NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Brazilian journalist gets to know people’s democracy in its entirety in China

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    On April 21, the Brazilian magazine Forum published an article by Rafael Henrique Zebetto entitled “Understanding China’s People’s Democracy in the Whole Process in Practice.”

    On April 17 this year, I attended a meeting with Beijing government officials in our local area along with four other foreign colleagues. The officials wanted to hear our experiences, observations, and suggestions so as to better understand the actual situation of foreign experts in the city, identify existing problems, and improve relevant policies based on these. Such meetings are a common practice in China’s daily life: officials at various levels regularly communicate with representatives from various walks of life to learn about the difficulties people face and collect suggestions for solutions. This is an important part of China’s people’s democracy in the whole process.

    How is people’s democracy in the whole process put into practice? In my early years in China, I closely followed the progress of poverty alleviation work. I even had the opportunity to visit the most remote and poorest parts of the country to observe the process first-hand.

    One village woman in Xinjiang managed to escape poverty by opening a guesthouse with the support of the local government. She shared her extraordinary story with me. The woman spoke only Uyghur, while most of her guests were from eastern China and spoke Putonghua (standardized Mandarin). To communicate with her guests, she turned to the local grassroots organization of the Chinese Communist Party, which provided her with a volunteer translator.

    These grassroots organizations create a great advantage in the system of state governance because they are able to formulate policies that take into account local needs, have a deep understanding of local problems and development prospects, and maintain close and constant contact with the people.

    In addition, Chinese citizens have channels to approach government bodies with questions, criticism, and suggestions. For example, the 12345 hotline in some major cities provides service in foreign languages. In addition to the work of grassroots committees and feedback channels, the government also organizes thematic forums in which officials discuss with representatives of various sectors of society the challenges and difficulties associated with the provision of public services. In addition, various surveys are regularly conducted to collect data for the subsequent development and improvement of specific policies.

    People’s democracy in the whole process encourages the participation of the Chinese people, promotes social harmony and brings tangible results.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Government continues to respond to Royal Commission into Abuse in Care

    Source: New Zealand Government

    The Government has outlined its ongoing response to the Royal Commission into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions.

    “We are committed to continuing to respond to the Royal Commission of Inquiry with respect and dignity. To maintain transparency with our response, the Government’s released its Response Plan which lays out what work has already been completed and what work is still underway,” Lead Coordination Minister Erica Stanford says.

    The Royal Commission made 95 recommendations in its 2021 redress report, and 138 in its final report in 2024. Of these 233 recommendations overall, 207 are addressed to the Crown, of these, 85 have been either accepted, partially accepted or we have accepted the intent. 

    Since the release of the Royal Commission’s Final report in July 2024:

    • The Government acknowledged that torture occurred at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit (Lake Alice) and introduced two pathways for redress which are now underway;
    • An end-of-life payment of $20,000 was made available for Lake Alice survivors along with work to address inequities in the reimbursement of legal fees;
    • Public Apologies were made by the Prime Minister and Government agency Chief Executives on 12 November 2024;
    • A $32 million investment as part of the apology to increase capacity in current redress and claims systems from approximately 1350 to 1550 claims per year
    • Progression of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill which supports the Crown response to a range of recommendations
    • a $2 million dual purpose survivor-focused fund for local authorities, non-governmental organisations and community groups;
    • Commitment to a national day of reflection on the one-year anniversary of the public apology, 12 November 2025;
    • Budget 2025 investment of $533 million over four years, for redress improvements including increasing average payments and increasing the number of claims paid each year;
    • Budget 2025 investment of $188 million over four years to improve the safety of children, young people and vulnerable people. 

    “We know the Crown’s response will be ongoing given the number and complexity of recommendations. The Royal Commission estimated it could take up to 15 years. 

    “While we can never fully make redress for or right the harm survivors experienced, the Government remains committed to engaging with the Royal Commission’s report and recommendations in good faith and with careful consideration,” Ms Stanford says.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Resignation of PM’s press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

    Getty Images

    The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases.

    A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed.

    The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year.

    The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm.

    Describing his “shock” at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was “open to revisiting” the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider.

    Are covert audio recordings illegal?

    New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals’ privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    The definition of “intimate visual recording” under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings.

    As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar.

    If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress.

    What about covert filming of women in public places?

    Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of “intimate visual recording”.

    That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful.

    By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

    If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime.

    Are any of these behaviours “harassment”?

    Under the Harassment Act 1997, “harassment” is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act.

    These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition.

    But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases.

    Covert recording of women’s bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as “image-based sexual abuse”. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity.

    This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom.

    Has New Zealand law kept up?

    Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive.

    For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or “upskirting”, for example).

    Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006.

    Generally, laws are thought of as “living documents”, able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed.

    Where to now?

    There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others.

    Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework.

    That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools.

    Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.

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

    – ref. Resignation of PM’s press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment – https://theconversation.com/resignation-of-pms-press-secretary-highlights-gaps-in-nz-law-on-covert-recording-and-harassment-258274

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Final counting shows polls understated Labor in 2025 election almost as much as they overstated it in 2019

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    With almost all primary votes now counted to two-party preferred (as I explained on May 29), Labor has won the national two-party vote by a 55.3–44.7 margin, although this may drop to a 55.2–44.8 margin once the remaining votes from Bradfield come in.

    Labor’s two-party share is over two points higher than in any poll taken in the final week before the election.

    Final primary votes were 34.6% Labor (up 2.0% since the 2022 election), 31.8% Coalition (down 3.9%), 12.2% Greens (steady), 6.4% One Nation (up 1.4%), 1.9% Trumpet of Patriots (down 2.2% from United Australia Party in 2022), 7.4% independents (up 2.1%) and 5.7% others (up 0.6%).

    The table below shows the primary vote and two-party estimates of all ten polls conducted in the final week before the election, with the election results at the bottom. When polls gave a breakdown for Trumpet of Patriots, independents and others, I’ve combined these for an all Others total. Bold numbers in the table represent estimates that were within 1% of the result.

    Fieldwork dates for the Ipsos poll were not released, but it was published in The Daily Mail on election day, so it was presumably taken in the last week. Published primary votes in this poll included 5% undecided, which I have redistributed proportionally to the parties listed.

    In 2019, all the polls gave Labor between a 51–49 and a 52–48 lead. The actual result was a Coalition win by 51.5–48.5.

    This year, all polls had Labor between a 51–49 and a 53–47 lead and the actual result was a Labor win by 55.3–44.7. The two polls (Freshwater and Ipsos) that had Labor below a 52–48 lead were particularly poor.

    The polls understated Labor’s primary vote and overstated the Coalition’s. Labor won the primary vote by 2.7 points, when nearly all polls had the Coalition ahead (Redbridge was tied). The Freshwater and Ipsos polls performed badly in overstating the Coalition’s vote.

    The Greens were mostly overstated, while One Nation was overstated by every pollster except Morgan.

    Preference flow assumptions compounded the polls’ problems. If I plug the election primary votes into my 2022 preference flows spreadsheet, I get a Labor two-party lead of 55.3–44.7, the same as the actual result.

    Newspoll had higher One Nation preference flows to the Coalition than in 2022. If they’d used 2022 flows, Labor would have led by about 53–47. YouGov used data from its MRP polls that gave the Coalition both a higher share of One Nation and Greens preferences than in 2022. If they’d used 2022 flows, Labor would have led by 54.2–45.8.

    We won’t have data on preference flows by party for some time, but it’s likely that One Nation preferences did become more pro-Coalition. However, Greens and independent preferences compensated by becoming more pro-Labor.

    Respondent-allocated polls from Essential, Resolve, Freshwater, Redbridge and Spectre all suggested this would be the case. YouGov may have used MRP polls earlier in the year to allocate preferences. Labor was doing badly on preferences earlier.

    The poll graph that I used in my pre-election articles is below. There was a surge to Labor in March and April. Labor had been polling poorly from December to February and may have lost an election held then. The polls told us that Labor had recovered to an election-winning position, but they understated the magnitude of that win.

    The best two polls were not the final polls, but a Morgan poll taken two weeks from the election that gave Labor a 55.5–44.5 lead. Morgan’s final two polls both gave Labor a 53–47 lead. The other good poll was a Redbridge poll of 20 marginal seats that gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead a week before the election (actual result 54.8–45.2 to Labor across these seats).

    Redbridge would have been better if they’d stuck with their 54.5–45.5 to Labor in the marginal seats in this poll, but they dropped back to 53–47 to Labor in the poll published on election day.

    The final YouGov MRP poll predicted Labor would win 84 of the 150 seats, understating Labor by ten seats. An exit poll of early voters from the first two days of early in-person voting correctly had swings to Labor.

    While public polling was poor at this election, Liberal internal polling was worse. This article in The Australian published the day before the election said the Coalition was confident of gaining ten seats from Labor. Labor actually gained 14 seats from the Coalition.

    The worst seat polls

    I’m not going to relate every seat poll in this election, but there were some seat poll stinkers.

    I referred to JWS seat polls of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith on April 18. These polls gave the Liberal National Party a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan, with the Greens a distant third on primary votes. In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

    In Ryan, the Greens made the final two and defeated the LNP by 53.3–46.7. If Labor had made the final two, they would have won by 57.8–42.2. In Brisbane, Labor crushed the LNP by 59.0–41.0. In Griffith, Labor and the Greens made the final two, and a two-party count between Labor and the LNP had Labor winning by 65.9–34.1.

    I referred to a Compass seat poll of McMahon on April 11. This poll gave right-wing independent Matt Camenzuli 41% of the primary vote, the Liberals 20% and Labor incumbent Chris Bowen just 19%. Bowen actually won 45.5% of the primary vote, the Liberals 26.8% and Camenzuli just 9.8%.

    I referred to KJC polls of four seats on April 27. These polls gave the Liberals a 49–45 lead including undecided in Tangney and a 46–41 lead in Blair. In Richmond, the Greens led Labor by 39–34. In Hunter, Labor led the Nationals by 45–41.

    Labor actually won Tangney by 57.0–43.0 and Blair by 55.7–44.3. In Richmond, the Greens did not make the final two, and Labor would have beaten them easily if they had. In Hunter, One Nation instead of the Nationals made the final two, with Labor winning by 59.0–41.0. Had the Nationals made the final two, Labor would have won by a similar 59.5–40.5.

    Recount results and Greens senator defects to Labor

    In Liberal-held Bradfield, Teal Nicolette Boele defeated the Liberals by 26 votes after a recount, overturning an eight-vote Liberal lead on the original count. The Liberals could challenge this result in the courts, but Boele will be seated until the courts decide.

    In Goldstein, the partial recount of primary votes for Teal incumbent Zoe Daniel and Liberal Tim Wilson was completed on May 31. Wilson won by 175 votes, down from 260 before the recount started.

    With these results, the final seat outcome of the election is 94 Labor out of 150, 43 Coalition and 13 for all Others. That’s a Labor majority of 38 by the UK method.

    Western Australian Greens Senator Dorinda Cox, who was elected in 2022, defected to Labor on Monday. This gives Labor 29 of the 76 senators and the Greens ten. Labor will still need either the Coalition or the Greens to reach the 39 votes required for a Senate majority. Cox’s six-year term will expire in June 2028.

    South Korea and Poland elections

    On Tuesday the centre-left candidate won the South Korean presidential election that had been called early after the previous right-wing president was impeached and removed from office. On Sunday the Law and Justice (PiS) candidate won the Polish presidential election, defeating a pro-Western centrist.

    Donald Trump’s US national ratings have improved since his nadir in late April. I wrote about these events for The Poll Bludger on Wednesday.

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

    – ref. Final counting shows polls understated Labor in 2025 election almost as much as they overstated it in 2019 – https://theconversation.com/final-counting-shows-polls-understated-labor-in-2025-election-almost-as-much-as-they-overstated-it-in-2019-256981

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Warren, Blunt Rochester Condemn RFK for Making it Harder for Pregnant Women and Children to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines, Putting Their Health at Risk

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    June 04, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), joined by U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), today condemned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for announcing changes to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule that would dramatically limit access to COVID-19 vaccines for millions of pregnant women and children, needlessly endangering their health. In their letter, the Senators slam the decision as anti-science and politically motivated, criticizing Secretary Kennedy for failing to provide scientific justification for the policy change and for confirming their longstanding concerns that he would enact unscientific, anti-vax policies as HHS Secretary—despite all his clamoring before Senate committees that he would not restrict vaccine access.

    “Your politically driven, anti-science decision—made suddenly and behind closed doors, without input from the public or scientific and medical communities—flies in the face of your commitment to ‘not…take away anybody’s vaccines’ and will lead to an untold number of preventable illness and death of Americans,” wrote the Senators.

    “Enabled by President Trump and fueled by decades of anti-vaccine skepticism, you appear to be establishing a roadmap by which the United States’ government can implement unscientific, anti-vaccination policies,” the lawmakers continued. “By sowing distrust, creating chaos and justifying your actions with misinformation, you are laying the groundwork to undermine access to other safe, effective vaccines, including for those that prevent diseases like whooping cough, measles and more.”

    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below:

    Dear Secretary Kennedy:

    We write to express our extreme concern regarding the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’) recent policy changes to dramatically curtail access to the COVID-19 vaccine for those Americans who would choose to receive it. We are particularly alarmed by your May 27, 2025 announcement on X—along with Drs. Marty Makary and Jay Bhattacharya, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), respectively—that the COVID-19 vaccine will no longer be included under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended routine immunization schedule for healthy pregnant women.

    We are also concerned that the CDC changed its recommendation for administering the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and adolescents from routine to using “shared clinical decision-making” between clinicians and families. As of the writing of this letter, the CDC has updated the immunization schedule for adults, removing the previous recommendation for pregnant women. The unjustified announcement “blindsided” senior officials at the CDC and were designed to “further erode public trust in the [agency].” By side-stepping the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) open and transparent deliberation of the evidence, you have thrown into question coverage of vaccines under Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance for millions of Americans. Your politically driven, anti-science decision—made suddenly and behind closed doors, without input from the public or scientific and medical communities—flies in the face of your commitment to “not…take away anybody’s vaccines” and will lead to an untold number of preventable illness and death of Americans. We therefore strongly urge you to reverse this position until there is a thorough, transparent consideration of the body of evidence regarding the COVID-19 vaccine’s public health benefit.

    Political Motivations Threaten COVID-19 Vaccine Access for Millions of Americans

    The ACIP’s vaccine recommendations, as adopted by the CDC, form the basis of no-cost access to the vaccines for millions of Americans. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, requires that most commercial health insurance plans and Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans cover ACIP-recommended vaccines for a given individual with no cost sharing. In addition, for the Vaccines for Children Program, authorized by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, ACIP determines which vaccines are provided at no cost to children who are uninsured, underinsured, Medicaid-eligible, Medicaid-enrolled or American Indian or Alaska Native. States must also cover ACIP-recommended vaccines and their administration for children enrolled in separate State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs without enrollee cost-sharing.

    More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act expanded no-cost coverage of ACIP-recommended vaccines and vaccine administration without cost-sharing to adults under Medicare Part D, Medicaid and CHIP. The uncertainty and confusion caused by your politically driven actions may lead to many insurers deciding to drop coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine for millions of people. Without insurance coverage, individuals who wish to receive the COVID-19 vaccine will be forced to pay up to $200 or more out-of-pocket—an insurmountable cost for many families, especially amid cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by the current administration’s policies.

    Politically Driven, Anti-Vaccination Decision-Making Circumvents Scientific Input

    You appeared to make this policy change without consulting the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and prior to the next scheduled public meeting of the ACIP, the members of which are leading vaccine experts tasked with developing vaccine recommendations. You did so even though the ACIP had independently been considering updating COVID-19 vaccine recommendations to take into account the risk levels of different populations and was expected to vote on those recommendations when it was next scheduled to meet on June 25-27, 2025.

    Your announcement is a striking departure from the transparent and evidence-informed manner by which vaccine approvals and recommendations are formulated by HHS. For decades, scientists have weighed in on vaccine recommendations through a strenuous process. Following a decision from FDA experts about whether to approve a new vaccine based on clinical trial evidence and other data, ACIP “weighs extensive evidence about safety, effectiveness and other data to determine the best recommendation for who should receive the vaccine, when and how often.” The CDC director may choose to adopt, reject or modify these recommendations, though rejection or modification of such recommendations is rare. In the past quarter century, the CDC director has acted only twice to expand access beyond the ACIP’s recommendation, both times in response to extraordinary circumstances—in 2002 for the smallpox vaccine in connection with a vaccination campaign to address potential bioterrorism attacks, and in 2021 for the COVID-19 vaccine for front-line workers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in an unprecedented and deeply troubling abuse of your authority, you did not wait to hear ACIP’s expertise, and you exploited a key vacancy at CDC to set these recommendations yourself. According to the Washington Post, this is “the first time an HHS secretary has unilaterally altered an existing recommendation from the advisory committee and the CDC.”

    Your decision represents a significant public health threat that will endanger millions of Americans. Pregnant women are at higher risk of serious illness and hospitalization if infected with COVID-19, and the virus raises the risk of having a cesarean birth, preeclampsia or eclampsia and blood clots. COVID-19 infection during pregnancy has also been shown to result in higher risk of lower birthweight babies, preterm birth and stillbirth. Babies born to women who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 are at higher risk of needing intensive care. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) strongly recommend women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to get pregnant get the COVID-19 vaccine. According to ACOG and SMFM, the COVID-19 vaccine has been demonstrated repeatedly to be safe and protective for such individuals. Because this vaccine is so protective and safe for this population, ACOG further recommends eliminating barriers to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This is likely why the CDC stated in its “Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines in the United States,” updated on May 12, 2025:

    “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older in the United States…Vaccination is especially important for people at highest risk of severe COVID-19, including people ages 65 years and older; people with underlying medical conditions, including immune compromise; people living in long-term care facilities; and pregnant women to protect themselves and their infants.” (emphasis added)

    After birth, infants under 6 months of age are at the same high level of risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 as adults ages 65 to 74, and the only means of protecting these infants from COVID-19 is through maternal vaccination. An analysis of HHS data by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 11,199 children were admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 during the 2024-2025 respiratory virus season, 7,746 of whom were younger than 5 years old. And 41 percent of children ages 6 months to 17 years old hospitalized with COVID-19 from October 2022 to April 2024 did not have a known underlying condition, meaning that “healthy” children are also at risk of severe disease.

    Establishing an Anti-Vaccination Policy Roadmap

    Enabled by President Trump and fueled by decades of anti-vaccine skepticism, you appear to be establishing a roadmap by which the United States’ government can implement unscientific, anti-vaccination policies. By sowing distrust, creating chaos and justifying your actions with misinformation, you are laying the groundwork to undermine access to other safe, effective vaccines, including for those that prevent diseases, such as pertussis (whooping cough), measles, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), chickenpox, shingles, hepatitis A, as well as cancer caused by hepatitis B and human papilloma virus.

    The May 27, 2025 video announcement is just one action in a series of anti-vaccination, anti-science efforts you have led since becoming HHS Secretary. For example, while the ACIP made recommendations for meningococcal and RSV vaccines months ago, you have failed to adopt the recommendations. Further, even though the United States is experiencing the worst outbreak of measles in 25 years, you have downplayed the harm of one of the world’s most contagious diseases and made false claims that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine has not been “safety tested.” This undermining of trust in vaccines has led to multiple preventable hospitalizations and deaths. Indeed, President Trump’s nominee to serve as your deputy at HHS expressed unqualified support for your recommendation “encourag[ing] parents to take the measles vaccine,” while saying nothing about vaccinating children against the disease. And the Trump administration clawed back over $11 billion in pandemic-era funding, which has hampered the ability of public health departments across the country to contain the measles outbreak.

    Moreover, on May 20, 2025, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Commissioner Makary published an opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), outlining a new FDA approval framework that creates significant barriers for approval of annual COVID-19 vaccines for millions of Americans. This announcement indicated that the annual COVID-19 vaccine will generally be approved without a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT) only for people ages 65 and older and for those who have medical conditions that leave them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. The framework says nothing about the eligibly of healthy people at higher risk of being infected with COVID-19, such as healthcare professionals. This means that, unlike in most other countries, the annual vaccine will not be available to healthy individuals older than 6 months of age and under the age of 65 without an RCT. This change in the approval process will take away Americans’ freedom to choose to get the annual vaccine and put them and their loved ones at risk.

    Further, placebo-controlled trials for vaccines when a proven intervention exists are widely considered by the medical and research community to be unethical. Ethical guidance advises, “Extreme care must be taken to avoid abuse of [the option to conduct placebo-controlled trials when a proven intervention exists]”; the FDA and HHS have guidance accordingly restricting placebo-controlled trials to certain situations. There is no question that the existing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines are such “proven interventions,” and withholding their use in new placebo-controlled trials would constitute a grave ethical violation.

    Your new approval process for the annual COVID-19 vaccine will significantly delay access to updated FDA-approved vaccines, jeopardizing the health and lives of the American people. Typically, vaccines, such as the annually updated flu shot, are approved after exhibiting immunogenicity data or other laboratory testing data comparable to previous vaccine versions, which themselves have provided robust safety and efficacy data. A multi-year study and lengthy approval process, which is generally considered by experts to be unnecessary, particularly for annually updated vaccines. The significant hurdles associated with FDA’s new RCT requirement could discourage vaccine manufacturers and researchers from developing new, innovative products that could prevent cancer, HIV and other diseases and ultimately save lives. Dr. Peter Hotez from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston stated requiring RCTs for future vaccine development “would basically be a recipe for paralysis.”

    Indeed, the day after your announcement, Moderna withdrew an application for its new combined flu and COVID-19 vaccine, despite the new vaccine outperforming existing COVID-19 and flu vaccines. It also comes on the heels of the FDA delaying its approval of Novavax’s protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, missing its own April 1, 2025 deadline. When the FDA finally approved the vaccine, it did so for only a narrow population (adults 65 and older and those between ages 21-64 with an underlying medical condition). In a highly unusual step, FDA is also requiring that Novavax conduct a placebo-controlled RCT for less vulnerable populations.

    Given the suddenness of your May 27, 2025 announcement and its lack of detail or scientific justification, we respectfully request you provide written responses to the following questions no later than June 18, 2025:

    1. Despite “a commitment to gold-standard science,” you failed to provide an appropriate, detailed explanation for your change in the COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

    1. What specific studies, scientific or clinical data did you consult as the basis for removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule for pregnant women and children? Please provide citations for the research articles or publications you considered.
    2. Did you consult with any scientific or professional organizations, such as those representing obstetricians, pediatricians, family physicians, virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists or other relevant experts, in developing this new policy? Please provide the names of such stakeholders.
    3. Did you decide not to follow any recommendations from the scientific and medical communities? Why not?
    4. Did you submit a memo that explains the rationale and scientific justification for your decision? Please provide a copy of such memo, along with any attachments and communications related to it.

    2. Your directive implementing the new CDC recommendations suggests that the decision was made “[b]ased on a review of the recommendation of the FDA and the NIH.”

    1. Please list all individuals who carried out this review and their qualifications to weigh in on such decisions, such as their formal scientific and/or medical training, previously held professional positions or appointments, etc.
    2. Please provide a copy of the recommendation made by the NIH.
    3. Why were the CDC and ACIP apparently excluded from the process through which you imposed the new CDC recommendations?
    4. Given the former acting CDC director’s nomination to be CDC director, who is currently responsible for finalizing CDC recommendations?

    3. Why did you fail to consult the ACIP before changing the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for children and pregnant women, particularly before the ACIP’s next public meeting?

    4. The ACIP is scheduled to meet in June 2025 to discuss COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

    1. Do you commit to allowing the ACIP to move forward with its meeting in June 2025? If so, when will the meeting be publicly noticed in the Federal Register?
    2. Do you commit to not altering the anticipated agenda that includes the discussion of the COVID-19 vaccine?
    3. Do you expect the ACIP’s future COVID-19 vaccine recommendations to be influenced by your decision to publish the new vaccine approval framework?
    4. If the ACIP issues a COVID-19 vaccine recommendation that differs from your May 27 announcement, will you commit to listening to the experts and consider adopting that recommendation?

    5. Why did you fail to consult the VRBPAC before granting a narrow approval for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine?

    6. What role did you play in the decision to publish the new FDA framework outlined in the May 20, 2025 NEJM opinion piece, and in determining its content?

    7. Why did the FDA release this framework in an opinion piece, rather than formally publishing a regulation or guideline written by career vaccine experts?

    8. Does FDA plan to release a regulation, rule or formal guidance that formalizes the framework described in the NEJM article?

    1. If so, when will this policy be released?
    2. Will this policy be developed with the input of vaccine experts, providers, pharmacies, patient advocacy groups and/or other stakeholders?
    3. How will you and Commissioner Makary ensure vaccine experts, providers, pharmacies, patient advocacy groups and/or other stakeholders may provide input or feedback on the framework?

    9. Does the FDA’s new framework apply to initial doses (i.e., primary series) of new formulations of COVID-19 vaccines?

    1. Will this impact parents’ choices to vaccinate their children against COVID-19?
    2. Will you commit to preserving the current COVID-19 vaccine approval standards for the primary vaccine series?

    10. Given the ethical and recruitment challenges clinical trial sponsors may face because of new RCT requirements, how will FDA ensure the public has access to safe and effective vaccines if companies are unable to complete these trials in a timely manner?

    11. Figure 2 of the May 20, 2025 NEJM opinion piece listed pregnancy and recent pregnancy as underlying medical conditions that put an individual at risk of severe COVID-19.

    1. If the CDC is no longer recommending pregnant women get the COVID-19 vaccine, will such individuals still be eligible for the vaccine?
    2. If so, will they be able to get the vaccine at no cost?
    3. If there will be cost-sharing, what will be the cost-sharing policy for the vaccine, and who will make such decisions?

    12. Is the list in Figure 2 of the NEJM piece an exhaustive list for what medical conditions will be considered putting an individual at risk for severe COVID-19 disease?

    13. How do the conditions in the list align with the fact that the only high-risk condition now stated on the CDC immunization schedule for COVID-19 is “moderately or severely immunocompromised”?

    14. Do you believe that parents should have the right to vaccinate their children against COVID-19? If not, why not?

    15. Do you expect the current version of the COVID-19 vaccine to remain available in the primary vaccine series for individuals under 65 without underlying medical conditions?

    16. Will healthcare workers under age 65 who do not have a condition that predisposes them to severe COVID-19 and hospitalization be able to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine?

    17. Do you believe that young, healthy adults should be able to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to reduce the risk of getting Long COVID or of transmitting the virus to individuals with a higher risk of severe infection?

    1. If so, how will the FDA’s new framework preserve this choice?
    2. Why does the FDA’s new vaccine approval framework fail to consider a broad range of potential benefits of booster shots, such as reduced risk of Long COVID-19 and a shorter duration of illness?

    18. Has the FDA communicated with pharmacies about whether they plan to restrict COVID-19 vaccine access in response to the new vaccine approval framework?

    1. If so, will pharmacies require patients to verify they have health conditions putting them at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 to receive the vaccine?
    2. What will be an acceptable means of verification?

    19. What information did you provide health insurers (including Medicaid and Medicare) regarding their requirements for coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine going forward?

    1. Do you expect insurers to drop or alter coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine for children and pregnant women due to the altered CDC recommendation?
    2. If so, was that taken into consideration when formulating the recommendation?

    20. Have you communicated with the vaccine manufacturers to ensure there will be enough supply of the vaccine for the upcoming respiratory illness season? What steps are you taking to ensure supply chains will not be disrupted?

    21. Do you have any plans to change FDA approval frameworks or the CDC immunization schedule for any other vaccines? If so, which ones?

    Your anti-vaccine, anti-science stance has taken priority over the public health and well-being of the American people. We urge you to save lives by reversing course and making evidence-based policy in an open, transparent and clear manner.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: E-commerce opens broader markets for Xizang specialties

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

    Tibetan specialties are being sold via livestreaming at the 5th China Xizang Tourism and Culture Expo in Lhasa, capital of southwest China’s Xizang Autonomous Region, June 18, 2023. (Xinhua/Jigme Dorje)

    In southwest China’s Xizang Autonomous Region, a county perched at an altitude of 3,800 meters is embracing the digital era through livestreaming.

    Tashi Lhamo, a 34-year-old resident of Qonggyai County, held up her phone and greeted her audience: “I just got back from the farm. Please give me lots of likes today.” With ease, she promoted local products to her livestream viewers, a scene that has become increasingly common in this once-isolated highland.

    Thanks to the completion of a large-scale telecom network upgrade, internet coverage has become increasingly more stable, prompting many villagers to jump on the e-commerce bandwagon. A simple smartphone now connects the area with the outside world.

    As the county’s most popular influencer, Tashi Lhamo has around 4 million followers across Chinese video-sharing platforms. Through her livestreams, she helps villagers sell local specialties like butter and tsamba — the most popular staple food in Xizang — to customers nationwide, generating an annual income of more than 1 million yuan (about 139,109 U.S. dollars).

    Across Xizang, e-commerce is gaining momentum as the regional government seeks to promote high-quality development of the sector through measures including supportive policies, online vouchers, e-commerce bases and livestreaming competitions.

    According to the regional commerce department, from January to April this year, Xizang’s online retail sales reached 10.84 billion yuan, up 36.7 percent year-on-year. Of that total, livestreaming accounted for 3.36 billion yuan, a 41.8 percent increase, while online sales of agricultural products hit 320 million yuan, up 17.5 percent from the same period last year.

    In the regional capital of Lhasa, local wool products are rolling off the production lines at a factory run by Xizang Holy Trust Industry Co., Ltd.

    “In the past, most of our orders came from offline channels. Now, by leveraging Xizang’s rich wool resources, we have developed an integrated model: e-commerce orders drive on-demand production, cooperatives facilitate procurement, and herders adjust livestock breeding and wool harvesting based on market demand,” said Lhapa Trinley, board chairman of the company.

    Today, through various online platforms, the company’s products, such as scarves, clothing and rugs, are sold across China. Semi-processed materials like washed wool, cashmere and yak wool are even exported to countries including Nepal and India.

    Beyond agricultural and pastoral goods, cultural products such as Tibetan incense and traditional accessories are also gaining popularity, introducing Tibetan culture to wider audiences.

    “E-commerce means that Xizang’s products are no longer niche,” said Li Yanping, head of the e-commerce division at the regional commerce department, adding that the region plans to improve rural logistics and support more e-commerce talent to further expand the reach of its specialties. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The pursuit of eternal youth goes back centuries. Modern cosmetic surgery is turning it into a reality – for rich people

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Gibson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Griffith University

    The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    Kris Jenner’s “new” face sparked myriad headlines about how she can look so good at 69 years old. While she’s not confirmed what sort of procedures she’s undergone, speculation abounds.

    As a US reality TV personality, socialite and Kardashian matriarch, Jenner has long curated her on-screen identity. Her fame and fortune are intimately tied to a multinational cosmetics industry that has, for centuries, bartered in the illusion of timeless beauty.

    The pursuit of cosmetic enhancement can be traced back as far as Ancient Egypt, reminding us the desire to look younger is hardly new.

    But while many women try in vain to battle the ageing process, Jenner is an example of someone who’s actually succeeded, at least visually. What does that mean for the rest of us?

    Decades of surgeries

    Modern cosmetic plastic surgery has its roots in compassion. It was developed to help disfigured first world war soldiers rebuild their faces and identities.

    But this origin story has been sidelined. Today, aesthetic procedures are overwhelmingly pursued by women and marketed as lifestyle enhancements rather than medical interventions.

    Advancements in reconstructive surgery were made after both world wars with treatments on wounded soldiers.
    AFP/Getty Images

    Plastic surgery, once considered extreme or shameful, began to gain popularity in the 1960s, and is now widespread.

    Hollywood has long played a role in shaping these standards. During its Golden Age, stars like Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne are reported to have undergone cosmetic surgeries – rhinoplasty (nose jobs), chin implants, facelifts – to preserve their screen personas.

    Even before Instagram, before-and-after images were a cultural obsession, often used to shame or expose.

    From taboo to trend

    The digital age has further normalised cosmetic enhancements, with social media influencers and celebrities promoting procedures alongside beauty products.

    It’s estimated Jenner spent upwards of US$130,000 (around A$200,000) on cosmetic interventions, resulting in a look that some media outlets suggest places her in her 30s.

    There’s been similar speculation about Lindsay Lohan, Christina Aguilera and Anne Hathaway, though none of the women have confirmed anything themselves.

    On Jenner, social media users are split. Some offer aspirational praise (“If I had the money, I’d get it all done!”), while others criticise her rejection of “ageing gracefully”.

    Today, celebrities increasingly control the narrative. Jenner has embraced her past cosmetic transformations, sharing them openly on social media and in interviews. The taboo is evolving.

    Yet many stars, including Courtney Cox, Ariana Grande, and Mickey Rourke, have spoken openly about regrets and the psychological toll of these procedures. Even with agency, the pressure remains immense.

    Youth as a cultural ideal

    This obsession with agelessness reflects a deeper societal discomfort with visible ageing, particularly in women.

    Celebrities, with access to elite medical professionals and procedures, seem to cheat time.

    Yet the outcome of is often disorienting: when Jenner appears younger than her children, the generational lines blur.

    This erasure of age difference entrenches youth as an end in itself. It also destabilises how we perceive kinship and mortality.

    Supermodel Bella Hadid has said she regrets getting a rhinoplasty as a teenager. Of Palestinian descent, she said “I wish I’d kept the nose of my ancestors”.

    In my own research, I’ve argued cosmetic enhancement is tied to a cultural denial of death.

    The ageing isn’t the problem – it’s our refusal to accept it.

    The desperate clinging to youth reflects a collective resistance to change. Celebrity culture and consumer capitalism exploit this vulnerability, making age a problem to be solved rather than a life stage to be honoured.

    We should mourn our ageing, not erase it. In another world, we could witness it, share it, and celebrate its quiet, powerful beauty.

    So what about us?

    But that’s not the world many live in, and the pressure extends beyond Hollywood.

    With filters, apps, and social media platforms, ordinary people also curate and enhance their images, playing their part in a fantasy of perfection.

    A recent study looked at the way young Australians use selfie editing tools. It found the widespread use of such apps have a significant effect on the body image of young people.



    Read more:
    ‘Perfect bodies and perfect lives’: how selfie-editing tools are distorting how young people see themselves

    The line between self-care and self-deception has never been blurrier. We all want to present the best version of ourselves, even if reality slips into illusion.

    So while women have long tried to outrun visible ageing, whether that be through anti-wrinkle creams or more invasive means, Jenner is an example of something relatively rare: a woman who’s actually managed to do it.

    In doing so, she and her celebrity counterparts set a new youthful beauty standard in what ageing should (or shouldn’t) look like.

    And while that standard may be felt by a variety of women, few will be able to achieve it.

    Extremely wealthy beauty moguls like Kris Jenner can afford elite treatments, while most people face growing financial pressure and a cost-of-living crisis. The divide isn’t just aesthetic – it’s economic.

    Beauty, in this context, is both a product and a privilege.

    And of course, judgement of women’s appearances remains a powerful force for discrediting their political, social, and moral worth. For every bit of praise there is for Jenner’s “youthful” appearance, there are videos claiming she’s “ruined her face” and questioning of whether she should spend so much money on such a cause.

    As long as gender inequality persists and beauty remains a currency of value, the pressure to conform will endure.

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

    – ref. The pursuit of eternal youth goes back centuries. Modern cosmetic surgery is turning it into a reality – for rich people – https://theconversation.com/the-pursuit-of-eternal-youth-goes-back-centuries-modern-cosmetic-surgery-is-turning-it-into-a-reality-for-rich-people-257969

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: One year ago, Australia scrapped a key equity in STEM program. Where are we now?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Vieira, Lecturer, Education Futures, University of South Australia

    ThisIsEngineering/Pexels

    In June 2024, the Australian government ended the Women in STEM Ambassador program. The decision followed a report that urged a broader, intersectional approach to diversity in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM).

    For six years, under the leadership of astrophysicist Lisa Harvey-Smith, the program contributed to research, tools and resources aimed at breaking down structural barriers that limit women’s and girls’ participation in STEM education and careers.

    At the time, the move to scrap it was framed as a step toward more inclusive progress.

    Does that reasoning still hold one year later? As diversity and inclusion efforts face global cutbacks, it’s more important than ever to reflect on where Australia is heading. Are we truly building a more equitable STEM future?

    Why diversity in STEM matters

    Structural barriers have long limited participation in STEM for women, people of colour, First Nations communities, people with disabilities, and those in low socioeconomic groups.

    Such barriers include stereotypes and bias, a lack of role models, limited flexible work arrangements, and inadequate parental leave and childcare support.

    If we achieved equity in STEM, everyone – including entire groups who have been systemically excluded in the past – would have equal access to opportunities, resources and recognition.

    For a young Aboriginal woman studying engineering in a regional town, it would mean the same chance to apply for internships at top firms as peers who live in cities. She would have the same access to well-equipped labs and mentoring programs, and an equal likelihood of being nominated for academic awards or leadership roles.

    Improving diversity in STEM is also critical to Australia’s capacity for innovation, particularly as we face global challenges such as climate change, disruption from artificial intelligence, and geopolitical instability.

    Diverse STEM teams are more likely to approach problems from multiple perspectives. They embody democratic values, driving innovation and strengthening resilience in the face of complex issues.

    Yet, despite decades of gender-focused programs, meaningful progress has been limited. STEM Equity Monitor 2024 data show that while the number of women in STEM has increased, only 37% of university STEM enrolments are women. When it comes to STEM jobs in Australia, only 15% are occupied by women.

    If not an ambassador, then what?

    The lack of diversity in STEM is driven by systemic barriers such as persistent stereotypes, a shortage of diverse role models, and unequal access to opportunities.

    An independent report released in February 2024 recommended looking at diversity in a more inclusive way.

    Instead of focusing only on women in STEM, it suggested we consider how different aspects of a person’s identity – such as their gender, race, or background – can combine and affect their experience.

    This means some people may face additional challenges. For example, a migrant woman of colour in STEM might deal with more obstacles than a white woman in the same field, because of the way her different identities overlap.

    So … where are we now?

    While adopting this view is commendable, the practical changes that have happened over the past year raise important questions about whether Australia is truly moving toward a more inclusive STEM landscape.

    In August 2024, the government announced a $38 million boost to STEM programs, aligning with recommendations from the independent report. Two long-standing programs were closed, while seven other initiatives received additional funding.

    However, many of the funded programs still leave major gaps.

    For instance, one of the few initiatives targeting school-aged students, the National Youth Science Forum, is mostly limited to Years 11 and 12. Yet we know that girls’ disengagement from STEM begins as early as primary school.

    Similarly, while the Superstars of STEM initiative continues to receive investment, its focus remains on “inspiring” students through role models.

    Inspiration alone is not enough. We need a sustained, systemic approach that changes attitudes and builds structures to support and retain diverse students throughout their STEM journey.

    A key tool may have been left underfunded

    Of all the initiatives announced, the STEM Equity Monitor received the smallest share of funding, despite being the key tool for tracking Australia’s progress on diversity in STEM.

    The 2024 report still relies on some data last updated in 2022, reflecting a lack of commitment to maintaining a consistent, annual pulse on equity outcomes. Moreover, the monitor doesn’t provide intersectional analysis, limiting its ability to inform targeted, evidence-based actions.

    In principle, it still makes sense to shift Australia’s strategy on diversity in STEM towards a more intersectional and systemic approach. However, the practical steps taken so far don’t seem to align with that vision. Funding decisions, program closures, and limited investment in data and accountability tools suggest a disconnect between intent and implementation.

    Without clear action plans, inclusive design – which ensures STEM initiatives genuinely serve people of all backgrounds – and robust monitoring, there is a risk the new direction will be symbolic rather than transformative.

    Maria Vieira has previously received funding from the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship Round 3 Grant from the Australian Government.

    – ref. One year ago, Australia scrapped a key equity in STEM program. Where are we now? – https://theconversation.com/one-year-ago-australia-scrapped-a-key-equity-in-stem-program-where-are-we-now-257977

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: News 06/4/2025 Blackburn Introduces Legislation to Protect Federal Law Enforcement Officers from Doxxing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act to make it illegal to dox federal law enforcement officials following the dangerous actions of Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell and his office to publicly release the names of law enforcement officers last week. This puts them at a higher risk of being targeted by criminal gangs, including MS-13 and Tren De Aragua.
    “Blue city mayors are doing everything they can to obstruct the Trump administration’s efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens,” said Senator Blackburn. “Just last week, Nashville Mayor O’Connell and his office doxxed federal law enforcement officers after the Trump administration worked with Tennessee Highway Patrol to arrest criminal illegal aliens. My Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act would make this illegal and hold blue city mayors accountable for obstructing enforcement of our immigration laws by putting law enforcement officers in harm’s way.”
    BACKGROUND
    Last year, an illegal alien from Mexico was charged with criminal homicide and evidence tampering after Nashville restaurant owner, Matt Carney, was tragically killed in a hit-and-run crash. Just a few months earlier, another illegal alien was charged with attempted kidnapping, sexual battery, public intoxication, and evading arrest after he followed a woman into the bathroom and groped her at the Nashville Sundae Club in the Gulch.
    Click here for a list of examples of the criminal illegal aliens who were arrested during a joint operation in Nashville by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Tennessee Highway Patrol, including convicted rapists, drug dealers, and individuals affiliated with MS-13. Senator Blackburn praised this operation in a recent column published by The Tennessean.
    Following this operation, Mayor O’Connell and his office doxxed federal law enforcement officers, putting them at risk of being targeted by criminal gangs. 
    Senator Blackburn has called on the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the actions of Mayor O’Connell and his office for attempting to undermine President Trump and ICE’s work to get dangerous criminals out of Tennessee communities.
    THE PROTECTING LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM DOXXING ACT
    The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act would make it illegal to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation.
    Under this legislation, an individual found guilty of doxxing a federal law enforcement officer would face a fine and/or imprisonment of five years. 
    Click here for bill text.
    RELATED

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

    The iconoclastic American general Douglas Macarthur once said that “wars are never won in the past”.

    That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine’s recent audacious attack on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks.

    The synchronised operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometres from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia’s long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics.

    This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order.

    Ukraine’s success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security.

    Finding new solutions

    Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine’s successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia’s initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions.

    There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include:

    • attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago)

    • the relentless targeting of Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure with drones

    • attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and

    • its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory.

    On each occasion, Western defence analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv’s moves.

    Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow’s forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine?

    Why hit Russia’s energy infrastructure if it doesn’t markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces?

    And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous “escalation”?

    The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine’s defence and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought.

    Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means:

    • using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics

    • shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and

    • deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state.

    The impact of Ukraine’s drone attack

    In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice.

    Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country’s war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost.

    That said, Ukraine’s most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself.

    That’s why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine’s theory of victory.

    This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal.

    The destruction of even a small portion of Russia’s deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West.

    A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity.

    The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight.

    Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has “no cards”. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play.

    That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support.

    But Trump’s own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous.

    Unsurprisingly, Trump’s reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along.

    Indeed, Putin’s insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

    However, Ukraine’s ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent’s territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine’s friends, as well as its enemies.

    That’s because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine’s lessons.

    In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia’s domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job.

    The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion (A$10.9 billion). Ukraine’s drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each.

    At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can’t win wars in the past.

    Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.

    – ref. The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-to-ukraines-battlefield-successes-against-russia-it-knows-wars-are-never-won-in-the-past-258172

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Getting away with it … sort of. How a dictator and a fugitive Nazi advanced international human rights law

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Olivera Simic, Associate Professor in Law, Griffith University

    Pinochet and Rauff? They were alike. Each had two faces. One gentle, the other hard. They were joined.

    And they both got away with it … Sort of.

    Philippe Sands loves to tell stories. A master of historical non-fiction, he has become known for his unique blend of deeply personal, legal and historical narratives, which weave together incredible coincidences with moving stories of human courage in the face of mass atrocities and horror.

    Sands is a leading practitioner of international law, a professor at University College London, an author, a playwright, and the recipient of numerous literary awards. He is also someone whose family was murdered in the vortex of the Holocaust in Ukraine.

    With his previous two books, East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity (2016) and The Ratline: Love, Lies and Justice on the Trail of a Nazi Fugitive (2020), he demonstrated his unique skill in presenting complex legal cases to avid readers.

    His latest book, 38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England and a Nazi in Patagonia, rounds out the trilogy.

    If it weren’t based on facts, one might think it was a brilliantly crafted thriller.

    Review: 38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England and a Nazi in Patagonia – Philippe Sands (Weidenfeld & Nicolson)

    38 Londres Street weaves together several narratives, but at its heart is the story of the legal attempts to end impunity for two accused criminals. One is Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The other is Walther Rauff, a former SS officer who fled to South America and allegedly worked with Pinochet’s Secret Intelligence Service.

    Sands brings these two men into a single narrative to highlight the legal struggle against impunity for mass atrocities, though he never loses sight of the victims and their human stories of suffering, courage and persistence.

    These were people whose lives were abruptly and violently taken. Sands includes many of their names and tragic fates in his book. He informs his readers that the Cementerio Sara Braun in Punta Arenas, Chile, has a memorial bearing the names of Pinochet’s many victims. He clearly wants these individuals never to be forgotten.

    Universal jurisdiction and the Pinochet precedent

    The building at 38 Londres Street in Santiago was once a site of pain. At this secret interrogation centre, one of many across Santiago and the rest of Chile, Pinochet’s agents imprisoned, tortured, executed and disappeared tens of thousands of people deemed leftists, socialists, communists or “other undesirables”.

    Pinochet came to power on September 11, 1973, overthrowing the democratically elected socialist government of President Salvador Allende in a military coup. He would rule Chile with an iron fist until 1990.

    Chile’s youth became the targets of his murderous regime. Sands notes that most victims were between 21 and 30 years old. The majority of them were workers; the rest mainly comprised academics, professionals and students. The atrocities were committed with impunity.

    Like all dictators, Pinochet believed himself untouchable. But in October 1998, while visiting the UK, he was arrested in London. Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón was seeking Pinochet’s extradition to Spain in order to try him for human rights abuses.

    Garzón was acting under the then-controversial legal principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows courts in one country to prosecute grave human rights violations committed outside its borders, regardless of the nationality of the accused.

    Never before had a former head of state of one country been arrested by, and in another, for committing international crimes.

    Sands would become involved in one of the most famous cases in international law since the Nuremberg trials more than 50 years earlier. Pinochet’s lawyers offered him an opportunity to participate in the case, arguing for the former dictator’s immunity as a former head of state. His wife threatened to divorce him if he accepted.

    He declined the offer. Instead, Sands represented Human Rights Watch when the Pinochet case was considered by the Law Lords.

    Pinochet had been indicted for crimes against humanity and genocide. At issue was the question of whether Pinochet, as a former head of state, had immunity before the English courts for acts committed in another country while he was in office. Should there be a legal protection for former dictators?

    The proceedings in London were novel and remarkable, writes Sands, because this was an open legal question when Pinochet was arrested. His arrest raised an unprecedented issue: was there an exception to the rule of immunity for a former head of state when a crime in international law was involved? And did the exception apply before a national court, rather than an international one?


    Many believed Pinochet’s immunity should be lifted and extradition proceedings should go ahead, so that he could answer for the deaths of Spanish nationals and others. If that did not happen, it was argued, the travesty of justice would signal that any dictator could get away with genocide. As Sands writes, immunity and impunity often go hand in hand.

    In this landmark case, Pinochet was stripped of the immunity from prosecution he had enjoyed as a former president. He was ordered to stand trial on charges of human rights abuses.

    For the next 16 months, he remained in the UK, awaiting extradition to Spain. But it never happened. The initial judgement on immunity was quashed, due to concerns about possible bias of one of the judges. The case returned to square one. New hearings took place.

    In January 2000, the UK eventually decided not to proceed with extradition, claiming that Pinochet was too ill to stand trial and that “it would not be fair”. He was allowed to return to Chile as a free man, thanks to medical doctors rather than lawyers.

    Political leaders in Europe generally welcomed the ruling. Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister and Pinochet’s longstanding ally, was adamant that the lengthy legal wrangle had been a waste of public money. Seemingly agitated, she said in front of the cameras:

    Senator Pinochet was a staunch friend of Britain throughout the Falklands War. His reward from this government was to be held prisoner for 16 months. In the meantime, his health has been broken, his reputation tarnished, and vast funds of public money have been squandered on a political vendetta.

    Subsequent attempts to prosecute Pinochet in Chile were unsuccessful. He died in 2006 at the age of 91, without ever being tried for the human rights abuses that occurred while he was in power. Retributive justice, in the end, was not served. But Pinochet’s case opened the gates for efforts to bring other former and serving heads of state to justice.

    Today, the 38 Londres Street serves as a place of national memory where visitors can walk through its halls and learn about its dark past.

    The Nazi who invented the gas chambers

    Running parallel with Pinochet’s story is that of Nazi fugitive Walther Rauff.

    Rauff invented the mobile gas chambers that were precursors to the gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. At the end of the second world war, he escaped to South America, settling in Chile. Germany made numerous attempts to have Rauff extradited to face charges, but the Chilean government refused these demands. He spent his days in the backwaters of Patagonia, running a king-crab cannery business.

    Sands travels to Patagonia and meets people who remember Rauff, whose identity seems to have been common knowledge among his neighbours and co-workers: “everyone knew rumours and stories of his past”; they knew about “the gas vans” and that he “once killed many people”. But no one seemed to be bothered. They describe Rauff as “cultivated and kind”. To many of Sands’ interlocutors, the stories about Rauff “were long ago and far away”.

    While dealing with the failed attempts for his extradition, Rauff put his energies into “harvesting crabs, making sure the tins were packed tight, [and] managing the workers”. He continued to do so, enjoying the company of his dog Bobby, when Pinochet became Chile’s new leader.

    Pinochet was an old friend. Sands records that the two men met in the 1950s in Quito, Ecuador, where Rauff was staying, having fled an Italian prison camp at the end of the war. The men shared a contempt for communism and an affinity for German culture. Pinochet encouraged Rauff to move to Chile.

    Rauff delighted in Pinochet’s murderous regime. Sands tell us that Pinochet used Rauff’s “expertise” to help with the murder and disappearance of thousands of people. But the controversy over whether Rauff worked for the Chilean military, becoming “chief advisor” to its intelligence services, or perhaps even its “head”, remains unresolved. Definitive and provable evidence about the assistance Rauff may have given to Pinochet was never obtained.

    Holding dictators to account

    One of the many coincidences Sands stumbles upon is that Rauff lived in Punta Arenas in southern Chile on a street called “Jugoslavija”, named after the country where I was born, which disintegrated in the 1990s in a brutal civil war marked by mass atrocities and genocide.

    Former Yugoslavian and Serbian president Slobodan Milošević would become the first-ever serving head of state to be charged with international crimes and extradited to an international court.

    Milošević was extradited to The Hague in 2001 after he was indicted for war crimes committed in Kosovo and Croatia, and for genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina following an order from the Serbian government. His trial is widely hailed as a landmark moment in the development of international criminal law, though he died in his cell before his trial ended, dying “innocent” like his counterparts Pinochet and Rauff.

    Slobodan Milošević in The Hague, July 2001.
    Robert Goddyn, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    In 38 Londres Street, Sands brings to light the behind-the-scenes struggles to hold Pinochet and Rauff accountable. The book explores the intricacies and politics of international law. Despite its bitter ending, Pinochet’s case remains one of the most far reaching and important in the field of human rights. It caused other countries to reflect on their own legal immunities.

    As a researcher and academic, I found the book significant because it also offers insight into what it takes to conduct such expansive archival and qualitative research. Over several years, “in between work and life”, Sands travels to different corners of the globe and speaks to informants from all walks of life, including descendants of the perpetrators. He visits the sites of the events he recounts, most of them places marked by pain. He seeks to see and feel a past that still lingers.

    His method requires stamina, passion and unwavering diligence. His strong commitment to neutrality, decency and impartiality makes him stand out not only as a highly skilled writer, but a survivor who continues to unpack and share the legacy of the Holocaust. There is much to respect and learn from in Sands’ account, not least about the intricacies of writing a compelling story.

    Holding dictators to account is hard. Pinochet and Rauff deprived victims of the retributive justice they needed and deserved. Yet justice and reparations have many different meanings. They can be symbolic too, and still profoundly meaningful to victims. As one of the survivors of Pinochet’s regime replied to Sands when asked whether he believed his case was one of total impunity: “Not quite total […] Dawson [an island detention camp] has been recognised as a site of national memory, a protected monument, and that means something.”

    Pinochet and Rauff were never convicted, but they were not free. Pinochet spent years under house arrest, bitter and devastated, unable to walk the streets. Rauff lived in constant fear of being arrested and extradited. They were both haunted. This, after all, may have brought some satisfaction to the victims.

    Sands was once asked: “Do you believe in justice?” He replied: “Sort of.” Sands comes to understand that justice is “uneven in its delivery”. He has learned “to tamper expectations”. Maybe we all need to learn that skill from him too. Ultimately, justice remains a work-in-progress, just like the process of learning from a dark past.

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

    – ref. Getting away with it … sort of. How a dictator and a fugitive Nazi advanced international human rights law – https://theconversation.com/getting-away-with-it-sort-of-how-a-dictator-and-a-fugitive-nazi-advanced-international-human-rights-law-257241

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Grassley Recognizes C-SPAN’s Decades of Senate Coverage, Discusses Need for Public Access Across All Platforms

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) celebrated the 39th anniversary of C-SPAN 2’s first Senate broadcast on June 2, 1986. Earlier today, Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced a bipartisan resolution to celebrate C-SPAN’s historic coverage and urge all television providers, including streaming services, to carry the network.

    [embedded content]

    VIDEO

    Today is the 39th year celebration of the United States Senate being covered by C-SPAN 2. 

    I’ve come to the floor countless times since my first term in the United States Senate. beginning in 1981. It’s a privilege to represent Iowans and my home state here in the greatest deliberative body in the world.

    For more than four decades, and counting, I’ve joined my colleagues here in this chamber to debate public policy, shed light on wrongdoing and celebrate historic milestones.

    I’ve cast votes on behalf of Iowans, giving my assent or dissent to nominations and legislation on matters both foreign [and] domestic, on issues from A to Z.

    For a period of time – spanning more than 27 years – I held the longest voting streak in Senate history. My 8,927 consecutive roll call votes ended in November of 2020, when I was quarantined for exposure to COVID-19.

    My good friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, now holds the baton, as she continues her unbroken voting streak since she was sworn into office in 1997.

    During the 116th Congress and now the 119th Congress, I’m honored to serve as Senate President pro tem. From this leadership position, I open the Senate daily, lead the Pledge of Allegiance and often take the opportunity to deliver brief remarks during what we call Morning Business.

    Since 1986, every minute of the people’s business conducted here in the Senate chamber has been made available live to the public, from memorable moments – including televising 16 Supreme Court nomination debates and three presidential impeachment trials – to subjects that are often very mundane.

    Thanks to C-SPAN 2, this public service allows our constituents to see the swearing-in of newly elected members, watch all-night sessions during vote-a-ramas and tune in to history being made.

    Speaking of the historic moments, it was 39 years ago today, [on] June 2, when C-SPAN 2 started its gavel-to-gavel coverage of the United States Senate. 

    That was seven years after C-SPAN started broadcasting live coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979. At that time, I was a member of the House and appreciated C-SPAN’s mission to foster civic engagement and let the sunshine in on the people’s business.

    So, today, I wish C-SPAN 2 a happy birthday and thank those who are dedicated to its mission to bring the people’s business to the people of our country. C-SPAN does not receive one penny of taxpayer dollars. It is funded primarily from satellite and cable providers.

    Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota and I have introduced a bipartisan resolution to recognize C-SPAN 2 and the public service it provides the American people through its live, nonpartisan coverage. Our resolution calls for television providers, including streaming services, to make C-SPAN public affairs programming available to all Americans in real time on all platforms. 

    For [the] tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN.

    C-SPAN gives our constituents a front row seat to the legislative branch, providing unfiltered access to debates and deliberations that impact their lives and their livelihoods.

    C-SPAN 2 has recorded more than 43,830 hours of Senate sessions that span the spectrum of political views, policy debates and personal testimony, including more than 169,000 speeches.

    It has documented more than 23,439 roll call votes, providing a live testimonial of Senate decision-making. Its coverage helps hold elected officials accountable to our constituents who are able to see every roll call vote, as it actually happens.

    And it just so happens, on C-SPAN 2’s inaugural day on June 2, 1986, I took my turn as presiding officer during the Senate session.

    I also delivered remarks to introduce a bill on human rights and free speech issues that involved protestors outside of the then-Soviet embassy here in Washington, D.C. Thanks to C-SPAN, Americans can watch history unfold before their very eyes.

    As an advocate for civic engagement and transparency, I applaud C-SPAN’s commitment to chronicling democracy in action here in the Congress.

    In fact, for more than 20 years, I’ve pushed to allow cameras into the federal courthouses, including the Supreme Court, to foster a better understanding of the federal judiciary and its role in our system of checks and balances and in resolving legal disputes.

    Keeping C-SPAN’s cameras rolling here in Congress keeps lawmakers accountable to our constituents by providing a valuable conduit for civic engagement and civic education. As James Madison wrote in 1822, after he had been President six years before, some 35 years after he helped write the Constitution:

    “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowle[d]ge will for ever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governours, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    C-SPAN helps arm Americans with knowledge in real time in a refreshing, nonpartisan lens. In this era of civic discord and polarization, C-SPAN serves the public interest, not a partisan agenda. 

    I encourage my colleagues to support our bipartisan resolution that Sen. Klobuchar and I have introduced.

    And I’ll finish with another James Madison [quote], as he noted: an engaged and educated citizenry is necessary to advance the public good and secure the longevity of our republic.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Grassley Discusses AI Whistleblower Protection Act During “A Starting Point” Interview

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
    WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined “A Starting Point” to share details about his AI Whistleblower Protection Act.
    The legislation provides explicit whistleblower protections to those developing and deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI). Currently, some AI companies’ restrictive severance and nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) create a chilling effect on current and former employees looking to make whistleblower disclosures to the federal government, including Congress.
    Video and excerpts of Grassley’s remarks follow.

    VIDEO
    On the Importance of Whistleblowers:
    “A whistleblower can be anybody, most often in government that I deal with, but sometimes in the private sector. People that know something isn’t right, [that a] law might be violated. People might be stealing taxpayers’ money [or] taxes aren’t being paid, whatever the case might be. They think it’s not right. They may not even think of themselves as a whistleblower. I think of them as just patriotic Americans that want the government to do what the government’s supposed to do: obey the laws [and] spend the taxpayers’ money the way Congress intended.”
    On the Need for AI-Specific Whistleblower Protections:
    “I’ve had [AI] whistleblowers come to me and say that things aren’t right. They want to expose it … That’s why we need laws that would protect whistleblowers within the AI community, as we would any place in government or in the private sector …
    “My bill will explicitly protect communications of current and former AI employees making legally protected disclosure to Congress or a federal agency or to a supervisor. It seems as time goes on, AI is growing. My timely legislation will bring transparency and accountability to the artificial intelligence sector before it’s too late.”
    On Shady Non-Disclosure Agreements:
    “[These] non-disclosure statements that would say ‘you can’t talk about this,’ and it just prohibits and inhibits people that know something’s wrong coming to Congress to talk about it. It’s a violation of free speech, [and] it’s a way of covering up things that are wrong, that either people in government don’t want public, or private business wants to keep the information within the business.”
    On the Free Market System:
    “I believe in the free enterprise system. And of course, that causes me to support pro-business, pro-growth policies. I don’t see my whistleblower protection interest in any way violating that, because the government is legitimately a referee within the free enterprise system. So, all of this legislation isn’t about upending any non-disclosure agreements or ending companies’ rights to confidentiality. This is pretty simply stated as being something to ensure people who see wrongdoing can speak up without retribution before more harm is done to the public.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: On Senate Floor, Grassley Pushes Back Against Baseless Democrat Obstruction of DOJ Nominees

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
    WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling out Senate Democrats for obstructing Department of Justice (DOJ) nominees and undermining the Senate’s advice and consent role. 
    Grassley today went to the Senate floor to request unanimous passage of Patrick Davis’ nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has announced a blanket hold on all DOJ political nominees, objected to Grassley’s request. 
    Citing his reasons for objecting, Schumer claimed to have received insufficient response from DOJ regarding the Qatari jetliner gifted to the United States. Davis, as head of the DOJ OLA, would be responsible for facilitating this and all other DOJ responses to Congress. By obstructing Davis’ swift confirmation, Schumer is hamstringing his own efforts to communicate with DOJ.  
    “Obstructing [Davis’] nomination serves absolutely no one,” Grassley said on the Senate floor. “Many senators – myself included – have outstanding requests to the Justice Department that we expect answers to. I understand that some senators may complain that they haven’t received a response to their own outstanding requests. I’ve made such complaints myself over the years, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. But I don’t believe that obstructing this particular qualified nominee, who can help get the responses we need, will address their concern.”
    Schumer additionally stated that, by seeking unanimous consent on Davis’ nomination, “Republicans want the Senate to quietly rubber stamp a political nominee for the DOJ… no hearing, no debate, no scrutiny.” The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Davis’ nomination on March 26 and both debated and advanced his nomination on April 10.
    The Senate confirmed the last two heads of the DOJ OLA – Carlos Uriarte and Stephen Boyd – by voice vote. Grassley has repeatedly stressed holds should be used selectively and urged Democrats to work with Republicans to confirm nominees in a bipartisan manner. 
    Video and a transcript of Grassley’s remarks follow. 
    [embedded content]
    VIDEO
    I come to the floor today concerned that the Senate’s advice and consent role is being undermined. It’s being undermined by obstruction from Senate Democrats that threaten to keep the Justice Department from functioning as the American people expect and the American people deserve. 
    The Office of Legislative Affairs serves as the crucial bridge between the Justice Department and this Congress. This relationship is essential, not only for the legislative process but also for maintaining constitutional oversight and accountability. 
    The Office of Legislative Affairs ensures that we, as lawmakers, have the timely information needed to craft legislation, conduct oversight and fulfill our constitutional duties. When we seek answers—whether it’s on criminal justice, or immigration, or national security—it’s the Office of Legislative Affairs that takes our questions and returns the responses. This function can’t run on autopilot.
    Yet today, the Office of Legislative Affairs is hobbled. It lacks a Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General to lead that office. Why? Because Senate Democrats have decided to impede the confirmation of all Justice Department nominees without exception. That is not the constitutional role of advice and consent; that is obstruction.
    Every senator has the right to raise concerns about nominees—that’s our constitutional role, that’s our duty. And holds of specific nominees for specific reasons at times is very appropriate. It’s an appropriate tool for any senator to use. I have even used that tool, and I’ve also done it on nominees.  
    But the process demands fairness and common sense. We should weigh each nominee individually, not slam the brakes on an entire agency, especially one [responsible] for keeping Americans safe.
    So I’m here at the floor because of the nomination of Patrick Davis, [who has been] pending on the Senate calendar for now two months. This is regrettable, because he’s an exceptionally qualified nominee. And this senator should know, because he worked for this senator. 
    Mr. Davis brings a strong record of public service and a deep understanding of the legislative process, gained from his time working for me on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I’m confident he will lead the Office of Legislative Affairs with diligence, with fairness and with integrity. He should be confirmed today, and I’m here to ask my colleagues to do just that.
    Obstructing his nomination serves absolutely no one. Many senators—myself included—have outstanding requests to the Justice Department that we expect answers to. I understand that some senators may complain that they haven’t received a response to their own outstanding requests. I’ve made such complaints myself over the years, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. But I don’t believe that obstructing this particular qualified nominee, who can help get the responses we need, will address their concern.
    I also understand that some senators are unhappy with the current administration and are using [holds on] Justice Department nominees to make their displeasure known. 
    To these colleagues, I’ll simply say that the obstruction of qualified nominees to lead the Office of Legislative Affairs makes it harder for the Department of Justice to engage with Congress, and harder for Congress to do its job. This ultimately ends up hurting the American people.
    I’m asking this body to uphold a fair confirmation process so that the Justice Department can effectively engage with Congress. 
    Blocking the confirmation of Patrick Davis does not serve the Senate, it does not serve the interests of justice and it does not serve the American People.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Hammers Lutnick for Creating Waste, Inefficiency & Needless Bureaucratic Gridlock at Commerce

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WATCH: Sen. Reed warns Lutnick’s micromanagement and short-staffing of NOAA could leave states vulnerable to future disasters

    WASHINGTON, DC – In his partisan zeal to root out so-called waste, redundancy, and abuse, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is generating unprecedented bureaucratic waste and delays that are hampering the U.S. Department of Commerce’s mission, particularly at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Whistleblowers within the agency have come forward in the press to sound the alarm that Secretary Lutnick is causing bureaucratic gridlock and hindering the agency’s ability to assist local communities with preparations for extreme weather events.

    “Staff shortages and new layers of bureaucracy are suffocating NOAA and threatening its ability to accurately predict extreme weather events, ensure U.S. ports stay open and safeguard the nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries, say current and former agency officials,” according to E&E News by Politico.

    Things have gotten so bad at Commerce that even President Trump’s staunch ally U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has sounded the alarm.  Noting that NOAA has 5,700 contracts set to expire this year, Senator Cruz reported at a Congressional hearing last month that Secretary Lutnick typically reviews about two dozen contracts a week — at that pace, only 1,248 contracts would be reviewed in a year, and many of them require immediate attention and action.

    E&E News by Politico reported: “These contracts include everything from post-hurricane flood assessment to janitorial services,” Cruz said. He added that a data center at Texas A&M University was shut down for days, “depriving Texas emergency and water managers of critical drought forecasts that help them manage reservoirs and track storm surge data and hurricane forecasts in real time.”

    The report notes: “The coil around NOAA squeezes in two ways, they say. The first is personnel. More than 1,000 NOAA employees have left the agency since the start of the Trump administration, and the empty desks have led to staffing issues in key weather service offices — just as hurricane season approaches… The second issue is the slow pace of approval for outside contracts and grants… But fewer than 20 percent of outstanding grants have been approved, and more than 1,000 are in the queue with more added every day, according to a current NOAA official who was granted anonymity to speak without fear of reprisal.”

    Today, at a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) grilled Secretary Lutnick about the growing backlog of contracts that are still awaiting his sign off and how his inefficient and insufficient micromanagement tactics have slowed down the vital work of NOAA just as hurricane season is getting underway.

    “We’ve all been talking about bottlenecks, in fact, in the Department and elsewhere throughout the government. In fact, last month, Senator Cruz warned about the growing backlog of contracts awaiting approval at the Department of Commerce.  He warned that NOAA alone has 5,700 contracts set to expire this year. And it’s been reported in the press that you are insisting on personally reviewing every commerce contract over $100,000,” Reed asked.

    Secretary Lutnick admitted: “That is true.”

    Reed responded: “Well, that seems to be something that is not particularly efficient. And that results in the 5,700 contracts just in NOAA. So again, if you can’t find reliable support to do those reviews, I think you’re wasting your time, frankly.”

    To achieve costs savings and efficiently achieve its diverse missions, NOAA operations rely on a significant number of contractors.  While every Administration carefully reviews each contract to ensure it is an effective use of taxpayer dollars, what sets the Trump Administration apart is its own inefficiency and bureaucratic bottleneck that slows the reviews down to the point where the work in the contract either can’t be done or is approved at the last second and could raise costs in the long run.

    This is not a red state or blue state issue.  In addition to Senators Cruz and Reed, several other Senators – including Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK) — have raised concerns in recent months about missing or delayed funding, according to Politico.

    During the hearing, Reed pressed Lutnick about when the backlog of contract reviews would be completed and Lutnick, surprisingly, claimed there are no more NOAA contracts he needs to review:

    SEN. REED: Well, let’s go ahead and get those 5,700 contracts done. This weekend?

    SEC. LUTNICK: There are not, under any circumstances, any contracts in there. There are none.

    SEN. REED: How about this weekend?

    SEC. LUTNICK: None. 

    SEN. REED: Can you get it done this weekend? Work overtime with the gang and get it done?

    SEC. LUTNICK: There are no contracts waiting for me, and if there were, I’ll be there all night tonight, making sure they get turned out with my team, teaching my team how to do it.

    Noting that the Trump Administration has proposed drastic cuts to NOAA, slashing the agency’s annual budget from the current level of $6.1 billion down to $4.5 billion next year, and eliminating NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Reed quoted longtime NOAA researcher Craig McLean, who served as NOAA’s top scientist during the first Trump Administration, and warned that the drastic cuts Secretary Lutnick is backing would “take us back to the 1950s in terms of our scientific footing and the American people” if enacted.

    Lutnick’s claim that the National Weather Service budget would remain unimpacted is undermined by steep cuts to other areas of NOAA, such as technology, research, and satellites that would grossly undercut the agency’s climate, weather, and ocean capabilities.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: The Government of Canada outlines 2025 measures to protect Southern Resident killer whales

    Source: Government of Canada News

    The Government of Canada recognizes that Southern Resident killer whales continue to face imminent threats to their survival and recovery, and that protecting these iconic marine mammals requires comprehensive and immediate action. The 2025 management measures focus on addressing the three primary threats to Southern Resident killer whales: acoustic and physical disturbance; prey availability and accessibility; and contaminants.

    1. Acoustic and physical disturbances from vessels

    Approach distance

    Vessels must stay at least 400 metres away and must not impede the path of all killer whales year-round in Southern British Columbia coastal waters between Campbell River to just north of Ucluelet. Commercial whale-watching and ecotourism companies who receive an authorization from the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade will be able to view non-Southern Resident killer whales (such as transient (Biggs) killer whales) from 200 metres, given their expertise in identifying different types of killer whales.

    If a vessel finds itself within 400 metres of a killer whale, they are asked to turn off fish finders and echo sounders and put the engine in neutral when safe to do so to allow animals to pass.

    If a vessel is within 1,000 metres of a killer whale, they are asked to reduce speed to less than seven knots when safe to do so to lessen engine noise and vessel wake.

    To address imminent threats to Southern Resident killer whale survival and the Government of Canada’s commitment to develop longer-term actions for the recovery of Southern Resident killer whales, Fisheries and Oceans Canada proposes to increase the approach distance to 1,000 metres for Southern Resident killer whales through amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act. The process for amending the Marine Mammal Regulations remains ongoing. The exact scope and implementation of any regulatory measures will be informed by future consultations with directly affected First Nations, Wildlife Management Boards, stakeholders, and other affected parties upon publication of the draft regulation in the Canada Gazette, Part 1. The consultations are intended to seek feedback on the scope of these measures and identify and mitigate, to the extent possible, potential impacts.

    Speed restricted zones

    The 2025 measures continue the mandatory speed restricted zones near Swiftsure Bank, co-developed with the Pacheedaht First Nation.

    • From June 1 until November 30, 2025, all vessels must slow down to a maximum of 10 knots over ground in two speed restricted zones near Swiftsure Bank. The first area is in the Protected Fisheries Management Area 121-1 and the second speed restricted zone is located near the mouth of the Nitinat River from Carmanah Point to Longitude 125 degrees west.
    • Exemptions are in place for the following:
      • vessels in distress or providing assistance to a vessel or person in distress
      • vessels avoiding immediate or unforeseen danger
      • government or law enforcement on official business
      • permitted research if the research requires higher speed; and
      • a sailing vessel proceeding under sail and not being propelled by machinery
    • While the mandatory speed restricted zones and the voluntary slowdowns coordinated by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s Enhancing Cetacean and Habitat Observation (ECHO) Program both cover known foraging areas at or near Swiftsure Bank, they are separate measures from each other and take place in different locations. The ECHO Program slowdown at Swiftsure Bank is a voluntary ship slowdown which takes effect across 23 nautical miles in both the outbound and inbound lanes at Swiftsure Bank.

    Vessel restricted zones (Formerly Interim sanctuary zones)

    Formerly known as Interim Sanctuary Zones, Vessel Restricted Zones create spaces of refuge for the whales. The location of these zones is based on scientific and Indigenous knowledge of historically important foraging areas for Southern Resident killer whales.

    • From June 1 until November 30, 2025, no vessel traffic or fishing activity is allowed in vessel restricted zones off the southwest coast of South Pender Island and the southeast end of Saturna Island. Exceptions will be allowed for emergency situations and vessels engaged in Indigenous food, social, and ceremonial fisheries.
    • To ensure the safety of those operating human-powered vessels, a 20-metre corridor next to shore will allow kayakers and other paddlers to transit through these zones. If a killer whale is in the sanctuary at the time, paddlers must remain 400 metres away from the whales.

    Voluntary speed reduction zone

    In 2025, Transport Canada is continuing with a voluntary speed reduction zone in Tumbo Channel, in effect once again from June 1 to November 30, 2025. When travelling through this area, it is recommended that vessels reduce their speed to 10 knots, when safe to do so.

    2. Prey availability

    Chinook, chum and coho salmon are an essential part of the Southern Resident killer whale diet. Last year’s process developed and consulted on salmon fisheries management measures for both 2024 and 2025, which were announced on June 3, 2024.

    To address the limited availability of prey, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is continuing a combination of fishing restrictions in key foraging areas within their critical habitat, along with voluntary measures coastwide. These measures will reduce disturbance and competition for salmon between fish harvesters and killer whales. Opportunities will be available for non-salmon related recreational and commercial fisheries, for Indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvest as well as Treaty-defined fishing access.

    For 2025, the following measures will help protect the whales’ access to salmon and minimize disturbance in key foraging areas:

    • Area-based closures in Southern Resident killer whale key foraging areas for recreational and commercial salmon fisheries:
      • around the Strait of Juan de Fuca (portions of Subareas 20-4 and 20-5) in effect from August 1 until October 31
      • Swiftsure Bank (portions of Subareas 20-1, 21-0, 121-1 and 121-2) in effect from July 15 until October 31
      • around the mouth of the Fraser River (a portion of Subarea 29-3) from August 1 to September 30
    • The Southern Gulf Islands area-based closures (Subarea 18-9 and portions of 18-2, 18-4 and 18-5) will be in effect as early as May 1, based on confirmed presence of Southern Resident killer whales. These closures will be in place until November 30, 2025.
    • All fishers are encouraged to temporarily cease fishing activities (e.g., do not haul in gear where appropriate) when killer whales are within 1,000 metres. This voluntary measure is in place year-round throughout Canadian Pacific waters.

    To address the ongoing imminent threats to Southern Resident killer whale survival and recovery, proposed adjustments to the Southern Resident killer whale commercial and recreational salmon fishing closures are being considered and consulted on for 2025 and or 2026 under the Fisheries Act to address the threat of reduced prey availability. The exact scope and implementation of any regulatory measures will be informed by consultations with directly affected First Nations, Wildlife Management Boards, industry stakeholders, and other affected parties. The consultations are intended to seek feedback on the scope of these measures and identify and mitigate, to the extent possible, potential impacts.

     

    Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation Program (ECHO)

    For the ninth year in a row, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority-led Enhancing Cetacean and Habitat Observation (ECHO) Program will coordinate large-scale threat reduction measures to support the recovery of endangered southern resident killer whales. These measures will include a ship slowdown in Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and Swiftsure Bank, and a route alteration in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Full details of the ECHO Program’s voluntary measures, including dates, target slowdown speeds and location coordinates, are available on the ECHO Program’s website (www.portvancouver.com/echo).

    3. Contaminants

    Considering the persistence of many contaminants in the environment, the Government of Canada and its partners continue to progress on long-term actions to support Southern Resident killer whale recovery in the following areas:

    The Government of Canada has also developed and updated the online Pollutants Affecting Whales and their Prey Inventory Tool, which maps estimates of pollutant releases within the habitats of Southern Resident killer whales and their primary prey, Chinook salmon. This tool will help model the impacts of additional mitigation measures and controls.

    To better understand the threat of contaminants and to provide input into government action, the Government of Canada leads a technical working group focused on contaminants in the environment. This group is comprised of key partners from all orders of government, academia and non-governmental organizations and:

    • has identified priority contaminants of concern;
    • has provided recommendations for the long-term actions to support Southern Resident killer whale recovery; and
    • conducts important monitoring and research, to identify contaminant exposures to Southern Resident killer whales, their habitat and their prey.

    In addition, the group continues to recommend and develop environmental quality guidelines for the protection of Southern Resident killer whales and their prey and compares them with monitoring data to identify areas of potential risk for further action.

    Compliance with management measures depends on public awareness. The Government of Canada continues to collaborate with educational organizations, environmental groups, Indigenous partners, and government bodies to raise awareness of the Southern Resident killer whale protection measures through public education and outreach efforts. For further information, please see Whales and contaminants – Canada.ca and how Canada is reducing the threat of contaminants to Southern Resident Killer Whales – Canada.ca.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI: SPEC Resumes Global Collaboration with Companies on U.S. BIS Entity List

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    GAINESVILLE, Va., June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. (SPEC), the trusted leader in computing benchmarks, announced today that SPEC International Standards Group (ISG) successfully advocated that the United States clarify export policies to allow companies on the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List to participate in creating standards. SPEC ISG invites the return of member companies excluded from collaborating due to policy reasons, bringing together the strength of industry, academia, and research from all over the world to cooperate on future computing energy efficiency standards.

    A few years ago, in order to ensure the safe application of 5G technology, the US government stipulated that US agencies should not cooperate with companies on the BIS Entity List. This ban was never intended to restrict the development of global standards. However, due to the overly strict definition of the term “standard” in the original exemption clause of BIS, the SPEC SERT suite was classified as a restricted technology, which prevented SPEC (an international standards organization with 12 Chinese member companies) from continuing to develop standards with its members on the Entity List.

    Harmonized standards are best suited to consistent design and regulatory requirements, resulting in significant cost reduction for manufacturers to meet additional benchmark requirements worldwide.

    SPEC President David Reiner said: “Restricting companies on the Entity List from participating in the development of energy efficiency benchmarks risks dividing the global standards process, negating the primary goal of standardization. Through years of hard work, in collaboration with other international organizations, we are pleased to have successfully promoted changes to U.S. policies to remove the unintended restrictions on the development of international standardized benchmarks.”

    SPEC successfully advocated changes to U.S. rules

    In 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s BIS changed its rules to allow U.S. companies to work in standards organizations to ensure U.S. proposals take full account of international standards that underlie product development and interoperability. While this was an important milestone, the change did not allow SPEC to invite Entity List businesses that were among its former members to re-join, nor to invite other entities on the Entity List to join. In response, SPEC took a series of actions to advocate for the revision of relevant U.S. laws and to promote international technology exchanges and innovation. As part of these efforts, SPEC created the International Standards Group (ISG), specifically designed to comply with the updated BIS requirements and provide a clear separation between SPEC’s international standards work and other SPEC projects.

    As a result of SPEC’s successful efforts, BIS improved regulations in late 2022. Under the final regulations, organizations on the BIS Entity List are no longer restricted from licensing, obtaining updates, or participating in the development of the SPEC SERT Suite within the SPEC ISG. These standards development activities related to the implementation, promulgation, or maintenance of the ISO/IEC 21836:2020 standard qualify for the BIS updated standards-related activities exemption. As a result, BIS listed entities are now able to obtain SPEC SERT Suite licenses, updates, and membership status in the SPEC ISG Server Efficiency Committee.

    The return of excluded members is critical because it will enable SPEC to continue to promote effective global standardized benchmarks and apply them to government energy efficiency regulations. The successful adoption of SPEC SERT suites by government regulations such as China National Institute of Standardization, EU Lot9 Ecodesign, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the U.S. EPA Energy Star is critical to SPEC’s efforts to promote sustainable technology development around the world. For example, computer servers that are ENERGY STAR certified are, on average, about 38% more energy efficient than standard servers. This means that if all computer servers sold in the United States were ENERGY STAR certified, end users would save more than $4 billion per year.

    The next-generation energy efficiency rating tool is currently under development by the SPEC ISG Server Committee, which includes representatives from Ampere, AMD, Dell, HPE, IBM, Intel, IEIT, Microsoft, Nvidia, and the University of Würzburg. The SERT 3 Suite utilizes the SPECpower Committee’s innovative modular architecture, allowing streamlined integration of the latest versions of the Chauffeur benchmark harness and the PTDaemon Interface, which are also utilized by other SPEC benchmarks. This modular design reduces the time required for developing future workloads, adding new architectures, and supporting new power analyzers and temperature sensors.

    Klaus-Dieter Lange, Chair of SPEC ISG, said: “We are pleased that SPEC was able to successfully work with the U.S. Department of Commerce to find a solution to this critical issue. We welcome the world’s innovative companies to join in the development of the next-generation SPEC SERT Suite, which will enable governments and businesses to more effectively achieve sustainable development and carbon emission reduction goals.”

    About SPEC
    SPEC is a non-profit organization that establishes, maintains and endorses standardized benchmarks and tools to evaluate performance for the newest generation of computing systems. Its membership comprises more than 120 leading computer hardware and software vendors, educational institutions, research organizations and government agencies worldwide.

    Media contact:
    Brigit Valencia
    360.597.4516
    brigit@compel-pr.com

    Images available upon request.

    SPEC® and SERT® are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. All other product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: The Governments of Canada and Manitoba match Red Cross donations to help those impacted by wildfires

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    June 4, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario

    Today, the Governments of Canada and Manitoba announced that they will both match every dollar donated to the Canadian Red Cross 2025 Manitoba Wildfires Appeal to support wildfire disaster relief and recovery efforts across Manitoba.

    Donation matching will be open for 30 days, retroactive to when each appeal first opened on May 28.

    Through this initiative, the provincial government will match donations up to $15 million.

    The funds raised will be used to assist those impacted in Manitoba with immediate relief, including financial assistance, support to evacuees and the communities hosting them, as a result of the wildfires in Manitoba.

    Thousands of Manitobans have been displaced as wildfires continue to threaten communities across the province. In response, the Canadian Red Cross is working closely with Indigenous leadership and all levels of government to provide emergency accommodations, personal services, and critical information to people who have been forced from their homes.

    The Governments of Canada and Manitoba are committed to continue doing everything they can to support all those affected.

    Canadians wishing to make a financial donation to help those impacted by wildfires in Manitoba or Saskatchewan can do so online at www.redcross.ca or by calling 1-800-418-1111.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Government of Canada announces 2025 measures to protect Southern Resident killer whales

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    June 4, 2025            British Columbia, Canada                            

    The government is acting to protect Canada’s nature, biodiversity and water. Southern Resident killer whales are iconic to Canada’s Pacific coast and hold deep cultural significance for Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities in British Columbia.  

    That’s why today, the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Fisheries, the Honourable Joanne Thompson, and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, announced measures to protect Southern Resident killer whales on the west coast.

    These measures will primarily address acoustic and physical disturbance to Southern Resident killer whales from recreational, fishing, and whale watching vessels.

    The 2025 vessel and fishery measures include: 

    • Two mandatory speed restricted zones near Swiftsure Bank, effective June 1 to November 30, 2025.
    • Two vessel restricted zones off Pender and Saturna Islands, effective June 1 to November 30, 2025.
    • The continued requirement for vessels to stay at least 400 metres away from all killer whales, and a prohibition from impeding the path of all killer whales in Southern British Columbia coastal waters between Campbell River and Ucluelet, including Barkley and Howe Sound. This is now in effect until May 31, 2026.
    • A voluntary speed reduction zone in Tumbo Channel, off the North side of Saturna Island, effective June 1 to November 30, 2025.
    • An agreement with authorized local whale watching and ecotourism industry partners to abstain from offering or promoting tours viewing Southern Resident killer whales.
    • Fishery closures for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in key Southern Resident killer whale foraging areas.  
    • Continued actions to reduce contaminants in the environment affecting whales and their prey, including developing tools to track pollutants and their sources and monitoring contaminants in air, freshwater, sediments, and wastewater.

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada proposes to increase the approach distance to 1,000 metres for Southern Resident killer whales through amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act.

    The federal government will continue its ongoing efforts and long-term actions alongside all partners, including First Nations, stakeholders, and the marine and tourism industries to support the protection and recovery of the Southern Resident killer whale population.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: In with the old: architects, planners, builders and academics unite in push for reuse over redevelopment

    Source:

    05 June 2025

    UniSA’s Enterprise Hub is a state-of-the-art enterprise and innovation facility within an original heritage building

    Architects, builders, academics and regulators are calling for a major shift in Australia’s building policies, claiming these are based on a narrow view of environmental costs and false economies that downplay the real costs of new builds – and the environment is paying the price.

    The consortium comprises representatives across Australia’s property sector, including developers, architects, industry bodies, environmental and heritage consultants, government and researchers. The group gathered last month at Hames Sharley architects’ Adelaide office, to work through the challenges holding back the sustainable re-use of buildings and agree on a framework to progress building adaptation for housing and other purposes.

    A total of 24 recommendations were developed, including:  

    • Adapting and reusing existing buildings must be the first option before considering redevelopment – across housing, community and commercial functions.
    • Government should lead by adapting building policies to prioritise sufficiency and adaptive building reuse, and should lead through its own accommodation choices.
    • A database of vacant precincts, buildings and land must be established to identify opportunities for adaptive reuse and redirect investment.
    • Building policy must change to recognise embodied carbon saved by reuse rather than demolition and rebuild – and better balance this with the energy efficiencies of new builds.
    • Economic incentives such as tax relief and reduced charges are vital to recognise the environmental savings from reusing existing buildings and make adaptive reuse viable.

    The University of South Australia co-hosted the workshop in partnership with Hames Sharley, also involving the City of Adelaide and University of Adelaide.

    Professor David Ness, from UniSA’s Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure and Resource Management (SIRM) and co-founder of World Sufficiency Lab, Paris, has long advocated for recognising the environmental savings resulting from adaptive reuse of buildings,

    He points out that “while new builds are lauded for their energy efficiencies, large amounts of carbon are ‘embodied’ in their materials and construction while they consume excessive water and other natural resources. This can be greatly reduced by adapting vacant and underutilised existing buildings, which otherwise go to waste.”

    “The building industry represents around a third of global carbon emissions, yet we’re seeing more and bigger builds by default. This seems far out of step with EU countries such as France and Denmark, where attention is focussed on making better use of existing space.

    “It’s therefore critical that our policy settings prioritise building retention, retrofit and reuse ‑ instead of new builds.”

    Hames Sharley Associate Director and Head of its National Sustainability Forum, Yaara Plaves, says bringing key stakeholders together is vital to address cross-sector issues.

    “In any field where complex, systemic challenges resist straightforward solutions, siloed expertise creates blind spots and biases,” Plaves says. “Addressing these through a community of practice model that brings participants together cultivates learning and mutual trust – and is essential to bring about sustainable, demonstratable solutions.”  

    Supported by the Australian-French Association for Research and Innovation (AFRAN), the workshop involved sharing learnings from France’s innovative policies and initiatives, including the concept of ‘Sufficiency’ which is now enshrined in French Energy Law and reflected in more holistic policies on carbon mitigation.

    The recommendations will be shared with South Australian policy makers, and a bilateral partnership with France explored through a proposed Adelaide University-based ‘Australian Sufficiency Lab’, which would become a national centre for sufficiency and adaptive reuse across multiple sectors.

    The recommendations were developed by representatives from the below entities:

    ARUP

    Future Urban

    RPS Engineering

    ARCHI

    Greenaway Consulting

    Renewal SA

    Australian Institute of Architects

    Heritage South Australia

    Sarah Constructions

    Built Australia

    Hames Sharley

    SA Dept of Infrastructure & Transport

    City of Adelaide

    Lendlease

    State Planning Commission

    Cohen Group

    Les Moore Projects

    University of Adelaide

    FORUM

    Pelligra

    University of South Australia

    Participant quotes:

    Professor Jane Burry, Chair, Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Adelaide: “The session provided a great springboard to go forward.”

    Les Moore, Les Moore Projects: “With the right ‘can-do’ mindset we can achieve extraordinary outcomes.”

    About Hames Sharley:

    Hames Sharley is a research-led design practice with a large community of designers and collaborators. We identify knowledge gaps and, through our practice-based research, we hunt for answers to influence a better built environment. Our research projects are broad and include areas such as understanding the impact of noise in ICU and designing for sensory comfort in workplace settings. 

    About UniSA:

    The University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide are joining forces to become Australia’s new major university – Adelaide University. Building on the strengths, legacies and resources of two leading universities, Adelaide University will deliver globally relevant research at scale, innovative, industry-informed teaching and an outstanding student experience. Adelaide University will open its doors in January 2026. Find out more on the Adelaide University website.

     

    Media contacts:

    Interviews: Professor David Ness M: +61 401 122 651 E: david.ness@unisa.edu.au

    Megan Andrews M: +61 434 819 275 E: megan.andrews@unisa.edu.au

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: World Environment Day: Join Samsung Care for Clean India to Repair, Recycle, and Reduce E-Waste

    Source: Samsung

     
    Every year, the world observes World Environment Day with a shared resolve to protect our planet. At Samsung, we believe this day is more than a date on the calendar—it’s a call to action. One of the most urgent yet often overlooked environmental challenges of our time is electronic waste (e-waste).
     
    Sustainability Begins with Awareness and Action
    At Samsung, sustainability is not just a goal, but a responsibility. We are committed to raising awareness about the environmental impact of e-waste and empowering people with simple yet powerful actions that make a difference.
     
    Through our Samsung Care for Clean India initiative, we are creating a circular ecosystem for responsible e-waste management. We collect discarded electronics and ensure they are disposed of through government-authorized recyclers—safely, ethically, and sustainably.
     
    Repair, Don’t Replace: A Smart, Responsible Choice
    This year, we are going one step further. We are not just asking people to recycle, but to rethink how we consume.
     
    One simple yet impactful choice is opting for mobile screen repair instead of replacing the entire device. Our screen repair services are designed with sustainability at their core: they reduce the need for new raw materials, extend your device’s usage, and reduce the amount of e-waste generated.
     
    See how screen repair is a responsible choice – Watch the video
     

     
    When you choose to repair, you’re not just saving money—you’re reducing e-waste.
     
    This World Environment Day, Be Part of the Solution
     
    Every small action counts. Whether it’s repairing a cracked screen, recycling an old phone, or spreading the word—your choices matter.
     
    Here’s a message from your old electronics – Watch the video
     

     
    This World Environment Day, we invite you to join us in building a cleaner, more sustainable future. Let’s pledge to reduce e-waste, support responsible consumption, and care for the only planet we call home.
     
    Together, we can turn awareness into action—and action into lasting impact.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Restricting The Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    class=”has-text-align-center”>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
    During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld.  In Executive Order 14161 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), I stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes. 
    I also stated that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.  More importantly, the United States must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States.  The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.
    I directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f).  After completing that process, the Secretary of State determined that a number of countries remain deficient with regards to screening and vetting.  Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals. 
    As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people.  I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks.  Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety.
    Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts.  Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts.  But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations.  I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation.
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.  I therefore hereby proclaim the following:
    Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other national security or public-safety threats.  Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy.  These protocols enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat, and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the United States.
    (b)  Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States.  Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information.  It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share their identity and threat information with the immigration screening and vetting systems of the United States.
    (c)  Section 2(b) of Executive Order 14161 directed the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, within 60 days of the date of that order, to jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, a report identifying countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)).
    (d)  On April 9, 2025, the Secretary of State, with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, presented the report described in subsection (c) of this section, recommending that entry restrictions and limitations be placed on foreign nationals of several countries.  The report identified countries for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full suspension of admissions and countries that warrant a partial suspension of admission.
    (e)  In evaluating the recommendations from the Secretary of State and in determining what restrictions to impose for each country, I consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, appropriate Assistants to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  I considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals.  And I further considered various factors, including each country’s screening and vetting capabilities, information sharing policies, and country-specific risk factors — including whether each country has a significant terrorist presence within its territory, its visa-overstay rate, and its cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals. 
    I also considered the different risks posed by aliens admitted on immigrant visas and those admitted on nonimmigrant visas.  Persons admitted on immigrant visas become lawful permanent residents of the United States.  Such persons may present national security or public-safety concerns that may be distinct from those admitted as nonimmigrants.  The United States affords lawful permanent residents more enduring rights than it does to nonimmigrants.  Lawful permanent residents are more difficult to remove than nonimmigrants, even after national security concerns arise, which increases the costs and aggravates the dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals.  And although immigrants are generally subject to more extensive vetting than nonimmigrants, such vetting is far less reliable when the country from which someone seeks to emigrate maintains inadequate identity-management or information-sharing policies or otherwise poses risks to the national security of the United States.
    I reviewed these factors and assessed these goals, with a particular focus on crafting country-specific restrictions.  This approach was designed to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances.  The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are, in my judgment, necessary to prevent the entry or admission of foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United States.  The restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation are necessary to garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.
    (f)  After reviewing the report described in subsection (d) of this section, and after accounting for the foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives of the United States, I have determined to fully restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 12 countries:  Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.  These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants.
    (g)  I have determined to partially restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 7 countries:  Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.  These restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants. 
    (h)  Sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation describe some of the identity-management or information-sharing inadequacies that led me to impose restrictions.  These inadequacies are sufficient to justify my finding that unrestricted entry of nationals from the named countries would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  Publicly disclosing additional details on which I relied in making these determinations, however, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States, and many such details are classified.
    Sec. 2.  Full Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.  The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to the categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers described in section 5 of this proclamation:
    (a)  Afghanistan
    (i)   The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan.  Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Afghanistan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (b)  Burma
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent.  Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Burma as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (c)  Chad
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent.  According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent.  The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws.  
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (d)  Republic of the Congo
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of the Republic of the Congo as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (e)  Equatorial Guinea
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Equatorial Guinea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (f)  Eritrea
    (i)   The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea.  Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals.  Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Eritrea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (g)  Haiti
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent.  Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.  This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats.  As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (h)  Iran
    (i)   Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.
    (i)  Libya
    (i)   There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya.  The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (j)  Somalia
    (i)   Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects.  A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory.  The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven.  Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations.  Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States.  The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement.  Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (k)  Sudan
    (i)   Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent. 
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Sudan as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    (l)  Yemen
    (i)   Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  The government does not have physical control over its own territory.  Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active United States military operations.
    (ii)  The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby fully suspended.
    Sec. 3.  Partial Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.
    (a)  Burundi
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Burundi as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Burundi to the extent permitted by law.
    (b)  Cuba
    (i)    Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States.  Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Cuba to the extent permitted by law.
    (c)  Laos
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent.  Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Laos as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Laos to the extent permitted by law.
    (d)  Sierra Leone
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent.  Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Sierra Leone as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Sierra Leone to the extent permitted by law.
    (e)  Togo
    (i)    According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Togo as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Togo to the extent permitted by law.
    (f)  Turkmenistan
    (i)   According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent. 
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Turkmenistan as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Turkmenistan to the extent permitted by law.
    (g)  Venezuela
    (i)    Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.
    (ii)   The entry into the United States of nationals of Venezuela as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B‑1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended.
    (iii)  Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of Venezuela to the extent permitted by law.
    Sec. 4.  Scope and Implementation of Suspensions and Limitations.  (a)  Scope.  Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any exceptions made pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the suspensions of and limitations on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:
    (i)   are outside the United States on the applicable effective date of this proclamation; and
    (ii)  do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date of this proclamation.
    (b)  Exceptions.  The suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation shall not apply to:
    (i)     any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
    (ii)    any dual national of a country designated under sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a country not so designated;
    (iii)   any foreign national traveling with a valid nonimmigrant visa in the following classifications:  A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6;
    (iv)    any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State;
    (v)     immediate family immigrant visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5) with clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g., DNA);
    (vi)    adoptions (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4);
    (vii)   Afghan Special Immigrant Visas;
    (viii)  Special Immigrant Visas for United States Government employees; and
    (ix)    immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
    (c)  Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made for certain individuals for whom the Attorney General finds, in her discretion, that the travel by the individual would advance a critical United States national interest involving the Department of Justice, including when individuals must be present to participate in criminal proceedings as witnesses.  These exceptions shall be made only by the Attorney General, or her designee, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    (d)  Exceptions to the suspension of and limitation on entry pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation may be made case-by-case for individuals for whom the Secretary of State finds, in his discretion, that the travel by the individual would serve a United States national interest.  These exceptions shall be made by only the Secretary of State or his designee, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee.
    Sec. 5.  Adjustments to and Removal of Suspensions and Limitations.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director for National Intelligence, devise a process to assess whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented.  Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, describing his assessment and recommending whether any suspensions and limitations imposed by sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented.
    (b)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately engage each of the countries identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation on measures that must be taken to comply with United States screening, vetting, immigration, and security requirements.
    (c)  Additionally, and in light of recent events, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide me an update to the review of the practices and procedures of Egypt to confirm the adequacy of its current screening and vetting capabilities.
    Sec. 6.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of this proclamation.
    (b)  In implementing this proclamation, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
    (c)  No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.
    (d)  This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CAT).  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT, consistent with the laws of the United States.
    Sec. 7.  Severability.  It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, foreign policy, and counterterrorism interests of the United States.  Accordingly:
    (a)  if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
    (b)  if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.
    Sec. 8.  Effective Date.  This proclamation is effective at 12:01 am eastern daylight time on June 9, 2025.
    Sec. 9.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty‑five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand, Markey Slam Republican Plan To Rescind Over $1 Billion In Federal Funding For The Corporation For Public Broadcasting

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand

    Today, U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Ed Markey led a group of 29 senators in slamming a Republican attempt to rescind $1.07 billion in already-allocated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds local public broadcasting stations across the country.  The $1.07 billion represents 100% of CPB’s funding through September 2027. This move follows President Trump’s executive order directing cuts to federal funding for PBS and NPR.  

    “Following the White House’s request to rescind $1.07 billion in federal funding for CPB, we write to express our strong opposition to any rescission of funding for public broadcasting and prohibitions of direct and indirect funding to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio,” wrote the senators. “This funding is essential to the functioning of the public media system and the communities they serve, and any cuts in funding would have detrimental effects on local stations, which rely on this funding to provide critical services to millions of Americans across the country. Public broadcasting is an essential service that should be protected, not decimated. For this reason, we request that you prioritize maintaining and continuing funding for CPB.”

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports over 1,500 local public television and radio stations that provide free, high-quality programming to millions of households across America. It provides young children who don’t get the chance to attend preschool with educational content that helps them learn to read; airs highly trusted nightly news programming; and shares critical public safety information during emergencies. Local public television stations also provide extensive coverage of local government and elections and host candidate debates, helping Americans stay connected with their elected leaders. Because public television and radio relies heavily on federal funding to operate, particularly in rural communities, losing this funding would force many of these stations to reduce much of their programming or, in some cases, close their doors.

    In addition to Senators Gillibrand and Markey, the letter was also signed by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).  

    The full text of the letter is available here or below:  

    Dear Majority Leader Thune,

    Federal investment in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) supports over 1,500 local and regional public television and radio stations that provide free, high-quality programming to millions of households across the country. Following the White House’s request to rescind $1.07 billion in federal funding for CPB, we write to express our strong opposition to any rescission of funding for public broadcasting and prohibitions of direct and indirect funding to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, as outlined in the Executive Order titled, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” released on May 1, 2025. This funding is essential to the functioning of the public media system and the communities they serve, and any cuts in funding would have detrimental effects on local stations, which rely on this funding to provide critical services to millions of Americans across the country.

    Our public broadcasting system is a unique American institution that is deeply embedded in our communities and a critical source of lifesaving public safety services, accurate information, and educational programming. The vast majority of the federal funding CPB receives is allocated to local radio and television stations across the country. These cuts will have an immediate and significant impact for stations in rural communities that heavily rely on CPB funding to provide critical services and could likely result in the elimination of programming or outright closure of stations in areas already faced with limited connectivity.

    According to Northwestern University, 55 million people in the United States have no or only one source of local news, and rural counties are far more likely to lose their local news outlets. This number could increase if the two-year advance appropriation for public media is not upheld, resulting in the drastic reduction or complete elimination of free, high-quality local programming. This is especially concerning given the importance of public broadcasting during public emergencies, such as natural disasters, transportation accidents, national security threats, or public safety matters. CPB funds are essential to ensuring that the broadcast infrastructure remains robust and operational in disaster situations, especially scenarios in which local public broadcasters serve as the only source of information for those who need a lifeline. Any cuts in funding will have drastic consequences for communities in need.

    And there is much more to their public safety services in addition to the critical local information they broadcast. Public television’s interconnection technology, which connects local public television stations to PBS, is also one of the backbone pathways for the delivery of our nation’s Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) services – enabling cell phone subscribers to receive geotargeted emergency text alerts no matter where they are in the country. A cut to public broadcasting funding would put this lifesaving service and its nationwide footprint at risk.

    Public television has also pioneered cutting edge technology that helps first responders communicate with each other over the broadcast spectrum without the need for mobile service or broadband. This datacasting technology and public television’s public safety partnerships is already helping with early earthquake warning and has been proven effective in a wide range of scenarios where broadband or cellular service are limited, including rural search and rescue, overwater communications, large event crowd control and more. But this is only possible if stations serving rural and remote areas with limited broadband are healthy and continue operating as they are today.

    On the education front, public television’s early childhood education services ensure that every family has access to high-quality, non-commercial educational content regardless of their ability to pay for such services. This is essential for over 50 percent of three and four-year old children who do not attend formal preschool.

    If funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is eliminated or rescinded, the impact would be devastating. Millions of people across the country whose stations rely on CPB funding for a significant percentage of their budget would be at risk of losing access to public television’s services. These are services that nobody else in the media world is providing, but it’s exactly the work for which public broadcasting was created, and they are delivering to our communities every day.  

    Public broadcasting is an essential service that should be protected, not decimated. For this reason, we request that you prioritize maintaining and continuing funding for CPB.

    We appreciate your consideration of this request and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Coons, Whitehouse, colleagues demand answers from Justice Dept. on decision to shutter specialized unit for cracking down on global drug crime

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and several of their colleagues sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi questioning the Department of Justice’s plan to end the successful Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program. 

    “As the Department’s website notes, OCDETF ‘is the centerpiece of the Attorney General’s strategy to combat transnational-organized crime and to reduce the availability of illicit narcotics in the nation.’ OCDETF oversees coordination of thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to implement a national strategy to dismantle transnational drug cartels, the financial networks that support them, and the flow of drugs from these cartels into the United States,” wrote the senators.

    The OCDETF program is the largest anti-crime task force in the country. In just the past two months, OCDETF resources have been used to secure prison sentences for two individuals operating a clandestine fentanyl lab in South Carolina and to take down three prolific Chinese money launderers who have pled guilty to laundering tens of millions of dollars in drug proceeds. Many OCDETF investigations target the cartels’ financial networks, an often-overlooked component of the U.S. strategy to combat drug-trafficking organizations. In Fiscal Year 2023, OCDETF investigations resulted in forfeitures and seizures totaling more than $423 million. 

    Reporting from Bloomberg revealed that the Trump administration plans to eliminate the OCDETF program, including its support for specialized investigators and prosecutors. Such a decision would kneecap America’s ability to dismantle cartels trafficking illicit fentanyl.

    “We seek to fully understand the Department’s plans to cease OCDETF operations. We also seek to ensure that the federal government continues to have a coordinated strategy for working with state and local stakeholders to investigate and hold accountable transnational criminal organizations operating in, or financing the operations of organizations that operate in, the United States,” added the senators.

    The senators requested answers to the following questions by June 13, 2025:

    1. How many cases has OCDETF led, or supported with funds, intelligence, or other resources, that disrupted fentanyl traffickers’ production, distribution, financing, or money laundering networks?
    2. Does the Department intend to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations?  If so, please specify how. 
    3. If the Department intends to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations:
      1. Why is the department choosing to cease or significantly reduce OCDETF operations?
      2. How will the department ensure that ongoing OCDETF investigations and prosecutions continue uninterrupted?
      3. According to GAO, “OCDETF cases must have a financial component” to facilitate the targeting of financial networks underpinning drug trafficking organizations. How will the Department ensure that OCDETF-enabled inter-agency coordination on investigations into the financial networks of fentanyl traffickers and transnational criminal organizations continues uninterrupted?
      4. How will the department ensure that federal, state, and local law enforcement relying on OCDETF’s Fusion Center intelligence products are not hampered by a cessation or reduction of OCDETF operations? 
      5. Does the department intend to designate another entity to coordinate investigations and prosecutions of transnational criminal organizations, unrelated to low-level offenders?  If so, which entity?

    In addition to Senators Coons and Whitehouse, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

    The text of the letter is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: James Altucher: “America Just Hit the AI Reset Button”

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    BALTIMORE, June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a new briefing, tech entrepreneur and bestselling author James Altucher reveals a development he says will “change America forever.”

    At the center of it is Project Colossus — a classified supercomputer initiative led by Elon Musk’s xAI — and backed by sweeping support from President Donald Trump.

    A Presidential Reversal with Massive Implications

    Altucher says the shift began with one of Trump’s first presidential actions in 2025.

    “In one of his FIRST acts as President… Donald Trump overturned Executive Order #14110.”

    This decision reversed Biden-era restrictions on AI research, which Altucher claims had “prevented us from unleashing its true power.”

    “Trump also announced the LARGEST AI investment in history… Stargate… a massive, AI data center and infrastructure project.”

    Hidden Inside a Warehouse in Memphis

    Altucher’s report reveals a facility in Tennessee that, until now, has gone largely unnoticed.

    “Right here, inside this warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee… lies a massive supercomputer Musk calls ‘Project Colossus.’”

    “It contains not just one or two… but 200,000 units of Nvidia’s all-powerful AI chips… making it the most advanced AI facility known to man.”

    “The fastest supercomputer on the planet.” — Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO

    July 1: “When It All Changes”

    According to Altucher, time is short. A critical update to Colossus is imminent.

    “That’s when I predict Elon could announce a major update to this new AI project. One that some say will essentially 10X its power – overnight.”

    Altucher refers to this moment as a “second wave” of AI — what he calls:

    “Artificial Superintelligence.”

    “This second wave… will rival all of the great innovations of the past. Electricity… the wheel… even the discovery of fire.”

    A Warning… and a Milestone

    Altucher closes his briefing with a quote from Vladimir Putin to stress the stakes:

    “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” — Vladimir Putin

    He believes Project Colossus may determine whether America leads — or falls behind — in the AI race.

    About James Altucher

    James Altucher is a computer scientist, entrepreneur, and bestselling author. A pioneer in AI since the 1980s, he previously worked on IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer and developed early AI trading systems on Wall Street. His latest research uncovers critical breakthroughs in AI infrastructure and the political forces accelerating its rise.

    Media Contact:
    Derek Warren
    Public Relations Manager
    Paradigm Press Group
    Email: dwarren@paradigmpressgroup.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERALTHE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
    SUBJECT:       Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby directed:
    Section 1.  Background.  The President of the United States, as the unitary head of the executive branch, holds tremendous power and responsibility through his signature:  words on paper can become the law of the land, individuals are appointed to some of the highest offices in Government, national policies can be created or eliminated, and prisoners can go free.  In sum, the Nation is governed through Presidential signatures.
    In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that former President Biden’s aides abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden’s cognitive decline and assert Article II authority.  This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history.  The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden’s signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts.  
    For years, President Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline.  The Department of Justice, for example, concluded that, despite clear evidence that Biden had broken the law, he should not stand trial owing to his incompetent mental state.  Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline during his Presidency were even “worse” in private, and those closest to him “tried to hide it” from the public.  To do so, Biden’s advisors during his years in office severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, and they scripted his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors, all to cover up his inability to discharge his duties. 
    Notwithstanding these well-documented issues, the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any administration in United States history.  For instance, just 2 days before Christmas in 2024, the White House announced that Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.
    Although the authority to take these executive actions, along with many others, is constitutionally committed to the President, there are serious doubts as to the decision making process and even the degree of Biden’s awareness of these actions being taken in his name. 
    The vast majority of Biden’s executive actions were signed using a mechanical signature pen, often called an autopen, as opposed to Biden’s own hand.  This was especially true of actions taken during the second half of his Presidency, when his cognitive decline had apparently become even more clear to those working most closely with him.
    Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.
    Sec. 2.  Investigation.  (a)  The Counsel to the President, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant executive department or agency (agency), shall investigate, to the extent permitted by law, whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.  This investigation shall address:
    (i)    any activity, coordinated or otherwise, to purposefully shield the public from information regarding Biden’s mental and physical health;
    (ii)   any agreements between Biden’s aides to cooperatively and falsely deem recorded videos of the President’s cognitive inability as fake;
    (iii)  any agreements between Biden’s aides to require false, public statements elevating the President’s capabilities; and
    (iv)   the purpose of these activities, including to assert the authorities of the President.
    (b)  The Counsel to the President shall also investigate, in consultation with the Attorney General and the head of any other relevant agency, the circumstances surrounding Biden’s supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office. This investigation shall address:
    (i)   the policy documents for which the autopen was used, including clemency grants, Executive Orders, Presidential memoranda, or other Presidential policy decisions; and
    (ii)  who directed that the President’s signature be affixed.
    Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restricts the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    COMBATING TERRORISM THROUGH COMMON SENSE SECURITY STANDARDS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation to protect the nation from foreign terrorist and other national security and public safety threats from entry into the United States.
    Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14161, issued on January 20, 2025, titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” national security agencies engaged in a robust assessment of the risk that countries posed to the United States, including regarding terrorism and national security.
    In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the United States through entry restrictions.
    The Proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries found to be deficient with regards to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
    The Proclamation partially restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 7 countries who also pose a high level of risk to the United States: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
    The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories, and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests.
    SECURING OUR BORDERS AND INTERESTS: The restrictions and limitations imposed by the Proclamation are necessary to garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.
    It is the President’s sacred duty to take action to ensure that those seeking to enter our country will not harm the American people.
    After evaluating a report submitted by the Secretary of State, in coordination with other cabinet officials, President Trump has determined that the entry of nationals from certain countries must be restricted or limited to protect U.S. national security and public safety interests.
    The restrictions are country-specific in order to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances.
    Some of the named countries have inadequate screening and vetting processes, hindering America’s ability to identify potential security threats before entry.
    Certain countries exhibit high visa overstay rates, demonstrating a disregard for U.S. immigration laws and increasing burdens on enforcement systems.
    Other countries lack cooperation in sharing identity and threat information, undermining effective U.S. immigration vetting.
    Some countries have a significant terrorist presence or state-sponsored terrorism, posing direct risks to U.S. national security.
    Several countries have historically failed to accept back their removable nationals, complicating U.S. efforts to manage immigration and public safety.
    MAKING AMERICA SAFE AGAIN: President Trump is keeping his promise to restore the travel ban and secure our borders.
    President Trump: “We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.”
    In his first term, President Trump successfully implemented a travel ban that restricted entry from several countries with inadequate vetting processes or significant security risks.
    The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban, ruling that it “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” and noting that it is “expressly premised on legitimate purposes.”
    This Proclamation builds on President Trump’s first-term travel ban, incorporating an updated assessment of current global screening, vetting, and security risks.
    JUSTIFICATION FOR FULL SUSPENSION BY COUNTRY
    Afghanistan
    The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan.  Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Entry/Exit Overstay Report (“Overstay Report”), Afghanistan had a business/tourist (B1/B2) visa overstay rate of 9.70 percent and a student (F), vocational (M), and exchange visitor (J) visa overstay rate of 29.30 percent.
    Burma
    According to the Overstay Report, Burma had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent.  Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals.
    Chad
    According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent.  According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent.  The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for U.S. immigration laws.  
    Republic of the Congo
    According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent.
    Equatorial Guinea
    According to the Overstay Report, Equatorial Guinea had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 21.98 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 70.18 percent.
    Eritrea
    The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals.  Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Eritrea had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 20.09 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.43 percent.
    Haiti
    According to the Overstay Report, Haiti had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 31.38 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 25.05 percent.  Additionally, hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.  This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats. As is widely known, Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States. 
    Iran
    Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Libya
    There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya.  The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.
    Somalia
    Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects.  A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory.  The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven.  Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations.  Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States.  The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement.  Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.
    Sudan
    Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  According to the Overstay Report, Sudan had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 26.30 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 28.40 percent. 
    Yemen
    Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  The government does not have physical control over its own territory.  Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active U.S. military operations.
    JUSTIFICATION FOR PARTIAL SUSPENSION BY COUNTRY (Immigrants and Nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J Visas)
    Burundi
    According to the Overstay Report, Burundi had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 17.52 percent. 
    Cuba
    Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Government of Cuba does not cooperate or share sufficient law enforcement information with the United States.  Cuba has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Cuba had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 7.69 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 18.75 percent.
    Laos
    According to the Overstay Report, Laos had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 34.77 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 6.49 percent.  Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Sierra Leone
    According to the Overstay Report, Sierra Leone had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.43 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.83 percent.  Sierra Leone has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals. 
    Togo
    According to the Overstay Report, Togo had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 19.03 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.05 percent. 
    Turkmenistan
    According to the Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and a F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent. 
    Venezuela
    Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.  Venezuela has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.  According to the Overstay Report, Venezuela had a B1/B2 visa overstay rate of 9.83 percent.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Directs Review of Certain Presidential Actions

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    INVESTIGATING EXECUTIVE ACTIONS UNDER BIDEN’S PRESIDENCY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing an investigation into who ran the United States while President Biden was in office.
    The Memorandum directs an investigation into whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden’s mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.
    The Memorandum also mandates an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Biden’s purported execution of the numerous executive actions during his final years in office, examining policy documents signed with an autopen, who authorized its use, and the validity of the resulting Presidential policy decisions.
    QUESTIONING WHO WIELDED THE EXECUTIVE POWER DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: The combined nature of Biden’s documented cognitive decline and the repeated use of an autopen raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of his actions.
    Reports indicate that, for years, Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline.
    For example, although the Department of Justice found that Biden had violated the law by willfully retaining and disclosing classified materials, it ultimately concluded that Biden was unfit to stand trial given his incompetent mental state.

    Biden’s cognitive issues and apparent mental decline were reportedly even “worse” in private, with those closest to him attempting to conceal it from the public.
    Biden’s advisors severely restricted his news conferences and media appearances, scripting his conversations with lawmakers, government officials, and donors.

    Despite Biden’s cognitive deficiencies, the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the Federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any Administration in U.S. history.
    Just two days before Christmas in 2024, Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 most vile and monstrous criminals on Federal death row, including several child killers and mass murderers.

    The authority to take these executive actions is constitutionally reserved for the President, yet the Biden White House used an autopen to execute the vast majority of Biden’s executive actions, particularly during the second half of his Presidency.
    RESTORING PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: President Trump believes Americans deserve answers as to whether President Biden signed these documents, and if not, who signed them, and under what circumstances.
    President Trump: “And you know what, they ought to find out who was using that autopen. Because whoever that person was, he or she was like the President of the United States … I think a President should sign it, not use an autopen. And we’re going to find out whether or not he knew what the hell he was doing. … So I think it’s something that we should really look at because that’s so important.”
    President Trump: “The real question – who ran the autopen, OK? Who ran the autopen? Because the things that were signed were signed illegally, in my opinion.”
    Since returning to office, President Trump has held numerous open-press signing events where the American public can witness President Trump’s signature and knowledge regarding the matters in question with their own eyes.
    Even the legacy media admits that President Trump is on track to becoming the most-accessible President in modern history.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restricts Foreign Student Visas at Harvard University

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    RESTRICTING FOREIGN STUDENT VISAS AT HARVARD: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation to safeguard national security by suspending the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. 
    The Proclamation suspends the entry into the United States of any new Harvard student as a nonimmigrant under F, M, or J visas.
    It directs the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing F, M, or J visas for current Harvard students who meet the Proclamation’s criteria.
    The Proclamation does not apply to aliens attending other U.S. universities through the Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) and exempts aliens whose entry is deemed in the national interest.
    HARVARD HAS A DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF CONCERNING FOREIGN TIES AND RADICALISM:
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries take advantage of easy access to American higher education to steal information, exploit research and development, and spread false information.
    The University has seen a drastic rise in crime in recent years, while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus.
    Harvard has failed to provide sufficient information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about foreign students’ known illegal or dangerous activities, reporting deficient data on only three students.
    Harvard is either not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.
    Harvard has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries, receiving more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, hosted Chinese Communist Party paramilitary members and partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization.
    The Chinese Communist Party has sent thousands of mid-career and senior bureaucrats to study at U.S. institutions, with Harvard University considered the top “party school” outside the country. Xi Jinping’s own daughter attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the early 2010s.

    Harvard has failed to adequately address violent anti-Semitic incidents on campus, with many of these agitators found to be foreign students.
    Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.
    These concerns have compelled the Federal government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.
    HOLDING HARVARD ACCOUNTABLE: President Trump wants our institutions to have foreign students, but believes that the foreign students should be people that can love our country.  
    President Trump: “The students? Well, we want to have great students here. We just don’t want students that are causing trouble. We want to have students. I want to have foreign students.”
    President Trump: “We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can’t get in because we have foreign students there. But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country.”
    President Trump: “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    class=”has-text-align-center”>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
    Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation’s institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee.  That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution’s compliance and commitment to following Federal law.  Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others.
    The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions’ good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the relevant regulatory frameworks.  This is for crucial national-security reasons.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries and competitors take advantage of easy access to American higher education to, among other things, steal technical information and products, exploit expensive research and development to advance their own ambitions, and spread false information for political or other reasons.  Our adversaries, including the People’s Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States.
    Protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information, when asked, to enable the Federal Government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students.  In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our Nation’s security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information, when asked, about known instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students.  This principle is one reason why SEVP regulations require foreign students to obey Federal and State criminal laws and require universities to keep records about foreign students’ studies in the United States — including records relating to criminal activity by foreign students and resulting disciplinary proceedings — and furnish them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request.
    Crime rates at Harvard University — including violent crime rates — have drastically risen in recent years.  Harvard has failed to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus.  Given these facts, it is imperative, in my judgment, that the Federal Government be able to assess and, if necessary, address misconduct and crimes committed by foreign students at Harvard.
    Despite the risks described above, Harvard University has refused the recent requests of the DHS for information about foreign students’ “known illegal activity,” “known dangerous and violent activity,” “known threats to other students or university personnel,” “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel,” and whether those activities “occurred on campus,” and other related data.  Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions.  Harvard’s actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.  In my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government’s ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law.
    These concerns have compelled the Federal Government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.  When a university refuses to uphold its legal obligations, including its recordkeeping and reporting obligations, the consequences ripple far beyond the campus.  They jeopardize the integrity of the entire United States student and exchange visitor visa system, compromise national security, and embolden other institutions to similarly disregard the rule of law.
    Harvard University has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries.  According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has received more than $150 million in total contributions from foreign governments over the last 5 years, and over $1 billion from foreign sources.  Over the last 10 years, Harvard has received more than $150 million from China alone.  In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a Chinese Communist Party paramilitary organization,” according to a probe by the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.  Harvard researchers have also partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization, according to the same probe.
    Finally, Harvard University continues to flout the civil rights of its students and faculty, triggering multiple Federal investigations.  Harvard’s discrimination against disfavored races in admissions was so blatant that the Supreme Court decision ending the practice nationwide bears Harvard’s name.  Yet even after that Supreme Court decision, Harvard and its affiliated organizations on campus continue to deny hardworking Americans equal opportunities.  Instead of those Americans, Harvard admits students from non-egalitarian nations, including nations that seek the destruction of the United States and its allies, or the extermination of entire peoples.  It is not in the interest of the United States to further compound Harvard’s discrimination against non-preferred races, national origins, shared ancestries, or religions by further reducing opportunities for American students through excessive foreign student enrollment.
    Considering these facts, I have determined that it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University.  Such restrictions are authorized under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), which authorize the President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.  Until such time as the university shares the information that the Federal Government requires to safeguard national security and the American public, it is in the national interest to deny foreign nationals access to Harvard under the auspices of educational exchange.
    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.  I hereby proclaim as follows:
    Section 1.  Suspension of Entry.  The entry of any alien into the United States as a nonimmigrant to pursue a course of study at Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(F) or section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or 1101(a)(15)(M), or to participate in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), is suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation.  That suspension and limitation shall expire, absent extension, 6 months after the date of this proclamation.
    Sec. 2.  Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.  (a)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply to aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard University through the SEVP after the date of this proclamation.
    (b)  The Secretary of State shall consider, in the Secretary’s discretion, whether foreign nationals who currently attend Harvard University and are in the United States pursuant to F, M, or J visas and who otherwise meet the criteria described in section 1 of this proclamation should have their visas revoked pursuant to section 221(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(i).
    (c)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States to attend other universities through the SEVP.
    (d)  The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
    (e)  No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension and limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.
    Sec. 3.  Operational Action to Implement this Order.  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to take all necessary and appropriate action to implement this proclamation.  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall also consider using their respective authorities under the INA to impose limitations on Harvard University’s ability to participate in the SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System.  Any such actions should include an exception for any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
    Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
                                 DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News –