of reversing their economic downturns. The visas offered by Spain, Greece, Hungary and Portugal, for example, all cost significantly less than Trump’s proposed scheme.
A Spanish gold visa, which will no longer be available from April 2025, is granted in return for €500,000 (£417,000) in real estate investment. The required investment in Greece and Hungary is €250,000. And people looking to obtain a gold visa in Portugal have two options: a €250,000 donation to the restoration of national heritage, or a €500,000 property investment.
There is little data to support the argument that such policies boost the national coffers. Some experts have suggested that golden visa schemes typically bring in no more than 0.3% of GDP in revenue. So, it’s no surprise that there is plenty of scepticism around whether Trump’s gold card scheme can reduce US national debt.
Critics of the plan argue that the scheme will not add trillions of US dollars to the economy, as Trump has claimed. This is because demand for any such programme is likely to be limited to thousands of people.
In a recent poll conducted by Forbes, 18 billionaires were asked if they would like to take advantage of an American gold card visa. Most of them (13) said they would not be interested. Many of the ultra-rich foreigners interviewed simply did not think they needed American citizenship and don’t want it.
“If you’re a billionaire, you don’t need it,” said one Canadian billionaire. “I don’t have to come to the United States to invest in the United States.”
Marginal benefits
The global rich are unlikely to be queuing up for Trump’s gold cards. At about US$5 million per application, it is “the most expensive” golden visa option in the world. Any potential buyer will carry out cost-benefit analysis prior to committing to such a deal.
Two reasons a wealthy person might invest in a second or third passport are to ensure greater mobility and protect their wealth.
US tax laws have traditionally reduced the attractiveness of American residency or citizenship for the global rich. American citizens and residents are required to pay income tax on their US earnings as well as any income they earn overseas.
Trump has said that gold-card holders would not be subject to taxes on their overseas income. This tax loophole could open the door to more wealthy foreigners looking to protect their wealth. However, many details about the scheme remain unclear.
Notwithstanding this, golden visas in many other nations provide better opportunities than those offered by a Trump gold card. In terms of mobility, the US passport ranks eighth on an index of 198 different passports. American passport holders can travel to 171 countries without needing a visa.
Spain ranks second, with a Spanish passport allowing access to 177 countries without a visa. And Portugal, Greece and a host of other European nations follow closely behind, with their passports allowing visa-free travel to 176 countries.
The most powerful passport in the world is offered by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), allowing access to 179 countries visa-free. The UAE government introduced a golden visa in 2019, offering long-term residence in exchange for roughly US$550,000 of investment.
The US passport is ranked eight in the world by the 2025 Passport Index. KieferPix / Shutterstock
An American passport also has its own inherent limitations and hazards. A US-born colleague of mine who acquired Irish citizenship through lineage has never used his American passport while out of the country.
He believed that in a crisis situation, such as being taken hostage, a US citizen was far more vulnerable and exposed to danger than a non-American counterpart. In his opinion, people were far more prejudiced and hostile towards a US citizen than those belonging to other nations.
The return on investment of a Trump gold card remains unpredictable. The asking price is extremely high and the benefits it promises buyers are – at best – marginal. The offer comes with enough holes to sink a ship.
Amalendu Misra is a recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation fellowships.
Difficult relationship: Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Charles de Gaulle, and Winston Churchill at a conference in Casablanca January 1943.U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
Eighty-five years before Volodymyr Zelensky visited Downing Street in search of support for Ukrainian democracy, a Frenchman arrived in London with a similar request.
Charles de Gaulle was not the French prime minister. That job belonged to Paul Reynaud. De Gaulle had been undersecretary of state for defence in Reynaud’s government for less than two weeks.
He started June 1940 as commander of a tank squadron fighting to stem the German advance. But his decision later that month to leave France rather than surrender – and to proclaim himself the leader of all Frenchmen who wished to fight on – was the foundation of his political career.
French citizens became aware of de Gaulle as a wartime political leader through his broadcasts on the BBC. The most famous of these, the “Appeal of 18th June”, was actually heard by very few in France – but for those that did listen, it contained the core of de Gaulle’s message of defiance.
He arrived at the BBC at 6pm to record the four-minute speech which was transmitted by the BBC at 10pm. De Gaulle said: “Nothing is lost for France.” He insisted that: “She has a vast Empire behind her. She can align with the British Empire that holds the sea and can continue the fight. She can, like England, use without limit the immense industry of the United States.”
Transmission of this speech is widely regarded as the moment when French resistance was born. The BBC describes it as “one of the most remarkable pieces in the history of radio broadcasting”.
Had the US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), responded positively to Churchill and Reynaud’s impassioned pleas in June 1940, to actively support France and Britain, de Gaulle might have remained a dynamic and courageous military officer. But Roosevelt refused, Reynaud resigned, and Marshall Henri Philippe Pétain led France into collaboration.
FDR was a Democrat and author of the new deal, the economic policy that helped America recover from the Great Depression. He had little in common with Donald Trump, but they shared one instinct: a reluctance to spend American blood and treasure in foreign wars.
When Churchill honoured his promise to Reynaud and told the 32nd US president now “is the moment for you to strengthen Reynaud the utmost you can, and try to tip the balance in favour of the best and longest possible French resistance”. Roosevelt replied that he was not committed to military participation. He reminded Churchill that only Congress could declare war.
When Zelensky arrived at the White House on February 28, he hoped to sign a minerals deal and secure continued American support for his country’s battle for freedom and independence. Instead he found himself accused by Trump of risking a third world war and showing too little gratitude to the US.
In an extraordinary failure of diplomatic norms, Trump and his viscerally isolationist vice-president, J.D. Vance, berated and humiliated Zelensky before a worldwide television audience.
Roosevelt’s contempt for de Gaulle was less bluntly expressed, but it was real. The US recognised Pétain’s regime and granted Vichy France, the collaborationist regime which governed southern France during the German occupation of northern France, full diplomatic recognition.
Roosevelt agreed when his ambassador to Vichy, Admiral William D. Leahy, described de Gaulle as “an apprentice dictator”. There is a chilling echo in Trump’s description of Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” who refuses to have elections and has done “a terrible job”.
US and France: ‘difficult’ relationship
At the end of June 1940, Roosevelt decided that France was beaten – and that Britain was likely to follow its ally and neighbour into defeat and collapse. He dismissed de Gaulle as an irritation with no democratic credentials.
His opinion did not change when the US entered the war in December 1941. Indeed, Roosevelt believed France could not have a recognised leader until it had been liberated by American arms and helped to organise fully democratic elections.
When he needed someone to represent French interests, Roosevelt preferred to choose senior French military officers who would obey US orders. His choices included Admiral François Darlan who had served Marshall Pétain as Vichy’s minister of foreign affairs and minister of national defence. Darlan, who was loathed by the Free French and scorned by Churchill, nevertheless attracted favourable coverage in the US.
De Gaulle’s June 22 broadcast to the free French people.
Well aware of Roosevelt’s hostility, de Gaulle never gave up. The BBC microphone allowed him to reach a growing audience in Vichy and German occupied France. He ended his initial June 18 talk by announcing that he would broadcast again.
The BBC had not actually made any commitment to a second broadcast – but the ruse worked, and de Gaulle made a second appeal to French public on June 22. This broadcast was heard more widely (in fact very few people heard the June 18 speech and no recording survives). Soon the Free French were given five minutes per day on BBC radio.
De Gaulle was a soldier who used radio to inspire hope and organise resistance. When he returned to France in 1944, many of his countrymen recognised his voice before they became familiar with his appearance.
Zelensky began his career as a comedian and appeared as a fictional president of Ukraine in a TV series called Servant of the People. He was widely recognised before he became a war leader.
Both have provoked the enmity of US presidents and reminded different generations that America first isolationism is a deep-seated and enduring instinct that can cross political divides.
Tim Luckhurst has received funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a member of the Society of Editors and the Free Speech Union.
“The biggest challenge to limiting climate change to 2°C, the upper target of the 2015 Paris agreement, is this: methane emissions are rising very fast,” says Euan Nisbet, a professor of earth sciences at Royal Holloway University.
If each CO₂ molecule is like a candle that patiently warms the atmosphere, methane is like an exploding bomb: responsible for much more heat, but over a much shorter timescale. Satellites are identifying the methane that’s leaking from oil wells and gas pipelines, and most countries have at least promised to reduce these emissions by a third by 2030.
But if humanity is to throw the brakes on runaway climate change, something has to be done about the biggest human source of methane there is: agriculture.
Earth’s atmosphere is warmer and wetter than it would otherwise be, thanks to fossil fuel burning. This is inducing wetlands, once a reliable carbon store, to emit more methane to the atmosphere, and so speed up climate change, Nisbet says.
This makes it even more urgent to tamp down the methane sources under our immediate control. Nisbet has calculated that roughly 210 million to 250 million tonnes of methane come from agriculture and its products. Most of this is in the breath of livestock animals and their manure, and food rotting in landfills.
Here’s the good news.
“Cutting agricultural methane emissions involves a wide range of relatively cheap measures that need good design and management, but could cut food-related emissions substantially over the next decade,” Nisbet says.
Adding a layer of soil to a landfill provides habitat for methane-munching bacteria. Covering manure storage tanks, banning the burning of crop waste and only flooding rice paddies when necessary could pinch other methane sources.
These aren’t expensive or difficult changes, Nisbet says. It might cost more to vaccinate cattle or breed them to produce more female calves, however. The point with both measures is to have smaller herds for the same quantity of beef and milk.
Lower consumer demand would also shrink these methane mobs (here’s where you come in, dear reader). If more of our essential nutrients like protein came from beans instead of meat, our health would benefit along with the climate. While nutritionists and environmental scientists urge us to eat more fruit and vegetables, the global food system is stacked against this outcome.
Globally, every fifth dollar of public farming subsidy goes towards rearing meat. In the intensively farmed UK where I live, 85% of farmland is devoted to livestock and the crops that feed them. Yet these captive animals are the source of less than one third of our calories.
“The longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs,” says Benjamin Selwyn, a professor of international development at the University of Sussex.
The fruits of our labour
Selwyn favours a “green new deal” that would make farming “complement rather than undermine the environment”.
What does that look like? Fewer cows, more woodland and more crops grown for human consumption, Selwyn says. This is essentially what government advisers recently proposed to keep the UK on track for net zero emissions.
To nudge the food system in this direction, researchers like Yi Li, a senior lecturer in marketing at Macquarie University, are testing the effect of labels on meal choices.
In Australia, where Li is based, meat accounts for half of all greenhouse gas emissions from products consumed at home. Producing 1kg of beef may emit 60kg of greenhouse gas, while the same quantity of peas yields just 1kg of emissions. But Li found consumers weren’t always savvy to the gulf in emissions between the two.
“Our label creates a mental link between a food source and its carbon impact,” she says.
“When a consumer sees high carbon scores and red traffic lights appearing more frequently on meat and other animal products, they begin to make the connection between those products and higher emissions.”
While better informed consumers are important, the food system needs deeper reform.
“Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers’ and agricultural workers’ incomes. But this will be crucial,” Selwyn says.
Just as oil and gas workers will need financial support and training opportunities to ply their skills in a low-carbon energy sector, farm workers will need security and guidance to adapt to new forms of food production says Alex Heffron.
Heffron, a PhD candidate at Lancaster University, researchers agricultural transitions and is a farm worker himself. He says that people picking crops, milking cows and driving farm machinery are among the most exploited and precariously employed of the UK’s workforce.
In fact, if the country were to begin phasing out livestock and ramping up fruit and vegetable production tomorrow, the burden would fall heavily on migrant labourers who the UK attracts with a seasonal worker scheme. This scheme has been criticised for overlooking allegations of forced labour.
“There will be no green transition unless these workers have a stake in it,” Heffron says.
What kind of stake might move farmers away from steak? Selwyn has some suggestions, which include spreading land ownership more evenly with community land trusts and allowing public bodies to acquire vacant, derelict or damaged land for allotments and nature habitat.
“Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty,” he adds. “And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.”
Although “all-out” Isle of Wight Council elections have been postponed until 2026, voters are being reminded that town, parish and community council elections will go ahead as planned on Thursday 1 May 2025.
To take part in these elections, voters should ensure they are on the electoral register, especially if they have moved home recently. Any new applications to be on the register should be made by Friday, 11 April to be able to vote in an election on 1 May.
Anyone who cannot get to a polling station can apply for a postal vote – this deadline is Monday 14 April, 5pm.
At present there is one vacancy on Isle of Wight Council, which will be filled through a by-election in Central Rural ward, which includes the villages of Godshill, Merstone, Arreton and Rookley. This by-election will also take place on 1 May 2025.
“Humanity’s future depends on investing in the machinery of peace, not the machinery of war,”said Secretary-General António Guterresin a message marking the International Day for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Awareness.
Celebrated on 5 March, it is an opportunity to reinforce global commitments to reducing arms and advancing peace.
This year, the observance coincides with the 55th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – a landmark agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons while promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Escalating global threat
Despite long standing agreements, the world faces rising nuclear threats, the proliferation of small arms, and new dangers from rapidly evolving technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
The erosion of existing disarmament guardrails has further exacerbated global insecurity.
“I urge leaders to strengthen the systems and tools that prevent the proliferation, testing and use of deadly weapons and live up to their disarmament obligations,” said Mr. Guterres.
Reinforcing commitments
The NPT, signed in 1968 and in force since 1970, remains a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament, with 191 states parties pledging to curb nuclear weapons proliferation.
However, challenges persist, particularly as geopolitical tensions rise, and some nations remain outside the treaty framework.
This year, the Pact for the Future, recently adopted by UN Member States, strengthens commitments to nuclear disarmament, addressing the weaponisation of outer space and regulating lethal autonomous weapons.
Empowering the next generation
As part of the UN’s push to engage youth in disarmament, the Youth for Disarmament initiative launched two new opportunities on Wednesday: the Youth Leader Fund (YLF) programme and the Youth for Biosecurity Initiative Fellowship, encouraging young people worldwide to take part in shaping a more secure future.
“It’s time for leaders to put words into action and invest in disarmament solutions and the peaceful future every person deserves,” concluded Mr. Guterres.
The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI –
Chairwoman McClain’s Statement on President Trump’s Joint Address
Washington, March 5, 2025
WASHINGTON – After President Trump’s Joint Address to Congress, Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) released the following statement:
“Last night, it was an honor to welcome President Trump back to the People’s House. It was inspiring to hear his vision for our nation to keep our homeland secure, get our country back on track, and make government work for the people. Michiganders, and all Americans, should be proud to have a strong leader back in the White House,” Chairwoman McClain said.
“President Trump is focused on solving the problems of everyday Americans. He has already delivered on many of his promises to the American people and has turned the page on the Biden administration’s disastrous policies. I look forward to working with President Trump to renew the American Dream. With Republicans leading the way, our best days are ahead.”
SAN FRANCISCO – The Washington State Attorney General’s Office today joined a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and other federal agencies over the administration’s damaging and illegal efforts to fire federal employees en masse.
President Trump has engaged in all-out assault on public service since taking office, arbitrarily firing thousands of workers providing critical services to American communities and pledging to fire thousands more under false claims of performance issues. The firings have reached workers with excellent performance records and some with many years (or even decades) of federal service, including those newly promoted to supervisory or management positions.
There are more than 12 million acres of federal land in Washington, managed by agencies thrown into chaos by these labor cuts. These illegal actions damage Washingtonians across a spectrum of needs – including the reliability of the state’s energy supply, wildfire and forest management, services to veterans, and supports for small businesses.
Washington has about 76,000 federal employees, according to the state Employment Security Department. Based on information collected, the state believes at least 1,000 Washingtonians have lost their public service jobs through the president’s illegal actions and expects this number to rise if the illegality is not stopped.
“Many of the president’s power grabs have this problem in common – they’re illegal,” Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said. “These firings don’t save the public a dime, but they do make government less responsive, particularly in the communities across the nation where these employees live and serve.”
The lawsuit, initially filed in Northern California on behalf of a coalition of labor groups and other impacted organizations, has already resulted in a temporary restraining order.
The judge’s Feb. 27 order states the administration’s actions were likely illegal, directing the federal Office of Personnel Management to rescind its instruction to agencies to fire virtually all probationary employees.
The original plaintiffs include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Main Street Alliance; the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks; Common Defense Civic Engagement; the Western Watersheds Project; AFGE Local 1216; AFGE Local 2110; VoteVets; and United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP).
-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.govto 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
GAITHERSBURG, Md., March 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — GL Communications Inc. addressed the press regarding their extensive range of consulting services to effectively manage engineering and IT projects while delivering substantial cost savings. GL operates Technology Solution Centers in Bengaluru, India, and Washington, D.C., USA, staffed by highly skilled software and hardware developers, network engineers, cybersecurity experts, and project managers.
GL Communications Inc. is a leading provider of comprehensive telecommunications and IT consulting services, as well as cutting-edge test solutions. The company serves various industries, including telecommunications, aerospace and defense, e-commerce, oil and gas, and healthcare.
Vijay Kulkarni, CEO of GL Communications, states, “GL offers comprehensive consulting services for all aspects of telecommunications and IT projects, covering network infrastructure testing and evaluation, custom hardware and software development, cybersecurity guidance, project management, proposal development, communications systems design, cost estimation, procurement, vendor analysis and selection, and field inspection. Our company is proficient in all telecommunications network technologies including Ethernet and IP , wireless , high speed fiber optics, land mobile radio, Time Division Multiplexing and Analog.”
Tailored Solutions to Meet Business Needs
GL Communications Inc. offers a comprehensive range of solutions to meet diverse business needs, including managed network services, which encompass network design, implementation, monitoring, cybersecurity, and support to ensure constant availability and optimal performance. The company also specializes in custom hardware and software Development, providing tailored applications for Windows® and Linux, custom-built servers, portable durable PCs, IoT devices, handheld devices, centralized monitoring platforms, and surveillance solutions. Additionally, GL offers Outsourcing Solutions, delivering cost-effective IT support, project management, and software development by leveraging its expertise as an extension of client organizations.
Global Reach with Local Expertise
With Technology Solution Centers in Bengaluru and Washington, D.C., GL Communications maintains a strong international presence while offering localized support. The company’s team of experienced professionals ensures businesses worldwide overcome complex challenges by providing tailored solutions aligned with industry’s best practices.
Innovative Telecommunications Test Equipment
Beyond consulting, GL manufactures advanced test equipment for comprehensive network performance evaluation. These solutions measure voice quality, call success rates, throughput, latency, and signal strength, while also simulating real-world conditions such as congestion, packet loss, and delay to provide valuable insights for network optimization and troubleshooting.
Over 35 Years of Industry Leadership
With over 35 years of successful projects and satisfied clients across government and private sector companies, GL is a trusted partner for telecommunications and IT solutions. The company provides cost-effective solutions by leveraging global talent and delivering innovative services that stay ahead of industry trends and technologies. With a customer-centric approach, GL collaborates closely with clients to understand their requirements and exceed expectations. Its scalable and flexible services adapt to evolving business needs, ensuring long-term success.
GL has become a trusted partner for many customers due to its cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and unmatched capabilities in solving the toughest telecom and IT challenges. Whether seeking managed network services, custom development solutions, or reliable outsourcing options, GL Communications Inc. stands out as a go-to provider. Contact GL Communications today to discuss how they can support your business growth and success.
IADC will award up to 20 scholarships of $5,000 each to qualified students who are current members in good standing of an IADC Student Chapter. All grade levels will be accepted. Scholarships will be paid out in September 2025.
Application Checklist:
Transcript
GPA requirement – 3.0
2 letters of recommendation
One-page personal essay
Since 2017, IADC Student Chapters have been providing students with opportunities to supplement academic education with first-hand experiences and unparalleled networking opportunities within the industry. These scholarships are part of the Association’s ongoing commitment to encourage and empower the next generation of professionals.
If you’re interested in learning more about this opportunity, please contact the IADC Student Chapter Scholarship Program at scholarships@iadc.org.
IADC’s Student Chapter Scholarship Program selection process and distribution of funds will be at the sole discretion of IADC Management.
Three major waste management firms have been selected to progress to the next stage of the procurement process to appoint a contractor to fix and operate Sinfin waste treatment centre.
Following a first stage selection process, Biffa, Thalia and Viridor have been identified by Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council as the most suitable qualified companies to move forward to the Competitive Dialogue phase.
This marks a significant step in the councils’ joint project to secure a long-term waste management solution for Derby and Derbyshire, ensuring efficiency, sustainability, and value for residents.
The timeline for the next steps in the procurement are:
Competitive Dialogue – October 2025
Contract award (Cabinet decision) – December 2025
End of due diligence and commencement of rectification phase – June 2027
Start of commissioning – June 2028
First waste acceptance – November 2028
Completion of commissioning and transition to normal operations – Winter 2028 – Winter 2031
Over the next six months the councils and selected bidders will enter ‘Competitive Dialogue’ – structured discussions designed to provide equal treatment of all three companies to clarify, specify and enhance their proposed solution to fix and operate the facility.
The process enables both the Councils and bidders to assess approaches and ensure opportunities that strike the right balance between cost and quality are explored.
Both councils remain committed to a transparent and thorough process to ensure the best possible outcome for waste management in Derby and Derbyshire.
A spokesperson for Derbyshire County Council said:
We were confident we had developed a procurement process and commercial proposition that would be attractive to the right companies. Shortlisting three major players in the UK waste market proves there’s a competitive market for this project, and operators with the skills and experience to successfully deliver it and its expected benefits.
Fixing and operating the facility was found to be the most viable, cost-effective, and sustainable long-term solution to manage household waste which residents in Derby and Derbyshire either cannot or choose not to recycle.
A spokesperson for Derby City Council said:
This is an important milestone in our commitment to securing a sustainable and cost-effective waste management solution for Derby and Derbyshire. Reaching this stage with three leading waste management companies demonstrates both the strength of our approach and the level of industry interest in this project.
The council is keen to ensure a sustainable way to dispose of residents’ waste in the long term and seeks to find the most cost effective solution.
The decision to fix and operate the facility takes into account the councils’ ongoing commitment to encourage residents to reduce, reuse and recycle more of their waste.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government Non-Ministerial Departments
News story
GAD’s interest rate advice for the Ukraine loan
GAD advised HM Treasury on the interest rate to be charged on the UK’s £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine.
Credit: Max Kukurudziak, Unsplash
We analysed and advised HM Treasury on the options around setting an interest rate on UK’s loan to Ukraine.
The Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Ukraine’s Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko signed the UK-Ukraine Bilateral agreement at the beginning of March, witnessed by the Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy at a ceremony in Downing Street.
GAD assessed financial considerations for setting an interest rate on the loan of £2.26 billion to Ukraine. It will be paid back using the extraordinary profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets held in the EU.
This is the UK’s contribution to the G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) Loans to Ukraine scheme, through which G7 countries will collectively provide $50 billion to support Ukraine.
Repaying the loan
The loan is novel in that its repayments will be drawn from a future income stream derived from the profits on immobilised Russian sovereign assets. This means that careful consideration of the potential income stream of these assets had to be considered in our calculations.
Our analysis and supporting assumptions formed the basis of our advice to HM Treasury around the level and structure of the interest rate on the loan.
Credit: iStock Photo
UK commitment
Deputy Government Actuary Matt Gurden said: “The work we undertook to advise on the interest rate played a key part in ensuring the suitability of the UK government’s loan contribution to Ukraine.”
The funding will be delivered in 3 equal annual payments of £752m. The announcement of the loan agreement is on top of the £3 billion a year commitment by the UK to provide military aid for Ukraine.
PHILADELPHIA – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Amilcar Josue Villalvir Mendez, a citizen of Honduras, at the Northampton County Prison in Easton, Feb. 27. Prison officials failed to honor an immigration detainer and turn Villalvir over to ICE officials within the security of the prison, thus risking the safety of the public, the officers and Villalvir himself. Villalvir is a criminal alien with prior convictions for aggravated assault, theft by unlawful taking, possession of marijuana, speeding more than 25 MPH over the speed limit and retail theft.
“The arrest of Amilcar Josue Villalvir Mendez highlights the crucial importance of local and federal law enforcement cooperation in ensuring public safety. Northampton County choosing to place politics over safety instead of honoring our detainer, put everyone involved at unnecessary risk,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Philadelphia acting Field Office Director Brian McShane. “We urge all jurisdictions to prioritize the safety of their residents by honoring immigration detainers and working collaboratively with us. Our commitment to enforcing immigration laws and protecting public safety remains unwavering, and we will continue to pursue justice for those who violate our nation’s laws.”
Villalvir was arrested by the Palmer Township Police Department Sept. 27, 2021, for aggravated assault, simple assault, and harassment after police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a domestic disturbance. Villalvir pled guilty March 31, 2002, in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas to aggravated assault and was sentenced to six to 23 months confinement. He was resentenced to one year to 23 months less two days confinement after violating the original terms.
Villalvir was arrested again by the Palmer Township Police Department for access device fraud, theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property on Feb. 26, 2024. His girlfriend, the previous assault victim, died of a drug overdose Oct. 29, 2023, and the next day, just hours after she had passed away, Villalvir was observed on video surveillance withdrawing money from her bank account at an ATM. Villalvir pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking in the Northampton County Magisterial District Court.
Members of the public with information can report crimes or suspicious activity by dialing the ICE Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.
Learn more about ICE Philadelphia’s mission to increase public safety in our Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia communities on X: @EROPhiladelphia
PHILADELPHIA – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Anderson Nunez-Hernandez, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, as he was exiting the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Complex, Feb. 21. Nunez-Hernadez is a criminal alien with a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute for which he served a 23-month sentence. ICE was forced to apprehend Nunez-Hernandez as he exited the facility, in public, as the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Department refused to honor the immigration detainer ICE placed on him.
“Failing to honor immigration detainers compromises public safety and squanders taxpayer funds. It forces ICE to divert substantial resources to locate and apprehend criminal aliens in unpredictable, high-risk public areas,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Philadelphia acting Field Office Director Brian McShane. “Instead of facilitating the safe transfer of criminal aliens from local to federal law enforcement within the secure confines of a facility, the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office releases these individuals onto the streets without coordinating with federal officials. Congress has authorized ICE to issue arrest warrants, and copies of these warrants are provided to the facility when ICE lodges a detainer. In this case, the failure to honor the detainer is even more mind boggling, as an ICE officer was involved in the initial investigation putting this individual behind bars for this drug offense in the first place. We urge officials in Philadelphia to prioritize public safety over politics and collaborate with ICE to protect the public and support our national security objectives.”
The U.S. Border Patrol arrested Nunez-Hernandez for entering the United States without admission by an immigration official near McAllen, Texas, Oct. 30, 2021. He was issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge, paroled from ICE custody and scheduled to report for immigration removal proceedings in Philadelphia on Dec. 1, 2021.
Nunez-Hernandez was investigated by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Investigation, which includes an ICE officer, after an extensive narcotics investigation ultimately led to his arrest. A large amount of Fentanyl was seized while executing a search warrant.
Nunez-Hernandez was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on Feb. 21 for the offense of possession with Intent to distribute a controlled substance.
Members of the public with information can report crimes or suspicious activity by dialing the ICE Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.
Learn more about ICE Philadelphia’s mission to increase public safety in our Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia communities on X: @EROPhiladelphia
DALLAS – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Dieudonne Ishimwe, 38, a Rwandan foreign fugitive wanted for rape, in Fort Worth, March 3.
Ishimwe was served with a notice to appear following an arrest warrant issued by the government of his home country for rape.
“Foreign fugitives who attempt to evade responsibility for their criminal actions should take heed that we will find them,” said ICE Enforcement and Removals Operations Dallas acting Field Office Director Josh Johnson. “ICE will work relentlessly with our state, local and federal law enforcement partners by arresting and removing those who threaten the public safety of our communities.”
Ishimwe was residing in Fort Worth without authorization prior to his arrest. The FBI assisted in the apprehension.
Ishimwe entered the United States legally but violated the terms of his admission. The Prosecutor General of Rwanda issued a warrant for his arrest for rape Oct. 29, 2024.
He remains in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.
Members of the public can report crimes and suspicious activity by dialing 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.
For more news and information on ICE ERO’s efforts to enforce our nation’s immigration laws follow us on X at @ @ERODallas.
