NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Osirak reactor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

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

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

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

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

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: The Learning Refuge: How women-led community efforts help refugees resettle in Cyprus

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Suzan Ilcan, Professor of Sociology & University Research Chair, University of Waterloo

    A grassroots organization in Paphos, Cyprus, is bringing women together to address the needs of refugees in the city. (Shutterstock)

    Since 2015, the Republic of Cyprus (ROC) has seen a steady rise in migrant arrivals and asylum applications, primarily from people from Middle Eastern and African countries like Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon.

    But many asylum-seekers face significant challenges. Refugees formally in the asylum system are often denied residency permits, which means they face persistent insecurity, poverty and isolation

    These conditions are compounded by restrictive and limited services for asylum-seekers. This deepens the precarity and exclusion refugees face within a political and economic system that treats them more like economic burdens than as human beings with rights who need help.

    In response to these institutional failures, citizens, volunteers and refugees themselves have begun to build grassroots networks of care and solidarity in the ROC and beyond to support refugee communities.

    In 2022 and 2023, we conducted interviews with women volunteers and refugees affiliated with The Learning Refuge, a civil society organization in the city of Paphos in southwest Cyprus that cultivates dialogue and collaboration among these two diverse groups.

    Women-led initiatives

    Many displaced people first arrive on the island of Cyprus through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). However, the absence of a functioning asylum system or international legal protections leaves them in limbo.

    With no viable path to status in the TRNC, most cross the Green Line that bifurcates Cyprus into the ROC, where European Union asylum frameworks exist but remain limited in practice.

    Women-led community-building is often a response to the negative effects of inadequate state support and humanitarian aid for refugees. In Cyprus, this situation leaves many refugees without access to sufficient food, satisfactory health care, accommodation, employment, clothing and language training. In this current environment, refugees are increasingly experiencing insecure and fragile situations, especially women.

    In Cyprus, as in many other countries, a variety of community-building efforts are important responses to limited or restricted state support and humanitarian aid for refugees.

    Women-led efforts offer opportunities to deliver educational activities and establish networks, and to help improve the welfare and social protection of refugee women, however imperfectly.

    These and other similar efforts highlight how women refugees and volunteers can mobilize to foster dialogue and collaboration.

    The Learning Refuge

    Founded in 2015, The Learning Refuge began as community meetings in a city park. The organization then used space from a nearby music venue to conduct support activities, and later, established itself in a dedicated building.

    Organizations like The Learning Refuge emerged to address the limited state support and humanitarian assistance services available to refugees.

    The Learning Refuge cultivates dialogue and collaboration among a diverse group of community volunteers.
    (Suzan Ilcan)

    As Syrian families began arriving in Paphos in 2015, local mothers started working with Syrian children, assisting them with homework, providing skills-training opportunities and language classes.

    The Learning Refuge cultivates dialogue and collaboration among a diverse group of community volunteers, including schoolteachers, artists, musicians, local residents, refugees and other migrants.

    With the aid of 20 volunteers, the loosely organized groups provide women refugees with material support and resources to enhance collective activities, including art and music projects, while also engaging in educational and friendship activities.

    While modest in scale, the organization has formed partnerships with local and international organizations, including Caritas Cyprus, UNHCR-Cyprus and the Cyprus Refugee Council to extend its outreach to various refugee groups.

    The organization has also launched creative initiatives aimed at cultivating additional inclusive civic spaces. One such effort, “Moms and Babies Day,” was developed in response to the rising number of single mothers from Africa arriving on the island. These women often face poverty and isolation, and struggle with language barriers.

    These efforts highlight how grassroots responses — especially those led by women — can offer partial but vital educational and emotional support to refugees struggling to find their footing in a new country.

    Negotiated belonging

    Through participation in The Learning Refuge, refugee women in Paphos engage in a dynamic process of negotiated belonging, navigating challenges like language barriers, gendered isolation, domestic violence and poverty while contributing to broader community-building efforts.

    For example, Maryam, a Syrian woman and mother of three, told us how The Learning Refuge helped her children establish friendships and learn Greek. She also highlighted that it helped her form close ties with volunteers and other Syrian women living in Cyprus, and find paid work in the city.

    The volunteers and women refugees participating in The Learning Refuge’s activities emphasized not only their capacity to develop new forms of belonging and solidarity; they also help reshape communal knowledge and generate supportive spaces for women from various backgrounds.

    Our research shows that women-led community-building is an effective, though short-term, response to insufficient state support and humanitarian aid systems that leave many refugees in precarious situations.

    In varying degrees, these efforts offer women and their families spaces to learn and cultivate new relationships, and foster collective projects and better visions of resettlement and refuge.

    Suzan Ilcan receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

    Seçil Daǧtaș receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. The Learning Refuge: How women-led community efforts help refugees resettle in Cyprus – https://theconversation.com/the-learning-refuge-how-women-led-community-efforts-help-refugees-resettle-in-cyprus-252682

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Wilkinson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of British Columbia

    Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April’s federal election.

    Mark Carney’s new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history.

    Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation.



    Read more:
    Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump’s trade war — but it’s important not to take national pride too far

    Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed.

    For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin.



    Read more:
    This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about ‘land back’

    What is a nation?

    Both perspectives — and the public discussion of Canada’s national identity more generally — remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve.

    In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together.

    In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities,” since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens.

    These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community.

    There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers.

    Nations vs. states

    A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase “the people” is often used as a synonym for the national community.

    While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state.

    In Canada, there is the Québécois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada’s national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments — from Confederation onward — to build the society that Canadians live in today.

    The character of a particular nation is not fixed.

    The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence.

    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community’s past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better.

    Patriotism vs. nationalism

    A distinction is sometimes drawn between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell.

    For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one’s nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one’s nation.

    Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as “liberal nationalism.”

    The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress.

    In 1867, George-Étienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a “political nationality.” He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity.

    More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy.

    Cartier’s concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead.

    Reshaping Canadian identity

    In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada’s post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada’s national identity.



    Read more:
    40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada

    Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the “deux nations” origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out.

    As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada’s national identity wasn’t nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples.

    The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada’s identity. Canada’s national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community.

    This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time — including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada.

    In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada’s political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation — and it’s work worth doing.

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

    – ref. Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-how-canadian-nationalism-is-evolving-with-the-times-and-will-continue-to-do-so-259352

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ciprian N. Radavoi, Associate Professor in Law, University of Southern Queensland

    Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel ahead of a game in 2016. Michael Zagaris/San Francisco 49ers/Getty Images

    It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started a worldwide trend and sparked fierce debate when he knelt during the US national anthem.

    In 2016, Kaepernick refused to follow the pre-game protocol related to the national anthem and knelt instead, saying:

    I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.

    Soon, many athletes and teams began “taking a knee” at sports events to express their solidarity with victims of racial injustice.

    Now, they appear to have stopped, which prompted us to research the decline.

    Initial widespread support

    Following the intense public debate over the appropriateness of Kaepernick’s act, the ritual quickly spread worldwide, with athletes in major soccer leagues, cricket, rugby, Formula 1, top-tier tennis and the US’s Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association taking a knee.

    Athletes didn’t always kneel during national anthems, with the majority kneeling at certain points pre-game.

    Despite the occasional “defection” of a small number of players who would stand while their teammates knelt – such as Israel Folau in rugby league, Wilfried Zaha in soccer and Quinton de Kock in cricket – the ritual was widely embraced by teams and athletes and helped raise awareness of the issue.

    Even major sports organisations notorious for prohibiting any type of political activism generally accepted the kneeling ritual. For example, soccer’s International Football Federation (FIFA) showcased kneeling as a “stand against discrimination” and as human rights advocacy.

    The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initially stood firm by its Rule 50, which states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

    But just three weeks before the 2021 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC relaxed its interpretation, and athletes were permitted to express their views in ways that included taking a knee.

    A surprising turn of events

    Despite permission and even encouragement from sports governing bodies, our research shows the practice is disappearing from major sports competitions.

    Take soccer, for example. At the FIFA World Cup 2022, England and Wales were the only national teams that knelt at their games in Qatar.

    At the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 in Australia and New Zealand, no teams or players knelt.

    The same happened at the 2024 Olympic soccer tournament in Paris.

    That only a handful of teams knelt in Tokyo at the 2021 Olympics, two at the FIFA Mens’ World Cup in Qatar in 2022, none at the FIFA Womens’ World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023, and again none at the Paris 2024 Olympics indicates a growing reluctance throughout the sports world.

    This surely cannot mean athletes have become indifferent to racial injustice or other forms of oppression in the interval between the late 2010s and the mid-2020s.

    The explanation must be sought elsewhere. A hint was provided when Crystal Palace soccer player Zaha, the first player of colour in the UK who refused to kneel, explained:

    I feel like taking the knee is degrading, because growing up my parents just let me know that I should be proud to be Black no matter what and I feel like we should just stand tall.

    The explanation may therefore be, at least in part, the players’ uncomfortable feelings related to the kneeling posture.

    In sociology, this bothersome state of mind is called “cognitive dissonance”: the mental conflict a person experiences in the presence of contrasting beliefs.

    A history of kneeling

    The body posture of kneeling is not deemed, in any culture, as expressing solidarity.

    Ancient Greek and the Roman societies, on whose values Western civilisation was built, rejected kneeling as improper, even when praying to gods.

    Then, with the spread of Christianity in the Western world, kneeling became widely used, but only as an act of worship, confessing guilt, or praying for mercy.

    When performed outside the church, kneeling meant submission to nobility or royalty.

    The significance of kneeling as humility is not limited to the Western world.

    In African tribal culture, the young kneel in front of elders, and everyone kneels before the king.

    In China in 1949, Chairman Mao famously proclaimed at the first plenary of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference:

    From now on our nation […] will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up.

    With this in mind, kneeling may be deemed unfit at sporting events, which often feature a powerful cocktail of emotions, values and social expectations.

    The inconsistency between the excitement of competition and the expectation to kneel — a gesture associated with submission and humility — likely creates a bothersome state of mind for athletes.

    This potentially motivates some players to reject one of the two – in this case, the kneeling – to restore cognitive harmony.

    What could replace the kneeling ritual?

    After refusing, by unanimous players’ vote, to take a knee before their October 2020 game against the All Blacks, the Australian rugby union team chose instead to wear a First Nations jersey.

    The same year, several teams in German soccer’s top league chose to show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing distinctive armbands.

    So it appears wearing a distinctive jersey or at least an armband is more easily accepted by modern-day athletes. This may be challenging given the governing bodies of many sports, such as FIFA, ban athletes from wearing political symbols on their clothing.

    Depending on whether sports code accept this type of activism in the future, wearing suportive clothing could replace taking a knee as symbolic communication of solidarity with oppressed minorities.

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

    – ref. Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’? – https://theconversation.com/why-have-athletes-stopped-taking-a-knee-259047

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

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

    – ref. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    The importance of symbols

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mountie symbolism

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

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

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

    Changes to the anthem, passport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fast v slow thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emotional decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karmvir K. Padda, Researcher and PhD Candidate, Sociology, University of Waterloo

    Two years have passed since a 24-year-old former student walked into a gender studies classroom at the University of Waterloo and stabbed the professor and two students.

    The attack left the campus shaken and sparked national outrage. Many saw the attack as a shocking but isolated act of violence. But a close analysis of his 223-word manifesto reveals much more.

    What emerges is a chilling picture of how deep-seated misogyny, disguised as grievance and moral outrage, can escalate ideological violence. Though short, the manifesto is saturated with anti-feminist, conspiratorial rhetoric.

    As a researcher looking at digital extremism and gender-based violence, I’ve analyzed more than 100 manifestos written by people who carried out mass shootings, stabbings, vehicular attacks and other acts of ideologically, politically and religiously motivated violent extremism in Canada, the United States and beyond.

    These attackers may not belong to formal terrorist organizations, but their writings reveal consistent ideological patterns. Among them, one stands out: misogyny.

    Misogyny is the ‘gateway drug’

    The Waterloo case is not unique. In fact, it mirrors a growing number of violent incidents where gender-based hate plays a central role. Reports by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Public Safety Canada show misogynist extremism is rising in Canada. It’s often entangled with white nationalism, anti-LGBTQ+ hate and anti-government sentiment.

    According to political sociologist Yasmin Wong, misogyny now acts as a “gateway drug” to broader extremist ideologies. This is particularly true in digital spaces where hate and grievance are cultivated algorithmically.

    In my analysis of manifestos collected from 1966 to 2025, gender identity-driven violence appeared in nearly 40 per cent of them. These violent beliefs were either the primary or a significant secondary motivation for the attack. This includes direct expressions of hatred toward women, trans and queer people and references to feminist or LGBTQ+ movements.

    ‘Salad bar’extremism

    The Waterloo attacker did not explicitly identify as an “incel” (involuntary celibate), but the language in his manifesto closely echoes those found in incel and broader manosphere discourse. Feminism is portrayed as dangerous, gender studies as ideological indoctrination and universities as battlegrounds in a supposed culture war.

    The Waterloo attacker destroyed a Pride flag during the attack, referred to the professor he targeted as a “Marxist,” and told police he hoped his actions would serve as a “wake-up call.”

    At one point, he praised leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Canadian far-right politician Maxime Bernier as “based Chads.” “Based Chads” is a slang term used in online extremist communities to glorify or refer to dominant and assertive males.

    Alongside anti-feminist messaging, the attacker’s writing echoes common far-right narratives: fear of “cultural Marxism,” disdain for liberal elites, and the belief that violence is necessary to awaken the public. He referenced prior mass attacks, including the 2011 Norway massacre and the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting. These two incidents are frequently celebrated in far-right spaces.

    These references place him within a transnational digital subculture where misogyny, white supremacy and ideological violence are valourized.

    It reflects what researchers described as “salad bar extremism”: a mix-and-match worldview where misogyny is blended with white nationalism, anti-government sentiment and conspiratorial thinking to justify violence.

    Manifestos rationalize violence

    The authors of manifestos are frequently dismissed as “nutters” — demented or socially unstable people.

    But the manifestos are valuable documents for understanding how ideology works. They show how people rationalize violence, where their ideas come from and how they see themselves as political entities. They also reveal the role of digital communities in shaping those beliefs.

    Researchers can use them to map ideological ecosystems and identify patterns. These analyses can inform prevention strategies.

    The Waterloo manifesto is no exception. It draws from a familiar ideological playbook — one that dehumanizes feminists, academics and LGBTQ+ people while portraying violence as both righteous and necessary.

    These are not isolated ideas; they are symptoms of a wider digital ecosystem of online hate and ideological grooming.



    Read more:
    The stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo underscores the dangers of polarizing rhetoric about gender

    Deliberate, ideologically motivated attacks

    While a psychological assessment of the attacker raised questions about a psychotic break, there was no clinical diagnosis of psychosis. His actions — planning the attack, writing and posting a manifesto, selecting a specific target — were deliberate and ideologically motivated.

    Yet the terrorism charge brought against him by federal prosecutors was ultimately dropped. The judge ruled his beliefs were “too scattered and disparate” to constitute a coherent ideology.

    But his manifesto shared language and ideological frameworks recognizable across incel, anti-feminist and far-right communities. The idea that this doesn’t constitute “ideology” reflects how outdated our legal and policy frameworks have become.

    Confronting ongoing danger

    Two years on, we remember the victims of the Waterloo attack. We must also confront the larger danger the attack represents.

    Misogyny is not just a cultural or emotional problem. Instead, it increasingly functions as an ideological gateway, connecting personal grievance with broader calls for violent extremism.

    In this era of rising lone-actor violence, it is one of the most consistent and dangerous drivers of extremism.

    If we continue to treat gender-based hate as peripheral or personal, we will keep misunderstanding the nature of violent radicalization in Canada. We must name this threat and take it seriously, because that’s the only way to prepare for what’s coming next.

    Karmvir K. Padda receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

    – ref. I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread – https://theconversation.com/i-analyzed-more-than-100-extremist-manifestos-misogyny-was-the-common-thread-259347

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Republicans Are Ripping People Off, Plunging Country Into Energy Crisis To Cut Taxes For Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – During a debate on the Republican tax bill, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) condemned the bill’s provisions to gut clean energy which will raise people’s energy bills by more than a hundred dollars starting next year and make blackouts and power outages more common across the country.

    “This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages,” said Senator Schatz. “And for what? It’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.”

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    There are a lot of people in this chamber and across the country who, on a non-ideological basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can invest with certainty and predictability. So let’s look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of this bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade.

    Now, there was a time, and I lived through it as a politician, there was a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue for that climate action because it is a planetary emergency and there were tradeoffs. And people on the other side said, “look, as we try to take action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can’t create shortages, we can’t increase prices, we can’t impede economic progress.” All that has flipped.

    This bill will create shortages. This bill will impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices. The 500GW less energy in the next decade is pretty much exactly the amount of energy that we’re going to need to meet rising demand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.

    And you don’t have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist. And I love clean energy, and I’m an environmentalist. But you don’t have to care about the climate. I think you should. You don’t have to care about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of supply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in decades, largely not exclusively, but largely because of AI data centers. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is with wind and solar, not oil and gas, even nuclear and geothermal are going to take a while.

    That is not just a political talking point or a preference of mine. It’s just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a years-long backlog. It’s also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last year came from solar and storage. It’s growing, it’s cheap, it works. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline waiting to be hooked up.

    So the idea that we’re going to kill the only energy that can be brought online in the short run, the very same week that half the country was meeting, melting in a record heat wave which left tens of thousands without power is beyond absurd.

    Let’s talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically, it creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in order to claim the clean energy tax credits. Remember, these clean energy tax cuts are federal law. They’re on the books. So when you have a federal statute, it is not unreasonable as an investor to say, look, I got this tax credit. I’m going to get X number, X percent back for my initial investment. And you do the pro forma, you do the underwriting. And you figure out that the thing pencils out. And now what they’re saying is that you got to be operational in 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or tried to do an extension – nothing gets built in 60 days. Certainly not a clean energy project, and it has to be placed in service. What does placed in service mean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have to have a power purchase agreement through your public service commission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in place in the next 60 days after enactment, or you get nothing.

    So imagine you’re a company investing in a solar battery storage project. You’ve already put money down, you’ve secured land and a power purchase agreement, and you’re working on permits. And when you started the project, the tax code said you could claim a credit to cover the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you’re out of luck. On average, a project takes four years to go through the full process. So even if you’ve already started that progress, you now have very, very little time to get it done. We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. And so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is going to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable proposition is the most dangerous part of this. I don’t know that we’ve ever, through federal law, made a big subsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry. And then halfway through that process, said, never mind. We didn’t mean that. You’re stuck.

    According to the Edison Electric Institute. And by the way, I can guarantee you this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever quote the Edison Electric Institute. That’ll cost people, not companies, people, ratepayers $60 billion in this decade alone. Your electric bills are about to go up. A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way. It is really unclear in the current version of the bill what the renewable energy industry even looks like, if it were passed today.

    An owner of a solar company in Montana, worried that the credits disappearing would force them to lay off half of his workers. He says, “Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase somehow. The practical energy needs are undeniable, so we can get past our disagreements and about phraseology. We realize that electrons, watts, amps, it’s all cheaper.” A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said, “I don’t look at what we do as green or blue or red. An electron doesn’t have a color.” And that’s the point. Electrons don’t have color. Wanting cheap, abundant energy is not woke. Wanting a livable planet for today and for future generations is not radical and wanting reliable power and to avoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project. But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the states that have benefited the most from these investments are Republican states.

    According to estimates, nearly three quarters of clean energy manufacturing facilities are located in Republican states. It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means Republicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican bill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their homes and businesses. Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs, and at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand that even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.

    Here’s a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year, “As our conference has long believed, and all of the above energy approach combined with a robust, advanced manufacturing sector will help support the United States position as a global energy leader. Countless American companies are utilizing sector wide energy tax credits, many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable sources alike.” And it goes on, “As energy demand continues to skyrocket. Any modifications that inhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risks sparking an energy crisis risks sparking an energy crisis.” 21 House Republicans are worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress. It goes on. “This is especially true for energy credits with direct pass through benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would increase utility bills the very next day – would increase utility bills the very next day.”

    This is not me, progressive Senator from the state of Hawai‘i, who has made a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House Republicans saying, like, “we’re going to create a crisis here. Maybe we shouldn’t pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us. If we’re all out here talking about all of the above. Why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?” Just because someone wants a talking point? People are literally going to lose their jobs immediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very challenging place to make major investments in, immediately upon enactment. The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment, and prices will go up pretty much right away as well.

    A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote, “For the first time, state and local governments, as well as essential nonprofit community organizations such as houses of worship, hospitals and schools, can access the same clean energy tax credits as the private sector through elective pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling infrastructure, and charging stations for local government fleets. After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1200 organizations, including 500 state and local governments are already accessing these incentives. We are excited about these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty in our communities as it would prevent us from accessing those important benefits.”

    You know, I grew up to understand Republicans were for avoiding unintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too quickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people could rely upon. This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself as energy policy. And what’s going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs and pay tons more for electricity.

    The building trades unions called this bill “the biggest job killing bill in the history of this country.”  And they go on. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.” I’ve been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our friends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends and labor about how important that project was to them, and how it was in tension with some of our climate goals.

    But listen to what they say. It is the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey, or Sheldon Whitehouse, or Martin Heinrich, or Rep Ocasio-Cortez, or any climate advocate. This is the building trades, and they’re saying this is the biggest job killer, perhaps, perhaps in American history. We actually don’t have to do this.

    The impetus behind this bill was essentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from expiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that’s what happens. And we were there for our own version of this, our own BBB, our own Build Back Better. And everybody in your party piles on with something new. And then the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass, because everybody’s got their hobbyhorse and somebody’s hobbyhorse is not just to have an all of the above energy strategy, but to go out of your way to kill clean energy.  It doesn’t matter that it’s going to raise prices. It doesn’t matter that it’s going to kill jobs.

    People at all levels, in the public and private sectors across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, which is this is a bad bill for regular people, for the economy and for the planet. One of the great things about our climate Bill was that it made what was good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy become became eminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to consumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn’t like the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal political, economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.

    And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct. But we’ve paved a new path, and we decided, look, there’s enough technology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that we can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower prices, and we can do it in such a way that blue states and red states, urban rural, suburban all benefit. Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it will hurt their constituents. And in doing so, we’re virtually guaranteeing China’s dominance in clean energy for decades to come. Because if you’re a China, you cannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly forfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the future because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the pre-industrial age.

    This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages. And for what? Partially, it’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires. But even kicking more than 16 million people off of health care coverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt was not enough.

    People voted for Donald Trump for all sorts of reasons, but no one voted for higher energy bills. No one voted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air and water. No one, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or independent, wants that. I want to be clear this fight is far from over. This fight over this bill is far from over.

    But even if this bill passes, it will set us back. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote, and that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous administration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and made changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has setbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.

    States like Hawai‘i will continue to do everything that they can to protect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without us, because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply not an option. But make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in the years and decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Provinces seek changes on federal policy failures

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Government confirms non-taxability of Canada Carbon Rebates for Small Businesses

    Source: Government of Canada News

    June 30, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance Canada

    Canada’s new government is bringing down costs and putting more money in Canadians’ pockets.

    Today, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, issued draft legislation to ensure that all Canada Carbon Rebates for Small Businesses are provided tax-free—securing small businesses the full financial benefit of the rebates. 

    Specifically, payments received by corporations in respect of the 2019-20 to 2023-24 fuel charge years would not be included in income for tax purposes, and the final payment to be made under the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses (i.e., in respect of the 2024-25 fuel charge year) will also be tax-free.

    The government will introduce legislation in Parliament to implement these changes in the fall.

    Once the legislation receives Royal Assent, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) will have the authority to process amended T2 corporation income tax returns for those who have already included the rebate in their taxable income, ensuring the rebate is processed as tax-free (i.e., not included in the taxable income reported in the T2). Further guidance will be provided by the CRA at that time.

    The Government also confirms that eligible businesses that filed their 2023 tax return after July 15, 2024, and on or before December 31, 2024, will also be eligible to receive tax-free payments in respect of the 2019-20 to 2023-24 fuel charge years, once the legislation receives Royal Assent. Eligible businesses that file their 2024 income tax return by July 15, 2025, will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment in respect of the 2024-25 fuel charge year.

    Finally, with the removal of the fuel charge from law and the winding down of proceeds return mechanisms, the government will no longer proceed with proposed changes announced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement which would have expanded eligibility for the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses to cooperative corporations and credit unions, added a minimum payment for smaller businesses, and introduced a phaseout for larger businesses.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

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

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

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

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

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

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

    Governor Gavin Newsom

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

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

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

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

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

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

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

    Recent news

    Jun 30, 2025

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

    Jun 30, 2025

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

    Jun 27, 2025

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China Resolutely Opposes Forced Shutdown of Hikvision’s Business in Canada – China’s Ministry of Commerce

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) — China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firmly opposes the Canadian government’s order to stop Chinese company Hikvision’s operations in Canada, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce said Monday.

    China noted that the Canadian side forcibly stopped Hikvision’s operations in the country and prohibited Canadian government agencies from purchasing and using Hikvision products under the pretext of protecting “national security,” the official said.

    According to him, the so-called national security review undertaken by the Canadian side lacked transparency and yielded uncertain results. The representative of the Chinese agency called it a typical example of the generalization of the concept of national security.

    “The actions of the Canadian side not only undermine the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, but also negatively affect the confidence of companies from both countries in cooperation, and harm normal trade and economic relations between China and Canada,” the official representative emphasized.

    China, he continued, urges Canada to immediately correct its wrong actions, stop politicizing economic and trade issues and generalizing the concept of national security, and ensure an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for enterprises from all countries, including China, to invest and do business in Canada.

    The Chinese side will take all necessary measures to resolutely protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, added the official representative of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Administrator Loeffler Pens Op-Ed in Support of One Big Beautiful Bill

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), published an op-ed in Fox News – highlighting how President Donald J. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill will benefit America’s 34 million small businesses. Her piece underscores specific provisions of the legislation that will drive Main Street job creation, growth, and prosperity – including making the 199A Pass-Through Deduction permanent, eliminating tax on tips and overtime, incentivizing the return of Made in America, bringing more able-bodied Americans back into the workforce, and cutting red tape.

    This month, Administrator Loeffler has traveled to Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, and North Carolina to meet with small business owners and highlight the urgent need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill – to protect working- and middle-class job creators from the largest tax hike in American history.

    Read the op-ed or view excerpts below:

    “Since February, I’ve traveled across the country meeting with small business owners in nearly every sector – from family farms and factory floors to the Main Street cornerstones of restaurants and retailers. Their message is clear: they don’t want bailouts, bigger tax bills or bureaucracy. They want a tax code that enables them to plan for the long term, puts more money in their pockets, and rewards – not punishes – work, entrepreneurship and growth. This bill delivers on all three.”

    “The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” prevents the largest tax hike in history. It makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, including the Section 199A deduction – leaving more capital in the hands of America’s 34 million small business owners to hire, expand and reinvest in their operations. This provision alone is projected to create 1 million new jobs on Main Street and generate $750 billion in economic activity over the next decade.”

    “Unlike his predecessor, Trump has never lost sight of those who drive the American economy. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a reflection of his commitment to working families and small businesses. It delivers real tax relief, trims Washington overreach, rewards work and puts small businesses back where they belong – at the center of America’s success story.  Congress should act without delay. Small businesses are ready to keep building, hiring and innovating – this time with most in Washington finally behind them.”

    # # #

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration
    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of entrepreneurship. As the leading voice for small businesses within the federal government, the SBA empowers job creators with the resources and support they need to start, grow, and expand their businesses or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ‘New Dawn’ Rises for Financing Development Progress, Secretary-General Tells Business Forum at International Conference

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks at the opening of the International Business Forum at the Conference on Financial Development, in Sevilla, Spain, today:

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.  Development is everyone’s business.  And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth. They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.

    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.  We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.  As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising.  Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.

    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.  And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.

    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.

    One decade later, we continue to fall short.  Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.

    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether. We need to create the conditions to change course.  And that begins here in Spain.

    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:  Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need […] By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development […] And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.

    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development. This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.  It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.

    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.

    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.  When one looks at today’s world, the crises in the official development assistance (ODA), the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through de-risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions in which they are the first risk takers and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which, without the necessary de-risking, it is practically impossible to see enough development.

    This is a new mentality that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the public investment banks, both national and international.

    Throughout, we are counting on the leadership and vision of all of you to carry forward the spirit of collaboration and bold solutions.  By uniting public and private sector leaders, regulators and development banks, we can ensure that this conference is not an end, but rather a beginning.

    The beginning of a new era of action and collaboration on some of the most urgent issues facing our world today.  And a new dawn for how we finance development progress around the world.

    Thank you all for being part of this important effort. I hope that the joint participation of the public and private sectors can multiply the resources we have.

    Knowing that much more investment is needed in today’s world, but that there are mechanisms that allow available public funds to mobilize much more private financing and investment than today.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ‘Don’t Agonize — Organize, Help Realize Change Our World Urgently Needs’, Deputy Secretary-General Tells Sciences Po Graduating Class

    Source: United Nations 4

    Following are UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed’s remarks at the graduation ceremony for the Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po, in Paris today:

    Let me begin with the most important word of all:  congratulations.

    You now join a long line of Sciences Po alumni who have shaped our world — including some of whom are doing it every day at the United Nations as they work in my office supporting the Secretary-General.

    Let’s also take a moment to recognize your families, friends and loved ones — who have been with you every step of the way.  They deserve a round of applause.

    Students representing more than 120 nationalities come here to learn how the world works, and how it can work better.  That spirit of global curiosity and purpose has also carried me through every chapter of my own journey:  designing schools and hospitals in my home country of Nigeria; advising four Presidents on poverty reduction, development policy planning and public sector reform; supporting Member States to lead the process that transformed global aspirations into the Sustainable Development Goals; and now as the longest-serving Deputy Secretary-General in United Nations history, supporting the Secretary-General on some of the most complex situations in our history, from COVID to Ukraine to Sudan and Gaza and today’s continuing crisis in the Middle East.

    Today, I want to reflect on the lessons I have learned along the way.

    First, don’t agonize, organize.  We live in a world of hurt.  A world that is messy, complicated and often overwhelming.  And I know it might be easy to feel paralysed by the scale and hopelessness of today’s challenges.  Don’t. Because more than ever, those challenges are connected — and we solve them by seeing those connections and coming together.

    When I served as Nigeria’s Minister for Environment, my job was never just about the environment.  When Lake Chad was drying up, it wasn’t just an ecological crisis — it was a security crisis.  Boko Haram was born and abducted 200 schoolgirls.  When we faced population and urban sprawl and tensions rose between farmers and herders, it wasn’t just about water access — it was about food systems and growing cities. When I met girls walking hours to fetch water, missing school every day — it wasn’t just about resources — it was about gender equality.

    We didn’t work in siloes.  We built coalitions across sectors — civil society, young people, traditional leaders, the private sector — to find real solutions.  We didn’t agonize, we organized.  And, yes, there’s plenty to agonize about today — especially when multilateralism is under attack and international cooperation is on the back foot. But I have seen what’s possible when we find common ground and forge ahead.

    Just look at the last two months at the UN.:  a landmark Pandemic Treaty approved at the World Health Organization; major new protections for our oceans at the World Ocean Conference in Nice; and from Paris, I head to Sevilla — where the world is coming together to commit to better finance sustainable development.

    So, when the problems seem larger than life, too tangled, too tough — don’t agonize.  Organize.  Mobilize.   And help realize the change our world so urgently needs. Remember you did not fail for want of trying.

    The second lesson — keep learning and delivering.

    Graduation isn’t the end of learning.  In many ways, it’s just the start of your lifelong journey.

    When I joined the UN, I was not steeped in the intricacies of international diplomacy.  Throughout my career, I have had to learn fast — and deliver even faster.  So will you.

    Even now, I am learning every day — about artificial intelligence (AI), about geothermal energy, space debris, biotechnology, cybersecurity.  You will face even more change, even faster, especially in the new era of super technologies.  Regardless of the task that is put in front of you, get ahead of it. Learn more.  Do more.  Show your stuff and deliver.  Performance opens doors.  Yes, some of life is luck and privilege.  But I guarantee:  the harder you work, the luckier you will get.

    Third, make hope your most powerful asset.  The world is a cynical place.  And international affairs is not for the faint of heart.  There will be setbacks and critics.  There will be many days when the problems seem too big, and the politics too small.  When anxieties grip you like a fever.  Just look around:  war in Ukraine, atrocities in Sudan, catastrophe in Gaza, climate chaos everywhere.

    But never forget, hope is not a four-letter word.  Hope is the courage to build when others are tearing down.  Hope is the decision to get up one more time, to negotiate one more deal, even when the odds are against you.

    I have sat with young girls who survived the worst horrors of war and sexual violence.  And in their eyes, I saw not just pain — but power.  The power to heal, to lead, to hope, to survive and thrive.

    Hope is not the absence of fear.  It is the refusal to be defined by it.  So, carry it with you.  Guard it fiercely.  Because hope is not just a feeling.  It’s a force.

    Fourth, hold onto your moral compass.

    Your degree will open doors.  But your integrity will tell you which ones are worth walking through.  And in today’s world — where the global moral compass is spinning — that clarity matters more than ever.

    We live in a world where military spending is soaring, while development budgets shrink.  Where fossil fuel subsidies dwarf investments in climate action.  Where conflict and hardship has forced more people from their homes than at any time since the Second World War.

    In this world, your role as changemakers is not just to make the right deals.  It is to draw the right lines.  There will be pressure to stay silent.  There will be moments when abandoning principles may seem an easier choice.  But integrity matters most.

    As Deputy Secretary-General, I have had to tell hard truths to powerful people. To remind leaders of the many promises they made — and the people they made them to.  It is never easy to challenge power.  But we don’t serve power.  We serve people.  And if we truly serve people, we must use our superpower and stand for justice, dignity and solidarity.

    As we mark Beijing+30, we cannot talk about a future and leave women and girls behind.  Gender equality is not charity.  It powers our agency.  And human rights.  And everyone wins when we leave no one behind.  But let’s be honest, we are not there yet.  So, to the men here today, I say:  don’t stand in the way.  Don’t walk ahead.  Walk with.  Stand with. And speak up.  For the other half of your society, women.

    The final lesson is this:  invest time in what truly sustains you.

    Your career will have highs and lows.  Plans change.  Titles come and go.  But what will carry you through are the people who know you beyond your résumé.  Friends, families, mentors, partners.  Protect those bonds.  Nurture them.  Because in the toughest moments, those relationships will remind you of who you are, why you started and why you must keep going.  So, no matter how far you go, or how fast — never lose sight of what, and who, matters most.

    Today, you are not just stepping into the world.  You are inheriting its unfinished business, and its boundless possibilities.  As I look out, I see the next generation of climate champions, human rights defenders and world class diplomats.  And I am filled with hope.  Whatever path you choose, walk it with courage and conviction.

    Congratulations, Class of 2025.  The world is waiting.  And I, for one, can’t wait to see what you will do.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Trump Is Delivering Historic Permitting Wins Across the Federal Government

    Source: US Whitehouse

    ACCOMPLISHING PERMITTING REFORM IN RECORD TIME:  Today, President Donald J. Trump delivered on his promise to fix a broken permitting system, ensuring that burdensome Federal environmental reviews cannot be weaponized to stall the growth of the American economy or halt energy infrastructure construction.

    • The White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), coordinated a historic effort to dramatically reduce the burdens of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance across the Federal government so that America can get back to building again.
    • In consultation with CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers updated their respective NEPA implementing procedures to  simplify this overly burdensome process and ensure efficient and timely environmental reviews.
    • These historic reforms:
      • Implement deadlines and page limits on environmental reviews required under recent amendments to NEPA, in order to expedite infrastructure development and reduce costs.
      • Provide clarification that NEPA does not apply to every action that a Federal agency takes, but only to Federal actions where the agency has sufficient control and discretion to take environmental effects into account.
      • Ensure simple and expeditious processes to create categorical exclusions (CEs), adopt other agencies’ CEs to minimize repetitive NEPA analyses, and focus their attention on actions with truly significant environmental effects.

    CUTTING UNNECESSARY RED TAPE: All three branches of the Federal government have recently directed reforms to the NEPA process: President Trump, in his Unleashing American Energy Executive Order; the United States Congress, in its BUILDER Act amendments as part of the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its recent landmark decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.

    • NEPA directs all agencies to maintain their own, agency-level NEPA implementing procedures.
    • Most of those procedures had not been modernized to reflect any of the recent reforms. Some agencies were still using outdated NEPA regulations from the 1980s.
    • Under President Trump’s leadership, the endless cycle of regulatory back-and-forth and excessive environmental reviews that produced little benefit for the American people has come to a halt.
    • Federal agencies are cutting unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in record time by implementing the unmistakable direction from all three branches of the Federal government. 

    BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: The Trump Administration has taken decisive action to reform, modernize, and expedite the Federal environmental review, eliminating unnecessary delays that are holding back the growth of secure and reliable infrastructure projects across the Nation.

    • On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, which called for unleashing American energy dominance through efficient permitting.
      • The E.O. directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite and simplify the permitting process – and propose rescinding CEQ’s regulations.
      • CEQ responded to President Trump’s direction by rescinding its NEPA regulations, creating a clear path for agencies to expeditiously reform their own NEPA procedures and allow America to build again.
      • President Trump’s action to restore CEQ to its core statutory mission of coordinating and consulting, providing guidance to Federal agencies as they revise their NEPA procedures, will ensure timely reviews and consistency across agencies and enable CEQ to coordinate this monumental deregulatory effort.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Have your say on B.C.’s climate plan

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    People in British Columbia are invited to provide feedback about CleanBC, the Province’s plan to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase the use of clean energy.

    An independent review of CleanBC’s programs and policies is underway and public input will help inform its findings.

    The review is assessing how well CleanBC is working, where improvements could be made and how its programs affect people, communities and the economy.

    Feedback can be submitted through a short survey until Aug. 1, 2025.

    CleanBC includes supports for cleaner transportation, home and building upgrades, and reducing emissions from industry. It aims to help British Columbia transition to a low-carbon economy, while keeping energy affordable and reliable.

    The review is being led by independent climate-policy experts Merran Smith and Dan Woynillowicz. The panel will engage with Indigenous people, local governments, environmental non-government organizations, industry, climate experts, the Climate Solutions Council and other interest holders.

    In addition to public feedback, interested parties, including affected industry professionals, labour representatives, environmental NGOs and climate experts, are invited to make written submissions to CleanBCReview@gov.bc.ca until 4 p.m. on July 18, 2025.

    First Nations rights and title holders, Indigenous organizations and local governments are invited to make written submissions to CleanBCReview@gov.bc.ca until 4 p.m. on Aug. 1, 2025.

    Submission should be a maximum of 2,500 words. All submissions will be read and considered as part of the CleanBC review.

    Key dates for the review:

    • Sept. 1, 2025 – Draft recommendations submitted to government
    • Oct. 15, 2025 – Final recommendations submitted
    • Late fall 2025 – Final report released publicly

    Learn More:

    To take the feedback survey, visit: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/cleanbcreview/#feedback

    To read the terms of reference for the review, visit: https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/CleanBCTermsofReference.pdf

    MIL OSI Canada News –

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

    Source: US State of New York

    [embedded content]

    [embedded content]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Governor Kathy Hochul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Embedded Flickr Album

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Public services put in your pocket with trial GOV.UK App launched today

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Public services put in your pocket with trial GOV.UK App launched today

    A trial version of the GOV.UK App is to be available to download on smartphones today, putting public services in people’s pocket to save them from wasting time on admin.

    • First GOV.UK App released to the public, kickstarting a whole new way for people to interact with government services that will make it easier to manage childcare payments and get travel guidance from your pocket.
    • Custom home page shows people services that they need most, while in future, notifications will help remind people to book their MOT, update their passport and more.
    • Initial version takes crucial services a step closer to citizens in a bid to cut life-admin, with plans to add a generative AI chatbot, GOV.UK Chat, later this year with much more to come.

    The first version of the GOV.UK App will be available to download on smartphones today, putting public services in people’s pocket to save them from wasting time on life admin.

    It marks an overhaul to the experience of using the GOV.UK website, which is visited by 88 million times every month by people completing essential daily tasks, to bring public services more in line with what people are used to when they bank or shop from their phones.

    Launching first in “public beta”, meaning the technology is still being worked on extensively, today’s release will allow the public to build the app around their personal circumstances, life events and services. 

    People will be able to choose which topics to prioritise on their home page, based on which government services are most important to them, whether it’s ‘care’, ‘travel’ or ‘business’. A home page will then let people access these services right away, rather than having to scour the internet each time, so they can get information, request support or change their details with the right government service with ease.

    Over time, new tools and functionality will be added. Later this year, the government’s generative AI chatbot – GOV.UK Chat – will be added for everyone to use. It will help people get answers to niche questions more quickly, where the details important to them may be buried in the 700,000-page website, with it instead drawing the most relevant information within seconds – whether it’s how to set up a specific type of business, what’s needed to apply for a passport, or what support new parents can access.

    Following the addition of GOV.UK Chat, work will start to make sure different government benefits, such as childcare allowances, can be dealt with seamlessly through the app. As well as making it easier for people to apply for support they’re eligible for, the move will also aim to tackle fraud, which could save the government millions.

    Today’s launch follows the digital blueprint for government which includes a number of tools to make it much easier for people and businesses to interact with the government, saving time and transforming the public services underpinning our Plan for Change. Later this year, the UK government will also launch GOV.UK Wallet which will include a pilot digital driving licence, which Brits will be able to easily use from their phone to prove their age when buying age restricted items online and in person.

    Technology secretary Peter Kyle said:

    Our new GOV.UK App shows for the first time how this government is overhauling taxpayer-funded services as we deliver on our Plan for Change. By putting public services in your pocket, we will do away with clunky paper forms and hours spent on hold, so you can immediately get the information you need and continue on with the rest of your day.

    This release of the GOV.UK App is just the start. Soon, you will be able to use it to ask GOV.UK Chat any question you like about government services, and get a reliable answer immediately. You will then get personal notifications, reminding you when your MOT is due or whether you need to register to vote, and then you will be able to closely track your childcare credits just as you do your bank account.

    People using the GOV.UK App will get the same experience every time they open the app in a way that is tailored to them, enabled by GOV.UK One Login. This technology will ultimately remove the need for several passwords to access different government services and users will be able to use facial ID to log in.

    To do this, the GOV.UK App considered major life events relevant to most of the population – such as ‘money and tax’, ‘studying and training’ and ‘retirement’. Some life events also cover topics where people might interact more with public services, such as ‘parenting’, ‘benefits’ and ‘care’.

    Notes to editors

    The GOV.UK App public beta will be available to download from 1 July in the Apple App store and Google marketplace.

    In January, the GOV.UK App was announced alongside the GOV.UK Wallet. The latter will carry a digital version of all government issued documents – starting with a Veterans’ Card this autumn, followed by a pilot of a digital drivers’ licence later this year. For the first release, the GOV.UK Wallet will be separate from the GOV.UK App. Over time the Wallet will also integrate with the GOV.UK App.

    The homepage of GOV.UK App can feature any combination of the below 11 topics:

    • benefits
    • business
    • care
    • driving and transport
    • employment
    • health and disability
    • money and tax
    • parenting and guardianship
    • retirement
    • studying and training
    • travel

    DSIT media enquiries

    Email press@dsit.gov.uk

    Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 6pm 020 7215 3000

    Updates to this page

    Published 30 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: JAMining Upgrades Its Cloud Mining Platform to Meet Growing Global Crypto Demand

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Warwick, UK, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — JAMining, a leading cloud mining provider, today announced significant upgrades to its cloud mining platform. The overhaul enhances user experience, expands asset support, and integrates advanced mining algorithms — positioning the company at the forefront of digital asset mining as the global cryptocurrency industry accelerates.

    The announcement comes amid a surge in institutional adoption worldwide. From major pension funds entering the Bitcoin market to growing political support in the U.S. and UK, the demand for secure, compliant crypto infrastructure has never been higher.

    “Upgrading our platform allows us to serve a rapidly diversifying user base,” said Emma Carter, spokesperson for JAMining. “We are committed to enabling frictionless participation in crypto mining for individuals and institutions alike — without the hardware complexity.”

    A Strategic Response to Industry Growth

    The global cloud mining market is projected to reach $5.6 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 13.8% from 2023, according to Market Research Future. Key drivers include increasing interest in decentralized finance (DeFi), Bitcoin’s institutionalization, and green mining initiatives.

    Key Platform Upgrades

    • Expanded Asset Mining: In addition to Bitcoin (BTC), users can now mine Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, and Litecoin (LTC), allowing more diverse portfolio strategies.
    • Dynamic Profitability Calculator: A revamped profitability engine now offers real-time, transparent earnings projections based on current hash rates and energy efficiency metrics.
    • AI-Powered Optimization: JAMining has introduced machine learning algorithms that automatically reallocate resources across its mining pools based on market conditions — maximizing returns while reducing energy overhead.
    • Enhanced Security Protocols: Upgrades include multi-signature wallet integrations, IP-locking, and biometric 2FA, aligning with emerging cybersecurity best practices.

    Why It Matters?

    As crypto mining transitions from hobbyist activity to institutional-grade infrastructure, secure and advanced cloud mining access is critical. JAMining’s enhanced cloud platform offers exactly that — a user-friendly gateway for crypto participation without the burdens of physical mining hardware, or maintenance.

    About JAMining
    JAMining is a UK-based cloud mining service provider. The company offers a secure, scalable platform for mining leading digital assets, with a focus on compliance, transparency, and investor education. JAMining serves both retail and institutional clients seeking trustworthy access to the crypto mining ecosystem. For more information, visit: https://jamining.com

    Media Contact:
    Emma Carter
    Communications Director, JAMining
    Email – info@jamining.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risk. There is potential for loss of funds. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: JAMining Upgrades Its Cloud Mining Platform to Meet Growing Global Crypto Demand

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Warwick, UK, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — JAMining, a leading cloud mining provider, today announced significant upgrades to its cloud mining platform. The overhaul enhances user experience, expands asset support, and integrates advanced mining algorithms — positioning the company at the forefront of digital asset mining as the global cryptocurrency industry accelerates.

    The announcement comes amid a surge in institutional adoption worldwide. From major pension funds entering the Bitcoin market to growing political support in the U.S. and UK, the demand for secure, compliant crypto infrastructure has never been higher.

    “Upgrading our platform allows us to serve a rapidly diversifying user base,” said Emma Carter, spokesperson for JAMining. “We are committed to enabling frictionless participation in crypto mining for individuals and institutions alike — without the hardware complexity.”

    A Strategic Response to Industry Growth

    The global cloud mining market is projected to reach $5.6 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 13.8% from 2023, according to Market Research Future. Key drivers include increasing interest in decentralized finance (DeFi), Bitcoin’s institutionalization, and green mining initiatives.

    Key Platform Upgrades

    • Expanded Asset Mining: In addition to Bitcoin (BTC), users can now mine Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, and Litecoin (LTC), allowing more diverse portfolio strategies.
    • Dynamic Profitability Calculator: A revamped profitability engine now offers real-time, transparent earnings projections based on current hash rates and energy efficiency metrics.
    • AI-Powered Optimization: JAMining has introduced machine learning algorithms that automatically reallocate resources across its mining pools based on market conditions — maximizing returns while reducing energy overhead.
    • Enhanced Security Protocols: Upgrades include multi-signature wallet integrations, IP-locking, and biometric 2FA, aligning with emerging cybersecurity best practices.

    Why It Matters?

    As crypto mining transitions from hobbyist activity to institutional-grade infrastructure, secure and advanced cloud mining access is critical. JAMining’s enhanced cloud platform offers exactly that — a user-friendly gateway for crypto participation without the burdens of physical mining hardware, or maintenance.

    About JAMining
    JAMining is a UK-based cloud mining service provider. The company offers a secure, scalable platform for mining leading digital assets, with a focus on compliance, transparency, and investor education. JAMining serves both retail and institutional clients seeking trustworthy access to the crypto mining ecosystem. For more information, visit: https://jamining.com

    Media Contact:
    Emma Carter
    Communications Director, JAMining
    Email – info@jamining.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risk. There is potential for loss of funds. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Mainland China criticizes Taiwan leader’s separatist rhetoric

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) — State Council Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian on Monday slammed Taiwan leader Lai Qingde’s recent remarks over the weekend as a further escalation of provocations aimed at achieving “Taiwan independence” and seriously damaging cross-Strait relations.

    In response to a journalist’s question, Zhu Fenglian pointed out that in his speeches, Lai Qingde inflated the topic of “continental threat,” propagated the thesis of “Taiwan independence,” distorted the legal framework and historical facts, ignoring the prevailing public opinion on the island.

    Zhu Fenglian noted that Lai Qingde’s misinterpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, a political document embodying the one-China principle, and attempts to sever the historical and legal ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait once again expose his fear of and resistance to closer exchanges between compatriots from both sides.

    “The return of Taiwan to China after Japanese occupation is a fundamental element of the international order established after World War II and the result of the joint efforts of compatriots from both sides of the strait to safeguard national dignity. Those who act against the common interests of the Chinese nation are doomed to failure, and attempts to challenge China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity at the expense of ‘Taiwan independence’ will only lead to a dead end,” the official representative stated.

    Reiterating that people on both sides of the strait share the common aspiration of peace, development, exchanges and cooperation, Zhu Fenglian said the mainland is committed to advancing the peaceful and integrated development of the two sides.

    She called on compatriots in Taiwan to see through the hypocrisy and political manipulation of the Democratic Progressive Party administration and work hand in hand with compatriots on the mainland to achieve national reunification and rejuvenation. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s remarks at the International Business Forum at the Conference on Financing for Development [bilingual, as delivered; scroll down for all-English]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.
     
    Development is everyone’s business.
     
    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
     
    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.
     
    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.
     
    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.
     
    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.
     
    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 
     
    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.
     
    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.
     
    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.
     
    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.
     
    One decade later, we continue to fall short.
     
    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.
     
    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.
     
    We need to create the conditions to change course.
     
    And that begins here in Spain.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:
     
    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…
     
    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…
     
    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.
     
    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.
     
    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.
     
    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.
     
    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.
     
    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.
     
    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.
     
    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.
     
    Señoras y senõres,
                                                                            
    En todo momento, contamos con el liderazgo y la visión de todos ustedes para llevar adelante el espíritu de colaboración y adoptar soluciones audaces.
     
    Al reunir a los líderes de los sectores público y privado, a los reguladores y a los bancos de desarrollo, podemos garantizar que esta conferencia no es un final, sino un principio.
     
    El comienzo de una nueva era de acción y colaboración en algunos de los problemas más urgentes a los que se enfrenta hoy nuestro mundo.
     
    Y un nuevo amanecer para la manera en que se financia el progreso del desarrollo en todo el mundo.
     
    Gracias a todos ustedes por participar en este importante esfuerzo. Espero que la participación conjunta de los sectores público y privado pueda multiplicar los recursos que tenemos.

    Sabiendo que mucha más inversión es necesaria en el mundo de hoy, pero que hay mecanismos que permiten que los fondos públicos disponibles movilicen muchísimo más que hoy la financiación y la inversión privada. 

    *****
    [All-English]

    This Forum reflects a fundamental fact.

    Development is everyone’s business.

    And the private sector is an essential partner in helping countries climb the development ladder, and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Businesses are not just engines of jobs and economic growth.

    They help propel the innovation, technology and investment that development demands.

    We are here to boost support for initiatives that benefit people and planet.

    We meet against the backdrop of an incredibly challenging global environment.

    As we gather in Sevilla, trade barriers and macroeconomic risks are rising. 

    Major aid cuts are making a bad situation even worse.

    Mistrust and geopolitical divisions are blocking effective global solutions.

    And the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals has ballooned to $4 trillion.

    When the world came together for this conference 10 years ago in Addis Ababa, countries recognized that achieving the Goals was impossible without mobilizing private capital at scale.

    One decade later, we continue to fall short.

    Last year, investment in infrastructure in developing countries dropped by 35 per cent — including in key sectors like renewable energy, water and sanitation.

    And foreign direct investment has declined two years in a row, with investment flows largely bypassing Least Developed Countries altogether.

    We need to create the conditions to change course.

    And that begins here in Spain.

    The Sevilla Commitment document includes important steps to get the engine of development revving again:

    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need…

    By overhauling the world’s approach to debt to make borrowing work in service of sustainable development…

    And by reforming the global financial architecture to reflect today’s realities and the urgent needs of developing countries.

    The Sevilla Commitment also puts forward a number of specific actions to unlock private sector investment in sustainable development.

    This includes steps to strengthen the way we blend public and private capital together to maximize the use of public money in crowding-in private funds.

    It includes new approaches to manage currency risk that prevent otherwise promising investment opportunities from securing the capital required.

    And it includes a call to review financial regulations to ensure that risk weightings are well-designed, and help — not hinder — institutional investors from embracing projects in frontier markets.

    These are significant steps, informed by lessons learned over the past 10 years.

    When, one looks at today’s world, the crises in the ODA, the crises in the global funds available, it is absolutely evident that we need to be able to multiply the resources available for investments.

    And the main obligation, in my opinion, of public development banks, most national and international, should be today concentrated, not essentially, in their operations, and I understand the pressure of any bureaucracy to do their own things, but those public funds available in developing banks, should be more and more put to work to multiply resources through the risking private finances and private investments.

    Giving guaranties, stablishing coalitions, in which they are the first risk takers, and creating the conditions to massively increase the massive private finance and private investment in countries in which without the necessary derisking it is practically impossible to see enough development.

    This is a new mentally that we need to guaranty in the investment banks, the pubic investment banks, both national and international.

    Ladies and gentleman,

    Throughout, we are counting on the leadership and vision of all of you to carry forward the spirit of collaboration and bold solutions.

    By uniting public and private sector leaders, regulators and development banks, we can ensure that this conference is not an end, but rather a beginning.

    The beginning of a new era of action and collaboration on some of the most urgent issues facing our world today.

    And a new dawn for how we finance development progress around the world.

    Thank you all for being part of this important effort. I hope that the joint participation of the public and private sectors can multiply the resources we have.

    Knowing that much more investment is needed in today’s world, but that there are mechanisms that allow available public funds to mobilize much more private financing and investment than today.
     
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Organization for Security and Co-operation’s Role in Strengthening Democracy ‘Essential’, Secretary-General Tells Parliamentary Assembly

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Following is the text of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ video message for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly in Porto, Portugal today:

    Dear Parliamentarians, it is a privilege to address this OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as you meet in the beautiful city of Porto.

    You gather as our world faces great and grave challenges — from raging conflicts, to rising inequalities, to the out-of-control climate crisis.

    Trust is breaking down.  But you are standing up for something different.  By encouraging dialogue between Parliaments, you have helped strengthen democracy, advance cooperation and promote comprehensive security.

    Your leadership in observing elections has helped make them fairer and more trustworthy.  And your efforts played a critical role in inspiring important initiatives such as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

    Fifty years after the Helsinki Accords, the principles of the OSCE are more important than ever.

    As the world’s largest regional security organization, you face rising security threats, especially with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Your role in protecting human rights, strengthening democracy and promoting sustainable development is essential.

    We at the United Nations look forward to continuing that critical work together to guide the region and our world towards a more peaceful future.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

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

    Source: US State of Missouri

    JUNE 30, 2025

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

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

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

    Approved Budgetary Spending

    Prioritizing Public Safety

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

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

    For more public safety budget highlights, click here.

    Emphasizing Economic Development

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

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

    For more economic development budget highlights, click here.        

    Bolstering Agriculture

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

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

    For more agriculture budget highlights, click here.

    Strengthening Education

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

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

    For more education budget highlights, click here.

    Budget Vetoes & Expenditure Restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Colleagues Demand Explanation from Big Oil Corporations Lobbying for Tax Breaks at the Expense of American Families

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
    June 30, 2025
    Senate Republicans included a $1 trillion loophole for Big Oil in the big, bad reconciliation bill that would allow massive corporations to avoid paying federal taxes
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said today he is demanding an explanation from Big Oil companies on their efforts to win a $1.1 billion tax loophole in the Republican budget reconciliation bill that would leave middle-class families in Oregon and nationwide with higher energy costs. 
    Senate Republicans are paying for this handout by cutting clean energy tax credits and vital energy programs. The reconciliation bill would add a loophole to the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) for ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv Inc. (Ovintiv). This provision would reduce or eliminate tax liabilities for oil and gas companies under the corporate alternative minimum tax, allowing some to pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.
    “The rationale for CAMT was simple: for far too long, massive corporations had taken advantage of loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, sometimes paying zero federal taxes despite earning billions in profits,” Wyden and three other senators wrote the oil companies. “CAMT imposed a minimum tax on annual income that billionaire companies reported to their shareholders and is expected to raise over $200 billion over ten years from some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.”
    Experts say the Republican bill would contribute to “higher electricity costs for consumers,” adding to already skyrocketing utility bills. Households are at risk of losing more than $2,200 in savings per year on utility bills.
    “Adding this tax break for Big Oil to the reconciliation package is especially insulting since Senate Republicans are trying to pay for this handout with cuts to other programs that would end up raising energy prices for everyday Americans,” the senators continued. “Congress should not raise energy prices for working families to deliver handouts to Big Oil.”
    In addition to Wyden, the letter is led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
    The senators are pushing ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv Inc. for answers to the following questions by July 9, 2025.
    How much has ConocoPhillips spent, and how much does it expect to spend in total on lobbying expenses on Republicans’ tax legislation in 2025?
    In the past 12 months, how much money has ConocoPhillips donated, whether directly or through other vehicles for political donations, to federal elected officials who are advocating for tax cuts for your company?
    How much of a reduction in tax liability would ConocoPhillips receive if Section 70523 of the Senate reconciliation package became law?
    A full text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    US Senate News:

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Federal government strengthens the Canadian Free Trade Agreement

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    Ottawa, Ontario, (June 30, 2025) – Today, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, announced a historic step towards freer trade within Canada.

    As part of the Government’s efforts to build one Canadian economy, the federal government will be removing all remaining federal exceptions from the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), eliminating all 53 in the Agreement since its introduction in 2017.  

    Most of the exceptions removed focus on procurement, which will provide Canadian businesses with more opportunities to be competitive across the country. For example, as part of this last review, the federal government is removing procurement exceptions related to financial entities, commercial land development, transportation services and space projects.

    All provincial and territorial governments have committed to undertaking a review of their respective exceptions under the CFTA. Together, they have made great progress and the results will be announced at the upcoming meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade on July 8, 2025.

    Today’s announcement builds on the government’s efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy. Most recently, the government passed Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which will remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility, and advance nation-building projects to drive Canadian productivity, economic growth, and competitiveness.  

    The federal government will continue to show leadership in this area, and work with provinces and territories to strengthen the CFTA, advance mutual recognition, and ensure seamless labour mobility within Canada.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Energy Secretary Announces Updated NEPA Procedures to End Permitting Paralysis and Unleash American Energy

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WASHINGTON— The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced new updates to the Department’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures, fixing the broken permitting process and delivering on President Trump’s pledge to unleash American energy dominance and accelerate critical energy infrastructure. As part of a government-wide effort to restore common sense to permitting, DOE published an interim final rule rescinding all NEPA regulations and published new NEPA guidance procedures for the Department of Energy.

    “President Trump promised to break the permitting logjam, and he is delivering,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “America can and will build big things again, but we must cut the red tape that has brought American energy innovation to a standstill and end this era of permitting paralysis. These reforms replace outdated rules with clear deadlines, restore agency authority, and put us back on the path to energy dominance, job creation, and commonsense action. Build, baby, build!”

    “This overhaul restores NEPA to the role originally envisioned by Congress—informing agency decision makers, not needlessly obstructing the development of critical infrastructure,” said Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly. “We’re eliminating the accretion of decades of unnecessary procedure and reestablishing a legally sound permitting regime that is disciplined, predictable, and fast. Agencies finally have the authority to conduct reviews efficiently, avoid duplicative reviews, and deliver timely decisions consistent with the law.”

    With President Trump’s leadership, the Council on Environmental Quality coordinated a historic, interagency effort to simplify NEPA compliance, lower construction costs, eliminate years-long delays, and ensure environmental reviews can no longer be used to stall American energy production and infrastructure development. Today’s action fulfils President Trump’s Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and implementing reforms enacted by Congress under the 2023 BUILDER Act.

    Background:

    This effort builds on President Trump’s January 2025 action to rescind CEQ’s outdated NEPA regulations and return the agency to its statutory role of coordinating reform across the federal government, empowering agencies to make timely, lawful permitting decisions. Altogether, these reforms will enable the deployment of more efficient technologies and the better environmental outcomes that they provide.

    Key reforms include:

    • Eliminating outdated agency procedures, many of which had not been revised since the 1980’s, while maintaining world class environmental standards and allowing America to build again!
    • Reducing the maximum Environmental Assessment through Environmental Impact Statement report completion time limitations from three years to two years.
    • Requiring the designation of a “lead agency” and empowers the lead agency to clarify responsibilities of all parties involved, requires coordination amongst the agencies, and requires the agencies collaborate on the development of a single environmental document.
    • Implementing strict deadlines and page limits. This will provide certainty necessary for investment in American infrastructure and end past practices of paralysis by analysis.
    • Providing clear direction that agencies should use common sense, relying only on verified scientific studies that already exist and not contemplating wildly unfathomable scenarios that they do not have legal authority to address.
    • Increasing transparency and allowing project sponsors to participate in the process.
    • Directing agencies to maximize the use of a streamlined process known as “categorical exclusions” for activities that are regularly conducted and widely understood to not impact the environment.

    Additionally, DOE’s NEPA Procedures include discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Seven County, which limits requirements for agencies to analyze upstream and downstream Greenhouse Gas (GHG) effects and curtails radical climate change analysis associated with activities outside agency jurisdiction. DOE NEPA analysis should not consider environmental effects of separate projects, especially those over which DOE does not exercise regulatory authority.

    DOE’s updated procedures identify specific actions excluded from NEPA review, including issuance of emergency Orders pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and Presidential Permits, and authorizations to import natural gas from any country and to export natural gas to free-trade agreement countries.

    DOE’s Interim Final Rule will publish in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. A PDF of the IFR is available here.

    DOE’s updated NEPA guidance documents are available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –