UNICEF Spokesperson James Elder at press briefing at the Palais des Nations in Geneva
AMMAN/GENEVA, June 2025 – “In a war already defined by its brutality, Gaza now teeters at its deadliest edge. Currently just 40 per cent of drinking water production facilities remain functional in Gaza (87 out of 217). Without fuel, every one of these will stop operating within weeks.
“Since all the electricity to Gaza was cut after the horrific attacks of 7 Oct 2023, fuel became essential to produce, treat and distribute water to more than two million Palestinians.
“If the current more than 100-day blockade on fuel coming into Gaza does not end, children will begin to die of thirst. Diseases are already advancing, and chaos is tightening its grip.
“Whilst alarm bells rightly ring on the nutrition situation in Gaza – just [last week] UNICEF reported a 50 per cent increase in children (6months to 5yrs) admitted for treatment of acute malnutrition from April to May – water cannot be sidelined.
“And so in the most relatable terms: Gaza is facing what would amount to a man-made drought. Water systems are collapsing.
“However, because this is man-made, it can be stopped. None of these problems are logistical or technical. They are political. Denial has become policy. If there is political will, the water crisis will be eased overnight – fuel would mean that water flows from hundreds of groundwater wells and restores supply within a day. But time is running out.
“To help paint the picture: without fuel, desalination plants that already operate on reduced capacity will cease completely, and critical membranes in the machinery will close, doing immense damage. Without fuel, trucking the millions of litres of water to people will stop. At major production points, large numbers of donkeys are starting to replace trucks. This is the last gasp of a collapsing system. A donkey cart can barely carry 500 litres. A truck, 15,000. And even the donkeys are slowing – there’s barely enough food to keep them moving.
“Fuel is also the thread holding Gaza’s devastated healthcare system together. Without it, hospital generators stop, oxygen production stops, and life-support machines fail. Ambulances can’t move. Incubators go dark. Denying fuel doesn’t just cut off supply – it cuts off survival.
“Or sanitation: The sewerage systems are broken. Sewage now flows into makeshift shelters and tents. There are already suspected cases of HepA and HepE, which are highly infectious.
“Or nutrition: Just as the water crisis is manmade, so too is the malnutrition it drives. In Gaza, these two crises feed off each other, creating a deadly cycle. On average, more than 110 children (6months to 5yrs) have been admitted for treatment for malnutrition every day since the beginning of 2025.
“At the start of this month a friend in Gaza said to me: ‘we have learnt to live without so much. Without our homes; without safety; without loved ones…but we cannot live without food’.
“This week he clarified that: ‘we have learnt to live without so much. Without our homes; without safety; without loved ones…we have even learnt we can live without food for a week, or more…but we cannot survive days without water’.
“UNICEF is very clear. This is Gaza’s most critical moment since this war on children began – a woeful bar to sink below. A virtual blockade is in place; humanitarian aid is being sidelined; the daily killing of girls and boys in Gaza does not register; and now a deliberate fuel crisis is severing Palestinians most essential element for survival: water.”
About UNICEF UNICEF, the United Nations agency for children, works to protect the rights of every child, everywhere, especially the most disadvantaged children and in the toughest places to reach. Across more than 190 countries and territories, we do whatever it takes to help children survive, thrive, and fulfil their potential.
Seafarers keep global trade flowing – delivering food, medicine, and vital goods around the world. Their work is essential to our lives and economies.
Yet too often, their rights are denied, and their safety is put at risk.
This year, we shine a light on harassment and discrimination faced by many seafarers, including women, young workers and those in isolated or vulnerable conditions.
Zero-tolerance policies and inclusive workplace cultures that support the mental health of seafarers are essential. So, too, is coordinated action – among governments, industry and workers – to uphold labour standards and ensure safe, fair and humane conditions at sea.
On this International Day of the Seafarer, let us commit to a maritime sector anchored in equality, respect and dignity.
***
Les gens de mer assurent la fluidité du commerce mondial en transportant des denrées alimentaires, des médicaments et des biens vitaux dans le monde entier. Leurs activités sont essentielles à nos vies et à nos économies.
Pourtant, trop souvent, leurs droits sont bafoués et leur sécurité mise en péril.
Cette année, nous mettons en lumière le harcèlement et la discrimination qui frappent de nombreux marins, notamment les femmes, les jeunes et les gens de mer qui se trouvent dans des situations d’isolement ou de vulnérabilité.
Les politiques de tolérance zéro et les cultures de travail inclusives qui préservent la santé mentale des gens de mer sont essentielles. De même, une action coordonnée – entre les gouvernements, les entreprises et les travailleurs – est nécessaire pour faire respecter les normes du travail et garantir des conditions sûres, équitables et humaines en mer.
En cette journée internationale des gens de mer, engageons-nous en faveur d’un secteur maritime soucieux d’assurer l’égalité, le respect et la dignité.
Greenpeace says that the New Zealand Government has lost its last shred of climate credibility in light of its withdrawal from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – a global first.
Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, “This is a Government that is refusing to invest in a safe and livable future. Luxon has made an unconscionable decision with no thought for the implications on our kids’ and grandkids’ futures.”
“From choosing to reverse the oil and gas ban, to offering up $200 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, it’s clear that Luxon can’t be trusted to make decisions on climate change.
“Abandoning the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is like withdrawing your investments in smartphones to back fax machines instead. These are not serious people.”
Larsson says that there is a growing risk that the Government’s reversal of climate change policies will result in backlash from New Zealand’s trading partners, citing advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that said that repealing the ban on offshore oil and gas was likely to breach New Zealand’s free trade deals with the UK and European Union.
Additionally, Member of the European Parliament Saskia Bricmont has asked questions of the European Trade Commissioner about the impacts of New Zealand’s regressive climate policies on the EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement – specifically, the move to revise New Zealand’s methane emissions target in line with the controversial concept of ‘no additional warming’.
“The Luxon Government is bending over backwards for two of the most polluting industries in the world – the intensive livestock industry, and the fossil fuel industry,” says Larsson.
“They are turning New Zealand into a laughing stock on the global stage as they continue to let polluters write policies that harm regular people.
“Already, international climate scientists have called out the Prime Minister for ignoring scientific evidence by exploring dodgy accounting tricks for measuring methane emissions from livestock. It is the first time in Luxon’s political or business career that he has made the front page of the Financial Times – and it was humiliating. He should expect more international criticism to come.”
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
LCQ18: Licence for billiard establishment Question:
Under the Places of Amusement Regulation (Chapter 132BA), Places of Amusement Licence must be obtained for the operation of billiard establishment with four tables or more. However, it is learnt that some billiard establishments without the required licence are operating inside industrial buildings, evading the licensing requirement by adopting such operating practices as providing three or fewer tables in subdivided or sub-let units. There are views that such practices may contravene the deeds of mutual covenant of the buildings and create an unfair advantage over other billiard establishments that are licensed. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has compiled the following information on billiard establishments that currently provide three or fewer tables but have not obtained the licence: (i) the number of billiard establishments, (ii) the number of units involved, (iii) the duration of operation, and (iv) whether the deeds of mutual covenant of the buildings occupied by such establishments have been contravened, together with a breakdown by the 18 districts across the territory; if not, whether it has plans to start compiling and maintaining such information from now on;
(2) of the following information on complaints received by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) regarding illegal operation of billiard establishments each year over the past five years: (i) the number of complaints received, (ii) the number of complaints found to be substantiated, (iii) the number of prosecutions initiated, (iv) the number of successful prosecutions, (v) the number of persons prosecuted, (vi) the offences involved, and (vii) the number of billiard establishments involved;
(3) whether it has plans to step up efforts in combatting billiard establishments operating illegally, and those adopting the aforesaid practices to evade the licensing requirement, such as stepping up law enforcement actions, amending relevant laws, and imposing harsher penalties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) as some members of the industry have relayed that currently applications for the licence for billiard establishments need to be vetted and approved by different government departments such as the LCSD, the Fire Services Department, and the Buildings Department, and it has taken over nine months for some cases to be processed (meaning that the applicants have to pay nine months’ rent for premises not yet placed in service but intended for operating the billiard establishment, amounting to several million dollars), whether the Government has plans to expedite the vetting and approval process for the licence; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the Hon Yung Hoi-yan’s questions are set out below:
(1) The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is responsible for the licensing of billiard establishments with four or more billiard tables pursuant to the Places of Amusement Regulation (Cap. 132BA) under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (the Ordinance). It maintains a register of licensed billiard establishments to ensure that the licensees comply with, among others, the requirements in respect of fire safety, building safety and health. It does not keep any information on venues with three or fewer billiard tables.
(2) Over the past five years (from January 2021 to June 2025), the number of complaints and prosecutions related to suspected unlicensed operation of billiard establishments handled by the LCSD is tabulated below:
The LCSD will take immediate follow-up actions upon receiving complaints about suspected unlicensed billiard establishments (including evasion of the need to obtain licences by any means) or case referrals from other departments. The LCSD may, depending on actual circumstances, launch joint operations with other law enforcement departments. If unlicensed operation is confirmed after investigation, the LCSD will prosecute the operator in accordance with the law. Any person operating a regulated billiard establishment without a licence issued under the Ordinance, upon conviction, may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to six months and a maximum fine of $25,000. In addition, if other irregularities (such as violation of lease conditions) are found at the premises, the LCSD will refer such cases to relevant departments for follow-up. The LCSD will continue to monitor the operation of billiard establishments and review the enforcement action and penalties under the existing legislation from time to time. The LCSD will step up efforts to combat the operation of unlicensed billiard establishments as and when necessary.
(4) The dedicated page on Places of Amusement Licences on the LCSD’s website sets out the general licensing requirements, application guidelines and frequently asked questions to assist applicants interested in operating billiard establishments in preparing the necessary documents and layout plans for their licence applications.
The time required to vet each application depends on whether the individual applicant meets the licensing conditions, as well as the time needed by relevant departments (including the Fire Services Department and the Buildings Department) to examine the information submitted by the applicant and approve the relevant works for the premises concerned. If the applicant responds to and follows up on the advice of relevant departments in a timely manner, the approval process can generally be completed in about four to seven months upon receipt of the application and all required information.
The LCSD is committed to simplifying the application procedures for Places of Amusement Licences all along, and will continue to review and refine relevant procedures, including simplifying the application forms and providing online submission channel. Furthermore, the LCSD will continue to work closely with various departments concerned to process applications as quickly as practicable upon receipt of the required information from applicants with a view to expediting the vetting process. Issued at HKT 12:10
Press Release Nokia selected by Verizon as hardware and software provider for Thames Freeport multisite private 5G deal
Verizon Business, in collaboration with Nokia, will deliver multiple Verizon Private 5G Networks to industrial campuses across the Thames Freeport, one of the UK’s busiest maritime logistics and manufacturing regions.
The Thames Freeport is a designated UK “Free Trade Zone,” established to boost economic growth, create high-value jobs and attract global investment as part of a long-term effort to revive the UK’s River Thames Estuary region.
Thames Freeport will use Verizon Private 5G to enhance port operations with AI-driven data analytics, autonomous vehicle control, real-time logistics orchestration, innovation research & development, and more.
25 June 2025 London, UK – Nokia, Verizon Business and Thames Freeport today announced a strategic partnership to deploy Verizon Private 5G Networks across multiple key logistics, manufacturing, and innovation sites along the River Thames Estuary in the United Kingdom. The Verizon Private 5G Networks will serve as the technology foundation for a multi-year, multi-billion dollar operational transformation and economic revival for the region, one of the busiest maritime logistics hubs in the United Kingdom.
The Private 5G Networks buildout provides a scalable, long-term connectivity foundation for advanced data, AI, edge compute, and IoT infrastructure deployments aimed at transforming port and manufacturing operations.
The technological enhancements will play a direct role in boosting the local economy, underpinning job training and reskilling efforts as part of employment initiatives and supporting innovation and research and development collaborations among Freeport tenants and outside corporate, government, and research entities. Thames Freeport has already created 1,400 jobs and plans to reach 5,000 by 2030, with a focus on high-skilled training for local communities.
The Verizon Private 5G Networks will enable advanced data and application capabilities for AI-driven data analytics, predictive maintenance, process automation, autonomous vehicle control, safety monitoring, and real-time logistics orchestration. Nokia is the sole hardware and software provider for the networks, which will incorporate the Nokia Digital Automation Cloud (DAC) platform and Nokia MX Industrial Edge (MXIE). The Verizon Private 5G Networks will be deployed to the following sites:
DP World London Gateway and DP World Logistics Park, the UK’s largest and most integrated deep-sea container port and logistics facility, with port capacity to handle over 3 million units per year. The hub includes a rail terminal with 20 daily services and a 9.25 million square foot high-tech logistics center.
Port of Tilbury, (two sites), the largest of the mixed-use Thames Freeport ports. Tilbury handles 16 million tonnes of cargo per year across 31 independent working terminals. Operated by Forth Ports, the sites comprise a crucial logistics hub for the construction, automotive, and food & drink sectors.
Ford Dagenham, the largest manufacturing site in London, is a unique location that gives access to regional manufacturing clusters, proximity to suppliers, and brings key production closer to the end market.
“Our partnership with Thames Freeport and Nokia shows the full promise of private 5G at scale. Thames Freeport is developing one of the most technologically advanced commercial corridors in Europe to enable forward innovation and economic revitalization for an entire community. We’re not just driving operational improvements to help a partner stay ahead of the curve; we’re laying the groundwork for new revenue streams, community development, and further commercial and technological investment,” said Jennifer Artley, SVP, 5G Acceleration, Verizon Business.
“A flexible, high-performance connectivity platform is critical to our long-term vision. Our investment in private 5G is not an incremental network upgrade—it’s the backbone of a technological transformation fueling our long-term multi-stakeholder mission, which includes operational excellence for tenants; ROI for shareholders like Ford, DP World and Forth Ports; innovation leadership for public and private benefit; circular economy models supporting efficient energy models; empowering community development by enabling high-value job creation and training; and transforming public services with near-real time diagnostics at health-service sites. By partnering with Verizon Business and Nokia, we’re delivering the technology needed to propel our region to the front of the leading edge,” said Martin Whiteley, CEO, Thames Freeport.
“Private wireless and industrial edge are the foundations for the digital transformation of industrial sites, and the Thames Freeport deployment is a landmark example of this evolution at scale. This is one of the largest commercial private 5G rollouts in a European port, incorporating the Nokia DAC platform. This network will allow Thames Freeport to overlay advanced use cases such as AI-driven data analytics, predictive maintenance, process automation, autonomous vehicle control, safety monitoring, and real-time logistics orchestration. Together with Verizon Business, we’re proud to be enabling the infrastructure that will help Thames Freeport drive new efficiencies, sustainable growth, and long-term economic opportunity for the region,” said David de Lancellotti, VP of Enterprise Campus Edge Sales, Nokia.
The Thames Freeport has a mission of economic regeneration and operational excellence, centered on stimulating trade, fostering innovation, supporting energy transition, creating jobs and improving the lives of the people around it. Private 5G Networks from Verizon Business can help enable a range of strategic priorities at Thames Freeport sites in service of that mission.
Select priorities include enabling advanced technology layers such as AI, edge computing, and IoT across active industrial sites where Freeport stakeholders can collaborate on new applications. For example, industrial sites can leverage IoT for autonomous yard tractors and quay cranes and for near real-time tracking, smart routing, and condition monitoring for cargo. That can allow tenants to intake cargo, assess quantity and condition, and ship it out faster and more efficiently, losing less to damage or misplacement.
Additionally, AI with edge computing can help manage environmental impact through edge-connected smart sensors and AI-driven analytics that monitor and optimize port operations and asset performance, including near-real time monitoring of emissions, air and water quality, and noise levels.
Managing the use of the Verizon Private 5G Network infrastructure will be the responsibility of Thames Freeport and its tenant shareholder organizations. This ensures fit-for-purpose connectivity that adapts to site-specific requirements while safeguarding data and operational autonomy.
About Nokia At Nokia, we create technology that helps the world act together.
As a B2B technology innovation leader, we are pioneering networks that sense, think and act by leveraging our work across mobile, fixed and cloud networks. In addition, we create value with intellectual property and long-term research, led by the award-winning Nokia Bell Labs, which is celebrating 100 years of innovation.
With truly open architectures that seamlessly integrate into any ecosystem, our high-performance networks create new opportunities for monetization and scale. Service providers, enterprises and partners worldwide trust Nokia to deliver secure, reliable and sustainable networks today – and work with us to create the digital services and applications of the future.
About Verizon Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, Nasdaq: VZ) powers and empowers how its millions of customers live, work and play, delivering on their demand for mobility, reliable network connectivity and security. Headquartered in New York City, serving countries worldwide and nearly all of the Fortune 500, Verizon generated revenues of $134.8 billion in 2024. Verizon’s world-class team never stops innovating to meet customers where they are today and equip them for the needs of tomorrow. For more, visit verizon.com or find a retail location at verizon.com/stores.
Some of these relate to the inclusion of households not facing economic hardship and the exclusion of families living in poverty. There’s a need to refine the current criteria to better identify households experiencing temporary financial difficulties, even if they own certain assets.
Challenges in data verification
Another area for improvement in Aswesuma is the difficulty officials face in verifying household information related to eligibility. For example, errors may occur during data collection if households withhold accurate information about their poverty status to qualify for benefits or are unable to recall details correctly. These inaccuracies can reduce the program’s effectiveness by excluding people who genuinely need help and undermining efforts to create a more objective social protection system.
Improving follow-up and monitoring
Better data collection methods during follow-ups with Aswesuma recipients would help improve the criteria. This would allow the program to monitor households’ economic conditions and track improvements resulting from cash transfers. The main goal of these transfers is to help participants move out of poverty by improving their living situations. Therefore, follow-up assessments should document any changes and measurable outcomes related to food insecurity or poverty levels. These outcomes should go beyond the current Aswesuma indicators to better reflect improvements in well-being.
Addressing chronic and transient poverty
Ongoing updates to Aswesuma should also improve its ability to target people experiencing both chronic and transient poverty. Chronic poverty refers to long-term deprivation, often passed down through generations, while transient poverty involves short-term income or spending losses, even when long-term resources are sufficient to stay above the poverty line (Duclos et al., 2078). The current deprivation score mainly focuses on chronic poverty, emphasizing household assets and housing conditions (13 of the 22 indicators are based on multidimensional measurements).
Gaps in coverage and food insecurity
While addressing chronic poverty is important, it’s also necessary to consider temporary poverty. A large portion of the population (households ineligible for Aswesuma but who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months) remains underserved. Of the 20% of the population that faced food insecurity, nearly 40% are not eligible for Aswesuma.
Expanding the framework for vulnerability
Given the current economic climate, with rising costs and income losses, measures of temporary poverty could help identify both long-term and short-term hardship, regardless of assets or housing. Including data on household members’ recent employment experiences, especially job loss, could offer a more complete picture of who needs support. The amount of cash transferred is unlikely to directly improve indicators related to household assets or other long-term poverty markers, as those require larger investments in education, health, and infrastructure (Lipton and Ravallion, 1995).
Climate vulnerability and regional differences
Climate vulnerability also adds complexity to household conditions. Although it’s difficult to measure, including it would help the program reach more at-risk groups in Sri Lanka.
The current set of indicators can also be improved by accounting for both visible and hidden factors that influence household selection. The relevance of indicators varies by region and demographics. For example, vehicle use and electricity consumption depend on the availability of alternatives, which differ across the country. Rural households may lack access to transportation or electricity not because of poverty, but because those services aren’t available. Regional adjustments in how deprivation is measured could lead to more accurate assessments of poverty in both rural and urban areas.
Asset ownership and agricultural work
Asset indicators like ownership of agricultural machinery or land are influenced by both observable and hidden factors, including the decision to work in agriculture. This suggests a need for additional support programs, such as insurance for agricultural workers. In some areas, deprivation in agriculture-related indicators may actually reflect higher well-being, depending on location and market access.
Labor market impacts and conditional transfers
Finally, the program’s impact on labor market outcomes should be considered. The study predicts a drop in labor force participation for both men and women under various scenarios. This aligns with economic theory, which suggests that higher non-labor income reduces the need for paid work (Garganta et al., 2017). However, building resilience through employment is key to long-term poverty reduction. In some cases, transfers tied to employment have shown fewer negative, or even positive, effects on labor participation (Berlinski et al., 2024). While cash transfers are helpful for addressing food insecurity, exploring conditional transfers that encourage work and self-reliance is important for helping people move out of poverty.
Some of these relate to the inclusion of households not facing economic hardship and the exclusion of families living in poverty. There’s a need to refine the current criteria to better identify households experiencing temporary financial difficulties, even if they own certain assets.
Challenges in data verification
Another area for improvement in Aswesuma is the difficulty officials face in verifying household information related to eligibility. For example, errors may occur during data collection if households withhold accurate information about their poverty status to qualify for benefits or are unable to recall details correctly. These inaccuracies can reduce the program’s effectiveness by excluding people who genuinely need help and undermining efforts to create a more objective social protection system.
Improving follow-up and monitoring
Better data collection methods during follow-ups with Aswesuma recipients would help improve the criteria. This would allow the program to monitor households’ economic conditions and track improvements resulting from cash transfers. The main goal of these transfers is to help participants move out of poverty by improving their living situations. Therefore, follow-up assessments should document any changes and measurable outcomes related to food insecurity or poverty levels. These outcomes should go beyond the current Aswesuma indicators to better reflect improvements in well-being.
Addressing chronic and transient poverty
Ongoing updates to Aswesuma should also improve its ability to target people experiencing both chronic and transient poverty. Chronic poverty refers to long-term deprivation, often passed down through generations, while transient poverty involves short-term income or spending losses, even when long-term resources are sufficient to stay above the poverty line (Duclos et al., 2078). The current deprivation score mainly focuses on chronic poverty, emphasizing household assets and housing conditions (13 of the 22 indicators are based on multidimensional measurements).
Gaps in coverage and food insecurity
While addressing chronic poverty is important, it’s also necessary to consider temporary poverty. A large portion of the population (households ineligible for Aswesuma but who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months) remains underserved. Of the 20% of the population that faced food insecurity, nearly 40% are not eligible for Aswesuma.
Expanding the framework for vulnerability
Given the current economic climate, with rising costs and income losses, measures of temporary poverty could help identify both long-term and short-term hardship, regardless of assets or housing. Including data on household members’ recent employment experiences, especially job loss, could offer a more complete picture of who needs support. The amount of cash transferred is unlikely to directly improve indicators related to household assets or other long-term poverty markers, as those require larger investments in education, health, and infrastructure (Lipton and Ravallion, 1995).
Climate vulnerability and regional differences
Climate vulnerability also adds complexity to household conditions. Although it’s difficult to measure, including it would help the program reach more at-risk groups in Sri Lanka.
The current set of indicators can also be improved by accounting for both visible and hidden factors that influence household selection. The relevance of indicators varies by region and demographics. For example, vehicle use and electricity consumption depend on the availability of alternatives, which differ across the country. Rural households may lack access to transportation or electricity not because of poverty, but because those services aren’t available. Regional adjustments in how deprivation is measured could lead to more accurate assessments of poverty in both rural and urban areas.
Asset ownership and agricultural work
Asset indicators like ownership of agricultural machinery or land are influenced by both observable and hidden factors, including the decision to work in agriculture. This suggests a need for additional support programs, such as insurance for agricultural workers. In some areas, deprivation in agriculture-related indicators may actually reflect higher well-being, depending on location and market access.
Labor market impacts and conditional transfers
Finally, the program’s impact on labor market outcomes should be considered. The study predicts a drop in labor force participation for both men and women under various scenarios. This aligns with economic theory, which suggests that higher non-labor income reduces the need for paid work (Garganta et al., 2017). However, building resilience through employment is key to long-term poverty reduction. In some cases, transfers tied to employment have shown fewer negative, or even positive, effects on labor participation (Berlinski et al., 2024). While cash transfers are helpful for addressing food insecurity, exploring conditional transfers that encourage work and self-reliance is important for helping people move out of poverty.
Briefing by Hannah Serwaa Tetteh, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Libya and Head of UNSMIL, on the situation in Libya.
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Libya Hanna Tetteh urged the Government of National Unity in Libya “to facilitate the full resumption of humanitarian operations, particularly those led by INGOs, which play a critical role in supporting vulnerable groups including Libyan women and children.”
Briefing the Security Council today (24 Jun) Tetteh informed the members of the Council that on 20 June, the Berlin Process International Follow-up Committee on Libya (IFC-L) met in Berlin under the auspices of the Federal Republic of Germany and UNSMIL, “reconvening for the first time after a hiatus of 4 years.” She added, “The meeting marked a significant shift towards reinvigorating international coordination on Libya and consolidating international support to UN efforts in advancing a political process.”
She also said, “The armed clashes that erupted in Tripoli in May resulted in civilian deaths and injuries, as well as damage to critical civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, universities and a prison. Despite several stress calls, no humanitarian corridors were secured by the parties involved in the clashes. These incidents also underscored the shortcomings of state security actors in adhering to international humanitarian and human rights law.”
Tetteh said she was alarmed by the discovery of mass graves in the Abu Slim area, following the clashes. She said, “Emerging evidence indicates grave human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances, that were allegedly committed by state security actors, notably the Stability Support Apparatus (SSA).”
Taher M. El-Sonni, Permanent Representative of Libya to the United Nations said, “For us to spend a year and a half being held hostage as we await the appointment of representatives and then witness continued absence of factual solutions. This is a collective responsibility upon everyone, including this Council. At the same time, no attention is given to genuine national initiatives, because it’s always said that the mediator must be a United Nations party. This is a contradiction. And this is an untenable situation. And we hope that this matter will proceed with urgency.”
Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –
In service “My payments” The mos.ru portal now offers the option to set up an automatic payment for travel on toll roads. This was reported by the capital’s Department of Information Technology (DIT).
If previously car owners had to track and pay each invoice issued, now it is enough to connect autopayment, and the required amount will be debited from the bank card linked to the service automatically. This is especially convenient for those who regularly drive alongMoscow High-Speed Diameter (MSD), the M-12 “Vostok” highway, the Central Ring Road (CRR), Bagration Avenue andWestern High Speed Diameter in Saint Petersburg.
“We continue to develop the functionality of the My Payments service to make it even more convenient for residents of the capital to pay for services on the mos.ru portal without going to other resources. Over the past 2.5 years, payment for travel on Bagration Avenue, the Moscow Highway, M-12 Vostok, the Central Ring Road and the Western High-Speed Diameter in St. Petersburg has become available here. Now users have the opportunity to connect autopayment to pay for travel on these highways. It is enough to select and configure the appropriate parameters so that new bills are paid automatically and on time,” said Vladimir Novikov, Director of the Department for Support of Citywide Payment Systems of the Moscow Department of Information Technology.
The ability to connect automatic payments is one of the most popular functions among users of the My Payments service on the mos.ru portal. City residents have used automatic payment of bills more than 1.6 million times. This saves time and allows you not to worry about payment deadlines. All connected automatic payments are displayed in the section of the service with the same name. If necessary, you can edit their parameters or delete them here.
Automatic payment for the issued invoice
To make sure that payment for travel on toll road sections takes a minimum of time and is done automatically, you can set up automatic payment immediately after the first payment in the service on mos.ruto the invoice issued. To do this, in the “Connecting Auto Payment” window, you need to specify the maximum amount of one invoice and the amount of write-offs per month. Auto payment will occur automatically after the road operator issues an invoice.
Autopayment on schedule
Car owners using transponders can now set up automatic paymentsschedule. This is convenient for advance payment of travel. After the first payment is made, in the “Auto payment connection” window, it is enough to specify the amount and frequency with which funds will be debited from the account. At the moment, this opportunity is available to motorists who have installed transponders of two toll road operators – JSC “New Quality of Roads” AndUnited Toll Collection Systems LLC. Through the mos.ru portal, you can top up your transponder account to pay for travel on any Russian toll road.
The transponder account number is automatically displayed in the My Payments service on mos.ru if the user has specified the same phone number in their profile and in the contract with the toll road operator. If the numbers do not match, you can add the transponder yourself. To do this, in the Documents and Data section, simply select the Transport tab, the Add transponder option and fill out the form. The service will automatically generate a template with the current balance and the recommended amount to top up the transponder account. If several devices from different road operators are used, each of them will have its own template.
Automatic search for travel invoices
In order to make the payment for travel on toll road sections take a minimum of time, you must first indicate the state registration number of the car, as well as the series and number of the vehicle registration certificate in your personal account on the mos.ru portal. Then, after driving on the highway, the bill will automatically appear in the My Payments service. You can also set up a subscription to receive notifications aboutnew accountsTo do this, you will need to tick the convenient form of receiving messages in your profile – by email or via push notifications.
If there is not enough information in your personal account to automatically search for invoices, you can use the “Vehicle Certificate” widget. In the pop-up window that opens, simply enter the vehicle details, and the widget will show all unpaid invoices, and you will be asked to save the entered information in your profile so that you do not have to re-enter it in the future.
You can find out more about all the options for paying toll road bills in the My Payments service ininstructions.
The My Payments service on the mos.ru portal and in the Moscow State Services and My Moscow mobile applications is one of the most popular methods of paying bills among residents of the capital. It can be used to pay for about nine thousand municipal, federal and commercial services. Over the seven and a half years of the service’s operation, city residents have already paid more than 116 million bills.
The service automatically finds all unpaid bills if the user has a standard or full account and the necessary information is specified in the personal account. To save time, you can connect autopayment or create a template here. This will allow you to avoid filling in the details in the future. If necessary, it is possible to pay several bills at once. More information about all the features of the My Payments service is ininstructions.
You can learn more about how Moscow’s electronic services developed and how just 30 years ago, in order to pay bills, you had to visit up to five different departments from the film “Moscow in Digital”.
The creation, development and operation of the e-government infrastructure, including the provision of mass socially significant services, as well as other services in electronic form, corresponds to the objectives of the national project “Data Economy” and the regional project of the city of Moscow “Digital Public Administration”.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –
Teaching a neural network to answer a thousand questions, researching superbugs, determining a person’s chronotype using a DNA test, and recognizing lies using speech markers—this and much more was done by Moscow schoolchildren who participated in the project “In the center of science”. Based at the capital’s universities and leading research clusters, high school students, under the guidance of experts, implemented ideas in the fields of biology, ecology, chemistry, physics and linguistics, conducted experiments, and then presented their results at conferences.
We tell you how the project helps students take their first steps in science, feel like real researchers, and decide on their future profession.
Diving into Science
The project “In the Center of Science” opened last year. More than 15 thousand people took part in it: over 10 thousand high school students, as well as teachers and young scientists. The project, which united the efforts of schools, universities and scientific centers, provided Moscow students with the opportunity to engage in research activities based on modern laboratories and testing grounds, consult with the best mentors, develop their own projects and defend them before the expert community.
For several months, schoolchildren attended specialized clubs, festivals, lectures, master classes, and scientific and experimental courses. They mastered advanced research methods such as microscopy, electrophoresis, 3D printing, data collection and analysis, and modeling of physical and biological processes. Young chemists studied the rate of metal corrosion and prepared a protective solution, physicists created bionic prostheses on a 3D printer, biologists performed DNA sequencing, and ecologists developed ideas for preserving the environment. Professional hackathons were organized for teachers, and meetings of the Young Scientists Club were organized for aspiring researchers.
The schoolchildren presented their projects at internal conferences and city events. And the capital’s scientists told about cutting-edge discoveries in Moscow Palace of Pioneers, where three large lectures, a large-scale festival of natural sciences and the Moscow Science Festival were held in February.
How words reveal deception
Eleventh-grader Alexandra Gatilova from School No. 1238participated in scientific and experimental courses in linguistics. She conducted a study dedicated to identifying lie markers in oral speech. Together with her team, the schoolgirl modeled a situation, interviewed dozens of respondents, analyzed the data and presented the results in the form of diagrams.
“The linguistics courses were held at the Higher School of Economics. For two months, we studied theory and conducted research. Each group had its own topic; ours was working on a project to identify markers of lying in oral monologue speech. The goal was to find out whether it is possible to understand when a person is lying based on certain words. To do this, one part of the respondents was asked to imagine that they were late for a meeting with a friend because the bus did not arrive on time. And the other part was asked to lie that the reason for being late was a delayed bus. Then we deciphered the monologues using a special application and loaded the results into a table, highlighting the matches,” says Alexandra Gatilova.
While working on the project, the schoolchildren discovered the following patterns: truthful respondents more often used polite expressions and words with a softened negative meaning than those who lied. For example, they said about the bus that it was delayed, not late.
“We managed to detect lie markers in 70 percent of respondents. We presented the research results, presented in graphs and tables, at a scientific conference. This development can be used in forensics, training psychologists, for analyzing texts using artificial intelligence in various Telegram channels. We plan to continue working on the project in the next academic year,” says the schoolgirl.
Alexandra Gatilova is also making progress in learning English and Chinese. In the future, the girl wants to become a linguist and teacher.
Participant of the conference “Engineers of the Future” and winner of the Moscow Pre-professional Physics Olympiad Lev Lezhenev from School No. 1434— the author of a project based on artificial intelligence for a large retail chain. Together with his team, the tenth-grader created a website that optimizes the work of the retail employee support service.
“Together with other participants in the project dedicated to artificial intelligence, I spent a week developing a program that would answer questions. After a theoretical course conducted by students from leading Moscow universities, we created an Internet service and built into it a neural network with a database of ready-made answers. In the format of text messages, the company’s employees could find out how many times a month their salary is accrued, how to receive maternity benefits and other important information. In total, the database included answers to about a thousand questions,” says Lev Lezhenev.
Before presenting the finished project at the conference, the schoolchildren made the necessary economic calculations. For the development, the children received an award from the customer company.
“Theoretically, such a model can be implemented at any enterprise. In the future, we want to continue working on the project and create a server that will allow us to enter a wide variety of data. I consider the “In the Center of Science” program to be very useful: it gives the opportunity to expand and deepen school knowledge, applying it in practice. In the future, I want to become a programmer, and this experience is very important to me,” the high school student shares.
The students worked in modern laboratories, collected and analyzed data, and modeled physical and biological processes. Ninth-grader Anastasia Levchenko from School No. 947participated in scientific and experimental courses on chemistry and biotechnology. She studied how the structure of DNA is related to a person’s biological predisposition to a particular chronotype (sleep and wakefulness regime).
“The two-month courses were held at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology. The participants in the experiment were schoolchildren from our and neighboring streams and teachers. After they answered questions about their daily routine, we took a scraping of their buccal epithelium – cells from the inside of the cheek. Then, using an amplifier (a device for conducting a polymerase chain reaction), we isolated DNA from these cells. The nucleotide chains were examined under ultraviolet light and the results were compared with the information from the questionnaires. A thin strip of a pair of nucleotides corresponds to the lark chronotype, a thick one – an owl, and two stripes indicate that their owner belongs to the mixed chronotype of a pigeon. The results coincided with the answers of the study participants by 95 percent. Such tests will help people plan their routine taking into account biological characteristics,” explains Anastasia Levchenko.
The schoolgirl also extracted essential oils and hydrolates (water solutions) from tangerine peel, mint and dried rose petals, and determined the content of chlorophyll and other pigments in different parts of plants. Earlier, she became a prize winner of the municipal stage of the All-Russian School Olympiad in Ecology.
“In the new academic year, I plan to participate in the “At the Center of Science” project again, to do other research. This is a very good base for schoolchildren, there is an opportunity to work with advanced laboratory equipment under the guidance of specialists, to implement their ideas,” says Anastasia Levchenko, who has dreamed of connecting her life with medicine and becoming a surgeon since childhood.
How bacteria develop in kefir and how resistant they are to modern antibiotics was studied by ninth-grader Artem Reutsky from School No. 1558, winner of the Moscow School Olympiad in Biology and English.
“During the scientific and experimental courses on biotechnology, we studied superbugs. This is the name given to microorganisms that have developed resistance to antibiotics during their development. First, we collected theoretical information, then we planted cultures to grow bacteria. The study was conducted on samples of kefir from different manufacturers – we added bacteria and a paper disk soaked in antibiotics to each, and then immersed the samples in a thermostat. After a week, colonies of superbugs resistant to drugs grew in some kefir samples,” says Artem Reutsky.
The schoolchildren’s project confirmed the scientific hypothesis that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can develop in fermented milk products, so food technologists need to pay special attention to production. The students presented the results of their research in the form of diagrams at an internal scientific conference.
“This was my first serious research. It’s great that there is an opportunity to work in a well-equipped laboratory, to gain practical experience. Now I want to get into the summer camp of the project “In the Center of Science”, and in the future – to become a virologist and create a vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus,” the schoolboy shares.
In the new academic year, the project will continue to expand: the number of courses and clubs will increase, new areas will appear, and the mentoring format will develop. Registration for the summer visiting scientific school is now open, and professional competitions, hackathons, and festivals await schoolchildren in the future. You can find out more and register at website.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
TIANJIN, June 25 — The Chinese government will continue to foster a first-class business environment that is market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized, and always keep the doors wide open and warmly welcome businesses from all countries to invest and deepen their roots in China, Chinese Premier Li Qiang said Wednesday.
Li made the remarks when addressing the opening plenary of the 16th Annual Meeting of the New Champions, also known as the Summer Davos, in north China’s Tianjin Municipality.
Broadcast journalist Antoinette Lattouf was sacked by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for her political opinions concerning the war in Gaza, the Federal Court has found.
Lattouf has been awarded $70,000 in damages for non-economic loss, based on findings that her sacking caused her what the judge called “great distress”.
Justice Darryl Rangiah said this was obvious from her demeanour in the witness box. She had given evidence of feeling shock and humiliation at being sacked, and that this had affected her sleep and put strain on her personal relationships.
However, the court found Lattouf’s race or ethnicity had played no part in the ABC’s decision to sack her, as she had claimed.
The decision to sack her had been made by Chris Oliver-Taylor, who at the time was chief content officer of the ABC. His decision had been fortified by the views of the then managing director and editor-in-chief of the ABC, David Anderson, that Lattouf had expressed antisemitic opinions.
The court found Oliver-Taylor was under pressure from many sources: the external complaints, Anderson’s view of the matter, and the wishes of the then chair Ita Buttrose to put an end to it.
There was also a desire to appease the pro-Israel lobby, to defend the ABC’s reputation for impartiality, and to mitigate the impact of a story that he knew The Australian newspaper was about the publish on the issue.
The case arose from events that occurred in December 2023.
The ABC hired Lattouf, a journalist of Lebanese heritage, as a relief presenter on the mornings program of Sydney ABC Radio for one week leading up to Christmas. The mornings program consisted of light entertainment interspersed with hourly news bulletins. It did not otherwise offer news or current affairs content.
Lattouf had worked for the ABC previously and was well-regarded inside the organisation. Her appointment was uncontroversial among those involved in making it, and she started work on Monday December 18.
Before this stint began, Lattouf had made a series of personal social media posts accusing Israeli soldiers of using rape as a weapon of war. Then, early in the week she was on air, she posted on her personal social media profile a report by Human Rights Watch alleging Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. A few days earlier, the ABC had also posted this report on its own website.
Like the ABC, Lattouf posted it without comment.
However, an orchestrated campaign by the Jewish lobby to have her taken off air had already begun, on the basis of what she had previously published on her private social media account, and Justice Rangiah observed that this had caused consternation among senior ABC management.
This consternation turned to panic after the posting of the Human Rights Watch report, and the campaign intensified. A coordinated email campaign by a pro-Israel lobbying group called “Lawyers for Israel”, and another group called “J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics”, demanded Lattouf be sacked, threatening legal action if she was not.
Messages from a WhatsApp group leaked to The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age showed that in this way, the campaigners put intense pressure on the ABC’s most senior officers at the time, Anderson and Buttrose.
On December 20, Lattouf was told when she came off air she would not be required for the final two days of her engagement. The Fair Work Commission subsequently found this amounted to sacking her. She then sued the ABC in the Federal Court for unlawful termination, alleging she had been dismissed because of her race and political views.
When the matter came before the Federal Court in February 2025, the ABC argued she had been dismissed not because of her race or political views but because she had disobeyed a lawful instruction not to post anything “controversial” on social media while working for the ABC.
The ABC alleged her act of disobedience was the posting of the Human Rights Watch report. In the course of the proceedings, emails between Anderson and Buttrose were admitted into evidence. They showed Buttrose telling Anderson she was “over” getting these complaints about Lattouf, and asking “can’t she come down with flu or COVID or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing.”
Giving evidence during the court hearing, Buttrose said she had proposed this as a face-saving device for Lattouf’s benefit.
In making a formal determination that Lattouf had been terminated, Justice Rangiah dismissed the ABC’s argument that she had simply been told there would be no work for her on the final two days of her contracted period of employment.
He also found Lattouf had not been instructed not to post on her social media account but had merely been told she would be ill-advised to publish anything “controversial” while on air.
In dismissing Lattouf for her political opinions, the ABC breached section 772 of the Fair Work Act, and by depriving her of an opportunity to defend herself before dismissing her it also breached the ABC’s enterprise bargaining agreement.
The question of whether the ABC should suffer a financial penalty for these breaches will be decided at a later date.
It was evident throughout the proceedings that the ABC had been concerned not just to put an end to the complaints about Lattouf but to protect the organisation’s reputation for impartiality.
In the event, the way the case was handled has done substantial damage to the ABC’s reputation, not just for impartiality but for its capacity to stand up for its journalists and presenters when they come under external attack.
Lattouf is one of several journalists whom the ABC has failed to defend from attacks by politicians, pressure groups and News Corporation. The latter’s flagship newspaper, The Australian, has conducted virulent campaigns against ABC journalists, most notably Stan Grant, as well as Lattouf and others.
The managerial consternation and panic observed by Justice Rangiah in Lattouf’s case were discernible also in the Grant case and in the way the ABC handled the controversy over star journalist Laura Tingle’s observation at a writer’s festival that Australia was a racist country.
This is a cultural weakness in the ABC. Its editorial leadership seems not to understand that the first duty of an editor is to create a safe space in which their staff can do good journalism.
It is a malaise that goes back at least as far as the 2018 debacle in which a former chair, Justin Milne, and former managing director, Michelle Guthrie, showed themselves susceptible to pressure from the Turnbull government.
Both resigned within a few days of each other after a stream of sensational allegations leaked to the press about Milne allegedly calling on Guthrie to fire the chief economics correspondent, Emma Alberici, and the political editor, Andrew Probyn.
Perhaps the Lattouf case will at last stiffen their sinews and make standing up for their journalists a primary qualification for editorial leadership.
The Lattouf case also leaves unresolved the question of the extent to which a media organisation is entitled to place restrictions on a staff journalist’s private activities to protect its interests and reputation.
Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
HELSINKI, June 25 (Xinhua) — Finland has completed the second section of the fence on its eastern border with Russia, Finnish broadcaster Yle reported on Tuesday, citing the Finnish Border Guard.
The newly constructed section is reportedly located in the Kainuu area and consists of eight segments, approximately 18 km long. The first 35-kilometer section was previously completed.
Finland’s parliament approved the fence project in 2022, with plans to eventually cover about 200km of the country’s 1,300km border with Russia. Construction began in 2023, with each section including a steel lattice, a service road, a cleared buffer zone and a technical surveillance system.
The Kainuu section has been technologically upgraded compared to the original pilot segment built near the southeastern city of Imatra. According to Yle, these upgrades include an artificial intelligence (AI) surveillance system that can differentiate between people and animals to reduce false alarms, and a loudspeaker system that allows remote communication with people near the fence.
Meanwhile, all land checkpoints between Finland and Russia have been closed since December 2023 in accordance with a series of government decisions. –0–
Shutting off the internet within an entire country is a serious action. It severely limits people’s ability to freely communicate and to find reliable information during times of conflict.
In countries that have privatised mobile and internet providers, control is often exercised through legislation or through government directives – such as age restrictions on adult content. By contrast, Iran has spent years developing the capacity to directly control its telecommunications infrastructure.
So how can a country have broad control over internet access, and could this happen anywhere in the world?
How does ‘blocking the internet’ work?
The “internet” is a broad term. It covers many types of applications, services and, of course, the websites we’re familiar with.
A nation may opt to physically disconnect the incoming internet connectivity at the point of entry to the country (imagine pulling the plug on a telephone exchange).
This allows for easy recovery of service when the government is ready, but the impact will be far-reaching. Nobody in the country, including the government itself, will be able to connect to the internet – unless the government has its own additional, covert connectivity to the rest of the world.
This is where it gets more technical. Every internet-connected endpoint – laptop, computer, mobile phone – has an IP (internet protocol) address. They’re strings of numbers; for example, 77.237.87.95 is an address assigned to one of the internet service providers in Iran.
IP addresses identify the device on the public internet. However, since strings of numbers are not easy to remember, humans use domain names to connect to services – theconversation.com is an example of a domain name.
That connection between the IP address and the domain is controlled by the domain name system or DNS. It’s possible for a government to control access to key internet services by modifying the DNS – this manipulates the connection between domain names and their underlying numeric addresses.
An additional way to control the internet involves manipulating the traffic flow. IP addresses allow devices to send and receive data across networks controlled by internet service providers. In turn, they rely on the border gateway protocol (BGP) – think of it like a series of traffic signs which direct internet traffic flow, allowing data to move around the world.
Governments could force local internet service providers to remove their BGP routes from the internet. As a result, the devices they service wouldn’t be able to connect to the internet. In the same manner, the rest of the world would no longer be able to “see” into the country.
These events clearly show that if a government anywhere in the world wants to turn off the internet, it really can. The democratic state of the country is the most significant influence on the willingness to undertake such action – not the technical capability.
However, in today’s world, being disconnected from the internet will heavily impact people’s lives, jobs and the economy. It’s not an action to be taken lightly.
How can people evade internet controls?
Virtual private networks or VPNs have long been used to hide communications in countries with strict internet controls, and continue to be an effective internet access method for many people. (However, there are indications Iran has clamped down on VPN use in recent times.)
However, VPNs won’t help when the internet is physically disconnected. Depending on configuration, if BGP routes are blocked, this may also prevent any VPN traffic from reaching the target.
This is where independent satellite internet services open up the most reliable alternative. Satellite internet is great for remote and rural areas where traditional internet service providers have yet to establish their cabling infrastructure – or can’t do so.
Even if traditional wired or wireless internet connections are unavailable, services such as Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet and others can provide internet access through satellites orbiting Earth.
To use satellite internet, users rely on antenna kits supplied by providers. In Iran, Elon Musk’s Starlink was activated during the blackout, and independent reports suggest there are thousands of Starlink receivers secretly operating in the 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.
On June 21, the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – pounding deeply buried centrifuge sites with bunker-busting bombs.
Conducted jointly with Israel, the operation took place without formal congressional authorisation, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers that it was unconstitutional and “unlawful”.
Much of the political debate has centred on whether the US is being pulled into “another Middle East war”.
The New York Times’ Nick Kristof weighed in on the uncertainties following the US’ surprise bombing of Iran and Tehran’s retaliation.
Even US Vice President JD Vance understood the unease, stating:
People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
These reactions have revived comparisons with George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq: a Republican president launching military action on the basis of flimsy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) evidence.
Hauntingly familiar?
While the surface similarity is tempting, the comparison may in fact obscure more about President Donald Trump than it reveals.
Comparisons to the Iraq War
In 2003, Bush ordered a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on flawed intelligence, claiming Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. And while the war was extremely unpopular across the world, it did have bipartisan congressional support.
The invasion toppled Iraq’s regime in just a few weeks.
What followed was a brutal conflict and almost a decade of US occupation. The war triggered the rise of militant jihadism and a horrific sectarian conflict that reverberates today.
So far, Trump’s one-off strikes on Iran bear little resemblance to the 2003 Iraq intervention.
These were precision strikes within the context of a broader Iran-Israel war, designed to target Iran’s nuclear program.
And, so far, there appears to be little appetite for a full-scale military invasion or “boots on the ground”, and regime change seems unlikely despite some rumblings from both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet the comparison to Iraq persists, especially among audiences suspicious of repeated US military interventions in the Middle East. But poorly considered analogies carry costs.
For one, the Iraq comparison sheds little light on Trump’s foreign policy.
To better understand the recent strikes on Iran, we need to look at Trump’s broader foreign policy.
Much has been made of his “America first” mantra, a complex mix of prioritising domestic interests, questioning international agreements, and challenging traditional alliances.
Others, including Trump himself, have often touted his “no war” approach, pointing to large-scale military withdrawals from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq,and the fact he had not started a new war.
But beyond this, Trump has increased US military spending and frequently used his office to conduct targeted strikes on adversaries – especially across the Middle East.
For example, in 2017 and 2018, Trump ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airbase and chemical weapons facilities. In both instances, he bypassed Congress and used precision air power to target weapons infrastructure without pursuing regime change.
Also, from 2017 to 2021, Trump authorised US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, enabling airstrikes that targeted militant cells but also led to mass civilian casualties.
Trump’s policy was the subject of intense bipartisan opposition, culminating in the first successful congressional invocation of the War Powers Resolution – though it was ultimately vetoed by Trump.
And in 2020, Trump launched a sequence of attacks on Iranian assets in Iraq. This included a drone strike that killed senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.
Again, these attacks were conducted without congressional support. The decision triggered intense bipartisan backlash and concerns about escalation without oversight.
While such attacks are not without precedent – think back to former US President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya or Joe Biden’s targeting of terrorist assets – the scale and veracity of Trump’s attacks on the Middle East are much more useful as a framework to understanding the recent attacks on Iran than any reference to the 2003 Iraq war.
What this reveals about Trump
It is crucial to scrutinise any use of force. But while comparing the 2025 Iran strikes to Iraq in 2003 may be rhetorically powerful, it is analytically weak.
A better path is to situate these events within Trump’s broader political style.
He acts unilaterally and with near-complete impunity, disregarding traditional constraints and operating outside established norms and oversight.
This is just as true for attacks on foreign adversaries as it is for the domestic policy arena.
For example, Trump recently empowered agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate with sweeping discretion in immigration enforcement, bypassing legal and judicial oversight.
Trump also uses policy as spectacle, designed to send shockwaves through the domestic or foreign arenas and project dominance to both friend and foe.
In this way, Trump’s dramatic attacks on Iran have some parallels to his unilateral imposition of tariffs on international trade. Both are abrupt, disruptive and framed as a demonstration of strength rather than a way to create a mutually beneficial solution.
Finally, Trump is more than willing to use force as an instrument of power rather than as a last resort. This is just as true for Iran as it is for the US people.
The recent deployment of US Marines to quell protests in Los Angeles reveals a similar impulse: military intervention as a first instinct in the absence of a broader strategy to foster peace.
To truly understand and respond to Trump’s Iran strikes, we need to move beyond sensationalist analogies and recognise a more dangerous reality. This is not the start of another Iraq; it’s the continuation of a presidency defined by impulsive power, unchecked force and a growing disdain for democratic constraint.
Benjamin Isakhan receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Government policy.
After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.
Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.
If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.
As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.
What did each side gain?
The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.
This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.
Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.
Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.
Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.
Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.
Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.
As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.
While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.
Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.
Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program
Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.
That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)
Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.
Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.
However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.
And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.
What might future deterrence look like?
The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.
For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.
As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.
At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.
Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.
In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.
Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.
Ali Mamouri 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.
In a decade of international security crises, this could be the most serious. Is there still time to prevent this from happening?
A successful but vulnerable treaty
In May 2015, I attended the five-yearly review conference of the NPT. Delegates debated a draft outcome for weeks, and then, not for the first time, went home with nothing. Delegates from the US, United Kingdom and Canada blocked the final outcome to prevent words being added that would call for Israel to attend a disarmament conference.
Russia did the same in 2022 in protest at language on its illegal occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine.
Now, in the latest challenge to the NPT, Israel and the US have bombed Iran’s nuclear complexes to ostensibly enforce a treaty neither one respects.
When the treaty was adopted in 1968, it allowed the five nuclear-armed states at the time – the US, Soviet Union, France, UK and China – to join if they committed not to pass weapons or material to other states, and to disarm themselves.
All other members had to pledge never to acquire nuclear weapons. Newer nuclear powers were not permitted to join unless they gave up their weapons.
Israel declined to join, as it had developed its own undeclared nuclear arsenal by the late 1960s. India, Pakistan and South Sudan have also never signed; North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Only South Sudan does not have nuclear weapons today.
To make the obligations enforceable and strengthen safeguards against the diversion of nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states, members were later required to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol. This gave the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wide powers to inspect a state’s nuclear facilities and detect violations.
It was the IAEA that first blew the whistle on Iran’s concerning uranium enrichment activity in 2003. Just before Israel’s attacks this month, the organisation also reported Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT for the first time in two decades.
The NPT is arguably the world’s most universal, important and successful security treaty, but it is also paradoxically vulnerable.
The treaty’s underlying consensus has been damaged by the failure of the five nuclear-weapon states to disarm as required, and by the failure to prevent North Korea from developing a now formidable nuclear arsenal.
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003, tested a weapon in 2006, and now may have up to 50 warheads.
Iran could be next.
How things can deteriorate from here
Iran argues Israel’s attacks have undermined the credibility of the IAEA, given Israel used the IAEA’s new report on Iran as a pretext for its strikes, taking the matter out of the hands of the UN Security Council.
For its part, the IAEA has maintained a principled position and criticised both the US and Israeli strikes.
Iran has retaliated with its own missile strikes against both Israel and a US base in Qatar. In addition, it wasted no time announcing it would withdraw from the NPT.
On June 23, an Iranian parliament committee also approved a bill that would fully suspend Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, including allowing inspections and submitting reports to the organisation.
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, said the US strikes:
[…] delivered a fundamental and irreparable blow to the international non-proliferation regime conclusively demonstrating that the existing NPT framework has been rendered ineffective.
Even if Israel and the US consider their bombing campaign successful, it has almost certainly renewed the Iranians’ resolve to build a weapon. The strikes may only delay an Iranian bomb by a few years.
Iran will have two paths to do so. The slower path would be to reconstitute its enrichment activity and obtain nuclear implosion designs, which create extremely devastating weapons, from Russia or North Korea.
Alternatively, Russia could send Iran some of its weapons. This should be a real concern given Moscow’s cascade of withdrawals from critical arms control agreements over the last decade.
An Iranian bomb could then trigger NPT withdrawals by other regional states, especially Saudi Arabia, who suddenly face a new threat to their security.
Why Iran might now pursue a bomb
Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria’s Assad regime certainly shows it is a dangerous international actor. Iranian leaders have also long used alarming rhetoric about Israel’s destruction.
However repugnant the words, Israeli and US conservatives have misjudged Iran’s motives in seeking nuclear weapons.
Israel fears an Iranian bomb would be an existential threat to its survival, given Iran’s promises to destroy it. But this neglects the fact that Israel already possesses a potent (if undeclared) nuclear deterrent capability.
Israeli anxieties about an Iranian bomb should not be dismissed. But other analysts (myself included) see Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons capability more as a way to establish deterrence to prevent future military attacks from Israel and the US to protect their regime.
Iranians were shaken by Iraq’s invasion in 1980 and then again by the US-led removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. This war with Israel and the US will shake them even more.
Last week, I felt that if the Israeli bombing ceased, a new diplomatic effort to bring Iran into compliance with the IAEA and persuade it to abandon its program might have a chance.
However, the US strikes may have buried that possibility for decades. And by then, the damage to the nonproliferation regime could be irreversible.
Anthony Burke received funding from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council for a project on global nuclear governance (2014–17).
In our guides to the classics, experts explain key literary works.
Ibn Battuta, was born in Tangier, Morocco, on February 24, 1304. From a statement in his celebrated travel book the Rihla (“legal affairs are my ancestral profession,”) he evidently came from an intellectually distinguished family.
According to the Rihla (travelogue), Ibn Battuta embarked on his travels from Tangier at the age of 22 with the intention of performing the Hajj (the sacred pilgrimage to Mecca) in 1325. Although he returned to Fez (his adopted home-town) around the end of 1349, he continued to visit various regions, including Granada and Sudan, in subsequent years.
Over the course of his almost 30 years of travel, Ibn Battuta covered an astonishing distance of approximately 73,000 miles (117,000 kilometres), visiting a region that today encompasses more than 50 countries. His journeys covered much of the medieval Islamic world and beyond, excluding Northern Europe.
In 1355, he returned to Morocco for the last time and remained there for the rest of his life. Upon his return he dictated his experiences, observations and anecdotes to the Andalusian scholar Ibn Juzayy, with a compilation of his travels completed in 1355 or 1356.
The work, formally titled A Gift to Researchers on the Curiosities of Cities and the Marvels of Journeys, is more commonly referred to as Rihlat Ibn Battuta or simply Rihla.
A painting of Ibn Battuta (on right) in Egypt by Leon Benett. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
More than a travelogue or geographical record, this book provides rich insights into 14th-century social and political life, capturing cultural diversity across nations. Ibn Battuta details local lifestyles, linguistic traits, beliefs, clothing, cuisines, holidays, artistic traditions and gender relations, as well as commercial activities and currencies.
His observations also include geographical features such as mountains, rivers and agricultural products. Notably, the work highlights his encounters with over 60 sultans and more than 2,000 prominent figures, making it a valuable historical resource.
The travels
His travels began after a dream. According to Ibn Battuta, one night, while in Fuwwa, a town near Alexandria in Egypt, he dreamed of flying on a massive bird across various lands, landing in a dark, greenish country.
To test the local sheikh’s mystical knowledge, he decided if the sheikh knew of his dream, he was truly extraordinary. The next morning, after leading the dawn prayer, he saw the sheikh bid farewell to visitors. Later, the sheikh astonishingly revealed knowledge of Ibn Battuta’s dream and prophesied his pilgrimage through Yemen, Iraq, Turkey and India.
At the time, the Middle East was under the rule of the Mamluk sultanate, Anatolia was divided among principalities and the Mongol Ilkhanate state controlled Iran, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.
Ibn Battuta initially travelled through North Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Syria, completing his first Hajj in 1326.
He then visited Iraq and Iran, returning to Mecca. In 1328, he explored East Africa, reaching Mogadishu, Mombasa, Sudan and Kilwa (modern Tanzania), as well as Yemen, Oman and Anatolia, where he documented cities like Alanya, Konya, Erzurum, Nicaea and Bursa.
His descriptions are vivid. Describing the city of Dimyat, on the bank of the Nile, he says:
Many of the houses have steps leading down to the Nile. Banana trees are especially abundant there, and their fruit is carried to Cairo in boats. Its sheep and goats are allowed to pasture at liberty day and night, and for this reason the saying goes of Dimyat, ‘Its wall is a sweetmeat and its dogs are sheep’. No one who enters the city may afterwards leave it except by the governor’s seal […]
Farmland on the banks of the Nile river today. Alice-D/shutterstock
When it comes to Anatolia (in modern-day Turkey), he declares:
This country, known as the Land of Rum, is the most beautiful in the world. While Allah Almighty has distributed beauty to other lands separately, He has gathered them all here. The most beautiful and well-dressed people live in this land, and the most delicious food is prepared here […] From the moment we arrived, our neighbors — both men and women — showed great concern for our wellbeing. Here, women do not shy away from men; when we departed, they bid us farewell as if we were family, expressing their sadness through tears.
A judge and husband
In 1332, Ibn Battutua met the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
Since Ibn Battuta dictated his work, it’s difficult to assess the extent of the scribe’s influence in recording his narratives. Despite being an educated man, he occasionally narrates like a commoner and sometimes exceeds the bounds of polite language. At times, he provides excessive detail, giving the impression he may be quoting from sources beyond his own observations.
Nevertheless, the Rihla stands out for its engaging style and captivating anecdotes, drawing readers in.
Ibn Battuta later journeyed through Crimea, Central Asia, Khwarezm (a large oasis region in the territories of present-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), Bukhara (a city in Uzbekistan), and the Hindu Kush Mountains. In 1332, he met Byzantine Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos and travelled to Istanbul with the caravan of Uzbek Khan’s third wife. He mentions a caravan that even has a market:
Whenever the caravan halted, food was cooked in great brass cauldrons, called dasts, and supplied from them to the poorer pilgrims and those who had no provisions. […] This caravan contained also animated bazaars and great supplies of luxuries and all kinds of food and fruit. They used to march during the night and light torches in front of the file of camels and litters, so that you saw the countryside gleaming with light and the darkness turned into radiant day.
Ibn Battuta arrived in Delhi in 1333, where he served as a judge under Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq for seven years. He married or was married to local women in many of the places he stayed. Among his wives were ordinary people as well as the daughters of the administrative class.
Miniature painting in Mughal style depicting the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The Sultan’s generosity, intelligence and unconventional ruling style both impressed and surprised Ibn Battuta. However, Muhammad bin Tughluq was known for making excessively harsh and abrupt decisions at times, which led Ibn Battuta to approach him with caution. Nevertheless, with the Sultan’s support, he remained in India for a long time and was eventually chosen as an ambassador to China in 1341.
In 1345 his mission was disrupted when his ship capsized off the coast of Calcutta (then known as Sadqawan) in the Indian Ocean. Though he survived, he lost most of his possessions.
After the incident, he remained in India for a while before continuing his journey by other means. During this period, he travelled through India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. He served as a judge in the latter for one and a half years. In 1345, he journeyed to China via Bengal, Burma and Sumatra, reaching the city of Guangzhou but limiting his exploration to the southern coast.
He was among the first Arab travellers to record Islam’s spread in the Malay Archipelago, noting interactions between Muslims and Hindu-Buddhist communities. Visiting Java and Sumatra, he praised Sultan Malik al-Zahir of Sumatra as a generous, pious and scholarly ruler and highlighted his rare practice of walking to Friday prayers.
On his return, Ibn Battuta explored regions such as Iran, Iraq, North Africa, Spain and the Kingdom of Mali, documenting the vast Islamic world.
Back in his homeland, Ibn Battuta served as a judge in several locations. He died around 1368-9 while serving as a judge in Morocco and was buried in his birthplace, Tangier.
Historic copy of selected parts of the Travel Report by Ibn Battuta, 1836 CE, Cairo. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The status of women
Ibn Battuta’s travels revealed intriguing insights into the status of women across regions. In inner West Africa, he observed matriarchal practices where lineage and inheritance were determined by the mother’s family.
Among Turks, women rode horses like raiders, traded actively and did not veil their faces.
In the Maldives, husbands leaving the region had to abandon their wives. He noted that Muslim women there, including the ruling woman, did not cover their heads. Despite attempting to enforce the hijab as a judge, he failed.
He offers fascinating insights into food cultures. In Siberia, sled dogs were fed before humans. He described 15-day wedding feasts in India.
He tried local produce such as mango in the Indian subcontinent, which he compared to an apple, and sun-dried, sliced fish in Oman.
Religious practices
Ibn Battuta’s accounts of the Hajj (pilgrimage) rituals he performed six times provide a unique perspective. He references a fatwa by Ibn Taymiyyah, prominent Islamic scholar and theologian known for his opposition to theological innovations and critiques of Sufism and philosophy, advising against shortening prayers for those travelling to Medina.
Ibn Battuta’s accounts, particularly regarding the Iranian region, offer important perspectives into religious sects during a period when Iran started shifting from Sunnism to Shiism. He describes societies with diverse demographics, including Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis. His observations on religious practices are especially significant.
Inclined toward Sufism, Ibn Battuta often dressed like a dervish during his travels. He offers a compelling view of Islamic mysticism. He considered regions like Damascus as places of abundance and Anatolia as a land of compassion, interpreting them with a spiritual perspective.
His accounts of Sufi education, dervish lodges, zawiyas (similar to monasteries), and tombs, along with the special invocations of Sufi masters, are important historical records. He also observed and documented unique practices, such as the followers of the Persian Sufi saint Sheikh Qutb al-Din Haydar wearing iron rings on their hands, necks, ears, and even private parts to avoid sexual intercourse.
While Ibn Battuta primarily visited Muslim lands, he also travelled to non-Muslim territories, offering key understandings into different religious cultures, for instance interactions between Crimean Muslims and Christian Armenians in the Golden Horde region.
He also documented churches, icons and monasteries, such as the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem. His observation of Muslims openly reciting the call to prayer (adhan) in China is significant.
Other anecdotes include the division of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus into a mosque and Christian church. Most importantly, his encounters with Hindus and Buddhists in the Indian subcontinent and Malay Islands provide rich historical context.
His accounts of death rituals reveal diverse practices. In Sinop (a city in Turkey), 40 days of mourning were declared for a ruler’s mother, while in Iran, a funeral resembled a wedding celebration. He observed similarities in cremation practices between India and China and described a chilling custom in some regions where slaves and concubines were buried alive with the deceased.
Ibn Battuta’s Rihla, widely translated into Eastern and Western languages, has drawn some criticism for containing depictions that sometimes diverge from historical continuity or borrow from other works. Ibn Battuta himself admitted to using earlier travel books as references.
Despite limited recognition in older sources, the Rihla gained prominence in the West in the 19th century. His legacy remains vibrant today. Morocco declared 1996–1997 the “Year of Ibn Battuta,” and established a museum in Tangier to honour him. In Dubai, a mall is named after him.
Notably, Ibn Battuta travelled to more destinations than Marco Polo and shared a broader range of humane anecdotes, showcasing the depth and diversity of his experiences.
Ismail Albayrak 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.
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.
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.
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.
Is AI going to take over the world? Have scientists created an artificial lifeform that can think on its own? Is it going to replace all our jobs, even creative ones, like doctors, teachers and care workers? Are we about to enter an age where computers are better than humans at everything?
The answers, as the authors of The AI Con stress, are “no”, “they wish”, “LOL” and “definitely not”.
The AI Con: How To Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want – Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna (Bodley Head)
Artificial intelligence is a marketing term as much as a distinct set of computational architectures and techniques. AI has become a magic word for entrepreneurs to attract startup capital for dubious schemes, an incantation deployed by managers to instantly achieve the status of future-forward leaders.
In a mere two letters, it conjures a vision of automated factories and robotic overlords, a utopia of leisure or a dystopia of servitude, depending on your point of view. It is not just technology, but a powerful vision of how society should function and what our future should look like.
In this sense, AI doesn’t need to work for it to work. The accuracy of a large language model may be doubtful, the productivity of an AI office assistant may be claimed rather than demonstrated, but this bundle of technologies, companies and claims can still alter the terrain of journalism, education, healthcare, service work and our broader sociocultural landscape.
Bender is a linguistics professor at the University of Washington, who has become a prominent technology critic. Hanna is a sociologist and former employee of Google, who is now the director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute. After teaming up to mock AI boosters in their popular podcast, Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, they have distilled their insights into a book written for a general audience. They meet the unstoppable force of AI hype with immovable scepticism.
Step one in this program is grasping how AI models work. Bender and Hanna do an excellent job of decoding technical terms and unpacking the “black box” of machine learning for lay people.
Driving this wedge between hype and reality, between assertions and operations, is a recurring theme across the pages of The AI Con, and one that should gradually erode readers’ trust in the tech industry. The book outlines the strategic deceptions employed by powerful corporations to reduce friction and accumulate capital. If the barrage of examples tends to blur together, the sense of technical bullshit lingers.
What is intelligence? A famous and highly cited paper co-written by Bender asserts that large language models are simply “stochastic parrots”, drawing on training data to predict which set of tokens (i.e. words) is most likely to follow the prompt given by a user. Harvesting millions of crawled websites, the model can regurgitate “the moon” after “the cow jumped over”, albeit in much more sophisticated variants.
Rather than actually understanding a concept in all its social, cultural and political contexts, large language models carry out pattern matching: an illusion of thinking.
But I would suggest that, in many domains, a simulation of thinking is sufficient, as it is met halfway by those engaging with it. Users project agency onto models via the well-known Eliza effect, imparting intelligence to the simulation.
Management are pinning their hopes on this simulation. They view automation as a way to streamline their organisations and not be “left behind”. This powerful vision of early adopters vs extinct dinosaurs is one we see repeatedly with the advent of new technologies – and one that benefits the tech industry.
In this sense, poking holes in the “intelligence” of artificial intelligence is a losing move, missing the social and financial investment that wants this technology to work. “Start with AI for every task. No matter how small, try using an AI tool first,” commanded DuoLingo’s chief engineering officer in a recent message to all employees. Duolingo has joined Fiverr, Shopify, IBM and a slew of other companies proclaiming their “AI first” approach.
The AI Con is strongest when it looks beyond or around the technologies to the ecosystem surrounding them, a perspective I have also argued is immensely helpful. By understanding the corporations, actors, business models and stakeholders involved in a model’s production, we can evaluate where it comes from, its purpose, its strengths and weaknesses, and what all this might mean downstream for its possible uses and implications. “Who benefits from this technology, who is harmed, and what recourse do they have?” is a solid starting point, Bender and Hanna suggest.
These basic but important questions extract us from the weeds of technical debate – how does AI function, how accurate or “good” is it really, how can we possibly understand this complexity as non-engineers? – and give us a critical perspective. They place the onus on industry to explain, rather than users to adapt or be rendered superfluous.
We don’t need to be able to explain technical concepts like backpropagation or diffusion to grasp that AI technologies can undermine fair work, perpetuate racial and gender stereotypes, and exacerbate environmental crises. The hype around AI means to distract us from these concrete effects, to trivialise them and thus encourage us to ignore them.
As Bender and Hanna explain, AI boosters and AI doomers are really two sides of the same coin. Conjuring up nightmare scenarios of self-replicating AI terminating humanity or claiming sentient machines will usher us into a posthuman paradise are, in the end, the same thing. They place a religious-like faith in the capabilities of technology, which dominates debate, allowing tech companies to retain control of AI’s future development.
The risk of AI is not potential doom in the future, à la the nuclear threat during the Cold War, but the quieter and more significant harm to real people in the present. The authors explain that AI is more like a panopticon “that allows a single prison warden to keep track of hundreds of prisoners at once”, or the “surveillance dragnets that track marginalised groups in the West”, or a “toxic waste, salting the earth of a Superfund site”, or a “scabbing worker, crossing the picket line at the behest of an employer who wants to signal to the picketers that they are disposable. The totality of systems sold as AI are these things, rolled into one.”
A decade ago, with another “game-changing” technology, author Ian Bogost observed that
rather than utopia or dystopia, we usually end up with something less dramatic yet more disappointing. Robots neither serve human masters nor destroy us in a dramatic genocide, but slowly dismantle our livelihoods while sparing our lives.
The pattern repeats. As AI matures (to some degree) and is adopted by organisations, it moves from innovation to infrastructure, from magic to mechanism. Grand promises never materialise. Instead, society endures a tougher, bleaker future. Workers feel more pressure; surveillance is normalised; truth is muddied with post-truth; the marginal become more vulnerable; the planet gets hotter.
Technology, in this sense, is a shapeshifter: the outward form constantly changes, yet the inner logic remains the same. It exploits labour and nature, extracts value, centralises wealth, and protects the power and status of the already-powerful.
Co-opting critique
In The New Spirit of Capitalism, sociologists Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello demonstrate how capitalism has mutated over time, folding critiques back into its DNA.
After enduring a series of blows around alienation and automation in the 1960s, capitalism moved from a hierarchical Fordist mode of production to a more flexible form of self-management over the next two decades. It began to favour “just in time” production, done in smaller teams, that (ostensibly) embraced the creativity and ingenuity of each individual. Neoliberalism offered “freedom”, but at a price. Organisations adapted; concessions were made; critique was defused.
AI continues this form of co-option. Indeed, the current moment can be described as the end of the first wave of critical AI. In the last five years, tech titans have released a series of bigger and “better” models, with both the public and scholars focusing largely on generative and “foundation” models: ChatGPT, StableDiffusion, Midjourney, Gemini, DeepSeek, and so on.
Scholars have heavily criticised aspects of these models – my own work has explored truth claims, generative hate, ethics washing and other issues. Much work focused on bias: the way in which training data reproduces gender stereotypes, racial inequality, religious bigotry, western epistemologies, and so on.
Much of this work is excellent and seems to have filtered into the public consciousness, based on conversations I’ve had at workshops and events. However, its flagging of such issues allows tech companies to practise issue resolving. If the accuracy of a facial-recognition system is lower with Black faces, add more Black faces to the training set. If the model is accused of English dominance, fork out some money to produce data on “low-resource” languages.
Companies like Anthropic now regularly carry out “red teaming” exercises designed to highlight hidden biases in models. Companies then “fix” or mitigate these issues. But due to the massive size of the data sets, these tend to be band-aid solutions, superficial rather than structural tweaks.
For instance, soon after launching, AI image generators were under pressure for not being “diverse” enough. In response, OpenAI invented a technique to “more accurately reflect the diversity of the world’s population”. Researchers discovered this technique was simply tacking on additional hidden prompts (e.g. “Asian”, “Black”) to user prompts. Google’s Gemini model also seems to have adopted this, which resulted in a backlash when images of Vikings or Nazis had South Asian or Native American features.
The point here is not whether AI models are racist or historically inaccurate or “woke”, but that models are political and never disinterested. Harder questions about how culture is made computational, or what kind of truths we want as society, are never broached and therefore never worked through systematically.
Such questions are certainly broader and less “pointy” than bias, but also less amenable to being translated into a problem for a coder to resolve.
What next?
How, then, should those outside the academy respond to AI? The past few years have seen a flurry of workshops, seminars and professional development initiatives. These range from “gee whiz” tours of AI features for the workplace, to sober discussions of risks and ethics, to hastily organised all-hands meetings debating how to respond now, and next month, and the month after that.
Bender and Hanna wrap up their book with their own responses. Many of these, like their questions about how models work and who benefits, are simple but fundamental, offering a strong starting point for organisational engagement.
For the technosceptical duo, refusal is also clearly an option, though individuals will obviously have vastly different degrees of agency when it comes to opting out of models and pushing back on adoption strategies. Refusal of AI, as with many technologies that have come before it, often relies to some extent on privilege. The six-figure consultant or coder will have discretion that the gig worker or service worker cannot exercise without penalties or punishments.
If refusal is fraught at the individual level, it seems more viable and sustainable at a cultural level. Bender and Hanna suggest generative AI be responded to with mockery: companies who employ it should be derided as cheap or tacky.
The cultural backlash against AI is already in full swing. Soundtracks on YouTube are increasingly labelled “No AI”. Artists have launched campaigns and hashtags, stressing their creations are “100% human-made”.
These moves are attempts to establish a cultural consensus that AI-generated material is derivative and exploitative. And yet, if these moves offer some hope, they are swimming against the swift current of enshittification. AI slop means faster and cheaper content creation, and the technical and financial logic of online platforms – virality, engagement, monetisation – will always create a race to the bottom.
The extent to which the vision offered by big tech will be accepted, how far AI technologies will be integrated or mandated, how much individuals and communities will push back against them – these are still open questions. In many ways, Bender and Hanna successfully demonstrate that AI is a con. It fails at productivity and intelligence, while the hype launders a series of transformations that harm workers, exacerbate inequality and damage the environment.
Yet such consequences have accompanied previous technologies – fossil fuels, private cars, factory automation – and hardly dented their uptake and transformation of society. So while praise goes to Bender and Hanna for a book that shows “how to fight big tech’s hype and create the future we want”, the issue of AI resonates, for me, with Karl Marx’s observation that people “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please”.
Luke Munn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON — During a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing today entitled, “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Navy,” U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) pressed top military officials on Middle East operations and partisan budget maneuvers. The witnesses included Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric M. Smith, and Acting Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James W. Kilby.
Addressing the current situation in the Middle East, Senator Schatz began, “President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was impetuous. He conducted strikes without seeking Congressional authorization, and it endangered service members stationed throughout the region. Iran’s barrage of missile attacks on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar demonstrated that. The announcement of a ceasefire is good news, but now we need an actual ceasefire, and it is on all parties to arrive at that conclusion this unnecessary 12-day conflict.”
Schatz then raised concerns about the readiness of U.S. forces amid shifting global threats, citing examples of multiple carrier strike groups rerouting from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East and stressing the importance of replacing munitions expended by the U.S. to defend Israel to ensure that the U.S. can continue to deter future threats and protect its partners.
Turning to the Navy and Marine Corps budget request, Schatz noted that the FY26 request, which Republicans have tied to their budget reconciliation efforts, fell $8 billion short of the FY25 continuing resolution (CR), saying, “Failing to address the current shortfalls caused by the CR means that the Navy will not be able to successfully deter the threats posed by China. Reconciliation is not a responsible way to do spending, as Senator McConnell, the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee said, using extraordinary parliamentary authorities does not sustain the Department of Defense. The Department’s ability to take care of our service members should not be contingent on whether Congress passes an unrelated package of tax cuts and health care cuts.”
He urged Republicans to pursue bipartisan cooperation through the regular appropriations process, saying, “Historically, the things that go in a reconciliation package are the things that can’t pass on a bipartisan basis… The model in this modern Senate, which is, granted, different from the Senate of 10 years ago and 30 years ago and so on, but the model has been that you explore bipartisanship, you explore achieving cloture, and making this committee relevant and important and a sort of center of power in the Article One branch, and if you fail, then you have these extraordinary authorities to go elsewhere. But to go elsewhere before you even try to cut a deal with Democrats, who are saying, ‘We’d like to cut a deal’ may not be the wisest course of action.”
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 25, 2025.
Bats get fat to survive hard times. But climate change is threatening their survival strategy Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wu, Lecturer in Wildlife Ecology, Murdoch University Rudmer Zwerver/Shutterstock Bats are often cast as the unseen night-time stewards of nature, flitting through the dark to control pest insects, pollinate plants and disperse seeds. But behind their silent contributions lies a remarkable and underappreciated survival strategy: seasonal
Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – 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,
Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – 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
Nearly half of Kiwis oppose automatic citizenship for Cook Islands, says poll By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist A new poll by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows that almost half of respondents oppose the Cook Islands having automatic New Zealand citizenship. Thirty percent of the 1000-person sample supported Cook Islanders retaining citizenship, 46 percent were opposed and 24 percent were unsure. The question asked: The Cook
Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders discuss Middle East conflict before ceasefire RNZ Pacific Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Suva this week — and Pacific leaders “took note of what is happening”. The Post-Courier reports Marape saying the “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran was based on
The ancients also had to deal with a cost-of-living crisis. Here’s how they managed Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia Louis Le Brun, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY Talk to anyone today, and they will probably have something to say about how expensive life has become. While the rate of inflation has
Video games can help trans players feel seen and safe. It all starts with design Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Toups Dugas, Associate Professor of Human-Centred Computing, Monash University Shano Liang There is a comfort in finding and being yourself. Video games offer opportunities for this comfort. They allow people to exist in safe spaces, to develop community, and to explore the self – as well
How old are you really? Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social
Global rankings fuel hype, but students have more to consider when choosing a uni Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University At this time of year, many year 12 students are seriously turning their minds to the future. Should they go to university next year? If so, which one? June is
Playful or harmful? David Seymour’s posts raise questions about what’s OK to say online Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Veale, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being “playful” and
Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien accepts invitation to government’s economic roundtable Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal opposition has accepted an invitation from Treasurer Jim Chalmers for shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien to attend the August economic roundtable. The acceptance contrasts with the position taken by former opposition leader Peter Dutton last term. He refused to
Fiji advocacy group slams Indonesian role in MSG as a ‘disgrace’ Asia Pacific Report A Fiji-based advocacy group has condemned the participation of Indonesia in the Melanesian Spearhead Group which is meeting in Suva this week, saying it is a “profound disgrace” that the Indonesian Embassy continues to “operate freely” within the the MSG Secretariat. “This presence blatantly undermines the core principles of justice and solidarity
Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel
Ramzy Baroud: The fallout – winners and losers from the Israeli war on Iran COMMENTARY: By Ramzy Baroud, editor of The Palestinian Chronicle The conflict between Israel and Iran over the past 12 days has redefined the regional chessboard. Here is a look at their key takeaways: Israel:Pulled in the US: Israel successfully drew the United States into a direct military confrontation with Iran, setting a significant precedent for
Iran and Israel agree to a fragile ceasefire. One factor could be crucial to it sticking Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel
eSafety boss wants YouTube included in the social media ban. But AI raises even more concerns for kids Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University Irina WS/Shutterstock Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, today addressed the National Press Club to outline how her office will be driving the Social Media Minimum Age Bill when it comes into effect in December this year. The bill,
Trouble getting out of bed? Signs the ‘winter blues’ may be something more serious Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology Justin Paget/Getty Winter is here. As the days grow shorter and the skies turn darker, you might start to feel a bit “off”. You may notice a dip in your mood or energy levels.
The war won’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it will drive it underground, following North Korea’s model Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW Sydney The United States’ and Israel’s strikes on Iran are concerning, and not just for the questionable legal justifications provided by both governments. Even if their attacks cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, this will only
Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University Dylan Carr/Unsplash In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown. Shutting off
Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
“It might not be front-page news every day, but when you take all of these actions together, it is clear that this administration and Republicans at every level of government are taking the steps they need to implement a nationwide abortion ban.”
Video of the spotlight forum is available here.
Video of her speaking on the floor of the Senate is availablehere.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) called out Republican attempts to further take away access to reproductive health care for women across the United States, including efforts that could restrict access for women in Nevada. Today marks three years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Court overturned the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Cortez Masto participated in a spotlight forum with patient, provider, and reproductive rights leaders to highlight the devastation caused since Dobbs, and the continued attacks from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to strip away access to abortion care, family planning services, and Medicaid and Affordable Care Act health coverage. Additionally, the Senator spoke on the Senate floor to call attention to the various ways the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans are working to create a backdoor national abortion ban, ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to control their bodies.
Senator Cortez Masto also joined all Democratic Senators in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.
Senator Cortez Masto has been a fierce advocate for women’s reproductive rights. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Cortez Masto introduced the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act to ensure legal protections for women traveling across state lines to receive reproductive care. She’s championed legislation torepeal the Comstock Act, an arcane 1873 law that anti-choice extremists have repeatedly invoked as a backdoor means to effectively ban abortion nationwide without a single act of Congress. In the last Congress, the Senator also cosponsored legislation to codify the right to contraception and IVF.
Below are her floor remarks as prepared for delivery:
M. President, right now, this administration is causing so much chaos and confusion that it’s sometimes hard to take stock of the damage being done.
But the anniversary of the day Roe v. Wade was overturned is a reminder that we can’t let all that chaos distract us from the work being done to roll back women’s reproductive rights right under our noses.
Take the Republicans’ billionaire tax giveaway bill as an example.
We all know that this bill will cut $800 billion in Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but the legislation that passed the House would also decimate women’s health care. Not only would it force cuts to critical services, but it also cuts off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
That Medicaid funding wouldn’t be going toward abortions. Planned Parenthood providers distribute birth control, conduct wellness exams, test for and treat STIs, and provide lifesaving cancer screenings.
For many Americans with Medicaid, especially in underserved areas, Planned Parenthood is the only accessible source of this care.
Defunding it jeopardizes basic health services that more than one million men and women rely on.
It’s already outrageous that so many Planned Parenthood health centers in anti-choice states around the country have been forced to close over the last several years. But if they’re prohibited from treating patients with Medicaid nationwide, many clinics – even in states where abortion remains legal – may be forced to close their doors.
So in states like Nevada, where women have access to essential reproductive care, Republicans are working to strip that access away – ignoring the will of states that have chosen to protect these rights.
Republican legislators in states across the country are also quietly working to gut access to reproductive care.
Last November, voters in 7 different states approved ballot measures to protect or expand reproductive rights. But in the months since, extremist politicians in more than half of those states have tried to ignore the will of their voters and push new restrictions on abortion access.
And, in several other states, anti-choice politicians are working to block similar ballot initiatives in the future. They’re trying to ignore what people have clearly voted for, and then they’re trying to make it so people can’t actually vote on those issues at all.
Because let’s be clear: for anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.
I’ll give you an example.
In Arizona, voters went to the polls last November and overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion protections in their state constitution. But since then, Republican politicians in their state legislature have been trying to pass bills that would limit the use of medication abortion and ban doctors from even informing women about abortion as a potential treatment option.
Or how about in Missouri, where anti-choice politicians are trying to get a measure on the ballot that would overturn the abortion rights protections Missouri voters just approved last November.
These plots to subvert the will of voters and roll back women’s rights in the states may not be capturing everyone’s attention right now, but it’s happening. And we need to shed light on it, because it’s just as dangerous as some of the harmful policies coming out of this administration.
We can’t forget that this administration is also taking steps to continue to take away women’s reproductive rights – without any input from legislators at all.
The Food and Drug Administration has appointed commissioners who want to reexamine the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone.
And, no surprise, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is encouraging it.
He’s already asked the FDA to “review the latest data on mifepristone”. Secretary Kennedy is raising questions and injecting doubt about this medication that has already been proven to be safe and effective.
This is a man who, at one time, said he believed it was “always the woman’s right to choose.”
Mifepristone accounts for over 60% of abortions nationwide. Any attempts to restrict access to this medication would jeopardize the health and autonomy of women in Nevada and across the country.
This is an overt tactic by the administration to continue to take away access to the abortion pill nationwide.
In fact, the Trump administration made it more clear than ever that they’re not concerned about women’s safety when they eliminated guidance that hospitals have to provide abortions in emergency situations.
We have a law in this country that hospitals that receive federal funding are required to provide medical care to stabilize a health emergency, including for pregnant patients. In cases where an abortion is necessary to stabilize a patient, hospitals are obligated to provide that care. It’s called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.
Now, I want to stress that EMTALA is the law of the land, and emergency abortion care is protected under EMTALA.
But the problem is that this administration is telling women they are unwilling to enforce those protections. That’s incredibly dangerous, and it ignores our laws.
It might not be front-page news every day, but when you take all of these actions together, it is clear that this administration and Republicans at every level of government are taking the steps they need to implement a nationwide abortion ban.
We have to remain vigilant and demand change when these harmful policies they emerge. Because we know anti-choice politicians all across the country, including here in Washington, will continue to push them and take away women’s access to health care.
It’s happening at the Supreme Court, too, where the justices who struck down Roe v. Wade are taking up multiple abortion rights cases.
So, as we mark the anniversary of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which took the constitutional right to an abortion away from every woman in this country, I want to thank my colleagues who are standing with me today and every day in this fight.
We will never stop pushing back against this administration’s, and any other anti-choice politician’s, attempts to make women second-class citizens in America.
Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
“It might not be front-page news every day, but when you take all of these actions together, it is clear that this administration and Republicans at every level of government are taking the steps they need to implement a nationwide abortion ban.”
Video of the spotlight forum is available here.
Video of her speaking on the floor of the Senate is availablehere.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) called out Republican attempts to further take away access to reproductive health care for women across the United States, including efforts that could restrict access for women in Nevada. Today marks three years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Court overturned the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Cortez Masto participated in a spotlight forum with patient, provider, and reproductive rights leaders to highlight the devastation caused since Dobbs, and the continued attacks from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to strip away access to abortion care, family planning services, and Medicaid and Affordable Care Act health coverage. Additionally, the Senator spoke on the Senate floor to call attention to the various ways the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans are working to create a backdoor national abortion ban, ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to control their bodies.
Senator Cortez Masto also joined all Democratic Senators in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.
Senator Cortez Masto has been a fierce advocate for women’s reproductive rights. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Cortez Masto introduced the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act to ensure legal protections for women traveling across state lines to receive reproductive care. She’s championed legislation torepeal the Comstock Act, an arcane 1873 law that anti-choice extremists have repeatedly invoked as a backdoor means to effectively ban abortion nationwide without a single act of Congress. In the last Congress, the Senator also cosponsored legislation to codify the right to contraception and IVF.
Below are her floor remarks as prepared for delivery:
M. President, right now, this administration is causing so much chaos and confusion that it’s sometimes hard to take stock of the damage being done.
But the anniversary of the day Roe v. Wade was overturned is a reminder that we can’t let all that chaos distract us from the work being done to roll back women’s reproductive rights right under our noses.
Take the Republicans’ billionaire tax giveaway bill as an example.
We all know that this bill will cut $800 billion in Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but the legislation that passed the House would also decimate women’s health care. Not only would it force cuts to critical services, but it also cuts off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
That Medicaid funding wouldn’t be going toward abortions. Planned Parenthood providers distribute birth control, conduct wellness exams, test for and treat STIs, and provide lifesaving cancer screenings.
For many Americans with Medicaid, especially in underserved areas, Planned Parenthood is the only accessible source of this care.
Defunding it jeopardizes basic health services that more than one million men and women rely on.
It’s already outrageous that so many Planned Parenthood health centers in anti-choice states around the country have been forced to close over the last several years. But if they’re prohibited from treating patients with Medicaid nationwide, many clinics – even in states where abortion remains legal – may be forced to close their doors.
So in states like Nevada, where women have access to essential reproductive care, Republicans are working to strip that access away – ignoring the will of states that have chosen to protect these rights.
Republican legislators in states across the country are also quietly working to gut access to reproductive care.
Last November, voters in 7 different states approved ballot measures to protect or expand reproductive rights. But in the months since, extremist politicians in more than half of those states have tried to ignore the will of their voters and push new restrictions on abortion access.
And, in several other states, anti-choice politicians are working to block similar ballot initiatives in the future. They’re trying to ignore what people have clearly voted for, and then they’re trying to make it so people can’t actually vote on those issues at all.
Because let’s be clear: for anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.
I’ll give you an example.
In Arizona, voters went to the polls last November and overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion protections in their state constitution. But since then, Republican politicians in their state legislature have been trying to pass bills that would limit the use of medication abortion and ban doctors from even informing women about abortion as a potential treatment option.
Or how about in Missouri, where anti-choice politicians are trying to get a measure on the ballot that would overturn the abortion rights protections Missouri voters just approved last November.
These plots to subvert the will of voters and roll back women’s rights in the states may not be capturing everyone’s attention right now, but it’s happening. And we need to shed light on it, because it’s just as dangerous as some of the harmful policies coming out of this administration.
We can’t forget that this administration is also taking steps to continue to take away women’s reproductive rights – without any input from legislators at all.
The Food and Drug Administration has appointed commissioners who want to reexamine the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone.
And, no surprise, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is encouraging it.
He’s already asked the FDA to “review the latest data on mifepristone”. Secretary Kennedy is raising questions and injecting doubt about this medication that has already been proven to be safe and effective.
This is a man who, at one time, said he believed it was “always the woman’s right to choose.”
Mifepristone accounts for over 60% of abortions nationwide. Any attempts to restrict access to this medication would jeopardize the health and autonomy of women in Nevada and across the country.
This is an overt tactic by the administration to continue to take away access to the abortion pill nationwide.
In fact, the Trump administration made it more clear than ever that they’re not concerned about women’s safety when they eliminated guidance that hospitals have to provide abortions in emergency situations.
We have a law in this country that hospitals that receive federal funding are required to provide medical care to stabilize a health emergency, including for pregnant patients. In cases where an abortion is necessary to stabilize a patient, hospitals are obligated to provide that care. It’s called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.
Now, I want to stress that EMTALA is the law of the land, and emergency abortion care is protected under EMTALA.
But the problem is that this administration is telling women they are unwilling to enforce those protections. That’s incredibly dangerous, and it ignores our laws.
It might not be front-page news every day, but when you take all of these actions together, it is clear that this administration and Republicans at every level of government are taking the steps they need to implement a nationwide abortion ban.
We have to remain vigilant and demand change when these harmful policies they emerge. Because we know anti-choice politicians all across the country, including here in Washington, will continue to push them and take away women’s access to health care.
It’s happening at the Supreme Court, too, where the justices who struck down Roe v. Wade are taking up multiple abortion rights cases.
So, as we mark the anniversary of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which took the constitutional right to an abortion away from every woman in this country, I want to thank my colleagues who are standing with me today and every day in this fight.
We will never stop pushing back against this administration’s, and any other anti-choice politician’s, attempts to make women second-class citizens in America.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Women’s Health Protection Act comes as Trump and Congressional Republicans move to restrict a woman’s right to choose and toward a national abortion ban
Washington, D.C. — Today, on the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), led the entire Senate Democratic caucus in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Put together, Trump and Congressional Republicans’ assault on Americans’ reproductive rights is a backdoor national abortion ban, ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to control their bodies.
“Three years ago, Donald Trump and Republicans succeeded in overturning Roe, ripping away a Constitutional right for the first time in American history, and causing a full-blown health care crisis in our nation. Since then, we have seen with painful clarity how Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances,” said Senator Murray. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Women’s Health Protection Act to restore the right to abortion and end the national nightmare Republicans created by overturning Roe. Democrats will never stop fighting to restore abortion access nationwide—nothing less.”
“First, Donald Trump and Republicans overturned Roe v Wade. Now, they are continuing their crusade for a national abortion ban, stripping away a woman’s right to choose and control her body, healthcare, and future. Republicans continue to show that they will stop at nothing in their pursuit to stop a woman from having the right to choose,” said Senator Baldwin. “In Wisconsin, we’ve seen how these attacks on women’s reproductive rights and freedoms have hurt our neighbors, friends, and families – and we won’t stand for it. The Women’s Health Protection Act is a necessary step to restore Americans’ constitutional right to choose what’s best for their families, stop Congressional and state-level Republicans from further putting themselves between a doctor and a woman, and once and for all, give women their rights and freedoms back.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. The foundation of the Women’s Health Protection Act is simply the right to make your own health care decisions. Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding, and be refused treatment. That woman might die,” said Senator Blumenthal. “By restoring abortion access and implementing basic protections against medically unnecessary restrictions on health care, the Women’s Health Protection Act overturns the death sentence handed down by Dobbs.”
President Trump appointed the Supreme Court Justices who ruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to overturn Roe v. Wade and nearly 50 years of precedent. Since the Dobbs decision, 19 states have banned abortion or severely restricted women from being able to access the procedure, leaving one in three American women without access to safe, legal abortion care. Additionally, state legislatures across the country have introduced hundreds of bills to include medically unnecessary restrictions that limit access to abortion care.
In his second term, President Trump has continued to relentlessly attack reproductive rights, including freezing Title X funding for clinics that offer reproductive care, cutting Biden-era emergency abortion protections, pardoning anti-abortion extremists, and fighting to defund Planned Parenthood. Additionally, the House-passed Republican budget bill kicks 16 million people off their health insurance and defunds Planned Parenthood – threatening the closure of 200 health centers across the country and putting access to vital reproductive care for millions of families at risk.
The Women’s Health ProtectionAct creates federal rights for patients and providers to protect abortion access. Specifically, the Women’s Health Protection Act would:
Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level restrictions in place prior to Dobbs, such as arbitrary waiting periods, medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds, or requirements to provide medically inaccurate information.
Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother.
Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years.
The legislation is sponsored by the entire Democratic caucus, including Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D- DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: Video of full forum***
***WATCH and READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
Washington, D.C. — Today—on the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning the constitutional right to abortion—U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN) hosted a spotlight forum titled Under Attack: Republicans’ Escalating War on Reproductive Freedom. At the forum, Senate Democrats heard from four panelists who have suffered the consequences of the Dobbs decision and subsequent Republican abortion bans firsthand and warned about how President Trump and Republicans are only escalating their attacks on women’s health care and working to make abortion impossible to access anywhere—a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.
The senators’ spotlight forum comes as President Trump has taken direct aim at reproductive health care in his first few months in office, including by: pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of assaulting and injuring abortion clinic staff and announcing that his Department of Justice will largely no longer enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act; attacking mifepristone based on anti-abortion junk science; laying the groundwork to make “fetal personhood” the law of the land—which would ban abortion in every state and curtail pregnant women’s rights; rescinding CMS guidance reaffirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide life-saving care to pregnant women suffering medical emergencies, which might include abortion care in certain situations; repealing two Executive Orders that sought to protect and expand access to reproductive health care in the aftermath of Dobbs; reinstating the Global Gag Rule that targets reproductive health care around the world; scrubbing government websites of vital information about reproductive health care; and appointing notorious anti-abortion extremists for influential roles in his administration, including Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Russell Vought as OMB Director, and John Sauer as Solicitor General—among much else.
Additionally, right now Republicans in Congress are pushing through a budget reconciliation bill that would make abortion care impossible to access nearly everywhere by defunding Planned Parenthood—putting 200 health centers across the country at risk of closure, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal—and by effectively banning ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion care. Overall, Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act would kick 16 million people off their health insurance through massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and overwhelmingly impact women, who comprise most adults covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is the primary source of coverage and the largest single payer for pregnant women’s health care nationwide, covering between one-third and one-half of births in every state across the country.
“Already, we have seen with painful clarity, how—on a daily basis—Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances. But Dobbs was never the end of this fight for Republicans, whose goal has always been a national abortion ban. And since Republicans know they don’t have the votes right now to pass a national abortion ban outright, they are slowly, but surely, advancing a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, and chipping away at access to reproductive health care piece-by-piece—even in states where abortion is protected. Republicans are hoping no one will notice these attacks—as if people don’t care when their rights are stripped away. As if it’s easy to miss the moment your health care decisions are out of your control,” said Senator Patty Murray. “As hard as Republicans might try, the damage they are causing is undeniable. But that doesn’t mean we give up. Women’s lives are at stake—Democrats are not going to stop pushing back—not ever. We will keep pushing for legislation to protect women and health care providers from Republican prosecution, to help people access and afford the reproductive health care they need, to protect women’s private health data, to protect the Right to Contraception and the Right to IVF, and to restore the right to abortion nationwide—nothing less.”
“When I was ten weeks pregnant, doctors informed me that my baby had acrania, a rare condition that was fatal for my baby, and dangerous for me. Naturally, I was heartbroken and scared, but I trusted that I would receive the necessary medical treatment so that my family and I could begin healing. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Just a few weeks before I received my diagnosis, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Dobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the legal right to abortion. The fallout from the decision was fast, with states across the country starting to enforce cruel and dangerous abortion bans,” said Nancy Davis of Louisiana, Founder and Executive Director of the Nancy Davis Foundation. “My home state of Louisiana has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and even though I needed to terminate my pregnancy to protect my own health and safety, I was told I could not receive care at the hospital in Baton Rouge. Instead of being able to process the diagnosis and grieve the loss of my pregnancy at home with my family, I had to scramble to find a way out of Louisiana to access abortion care. I found myself in a situation I never thought I would be in, forced to travel nearly 1,500 miles to get the care I needed and deserved. I experienced not only a denial of necessary medical care, but a denial of compassion, and my right to make my own decision about my own health. I felt dehumanized and stripped of my most fundamental rights. I knew what I needed to do to protect my health, and my doctors agreed, but local lawmakers who will never know me or understand my situation had the final say. The system failed me, and I am just as outraged today as I was then.”
“I was raised in St. Louis and I love living in Missouri. But, it is challenging to fulfill your job as a physician when you cannot practice medicine as you were trained to do or teach medical students about abortion in the community and state where you live…It is infuriating and irresponsible that because of abortion bans, OBs can teach our students all aspects of medical care—except abortion. When you go to the doctor, you want your doctor to be trained. Anti-abortion politicians and groups have claimed that abortion rights have been left up to the state. That is simply not true. Last fall, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment ensuring the right to an abortion, but — despite the will of the voters — politicians and state officials are still interfering with patients’ rights. At every turn, when we finally make progress towards abortion access in Missouri, they move the goalposts on us. The only way to describe our experience over the last several months is whiplash,” said Dr. Margaret Baum, M.D., FACOG, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers in Missouri. “I have seen first-hand that these draconian laws force patients to make impossible choices when Medicaid cannot cover their care. People delay care because they’re afraid that they are not going to have the coverage for the services we know that they need. Patients are forced to decide if they can pay out of pocket to get lab tests. They are forced to decide between the procedures they need. They are forced to sometimes forego services altogether. It is critical for lawmakers to understand that the decisions they make are affecting patients every. Single. Day. And now, once again, they want to bring this chaos and confusion to the national level. I’m here to tell you today that the Senate bill proposing to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood would be devastating. It could force nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers to close and is a trojan horse for a nationwide abortion ban.”
“Back before the FACE Act protections, our clinic doors were routinely blockaded one day a month by a mob of 300 to 400 anti-abortion extremists. Those days were unpredictable and scary. If we tried to get through them and into the clinic, extremists pinched or pricked us with sharp objects. By the end of the day, our patients were all traumatized and uncared for – and our bodies were black and blue. We can’t go back to those days…I proudly advocated for this Act when it was being debated in the 1990s – I am outraged and heartbroken we have to do this again. The law works at protecting rights, including speech rights, something I witness daily. As soon as the Act took effect, the extreme blockades stopped. Yes, we still had protesters exercising their First Amendment Rights, but now they knew they couldn’t be violent, and they could not invade the clinics or block staff and patients from entering. FACE has helped preserve the dignity and safety of the patients we serve, and the professionals who care for them,” said Renee Chelian, Founder and CEO of Michigan-based Northland Family Planning Centers. “But then in 2017, when President Trump first took office extremists were emboldened to resume their violent attacks, despite FACE, knowing they had a friend in the White House. Twice they invaded our clinics, harassed patients and staff and refused to leave after trespass warnings were given. Even after law enforcement arrived, they refused to leave, went limp and had to be carried out one at a time. But the most appalling and dangerous episode occurred toward the end of Trump’s first term, in August of 2020. A group blockaded our doors preventing staff and patients from entering the clinic including those arriving for birth control appointments and three women scheduled for abortions after receiving a fatal fetal diagnosis…Within days of returning to the White House, sure enough, President Trump pardoned the violent offenders who attacked our clinic and others serving time for violence against clinics in other states, as well as those convicted for their actions here on January 6th. We were all abandoned by our government with that swipe of a pen. The FACE Act has been our only lever preventing clinic violence and holding anti-abortion criminals accountable. The FACE Act simply can’t be undone and it is up to lawmakers like you to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
“Right now, the Trump administration is taking unprecedented action to roll back abortion rights,” said Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All. “The majority of Americans do not support right-wing, hate-fueled ideology.Eight in ten Americans want legal abortion. That’s not just a majority—that’s a consensus. But because of the daily churn of chaos from the White House, most Americans don’t know that Republicans are attacking abortion. Our new focus group research shows that when Americans know these attacks are happening, they feel disgusted and betrayed. That means if we’re louder about this issue, we can win. Senator Murray and many of the champions in this room have long been the conscience of the Senate, and it’s time for all Senate Democrats to join them. We need to do everything we can to loudly push back against this administration’s attacks on our bodies, lives, and futures. We are living through remarkably dangerous times, and this is the moment to act. Our rights are not safe under this administration, and that includes abortion rights. In order to protect the safety, health, and dignity of all Americans, we need you to keep fighting. The majority of Americans are on our side, and together, we will protect reproductive freedom and restore abortion rights for all.”
“Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans paved the path to overturn Roe v. Wade and stripped away a woman’s right to choose, but that wasn’t enough for them,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Now, they are putting the puzzle pieces together to finally get what they have long wanted: a national abortion ban. Wisconsinites have said time and again that they want the freedom to control their bodies and futures, without politicians or the government butting in – and that is exactly what I’m fighting for. We are going to keep shining a light on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ cruel efforts to further chip away at women’s right to get the health care they want and deserve – including abortion care.”
“Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion – even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it.”
“Three years after the Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs decision, it’s become difficult and dangerous for women to access basic reproductive care, and Trump and Republicans in Congress are continuing to chip away at access and stoke the danger. I worked at Planned Parenthood, and I know all too well that receiving credible death threats is a fact of life for so many people who work in reproductive health care,” said Senator Tina Smith. “We’re seeing an uptick in threats against abortion providers and patients, meanwhile President Trump is actively pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of harassment and violence. That’s why we are spotlighting the voices of leaders working on the frontlines of providing reproductive health care in the face of these threats at this important moment.”
“The deadly Dobbs decision will go down in history as one of the worst, most harmful, most regressive decisions in modern history, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “As bad as the Dobbs decision was and as catastrophic as the impacts have already been, Republicans are doubling down on their crusade against access to reproductive healthcare in their big, ugly reconciliation bill. Democrats are going to fight like hell to strip these cruel provisions from the Republican bill, and to protect and restore reproductive freedom for all.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. It is about the right to make your own health care decisions,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding, and be refused treatment. That woman might die. But we aren’t giving up, and we will never stop fighting for reproductive justice, abortion access, and the simple, foundational right to choose your own health care.”
“The Guttmacher Institute said 155,000 people traveled for an abortion in 2024,” said Senator Maria Cantwell. “We are forcing them to go get care in some other state, miles and miles away. Why? Because of this archaic decision. Now, we have two problems. We have people coming to our state who want this care, but now we could have fewer Medicaid dollars to even provide the care.”
“With all the chaos and damage this administration has caused, the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade reminds us that we can’t lose sight of the fact that anti-choice politicians at all levels of our government are working nonstop to roll back women’s access to reproductive care,” said Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. “Between devastating cuts to Medicaid in Republicans’ reconciliation bill to top officials in this administration calling the safety of the abortion pill into question, Republicans across our country are taking steps to claw back women’s rights. My Democratic colleagues and I will never stop sounding the alarm about this and working to restore women’s access to basic health care.”
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority abandoned the long-standing constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade—rejecting nearly 50 years of progress and dragging gender equality and women’s rights half a century backward,” said Senator Dick Durbin. “What has happened in the wake of Dobbs was as predictable as it is devastating—and today we heard how devastating the last three years have been for women seeking critical health care in Republican-led states. While I cannot sugarcoat the state of women’s rights following Dobbs, I want to make one thing crystal clear: this fight is far from over. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murray, Baldwin, Smith, and Warren, for hosting such an important forum and keeping up the fight.”
“I was proud to join my colleagues today to hear directly from those who have suffered due to the deadly Dobbs decision and under Republicans’ anti-choice agenda,” said Senator Mazie Hirono. “Three years after the fall of Roe, Republicans continue to escalate their assault on reproductive freedom, while women across the country experience the devastating impacts of this infringement on their fundamental rights. Dobbs caused chaos and confusion, putting millions of Americans’ lives at risk, but I will not stop doing everything in my power to restore access to abortion and family planning services nationwide and protect reproductive health care providers and their patients.”
“Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, women have been at the mercy of a patchwork of laws. Over 40 percent of women of reproductive age now live under extreme and dangerous bans, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, and doctors are threatened with prosecution for just doing their jobs. This cannot be a country where our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. That is why we must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar.
“In the three years since the Trump-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican-led states have passed waves of harmful laws stripping Americans of the freedom to make their own health care decisions. Despite the life-threatening consequences of these actions, the Trump Administration is escalating its attacks on access to reproductive health care across the country—including in states where it’s protected. The stories we heard today underscored the urgent need to protect reproductive care as a matter of federal law,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen.
Today, Senator Murray also joined Senators Tammy Baldwin and Richard Blumenthal to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans.
Senator Murray is a longtime leader in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights, and she has led Congressional efforts to fight back after the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Murray has introduced more than a dozen pieces of legislation to protect reproductive rights from further attacks, protect providers, and help ensure women get the care they need; Murray has led efforts to push for passage of these bills on the Senate floor multiple times. Last January, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Murray led her colleagues in hosting a “State of Abortion Rights” briefing with women who have suffered firsthand from Republican abortion bans, and last June, she chaired a HELP Committee hearing titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Health Care Nightmare Across America.” Last year, Senator Murray helped lead efforts to force Republicans on the record on votes to protect access to contraception and access to IVF (twice), and she led her colleagues in raising the alarm about the threat a second Trump administration poses to reproductive rights and abortion access in every state, as outlined in Project 2025.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: Video of full forum***
***WATCH and READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
Washington, D.C. — Today—on the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning the constitutional right to abortion—U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN) hosted a spotlight forum titled Under Attack: Republicans’ Escalating War on Reproductive Freedom. At the forum, Senate Democrats heard from four panelists who have suffered the consequences of the Dobbs decision and subsequent Republican abortion bans firsthand and warned about how President Trump and Republicans are only escalating their attacks on women’s health care and working to make abortion impossible to access anywhere—a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.
The senators’ spotlight forum comes as President Trump has taken direct aim at reproductive health care in his first few months in office, including by: pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of assaulting and injuring abortion clinic staff and announcing that his Department of Justice will largely no longer enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act; attacking mifepristone based on anti-abortion junk science; laying the groundwork to make “fetal personhood” the law of the land—which would ban abortion in every state and curtail pregnant women’s rights; rescinding CMS guidance reaffirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide life-saving care to pregnant women suffering medical emergencies, which might include abortion care in certain situations; repealing two Executive Orders that sought to protect and expand access to reproductive health care in the aftermath of Dobbs; reinstating the Global Gag Rule that targets reproductive health care around the world; scrubbing government websites of vital information about reproductive health care; and appointing notorious anti-abortion extremists for influential roles in his administration, including Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Russell Vought as OMB Director, and John Sauer as Solicitor General—among much else.
Additionally, right now Republicans in Congress are pushing through a budget reconciliation bill that would make abortion care impossible to access nearly everywhere by defunding Planned Parenthood—putting 200 health centers across the country at risk of closure, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal—and by effectively banning ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion care. Overall, Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act would kick 16 million people off their health insurance through massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and overwhelmingly impact women, who comprise most adults covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is the primary source of coverage and the largest single payer for pregnant women’s health care nationwide, covering between one-third and one-half of births in every state across the country.
“Already, we have seen with painful clarity, how—on a daily basis—Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances. But Dobbs was never the end of this fight for Republicans, whose goal has always been a national abortion ban. And since Republicans know they don’t have the votes right now to pass a national abortion ban outright, they are slowly, but surely, advancing a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, and chipping away at access to reproductive health care piece-by-piece—even in states where abortion is protected. Republicans are hoping no one will notice these attacks—as if people don’t care when their rights are stripped away. As if it’s easy to miss the moment your health care decisions are out of your control,” said Senator Patty Murray. “As hard as Republicans might try, the damage they are causing is undeniable. But that doesn’t mean we give up. Women’s lives are at stake—Democrats are not going to stop pushing back—not ever. We will keep pushing for legislation to protect women and health care providers from Republican prosecution, to help people access and afford the reproductive health care they need, to protect women’s private health data, to protect the Right to Contraception and the Right to IVF, and to restore the right to abortion nationwide—nothing less.”
“When I was ten weeks pregnant, doctors informed me that my baby had acrania, a rare condition that was fatal for my baby, and dangerous for me. Naturally, I was heartbroken and scared, but I trusted that I would receive the necessary medical treatment so that my family and I could begin healing. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Just a few weeks before I received my diagnosis, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Dobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the legal right to abortion. The fallout from the decision was fast, with states across the country starting to enforce cruel and dangerous abortion bans,” said Nancy Davis of Louisiana, Founder and Executive Director of the Nancy Davis Foundation. “My home state of Louisiana has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and even though I needed to terminate my pregnancy to protect my own health and safety, I was told I could not receive care at the hospital in Baton Rouge. Instead of being able to process the diagnosis and grieve the loss of my pregnancy at home with my family, I had to scramble to find a way out of Louisiana to access abortion care. I found myself in a situation I never thought I would be in, forced to travel nearly 1,500 miles to get the care I needed and deserved. I experienced not only a denial of necessary medical care, but a denial of compassion, and my right to make my own decision about my own health. I felt dehumanized and stripped of my most fundamental rights. I knew what I needed to do to protect my health, and my doctors agreed, but local lawmakers who will never know me or understand my situation had the final say. The system failed me, and I am just as outraged today as I was then.”
“I was raised in St. Louis and I love living in Missouri. But, it is challenging to fulfill your job as a physician when you cannot practice medicine as you were trained to do or teach medical students about abortion in the community and state where you live…It is infuriating and irresponsible that because of abortion bans, OBs can teach our students all aspects of medical care—except abortion. When you go to the doctor, you want your doctor to be trained. Anti-abortion politicians and groups have claimed that abortion rights have been left up to the state. That is simply not true. Last fall, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment ensuring the right to an abortion, but — despite the will of the voters — politicians and state officials are still interfering with patients’ rights. At every turn, when we finally make progress towards abortion access in Missouri, they move the goalposts on us. The only way to describe our experience over the last several months is whiplash,” said Dr. Margaret Baum, M.D., FACOG, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers in Missouri. “I have seen first-hand that these draconian laws force patients to make impossible choices when Medicaid cannot cover their care. People delay care because they’re afraid that they are not going to have the coverage for the services we know that they need. Patients are forced to decide if they can pay out of pocket to get lab tests. They are forced to decide between the procedures they need. They are forced to sometimes forego services altogether. It is critical for lawmakers to understand that the decisions they make are affecting patients every. Single. Day. And now, once again, they want to bring this chaos and confusion to the national level. I’m here to tell you today that the Senate bill proposing to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood would be devastating. It could force nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers to close and is a trojan horse for a nationwide abortion ban.”
“Back before the FACE Act protections, our clinic doors were routinely blockaded one day a month by a mob of 300 to 400 anti-abortion extremists. Those days were unpredictable and scary. If we tried to get through them and into the clinic, extremists pinched or pricked us with sharp objects. By the end of the day, our patients were all traumatized and uncared for – and our bodies were black and blue. We can’t go back to those days…I proudly advocated for this Act when it was being debated in the 1990s – I am outraged and heartbroken we have to do this again. The law works at protecting rights, including speech rights, something I witness daily. As soon as the Act took effect, the extreme blockades stopped. Yes, we still had protesters exercising their First Amendment Rights, but now they knew they couldn’t be violent, and they could not invade the clinics or block staff and patients from entering. FACE has helped preserve the dignity and safety of the patients we serve, and the professionals who care for them,” said Renee Chelian, Founder and CEO of Michigan-based Northland Family Planning Centers. “But then in 2017, when President Trump first took office extremists were emboldened to resume their violent attacks, despite FACE, knowing they had a friend in the White House. Twice they invaded our clinics, harassed patients and staff and refused to leave after trespass warnings were given. Even after law enforcement arrived, they refused to leave, went limp and had to be carried out one at a time. But the most appalling and dangerous episode occurred toward the end of Trump’s first term, in August of 2020. A group blockaded our doors preventing staff and patients from entering the clinic including those arriving for birth control appointments and three women scheduled for abortions after receiving a fatal fetal diagnosis…Within days of returning to the White House, sure enough, President Trump pardoned the violent offenders who attacked our clinic and others serving time for violence against clinics in other states, as well as those convicted for their actions here on January 6th. We were all abandoned by our government with that swipe of a pen. The FACE Act has been our only lever preventing clinic violence and holding anti-abortion criminals accountable. The FACE Act simply can’t be undone and it is up to lawmakers like you to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
“Right now, the Trump administration is taking unprecedented action to roll back abortion rights,” said Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All. “The majority of Americans do not support right-wing, hate-fueled ideology.Eight in ten Americans want legal abortion. That’s not just a majority—that’s a consensus. But because of the daily churn of chaos from the White House, most Americans don’t know that Republicans are attacking abortion. Our new focus group research shows that when Americans know these attacks are happening, they feel disgusted and betrayed. That means if we’re louder about this issue, we can win. Senator Murray and many of the champions in this room have long been the conscience of the Senate, and it’s time for all Senate Democrats to join them. We need to do everything we can to loudly push back against this administration’s attacks on our bodies, lives, and futures. We are living through remarkably dangerous times, and this is the moment to act. Our rights are not safe under this administration, and that includes abortion rights. In order to protect the safety, health, and dignity of all Americans, we need you to keep fighting. The majority of Americans are on our side, and together, we will protect reproductive freedom and restore abortion rights for all.”
“Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans paved the path to overturn Roe v. Wade and stripped away a woman’s right to choose, but that wasn’t enough for them,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Now, they are putting the puzzle pieces together to finally get what they have long wanted: a national abortion ban. Wisconsinites have said time and again that they want the freedom to control their bodies and futures, without politicians or the government butting in – and that is exactly what I’m fighting for. We are going to keep shining a light on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ cruel efforts to further chip away at women’s right to get the health care they want and deserve – including abortion care.”
“Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion – even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it.”
“Three years after the Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs decision, it’s become difficult and dangerous for women to access basic reproductive care, and Trump and Republicans in Congress are continuing to chip away at access and stoke the danger. I worked at Planned Parenthood, and I know all too well that receiving credible death threats is a fact of life for so many people who work in reproductive health care,” said Senator Tina Smith. “We’re seeing an uptick in threats against abortion providers and patients, meanwhile President Trump is actively pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of harassment and violence. That’s why we are spotlighting the voices of leaders working on the frontlines of providing reproductive health care in the face of these threats at this important moment.”
“The deadly Dobbs decision will go down in history as one of the worst, most harmful, most regressive decisions in modern history, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “As bad as the Dobbs decision was and as catastrophic as the impacts have already been, Republicans are doubling down on their crusade against access to reproductive healthcare in their big, ugly reconciliation bill. Democrats are going to fight like hell to strip these cruel provisions from the Republican bill, and to protect and restore reproductive freedom for all.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. It is about the right to make your own health care decisions,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding, and be refused treatment. That woman might die. But we aren’t giving up, and we will never stop fighting for reproductive justice, abortion access, and the simple, foundational right to choose your own health care.”
“The Guttmacher Institute said 155,000 people traveled for an abortion in 2024,” said Senator Maria Cantwell. “We are forcing them to go get care in some other state, miles and miles away. Why? Because of this archaic decision. Now, we have two problems. We have people coming to our state who want this care, but now we could have fewer Medicaid dollars to even provide the care.”
“With all the chaos and damage this administration has caused, the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade reminds us that we can’t lose sight of the fact that anti-choice politicians at all levels of our government are working nonstop to roll back women’s access to reproductive care,” said Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. “Between devastating cuts to Medicaid in Republicans’ reconciliation bill to top officials in this administration calling the safety of the abortion pill into question, Republicans across our country are taking steps to claw back women’s rights. My Democratic colleagues and I will never stop sounding the alarm about this and working to restore women’s access to basic health care.”
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority abandoned the long-standing constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade—rejecting nearly 50 years of progress and dragging gender equality and women’s rights half a century backward,” said Senator Dick Durbin. “What has happened in the wake of Dobbs was as predictable as it is devastating—and today we heard how devastating the last three years have been for women seeking critical health care in Republican-led states. While I cannot sugarcoat the state of women’s rights following Dobbs, I want to make one thing crystal clear: this fight is far from over. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murray, Baldwin, Smith, and Warren, for hosting such an important forum and keeping up the fight.”
“I was proud to join my colleagues today to hear directly from those who have suffered due to the deadly Dobbs decision and under Republicans’ anti-choice agenda,” said Senator Mazie Hirono. “Three years after the fall of Roe, Republicans continue to escalate their assault on reproductive freedom, while women across the country experience the devastating impacts of this infringement on their fundamental rights. Dobbs caused chaos and confusion, putting millions of Americans’ lives at risk, but I will not stop doing everything in my power to restore access to abortion and family planning services nationwide and protect reproductive health care providers and their patients.”
“Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, women have been at the mercy of a patchwork of laws. Over 40 percent of women of reproductive age now live under extreme and dangerous bans, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, and doctors are threatened with prosecution for just doing their jobs. This cannot be a country where our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. That is why we must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar.
“In the three years since the Trump-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican-led states have passed waves of harmful laws stripping Americans of the freedom to make their own health care decisions. Despite the life-threatening consequences of these actions, the Trump Administration is escalating its attacks on access to reproductive health care across the country—including in states where it’s protected. The stories we heard today underscored the urgent need to protect reproductive care as a matter of federal law,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen.
Today, Senator Murray also joined Senators Tammy Baldwin and Richard Blumenthal to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans.
Senator Murray is a longtime leader in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights, and she has led Congressional efforts to fight back after the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Murray has introduced more than a dozen pieces of legislation to protect reproductive rights from further attacks, protect providers, and help ensure women get the care they need; Murray has led efforts to push for passage of these bills on the Senate floor multiple times. Last January, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Murray led her colleagues in hosting a “State of Abortion Rights” briefing with women who have suffered firsthand from Republican abortion bans, and last June, she chaired a HELP Committee hearing titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Health Care Nightmare Across America.” Last year, Senator Murray helped lead efforts to force Republicans on the record on votes to protect access to contraception and access to IVF (twice), and she led her colleagues in raising the alarm about the threat a second Trump administration poses to reproductive rights and abortion access in every state, as outlined in Project 2025.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Women’s Health Protection Act comes as Trump and Congressional Republicans move to restrict a woman’s right to choose and toward a national abortion ban
Washington (June 24, 2025) – On the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) joined the entire Senate Democratic caucus in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Put together, Trump and Congressional Republicans’ assault on Americans’ reproductive rights is a backdoor national abortion ban, ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to control their bodies.
President Trump appointed the Supreme Court Justices who ruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to overturn Roe v. Wade and nearly 50 years of precedent. Since the Dobbs decision, 19 states have banned abortion or severely restricted women from being able to access the procedure, leaving one in three American women without access to safe, legal abortion care. Additionally, state legislatures across the country have introduced hundreds of bills to include medically unnecessary restrictions that limit access to abortion care.
In his second term, President Trump has continued to relentlessly attack reproductive rights, including freezing Title X funding for clinics that offer reproductive care, cutting Biden-era emergency abortion protections, pardoning anti-abortion extremists, and fighting to defund Planned Parenthood. Additionally, the House-passed Republican budget bill kicks 16 million people off their health insurance and defunds Planned Parenthood – threatening the closure of 200 health centers across the country and putting access to vital reproductive care for millions of families at risk.
The Women’s Health Protection Act creates federal rights for patients and providers to protect abortion access. Specifically, the Women’s Health Protection Act would:
Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level restrictions in place prior to Dobbs, such as arbitrary waiting periods, medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds, or requirements to provide medically inaccurate information.
Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother.
Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years.
The legislation is sponsored by the entire Democratic caucus, including Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D- DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Full text of the bill is available here. A one-pager on the bill is available here.
