Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Schmitt Renew Bipartisan Fight for More Competition in Pentagon’s AI and Cloud Contracting

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    May 15, 2025

    Bicameral bill aligns with new White House guidelines on AI contracting for government agencies

    Text of Bill (PDF) | Text of One-Pager (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) reintroduced the bipartisan, bicameral Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act to ensure that the Department of Defense (DoD)’s contracting for artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing tools prioritizes resiliency and competition. The bill reins in Big Tech monopolies and prevents them from cutting out competitors in the AI and cloud computing markets.

    Representatives Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Pat Fallon (R-Texas), and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) introduced the bill in the House of Representatives. 

    The reintroduction comes as the White House has released new guidelines on AI procurement that encourage federal agencies to avoid vendor lock-in and to ensure that government data is protected and not used to train commercial AI models. 

    The AI and cloud computing industries are highly concentrated, and a few Silicon Valley companies control the markets the DoD relies on for cloud infrastructure, foundation models, and data infrastructure. DoD has already awarded $9 billion in contracts to Google, Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon to build its cloud computing network, and requested an additional $1.8 billion for AI programs for Fiscal Year 2025. The Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act would ensure that DoD’s new contracts protect competition in the AI and cloud computing markets, instead of giving an unfair advantage to a few big players. The bill also encourages DoD to consider cloud computing services from multiple providers so the agency isn’t locked in by a single tech company.

    Specifically, the bill would: 

    • Require DoD — when contracting with AI and cloud computing companies that make $50 million or more with DoD annually — to hold a competitive award process, ensure that the government maintains exclusive rights to access and use of all government data, mitigate barriers to entry faced by small businesses and nontraditional contractors, and consider multi-cloud technology unless doing so is infeasible or presents a danger to national security. 
    • Require DoD’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) to ensure that government data provided for the purpose of development and operation of AI products to DoD will not be disclosed or used without DoD authorization, and such government data, if stored on vendor systems, has appropriate protections.
    • Require DoD to publish a report every four years on competition, innovation, barriers to entry, and market power concentration in the AI sector, with recommendations for legislative and administrative action.

    Senators Warren and Schmitt first introduced the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act in December 2024. 

    “It’s a mistake to let Silicon Valley monopolize our AI and cloud computing tools because it doesn’t just stifle innovation, it increases costs and threatens our national security,” said Senator Warren. “Our bill will make sure the military can access cutting-edge tools and will keep our markets strong and our information secure.”

    “The Department of Defense’s procurement system must encourage competition instead of allowing a select group of companies to dominate the awards process. We must move away from policies that create risk concentration, and stifle innovation to instead adopt policies that create opportunities for emerging A.I. defense companies. I am proud to be leading this bill that promotes this smart policy, as well as encourage innovation so the U.S. can continue to lead A.I.,” said Senator Eric Schmitt.

    “Competition always pushes the limits of creativity, innovation, and excellence – whether in AI or any other field. That’s why the Department of Defense needs to prioritize competition in its AI and cloud computing contracts to ensure we deploy the best technologies to protect and strengthen our national security. I’m proud to help lead this bicameral legislation that will make our country safer, stronger, and more competitive on the global stage,” said Congresswoman Sara Jacobs

    “The Department of Defense needs to shape up its federal tech procurement process to protect data and public money from the failures of concentrated power and a lack of competition,” said Congressman Chris Deluzio. “Policies like the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act will promote real competition in the defense technology sector to help keep our military strong, fortified, and ready for anything.”

    “By relying on free market principles, the Department of Defense can help ensure competition and innovation when it comes to the bidding process for government AI and cloud contracts,” said Congressman Pat Fallon. “It’s our duty to ensure the DOD is picking the winners now and, in the future, to keep ahead of our competitors. Due to the varied cyber threats facing our nation today, we must also ensure that AI and cloud related data is secure when it is held exclusively by the federal government. For these reasons, the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act is the next step forward Congress must take in the interest of US national security.”

    The Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act is endorsed by Economic Securities Project Action and the Open Markets Institute.

    Senator Warren has been a leader in the fight to rein in Big Tech and boost competition in the tech and defense sectors: 

    • In May 2025, Secretary of the Army, Daniel P. Driscoll announced that the Army will ensure right-to-repair provisions are included in future Army contracts, after pressure from Senator Warren. 
    • In April 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren secured a commitment from Mr. Michael Cadenazzi, nominee to be the next Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy, to support AI competition and innovation in defense contracting.
    • In April 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to cloud service providers Google and Microsoft with concerns that their respective partnerships with AI developers Anthropic and OpenAI may violate antitrust laws, leading to fewer choices and higher prices for businesses and consumers using AI tools.
    • In January 2025, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Palantir Executive agreed with Senator Elizabeth Warren that legal loopholes should not enable companies to  price-gouge the military.
    • In September 2024, Senator Warren wrote to Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Jonathan Kanter in support of the DOJ’s ongoing probe into Nvidia’s potentially anticompetitive behavior.
    • In February 2024, Senator Warren delivered the keynote address at RemedyFest, where she called out Big Tech for their anti-competitive tactics that have led to market consolidation and record profits.
    • In January 2024, at a hearing of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senator Warren questioned Emily Kilcrease, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics, and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, on the national security risks posed by digital trade rules that allow tech companies to collect, sell, and store Americans’ data wherever is cheapest, including China.
    • In December 2023, Senators Warren, Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with U.S. Representatives Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to continue to reject any trade or policy proposals from Big Tech that would deem the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) to be discriminatory or an illegal trade barrier, in order to protect the administration’s shared pro-competition priorities with its European allies. 
    • In November 2023, Senator Warren and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), led 10 lawmakers in a letter to President Joe Biden, commending his administration’s actions countering Big Tech’s influence in trade negotiations, and asking him to replace “digital trade” provisions lobbied for by Big Tech in Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) negotiations with new language to ensure regulatory agencies and Congress are able to counter Big Tech abuses and develop a new model for digital rules in trade agreements that promotes competition and protects workers, consumers, and small businesses. 
    • In July 2023, Senators Warren and Graham introduced the Bipartisan Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act which would  rein in Big Tech by establishing a new commission to regulate online platforms. The commission would have concurrent jurisdiction with FTC and DOJ, and would be responsible for enforcing the new statutory provisions in the bill and implementing rules to promote competition, protect privacy, protect consumers, and strengthen our national security.
    • In May 2023, Senator Warren released a 22-page investigative report: Big Tech’s Big Con: Rigging Digital Trade Rules to Block Antitrust Regulation. The investigation, based on a review of previously undisclosed emails, reveals that Big Tech is using its revolving door hires to gain backdoor access to key United States Trade Representative and Commerce Department officials, undermining the Biden Administration’s promises to end rigged trade deals and protect workers, consumers, and the environment. 
    • In October 2022, Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal sent a letter to Secretary Raimondo underscoring the dangers of Big Tech’s digital trade agenda, following up on a letter the lawmakers sent to Secretary Raimondo in July 2022 requesting additional information about the revolving door between Commerce and Big Tech and its potential impact on global digital trade rules.
    • In July 2022, Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal sent a letter to Secretary Raimondo raising questions about the revolving door between the Department of Commerce and Big Tech companies, and its potential impact on global digital trade rules.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Mandatory targets for corporate fleets – E-001328/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is determined to make road transport across the EU more sustainable and resilient, while boosting the competitiveness of our industry and operators. In March 2025, the Commission published the Automotive Action Plan[1] and the communication on Decarbonising Corporate Fleets[2]. In addition, in the mission letter from the President of the Commission, the Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism has been called upon to prepare a legislative proposal for clean corporate fleets.

    Based on these commitments, the Commission is preparing a legislative proposal and will explore options and measures in an impact assessment on how to support the uptake of zero-emission vehicles by corporate buyers, without putting unnecessary burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and considering criteria on sustainability and resilience. Requirements on companies are only one of the options that will be explored, and all options will scrutinise costs and administrative burden for all parts of the value chain.

    The Commission held an open public consultation in 2024, where more than 250 stakeholders, ranging from businesses and their associations to Member States and non-governmental organisations, put forward their positions on all aspects of corporate fleets. Additionally, the Commission will perform an additional open public consultation focused on options for the legislative proposal. The Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism will hold a Strategic Dialogue specifically on corporate fleets in the course of 2025.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0095
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0096
    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Progress on updating the guidance document on comparative assessment of pesticides in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation 1107/2009 – E-003064/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is considering together with Member States amendments to Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009[1] ‘Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation’ and the relevant Guidance document[2], aiming to improve efficiency for conducting comparative assessments while respecting the legal provisions of Article 50(1) of the PPP Regulation. Work is still ongoing. Stakeholders will also be consulted in due time.

    The Commission would like to recall that in its decision of 22 August 2024[3], the European Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by the Commission in relying on the relevant standard developed by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO). Whether or not that standard remains suitable for use in the EU or needs to be revised will depend on the outcome of the above-mentioned work on potential amendments to Annex IV and the related guidance.

    The Commission would like to recall that EPPO is an independent intergovernmental organisation which governs its policy regarding conflicts of interest. The Commission informed EPPO of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in that regard.

    • [1] Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).
    • [2] The guidance document on comparative assessment and substitution of Plant Protection Products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (SANCO/11507/2013 rev. 12), available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/be440357-ae1f-4e57-8ca7-3690f50c08cf_en?filename=pesticides_aas_guidance_comparative_assessment_substitution_rev_1107-2009.pdf
    • [3] Decision on how the European Commission adopted a guidance document on comparative assessment in the context of the substitution of hazardous substances in pesticides (case 177/2023/VB), https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/191432
    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Impact of the Commission’s plan to consolidate development offices in EU delegations in 18 hubs and close 80 offices – E-001005/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Maintaining a network of EU Delegations around the world is an obligation[1] and a political necessity. The network (the largest among EU diplomatic services with 145 EU Delegations) is vital for articulating and executing the EU’s priorities, both for external and internal policies.

    More EU is needed in the world, as a normative, geopolitical and economic power. The Delegations project the EU’s values and policies on the ground, pursue strategic partnerships to reinforce the EU competitiveness and the economic security of third countries through the implementation of Global Gateway and the external dimension of key EU priorities[2]. They also enable the EU to deliver on key political commitments, undertaken in multilateral fora, such as the implementation of Agenda 2030 and its sustainable development goals.

    Therefore, it is critical that EU Delegations are fit for the future and are equipped with the right mix of staff profiles and tools to respond to the rapidly shifting geopolitical situation, evolving policy priorities, and budget constraints.

    As of today, there is no specific ‘plan’ nor decision for changing the EU Delegations’ structure or closing down any of them. T he Commission and the European External Action Service are looking into options for their modernisation on the basis of a set of budgetary, legal and staff parameters to increase their effectiveness. This is a collective endeavour and ambition to have an EU network fit for the future to protect EU interests in the world.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E221.
    • [2] Among others enlargement, trade and investments, energy, climate, environment, digital, migration, disinformation.
    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Committee Democrats Introduce Bill to Elevate Tribal Leadership in Land Management

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Huffman Representing the 2nd District of California

    May 15, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, top Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee introduced the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act, a landmark bill that ensures Tribal Nations are full and equal partners in the management of federal lands. The legislation would direct the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to incorporate Tribal co-management into decision-making processes—affirming Tribal sovereignty and fulfilling the U.S. federal government’s longstanding trust and treaty obligations.

    “As wildfires grow more devastating and climate change accelerates, we simply cannot afford to ignore the expertise of those who have stewarded these lands since time immemorial,” said Ranking Member Huffman. “For too long, the federal government has left Tribal Nations out of decision-making processes when it comes to managing public lands, but these lands often hold deep cultural, spiritual, and ecological significance for Tribal communities. This bill changes that by creating a clear framework for real, equal partnership—where Tribes help shape decisions, lead restoration efforts, and bring their knowledge to the table in a way that is respected, protected, and empowered. This bill would help build a foundation for shared stewardship that respects Tribal sovereignty, improves forest health, and strengthens our communities against climate-driven disasters. It’s long overdue.”

    “Federal recognition and respect for the deeply rooted relationship between Indigenous peoples and the land is overdue,” said Vice Ranking Member Sarah Elfreth. “As the original stewards of this land for centuries, their wisdom and lived experiences in preserving ecosystems, waterways, and natural resources like our forests offer generational knowledge we cannot afford to overlook. The Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act takes an important step in ensuring Indigenous communities have their rightful seat at the table.”

    “Tribal Nations have been stewards of our forests and lands since time immemorial, guided by deep cultural knowledge and respect for the natural world,” said Representative Teresa Leger Fernández, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs. “When we recognize Tribes authority to lead and co-manage our public lands, we not only honor their sovereignty—we also protect our forests, our water, and our future. The Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act recognizes that Tribal leadership is not just a matter of justice, it is essential for a healthy planet and resilient communities.”

    “I’m proud to join Ranking Member Huffman in introducing this bill to elevate Tribal voices in land management decisions. In Colorado, where many Tribes, including the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute, have deep ties to the land, this landmark bill will improve Tribal co-management of our public lands.” said Representative Joe Neguse, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. “I’m excited to join my colleagues in an effort to recognize Tribal Nations as equal partners in land stewardship, and uplift their longstanding ecological knowledge.”

    “Tribal Nations have managed these lands for thousands of years—they know what they’re doing,” said Representative Val Hoyle, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. “If we’re serious about preserving our federal lands and preventing wildfires, we need to work with the people who’ve been protecting these forests long before the federal government existed. This bill gives Tribes the seat at the table they deserve and brings their deep knowledge into decisions that make our communities safer and our forests stronger.”

    “Tribal Nations were stewards of their own lands for centuries before the U.S. government stepped in–they deserve an equal role in managing them now. I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing legislation that affirms Tribal sovereignty and strengthens Indigenous partnerships in the management of federal lands. Our state is home to 22 federally recognized tribes; this bill ensures Tribal voices are central in shaping the future of our forests and public lands, especially as we work together to address the climate crisis,” said Representative Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Ranking Member of the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee.

    BACKGROUND

    Tribal Nations have stewarded these lands since time immemorial, using traditional ecological knowledge to reduce wildfire risk, restore ecosystems, and protect sacred cultural resources. Yet despite this expertise, many Tribes continue to face bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of statutory authority that limit their participation in land management decisions.
     
    This bill seeks to change that.
     
    The Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act:

    • Requires the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs to develop Tribal Co-Management Plans in coordination with the Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee.
    • Mandates culturally appropriate training for Department of the Interior employees engaged in Tribal Co-Management work.
    • Extends statutory authority to the U.S. Forest Service to enter into co-management agreements with Tribes for activities including forest planning, ecological restoration, recreation, and research.
    • Ensures regular review of Tribal Co-Management Plans and allows Tribes to request reviews following natural disasters.
    • Directs agencies to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge into planning, with safeguards to protect data sovereignty and cultural integrity.
    • Reduces administrative burdens on Tribes by streamlining reporting and compliance processes.

    STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT

    “We are excited to endorse Rep. Huffman’s tribal self-determination and co-management in forestry bill. Karuk people have been managing our homelands since time immemorial and partnering with the US Forest Service for decades. We appreciate that this bill recognizes the importance of sovereign-to-sovereign co-management frameworks that enable us to do the important work of proactively managing our forests and making our landscapes more resilient to wildfire in a manner consistent with our indigenous knowledge practice and belief systems. We look forward to progressing these efforts in a bipartisan manner to enable more proactive management across multi-jurisdictional landscapes” Karuk Chairman Russell “Buster” Attebery

    “The Stewardship Project supports the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act as a vital step toward reorienting federal land management around active stewardship and Indigenous leadership. This bill directly reflects recommendations from the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission by ensuring Tribes are not just consulted, but empowered as equal partners in forest management.”  The Stewardship Project Co-Chairs Scott Stephens, Don Hankins, and Sara Clark

    “This legislation builds upon the shared stewardship authorities authorized by past Congresses to create a permanent co-management role in improving the health and resilience of federal lands.  It would give tribes the ability to expand the successful models and practices used in Indian Country for the benefit of all federal land within their traditional territories.  We fully support Congressman Huffman’s legislation and urge its passage by Congress.”  Cody Desautel, President, InterTribal Timber Council 

    “Sustainable Northwest supports the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act and Representative Huffman’s recognition of Tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. Legislation designed to protect and manage federal lands must respect, uphold, and implement the legally binding obligations the federal government has to Tribal nations. This legislation paves the way for a new approach to manage and enhance federal lands, add workforce capacity, and uphold Tribal and treaty rights in land management by formally including Tribal Nations in planning and decision-making.” Dylan Kruse, President, Sustainable Northwest

    “The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition is strongly in support of the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act which advances opportunities for Tribal co-management and co-stewardship of federal public lands. This bill is an important step in bolstering Tribal sovereignty, honoring protected Tribal rights, and bringing Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge into federal forest and grassland management. We thank Congressman Huffman for his leadership on this issue critical to the stewardship and resilience of rural communities and landscapes of the West.” Laurel Harkness, Coalition Director, Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition

    “The Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission recognized co-management of federal lands with Tribes as a critical tool to achieve wildfire risk reduction. This bill expands the ability of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to partner with Tribes to plan and accomplish much-needed restoration and risk reduction work and is an important step forward in expansion of federal co-management authority.” Tyson Bertone-Riggs, Managing Director, Alliance for Wildfire Resilience 

    “Tribal Co-Management Plans are an important vehicle for fulfilling our nation’s treaty and trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations and improving the overall stewardship of fire-dependent public lands. The Climate and Wildfire Institute supports The Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act as a vital pathway for addressing the wildfire crisis by upholding and advancing Tribal rights and access consistent with recommendations from the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Report.” Marissa Christiansen, Executive Director at the Climate and Wildfire Institute

    “Our forests are unhealthy, and Tribal communities are held back from applying time-tested and locally driven practices in our own homelands. This bill on co-management is a fundamental step forward to restore forests and our communities who have managed them for thousands of years.” Ryan Reed, (Karuk, Hupa, Yurok), Director of FireGeneration Collaborative (FireGen)
     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Humanitarian aid for Gaza – E-000799/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    In 2024, the Commission allocated EUR 237 million in humanitarian aid to address the needs of vulnerable Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank[1]. EU humanitarian aid is delivered according to the humanitarian principles of humanity, independence, impartiality and neutrality[2]. These funds were allocated by the Commission to certified non-governmental partners and international organisations, including United Nations organisations[3].

    Humanitarian non-governmental partners are thoroughly assessed by the Commission on their capacity to observe basic principles and obligations, including respect of the relevant EU, international and national law, as well as compliance with transparency, accountability and internal controls, including risk management mechanisms[4].

    Furthermore, humanitarian partners have taken measures to secure aid delivery, such as securing warehouses, ensuring presence during distributions, and coordinating routes used for movement with Israeli security forces through the Humanitarian Notification System. The Commission is in regular contact with its partners on the ground. Despite the dramatic situation, they are doing their utmost to ensure due diligence, monitoring the situation and their activities.

    Reconstruction goes beyond humanitarian aid and requires a long-term ceasefire as well as other conditions, such as governance and security arrangements, to fall in place. With the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hamas during 2024, the EU was not able to finance any reconstruction activities in Gaza in 2024.

    • [1] https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/middle-east-and-northern-africa/palestine_en#how-are-we-helping .
    • [2] https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/who/humanitarian-principles_en.
    • [3] Funded partners operating in Palestine in 2024 were the United Nations Children’s Fund (United States), the World Food Programme (Italy), United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the Near East (Palestine), Norwegian Refugee Council (Norway), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Switzerland), International Committee of the Red Cross (Switzerland), World Health Organisation, War Child (Netherlands), International Rescue Committee (Denmark), Relief International (France), Humanity and Inclusion (France), Action Against Hunger (Spain), Care International (Austria), Médecins du Monde (France), World Vision (Denmark), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Switzerland), and International NGO Safety Organisation (Netherlands).
    • [4] https://www.dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/ngo/humanitarian-partnership-2021-2027/eu-humanitarian-partnership-certificate-2021-2027 .
    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Financial connections between the European External Action Service and NGOs in the USAID network – E-001847/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001847/2025
    to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
    Rule 144
    Petr Bystron (ESN)

    According to the ‘About Us’ section of its website, the European External Action Service (EEAS) works to support resilient democracies, promote human rights and contribute to a rules-based global order in Europe and around the world. However, the EEAS – the EU’s official diplomatic service, which receives approximately EUR 732 million annually from the EU budget – appears to cooperate with and fund NGOs that were previously part of the network of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), such as Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI), Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps and others.

    In light of recent actions by US President Donald Trump, which led to the termination of most USAID foreign activities, we would like to raise the following questions:

    • 1.Which other USAID-funded NGOs has the EEAS supported or worked with? How much funding was granted to these organisations in 2024 by the EEAS, and how much funding did the EEAS itself receive?
    • 2.What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that this funding does not support foreign interests?
    • 3.What level of oversight does the EEAS have over the activities of its NGO partners, which are based in non-EU countries, and how are cases of ideological or political bias addressed?

    Submitted: 7.5.2025

    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – United States Congress: Facts and Figures – 15-05-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    The Congress is the legislative branch of the United States (US) system of government. It is divided into two chambers: the House of Representatives (the lower chamber) and the Senate (the upper chamber). The formal powers of Congress are set out in Article I of the US Constitution, and include making laws, collecting revenue, borrowing and spending money, declaring war, making treaties with foreign nations, and overseeing the executive branch. Elections to the US Congress occur every second November, with the Congress convening the following January. Additionally, every four years, these elections coincide with the presidential election. The current, 119th Congress was elected in November 2024, and convened in January 2025. The US has a long-standing two-party system, which means that nearly all members of Congress belong to either the Republican or Democratic parties. Independent members, if any, generally align or caucus with one of the two main parties. In the most recent US Presidential and Congressional elections, held in November 2024, the Republican party won the White House. They also retained control of the House with a five-seat margin – the smallest in modern history – and won back the Senate with a six-seat majority, taking account of two independents who caucus with the Democrats. This gave the Republicans a governing trifecta, with control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress. This EPRS briefing provides key facts and figures about the US Congress as an institution, including relevant comparisons with the European Parliament (EP).

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: President Calviño: EIB Group to provide €70 billion for tech firms and innovators

    Source: European Investment Bank

    EIB Group President Nadia Calviño explains how Europe can benefit from the Trump chaos, with the tech sector set to receive a massive financial boost.


    Interview by Carsten Volkery (published by Handelsblatt)

    The European Investment Bank (EIB) Group is launching a new initiative to close Europe’s investment gap with the United States, aiming to provide €70 billion in startup funding by 2027. This will encourage private investors to get on board with projects, unlocking as much as €250 billion in investment for the European tech sector.

    “This is the largest ever programme to exclusively support European innovation and technological leadership,” EIB Group President Nadia Calviño told Handelsblatt. The goal, she explained, is to finance research projects and companies “from idea to IPO.”

    This also includes supporting the exit of company founders and venture capital investors – who often sell their stakes to US investors, who can afford to buy them. In the future, the EIB could help EU firms to acquire promising startups to prevent technologies from being sold out of Europe.

    TechEU platform to launch this year

    Set to launch later this year, the EIB’s TechEU platform is designed to provide researchers and companies with a one-stop shop for all their financing needs. Calviño says that EU support will become “larger, faster and simpler.” The EIB will work closely with the European Commission, and national promotional banks such as Germany’s KfW may also participate.

    The plan still needs to be approved by the Bank’s Board of Governors, which is made up of the finance ministers of the 27 EU Member States. The EIB Group President gave her perspective to a meeting of the finance ministers in Brussels on Tuesday, and hopes for a positive decision in June.

    She also sees an opportunity in US President Donald Trump’s erratic economic policy and the uncertainty it has caused. “The current situation in the United States creates an opportunity for Europe to attract talent, to attract investment, to attract capital,” she said. “We see strong interest in Europe from international investors.”

    Brain drain warning from US researchers

    In recent weeks and months, the US administration has massively cut research funding for institutions such as the elite Harvard and Columbia universities. US researchers are already warning of brain drain as leading scientists leave the country.

    Former President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Leo Rafael Reif wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that the Trump administration seems intent on destroying one of the United States’ greatest strengths. The recent cuts to university funding, he writes, risk “draining a crucial source of new ideas for industry and the military.”

    Calviño emphasised that Europe is a “beacon of stability, clarity and confidence” in the current geopolitical environment. This is what investors are looking for. The EIB is also the only multilateral development bank whose shareholders are the EU Member States. “We are not confronted with the same sort of uncertainties that other multilateral development banks are going through,” she says. This enhances the international role of the EIB.

    The EIB’s goal is to back EU policy objectives. It catalyses private investment by offering only partial financing for projects, thereby mobilising public and private sector co-investors. It lent €89 billion last year, and plans to provide €95 billion this year.

    Europe’s largest venture capital financier

    Beyond guarantees and loans, the EIB also takes equity stakes in companies. It is Europe’s largest venture capital financier and its biggest venture debt provider. The various EU funding programmes for researchers and startups will be linked together on the new TechEU platform, meaning that each project will only need to be appraised once.

    The EIB’s prominent role in venture capital financing shows just how underdeveloped Europe’s private capital markets really are. Calviño says that this new initiative aims to nurture the private venture capital ecosystem in Europe. The hope is that, in time, European startups will no longer be obliged to go to the United States to meet their growth phase capital needs.

    However, critics accuse the EIB of being too conservative in its investment approach. In his report on EU competitiveness published last year, EU Special Advisor Mario Draghi called on the Bank to take on more risk to foster breakthrough innovation.

    EIB to take on more risk

    Calviño says that the EIB has already become more willing to take risks. It intends to continue on that track with the TechEU programme, supporting an extra 1 000 EU champions and innovators every year. At the same time, the EIB must ensure it preserves its AAA credit rating, which enables it to raise funds cheaply on the capital markets. It can then pass these funds on to companies.

    Calviño also promises to cut red tape, aiming to return decisions on venture capital financing applications within six months. “This would be a gamechanger.”

    The tech sector often complains that response times are too long. In the past, the EIB has always framed its thorough appraisal process as a hallmark of quality, as it keeps loan default rates very low. But it now seems to have been understood that speed is also a critical factor.

    Another innovation driver could be the defence sector. The EIB has recently made defence one of its core strategic priorities and now also finances purely military projects. “Security and defence investments can certainly help the technology agenda,” said Calviño.

    The Bank already has a pipeline of 22 projects in this sector, supporting drone manufacturers and space companies, for example, as well as several defence-focused venture capital funds.

    According to Calviño, Europe already has almost everything it needs to close the technology gap with the United States. “Europe has a very large market, 450 million citizens, excellent universities, excellent research centres and companies, and brilliant startup ecosystems. With deeper and larger capital markets, we can ensure that technologies and startups born in the European Union can be financed and scale up in Europe.”

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Far-left attacks threatening European infrastructure – E-001821/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001821/2025/rev.1
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Julien Leonardelli (PfE), Marie Dauchy (PfE), Pierre Pimpie (PfE), Gilles Pennelle (PfE), André Rougé (PfE), Mathilde Androuët (PfE), Fabrice Leggeri (PfE)

    Far-left groups have carried out a series of attacks on transport and energy infrastructure throughout Europe. Since 2024[1], these acts have become so frequent that I will not include armed attacks by anti-fascist activists on a mayor[2] or right-wing activists[3], even though they too are alarming.

    During the 2024 Olympic Games, acts of sabotage targeted TGV rail lines[4] and fibre optic networks[5] throughout France. At the same time, an arson attack was carried out on a relay antenna in Haute-Garonne, depriving 5 000 residents of internet access. During works to construct the A69 motorway[6], 200 fires were reported affecting construction facilities and equipment[7].

    In February 2024, the far left claimed responsibility for sabotaging the Toulouse-Narbonne rail line[8], as well as for setting fire to an underground boring machine in Toulouse[9] in May.

    In December 2024[10], a telecommunications antenna near Mâcon was set on fire, depriving 800 000 people of internet access[11]. The Antifa movement is operating with complete impunity. None of the perpetrators of the acts I have listed have been identified.

    What measures does the Commission intend to put in place to help put an end to these terrorist attacks against our infrastructure committed by the far left?

    Supporter[12]

    Submitted: 6.5.2025

    • [1] It was impossible for me to list all the attacks carried out by the far-left before and after 2024 in this question, as they occur so frequently. However, it is worth noting the destruction of a bridge near Grenoble in 2022, as well as the arson attacks on a McDonald’s and a Tesla dealership near Toulouse in 2025.
    • [2] A mayor in Brittany targeted by an attempted assassination, links to Antifa suspected, Frontières, https://www.frontieresmedia.fr/societe/maire-tentative-assassinat-antifa
    • [3] Paris 8: an activist from the conservative student union La Cocarde threatened by an armed man, Le Journal du Dimanche, https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/paris-8-un-militant-de-la-cocarde-menace-par-un-homme-arme-156488
    • [4] Live from the Olympic Games 2024: massive attack on the SNCF, major disruption on the Paris ring road, a day of chaos for transport ahead of the opening ceremony, Le Figaro, https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/en-direct-jo-2024-attaque-massive-a-la-sncf-peripherique-tres-perturbe-journee-noire-dans-les-transports-avant-la-ceremonie-d-ouverture-20240726
    • [5] After the SNCF, fibre optic networks sabotaged during the Olympics: ‘This is terrorism’, RTL, https://www.rtl.be/sport/tous-les-sports/jo-2024/apres-la-sncf-des-sabotages-de-reseaux-de-fibres-optiques-en-plein-jo-cest-du/2024-07-29/article/695285
    • [6] A69: Sabotage operations on the ground and questions in Parliament, Le Monde, https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2024/05/07/a69-actions-de-sabotage-sur-le-terrain-et-questionnements-a-l-assemblee_6232090_3244.html
    • [7] Moreover, a night security guard was assaulted with an iron bar by hooded Antifa activists.
    • [8] Sabotage of the Toulouse-Narbonne railway: a look back at the blockade operation, Rebellyon, https://rebellyon.info/Sabotage-du-chemin-de-fer-Toulouse-25705
    • [9] Toulouse. In the middle of the night, a machine burns on the metro construction site: arson? Actu.fr, https://actu.fr/occitanie/toulouse_31555/toulouse-en-pleine-nuit-un-engin-crame-sur-le-chantier-du-metro-un-feu-criminel_61088721.html
    • [10] In the same month, an anti-Zionist group claimed responsibility for setting fire to a vehicle belonging to the city of Toulouse.
    • [11] Telecommunications tower set on fire: 800 000 subscribers left without television or telephone service, criminal investigation ongoing, France 3 Régions, https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bourgogne-franche-comte/saone-et-loire/macon/un-pylone-de-telecommunication-incendie-800-000-abonnes-prives-de-television-et-de-telephone-la-piste-criminelle-envisagee-3083758.html
    • [12] This question is supported by a Member other than the authors: Valérie Deloge (PfE)

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Humanitarian subsidies or incitement to political regime change? – E-001729/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001729/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Virginie Joron (PfE)

    Saudi Arabia finances 1.6 % of global development aid, as does Switzerland.

    By contrast, in 2023 the Commission and the Member States provided EUR 101 billion, which accounts for 41 % of development aid. According to the European Parliament’s research service, just 3.8 % of this amount was spent on health and 3.3 % on water supply and sanitation[1].

    Since 10 March 2025, the Trump presidency has put an end to 83 % of the US Agency for International Development’s programmes falsely termed as ‘humanitarian’.

    In these circumstances, it is questionable why Brussels uses the term ‘humanitarian’ and what the purpose of this aid actually is.

    • 1.How much is the Commission spending on values, democracy and other non-urgent actions outside Europe?
    • 2.Which are the three main humanitarian NGOs funded by the Commission? What is the annual remuneration of their directors?

    Submitted: 30.4.2025

    • [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/769540/EPRS_ATA(2025)769540_EN.pdf
    Last updated: 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism – A10-0085/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety
    Rapporteur: Antonio Decaro
    (Simplified procedure – Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    (COM(2025)0087 – C10‑0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD))

    (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0087),

     having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10-0035/2025),

     having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

     having regard to the budgetary assessment by the Committee on Budgets,

     having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 April 2025[1],

     after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

     having regard to Rules 60 and 58 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the opinions of he Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (A10-0085/2025),

    1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

    2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

    3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

     

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 25 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (25a) The CBAM applies to importation of electricity, but it should not apply to electricity generated entirely in the exclusive economic zone of an EEA Member State and imported directly into the customs territory of the Union ;

    Amendment  2

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b a (new)

    Regulation (EU) 2023/956

    Article 2 – paragraph 3 b (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (ba) the following paragraph 3b is inserted:

     

    3b. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, this Regulation shall not apply to electricity generated entirely in the exclusive economic zone of an EEA Member State and imported directly into the customs territory of the Union.

    Amendment  3

    Proposal for a regulation

    Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

    Regulation (EU) 2023/956

    Annex IV – point 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5

     

    Present text

    Amendment

     

    (1a) In point 3, in the notes explaining the formula for SEEg in the first paragraph, the note for EEImpMat is replaced by the following:

    EEInpMat

    EEInpMat

    are the embedded emissions of the input materials (precursors) consumed in the production process. Only input materials (precursors) listed as relevant to the system boundaries of the production process as specified in the implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 7(7) are to be considered. The relevant EEInpMat are calculated as follows:

    are the embedded emissions of the input materials (precursors) consumed in the production process. Only input materials (precursors) listed in Annex I and originating in third countries and territories that are not exempted pursuant to Annex III, Section 1 are to be considered. The relevant EEInpMat are calculated as follows:

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

     

    28.4.2025BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS

    for the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    (COM(2025)0087 – C10‑0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD))

    Rapporteur for budgetary assessment: Sandra Gómez López 

    The Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:

    A. whereas the proposal by the Commission to simplify the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism(CBAM) aims at achieving significant savings in terms of administrative costs for EU importers of CBAM goods;

    B. whereas the proceeds of the CBAM are to become an EU own resource according to the amended Commission proposal of 23 June 2023 for a Council decision amending Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 on the system of own resources of the European Union (COM(2023)0331); whereas Parliament approved this proposal in its legislative resolution of 9 November 2023[2];

    C. whereas the Council has failed to implement the steps set out in the legally binding roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA), the objectives of this roadmap being to introduce sufficient new own resources to at least cover the repayment of NextGenerationEU (NGEU) debt;

    D. whereas the estimated revenue from the CBAM would diminish in proportion to the CO2 emissions captured in the scope of the simplified regulation; whereas this impact would remain modest, presumably within one per cent of the overall estimated revenue;

    E. whereas the Commission proposal entails additional operational expenditure in Heading 3 to be financed by means of redeployment from a budget line in Heading 4 and administrative expenditure for human resources in Heading 7 to be financed by redeployment within Heading 7;

    F. whereas the penalties for CBAM declarants in breach of the regulation are, in principle, to be aligned with excess emission penalties under the Emissions Trading System (ETS); whereas the national competent authorities remain in charge of establishing and enforcing such measures based on implementing acts;

    1. Takes note of the proposal to simplify the CBAM regulation in the context of an overall initiative to improve the EU’s competitiveness;

    2. Recalls that Parliament has repeatedly endorsed a new own resource based on the CBAM and is keenly aware that this own resource is one of the few candidates that also enjoy tangible support from the Member States in the Council; regrets, therefore, that the embedded emissions covered under the reduced scope of the CBAM would lead to proportionately lower own resources revenue from the CBAM; acknowledges, however, that the amounts (in the order of EUR 20 million per year) and share (1 %) concerned are modest compared to the overall figures that the CBAM is expected to produce in terms of revenue;

    3. Confirms that the amending regulation remains compatible with Parliament’s consultative opinion of 9 November 2023, which approves the Commission’s proposal for an amended Council decision on the system of own resources, including a new own resource based on the CBAM;

    4. Considers that there are no provisions in the amending regulation that would fall under Rule 58(4), i.e. covering exclusively budgetary aspects which the committee responsible for the subject matter would not be allowed to amend; considers, furthermore, that no legislative amendments in this regard are necessary at this stage;

    5. Recalls that the amendments or compromises in the course of the negotiations must not lead to any provisions contradicting Parliament’s established position on the use of CBAM revenue as an own resource; considers it necessary, therefore, to take part in the further negotiations, including the trilogues, in order to monitor the consistency with Parliament’s position on own resources and other pertinent budget-related provisions, and to ensure that the final agreement is compatible with the current MFF;

    6. Observes certain flaws and errors in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFS) that should be rectified in the course of the further process, in a revised version of the Statement; questions, in this respect, the annual amounts listed in the table under Section 3.3 and, in particular, whether there will already be any revenue collected in 2026; also considers that the budget line (which is from the expenditure title) mentioned in this section is incorrect; recalls that in order to be consistent with present practice and the proposed own resources legislation, amounts indicated in this section should be shown ‘net’ of the 25 % collection costs to be retained by Member States and converted into current prices;

    7. Acknowledges that the level of revenue foregone, in the order of EUR 21 million as of 2030, is non-material compared to the cost savings for companies, especially SMEs, and acceptable in view of the overall revenue expected from the CBAM;

    8. Takes note of the necessary additional operational and administrative appropriations as indicated in the LFS; reiterates its long-standing position that new tasks and responsibilities should, in principle, be financed by fresh resources; deplores the limited margins available in the MFF and acknowledges that they could justify a certain level of reallocation; warns that the additional operational amounts will use a sizeable share of the remaining margin under Heading 3; also recognises that the redeployment from the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment (CCEI) implies the creation of some additional margin in Heading 4; determines that the amounts mentioned under points 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.6 in the LFS are compatible with the MFF ceilings in Headings 3, 4 and 7, but will require adjustments in the financial programming; questions, nonetheless, whether such redeployment operations are in line with the ring-fencing logic of the MFF headings;

    9. Questions why a reduction of the scope, by an alleged 90 %, of companies to be registered as authorised CBAM declarants does not lead to a lower level of administrative needs under Heading 7;

    10. Acknowledges that any substantive changes in the governance of the implementation and enforcement of the CBAM, such as those related to the penalties for non-compliance, would be beyond the scope of this simplification initiative; considers, however, in light of the planned revision of the CBAM regulation, that the proceeds of the penalties could eventually be considered as general revenue for the EU budget;

    11. Notes that the simplification initiative is also presented as a key enabler for a potential future extension of the scope of the CBAM; expects that such an extension would have significant budgetary implications, including for revenue flows;

    12. Recalls that the Union’s budget is under strain and stresses the need for additional sustainable and resilient revenue; points to the legally binding roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources laid down in the IIA, in which Parliament, the Council and the Commission undertook to introduce sufficient new own resources to at least cover the repayment of NGEU debt; recalls its support for the amended Commission proposal on the system of own resources; is deeply concerned by the complete absence of progress on the system of own resources in the Council; calls on the Council to adopt this proposal as a matter of urgency and urges the Commission to spare no effort in supporting the adoption process; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to continue efforts to identify additional genuine new own resources beyond those specified in the IIA.

    As part of its budgetary assessment, the Committee on Budgets also submits the following amendments to the proposal:

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital [10] a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    ([10]a). This Regulation has implications for the Union budget. Accordingly, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets adopted a budgetary assessment, which forms an integral part of Parliament’s mandate for negotiations.

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    References

    COM(2025)0087 – C10-0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD)

    Committee(s) responsible

    ENVI

     

     

     

     Date announced in plenary

    BUDG

    31.3.2025

    Rapporteur for budgetary assessment

     Date appointed

    Sandra Gómez López

    26.3.2025

    Discussed in committee

    31.3.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    23.4.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    23

    9

    1

    Members present for the final vote

    Georgios Aftias, Rasmus Andresen, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Olivier Chastel, Thomas Geisel, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Monika Hohlmeier, Alexander Jungbluth, Fabienne Keller, Giuseppe Lupo, Siegfried Mureşan, Matjaž Nemec, Danuše Nerudová, João Oliveira, Ruggero Razza, Karlo Ressler, Bogdan Rzońca, Julien Sanchez, Hélder Sousa Silva, Nicolae Ştefănuță, Carla Tavares, Nils Ušakovs, Lucia Yar, Auke Zijlstra

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Stine Bosse, Rasmus Nordqvist, Jacek Protas

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Tobias Cremer, Marieke Ehlers, Julien Leonardelli, Philippe Olivier

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
    IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

    23

    +

    NI

    Thomas Geisel

    PPE

    Georgios Aftias, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Monika Hohlmeier, Siegfried Mureşan, Danuše Nerudová, Jacek Protas, Karlo Ressler, Hélder Sousa Silva

    Renew

    Stine Bosse, Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller, Lucia Yar

    S&D

    Tobias Cremer, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Giuseppe Lupo, Matjaž Nemec, Carla Tavares, Nils Ušakovs

    Verts/ALE

    Rasmus Andresen, Rasmus Nordqvist, Nicolae Ştefănuță

     

    9

    ECR

    Bogdan Rzońca

    ESN

    Alexander Jungbluth

    PfE

    Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Marieke Ehlers, Julien Leonardelli, Philippe Olivier, Julien Sanchez, Auke Zijlstra

    The Left

    João Oliveira

     

    1

    0

    ECR

    Ruggero Razza

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

     

    OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE (24.4.2025)

    for the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    (COM(2025)0087 – C10‑0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD))

    Rapporteur for opinion: Karin Karlsbro

     

     

    The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament adopt its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal.

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur for opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    References

    COM(2025)0087 – C10-0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD)

    Committee(s) responsible

    ENVI

     

     

     

    Opinion by

     Date announced in plenary

    INTA

    31.3.2025

    Rapporteur for the opinion

     Date appointed

    Karin Karlsbro

    19.3.2025

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    7.4.2025

    Discussed in committee

    7.4.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    23.4.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    36

    2

    0

    Members present for the final vote

    Manon Aubry, Christophe Bay, Udo Bullmann, Andi Cristea, Raphaël Glucksmann, Markéta Gregorová, Svenja Hahn, Taner Kabilov, Karin Karlsbro, Rihards Kols, Sebastian Kruis, Bernd Lange, Ilia Lazarov, Miriam Lexmann, Thierry Mariani, Gabriel Mato, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Daniele Polato, Kathleen Van Brempt, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, Catarina Vieira, Jörgen Warborn, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Petras Auštrevičius, Nicolas Bay, Saskia Bricmont, Markus Buchheit, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Fabio De Masi, Jean-Marc Germain, Hana Jalloul Muro, Sandra Kalniete, David McAllister, Jessika Van Leeuwen

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Alexander Bernhuber, Daniel Buda, Fabrice Leggeri

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
    BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    36

    +

    ECR

    Nicolas Bay, Rihards Kols, Daniele Polato

    NI

    Fabio De Masi, Taner Kabilov

    PPE

    Alexander Bernhuber, Daniel Buda, Sandra Kalniete, Ilia Lazarov, Miriam Lexmann, David McAllister, Gabriel Mato, Jessika Van Leeuwen, Jörgen Warborn, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez

    PfE

    Christophe Bay, Sebastian Kruis, Fabrice Leggeri, Thierry Mariani

    Renew

    Petras Auštrevičius, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne

    S&D

    Udo Bullmann, Andi Cristea, Jean-Marc Germain, Raphaël Glucksmann, Hana Jalloul Muro, Bernd Lange, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Kathleen Van Brempt

    Verts/ALE

    Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Catarina Vieira

     

    2

    ESN

    Markus Buchheit

    The Left

    Manon Aubry

     

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

    OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY (23.4.2025)

    for the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism.

    (COM(2025)0087 – C10‑0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD))

    Rapporteur for opinion: Filip Turek

    (Simplified procedure – Rule 52(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure)

     

    SHORT JUSTIFICATION

    The European Commission’ proposals aims at simplifying the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) obligations for small importers—primarily SMEs and individuals—by introducing a new de minimis exemption for imports below 50 tonnes mass. These importers bring in minor volumes of CBAM goods, resulting in negligible levels of embedded emissions entering the EU from third countries. Despite this exemption, approximately 99% of total embedded emissions would remain covered under CBAM, while around 90% of importers would be relieved from its obligations. For those importers who continue to fall within the CBAM scope, the proposal also includes a series of simplifications aimed at easing compliance. These measures involve streamlining the authorisation process for declarants, simplifying emission calculation procedures and improving the management of CBAM-related financial liabilities.

    The initiative takes a more pragmatic approach for improving the overall functioning of CBAM, particularly by easing the obligations placed on smaller economic actors. Thus, the proposed exemption marks a necessary and welcome simplification. This, along with the accompanying set of procedural facilitations, represents a step forward in ensuring that the CBAM can be administratively manageable.

    Within the Omnibus framework, it is appropriate to concentrate on the elements explicitly opened by the Commission, while awaiting the upcoming comprehensive review, which will provide a more suitable occasion to consider structural and far-reaching revisions, including concerns on the effectiveness of CBAM.

    In its current design, CBAM disproportionately affects certain energy-intensive sectors and risks being an ineffective tool to ensure a level playing field for EU industries and to prevent carbon leakage. In fact, it could undermine the EU competitiveness by increasing the production costs and the administrative burdens for EU companies.

    The structural revision is therefore urgent to address the risks of resource reshuffling and circumvention. Equally pressing is the postponement (or the deletion) of the phase out from the ETS free allowances, as well as the need to implement effective solutions for EU exporters. Moreover, the possible extension of CBAM to downstream products should be preceded by a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment. 

    While the ITRE Committee will refrain from tabling amendments to the proposal, the threshold could have merited more in-depth consideration. The de minimis exemption may in fact be too low to reflect meaningfully the reality of many SMEs and micro-enterprises. Data indicates that several businesses, including those officially categorized as “micro,” regularly exceed the threshold of 50 tonnes. Hence, a balanced solution could be raising it to at least 110 tons. This adjustment would strike a more realistic and equitable balance, enhancing the administrative feasibility of the CBAM, while continuing to capture the vast majority of emissions within the scope of the Mechanism (according to Commission estimates, still over 98%). The exemption of more importers from CBAM obligations would also generate additional cost savings, without significantly undermining the ratio of the proposal.

    In conclusion, waiting for the upcoming comprehensive review, which will provide a timely opportunity to address the outstanding issues, the Rapporteur notes the willingness of the ITRE Committee to not table amendments and supports the Commission’s initiative.

     

    *******

    The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament adopt its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR THE OPINION HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:

    Entity and/or person

    Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic

    ČEZ Group

    Emerson International

    Italian Confederation of Craft Trades and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises

    European Express Association

    Round Table on Climate Change and Sustainable Transition

    Office of the Government of the Czech Republic

    The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

     

    Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    References

    COM(2025)0087 – C10-0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD)

    Committee(s) responsible

    ENVI

     

     

     

    Opinion by

     Date announced in plenary

    ITRE

    31.3.2025

    Rapporteur for the opinion

     Date appointed

    Filip Turek

    25.3.2025

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    18.3.2025

    Date adopted

    24.4.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    73

    5

    6

    Members present for the final vote

    Wouter Beke, Tom Berendsen, Michael Bloss, Barbara Bonte, Paolo Borchia, Markus Buchheit, Borys Budka, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Elena Donazzan, Matthias Ecke, Sofie Eriksson, Jan Farský, Niels Fuglsang, Bruno Gonçalves, Nicolás González Casares, Giorgio Gori, Niels Flemming Hansen, Eero Heinäluoma, Ivars Ijabs, Fernand Kartheiser, Seán Kelly, Rudi Kennes, Ondřej Krutílek, Eszter Lakos, Isabella Lövin, Yannis Maniatis, Sara Matthieu, Marina Mesure, Angelika Niebler, Ville Niinistö, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Tsvetelina Penkova, Pascale Piera, Jüri Ratas, Aura Salla, Elena Sancho Murillo, Jussi Saramo, Paulius Saudargas, Diego Solier, Marcin Sypniewski, Beata Szydło, Dario Tamburrano, Bruno Tobback, Matej Tonin, Yvan Verougstraete, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Andrea Wechsler, Elena Yoncheva, Auke Zijlstra, Nicola Zingaretti

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Christophe Bay, Adam Bielan, Marc Botenga, Andi Cristea, Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, Chiara Gemma, Andreas Glück, Michalis Hadjipantela, Martin Hojsík, Radan Kanev, Katri Kulmuni, Sergey Lagodinsky, András László, Marion Maréchal, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Francesco Torselli, Marie Toussaint

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Magdalena Adamowicz, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Krzysztof Brejza, Jaroslav Bžoch, José Cepeda, Vivien Costanzo, Ton Diepeveen, Siegbert Frank Droese, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Svenja Hahn, Andrzej Halicki, Ilia Lazarov, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Axel Voss

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
    BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    73

    +

    ECR

    Adam Bielan, Elena Donazzan, Chiara Gemma, Fernand Kartheiser, Ondřej Krutílek, Marion Maréchal, Diego Solier, Beata Szydło, Francesco Torselli, Mariateresa Vivaldini

    NI

    Elena Yoncheva

    PPE

    Magdalena Adamowicz, Wouter Beke, Tom Berendsen, Krzysztof Brejza, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Jan Farský, Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, Michalis Hadjipantela, Andrzej Halicki, Niels Flemming Hansen, Radan Kanev, Seán Kelly, Eszter Lakos, Ilia Lazarov, Angelika Niebler, Jüri Ratas, Aura Salla, Paulius Saudargas, Matej Tonin, Axel Voss, Andrea Wechsler

    PfE

    Christophe Bay, Paolo Borchia, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Jaroslav Bžoch, Anne-Sophie Frigout, András László, Pascale Piera, Pierre-Romain Thionnet

    Renew

    João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Martin Hojsík, Ivars Ijabs, Katri Kulmuni, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Yvan Verougstraete

    S&D

    José Cepeda, Vivien Costanzo, Andi Cristea, Matthias Ecke, Sofie Eriksson, Niels Fuglsang, Bruno Gonçalves, Nicolás González Casares, Giorgio Gori, Eero Heinäluoma, Yannis Maniatis, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Tsvetelina Penkova, Elena Sancho Murillo, Bruno Tobback, Nicola Zingaretti

    Verts/ALE

    Michael Bloss, Sergey Lagodinsky, Isabella Lövin, Sara Matthieu, Ville Niinistö, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Marie Toussaint

     

    5

    The Left

    Marc Botenga, Rudi Kennes, Marina Mesure, Jussi Saramo, Dario Tamburrano

     

    6

    0

    ESN

    Markus Buchheit, Siegbert Frank Droese, Marcin Sypniewski

    PfE

    Barbara Bonte, Ton Diepeveen, Auke Zijlstra

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

    References

    COM(2025)0087 – C10-0035/2025 – 2025/0039(COD)

    Date submitted to Parliament

    27.2.2025

     

     

     

    Committee(s) responsible

    ENVI

     

     

     

    Committees asked for opinions

     Date announced in plenary

    BUDG

    23.4.2025

    INTA

    31.3.2025

    ITRE

    31.3.2025

     

    Rapporteurs

     Date appointed

    Antonio Decaro

    10.3.2025

     

     

     

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    10.3.2025

    Discussed in committee

    18.3.2025

     

     

     

    Budgetary assessment

     Date of budgetary assessment

    BUDG

    23.4.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    13.5.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    85

    1

    1

    Members present for the final vote

    Bartosz Arłukowicz, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Anja Arndt, Thomas Bajada, Barbara Bonte, Stine Bosse, Lynn Boylan, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Pascal Canfin, Laurent Castillo, Christophe Clergeau, Annalisa Corrado, Ivan David, Antonio Decaro, Ondřej Dostál, Viktória Ferenc, Pietro Fiocchi, Emma Fourreau, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Heléne Fritzon, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, Esther Herranz García, Martin Hojsík, Pär Holmgren, Romana Jerković, Marc Jongen, Ondřej Knotek, Stefan Köhler, Ewa Kopacz, András Tivadar Kulja, Peter Liese, Javi López, César Luena, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Tilly Metz, Dolors Montserrat, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu, Jana Nagyová, Rasmus Nordqvist, Jacek Ozdoba, Jutta Paulus, Michele Picaro, Jessica Polfjärd, Carola Rackete, Massimiliano Salini, Lena Schilling, Christine Schneider, Günther Sidl, Jonas Sjöstedt, Sander Smit, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Beatrice Timgren, Dimitris Tsiodras, Alexandr Vondra, Emma Wiesner, Michal Wiezik, Tiemo Wölken, Anna Zalewska

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Biljana Borzan, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Stefano Cavedagna, Susanna Ceccardi, Sebastian Everding, Michalis Hadjipantela, Paolo Inselvini, Adam Jarubas, Nora Junco García, Karin Karlsbro, Billy Kelleher, Norbert Lins, Letizia Moratti, Maria Ohisalo, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Manuela Ripa, André Rodrigues, Elena Sancho Murillo, Christine Singer, Liesbet Sommen, Sebastiaan Stöteler, Anna Stürgkh, Bruno Tobback, Raffaele Topo

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Javier Moreno Sánchez, Séverine Werbrouck

    Date tabled

    14.5.2025

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    85

    +

    ECR

    Stefano Cavedagna, Pietro Fiocchi, Paolo Inselvini, Nora Junco García, Jacek Ozdoba, Michele Picaro, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Beatrice Timgren, Alexandr Vondra, Anna Zalewska

    ESN

    Anja Arndt, Ivan David, Marc Jongen

    NI

    Ondřej Dostál

    PPE

    Bartosz Arłukowicz, Laurent Castillo, Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, Michalis Hadjipantela, Esther Herranz García, Adam Jarubas, Stefan Köhler, Ewa Kopacz, András Tivadar Kulja, Peter Liese, Norbert Lins, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Dolors Montserrat, Letizia Moratti, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu, Jessica Polfjärd, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Manuela Ripa, Massimiliano Salini, Christine Schneider, Sander Smit, Liesbet Sommen, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Dimitris Tsiodras

    PfE

    Barbara Bonte, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Viktória Ferenc, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Sebastiaan Stöteler, Séverine Werbrouck

    Renew

    Stine Bosse, Pascal Canfin, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Martin Hojsík, Karin Karlsbro, Billy Kelleher, Christine Singer, Anna Stürgkh, Emma Wiesner, Michal Wiezik

    S&D

    Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Annalisa Corrado, Antonio Decaro, Heléne Fritzon, Romana Jerković, Javi López, César Luena, Javier Moreno Sánchez, André Rodrigues, Elena Sancho Murillo, Günther Sidl, Bruno Tobback, Raffaele Topo, Tiemo Wölken

    The Left

    Lynn Boylan, Sebastian Everding, Carola Rackete, Jonas Sjöstedt

    Verts/ALE

    Pär Holmgren, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Tilly Metz, Rasmus Nordqvist, Maria Ohisalo, Jutta Paulus, Lena Schilling

     

    1

    The Left

    Emma Fourreau

     

    1

    0

    PfE

    Susanna Ceccardi

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI: Steel Reef Announces Election of Board of Directors

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, ALBERTA, May 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Steel Reef Infrastructure Corp. (“Steel Reef” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce the director election results from its 2025 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held on May 15, 2025. 

    All nine nominees recommended by management for election were elected and will hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Company or until their successors are elected or appointed.

    The following directors have been re-elected to Steel Reef’s Board of Directors (“Board”): Sarah Borg-Olivier, Rob Duguid, Steve Magus, Gregory J. Smith, Laryssa Topolnytsky and Greg Pollard, who shall continue as Chair. Steel Reef would also like to welcome newly elected directors Matt McDonald, Stephen Simpson and George So to the Board.

    These individuals bring a broad range of cross-border and inter-disciplinary expertise in the areas of finance, energy, equity markets, acquisitions, governance, compensation, people, organizational culture, communications, infrastructure and engineering to Steel Reef. The Board remains committed to providing strong guidance and support for the management’s team strategic direction and future growth.

    For more information on Steel Reef’s Board, please view their biographies on the Company’s website: www.steelreef.ca.

    About Steel Reef

    Steel Reef is a Canadian company that gathers and redistributes wasted emissions, delivering energy to support growing demand. From Saskatchewan roots, the Company provides long-term value to its stakeholders and has grown into a dominant player in energy transition, powering homes, communities and industries. Steel Reef is steadfast in its commitment to safely deliver even more impact tomorrow than it does today, by reducing emissions and powering potential. Learn more at www.steelreef.ca.

    Contact

    Communications Department
    info@steelreef.ca
    ‎(403) 263-8333

    Forward-Looking Information

    Certain statements contained in this release are forward-looking in nature, including with respect to the election of directors and management appointments and the anticipated benefit to the Company, including expectations regarding the Company’s ability to capitalize on potential investments and increase value for investors. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, or future events or are not statements of historical fact should be viewed as “forward-looking statements”. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of Steel Reef to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate as actual results, and future events could vary or differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements contained in this release. The forward-looking statements contained herein are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking statements are made based on management’s beliefs, estimates and opinions on the date the statements are made, and Steel Reef undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, except as required by applicable law.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Italy affirms Partnership with African Development Bank under the Mattei Plan

    Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

    ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, May 15, 2025/APO Group/ —

    Italy has reaffirmed its partnership with the African Development Bank (www.AfDB.org) and expressed keenness to explore mutual growth opportunities in Africa under the Mattei Plan. 

    Stefano Gatti, Director General for Development Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (FAIC) and Lorenzo Ortona, Head of the Mattei Plan Task Force led a delegation to the Bank’s Abidjan headquarters on Thursday 8 May. The delegation comprised representatives of institutions charged with implementing the Mattei plan for Africa, such as Cassa Depositi e Prestiti(CDP), the Ministry of Finance, as well as important representatives of the business and private sector and civil society organisations. 

    Under the Mattei Plan for Africa, Italy aims to foster economic and strategic partnerships with African nations and institutions. Its Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has stated that the African Development Bank Group would be (https://apo-opa.co/3FkcLD8) its main strategic financial partner for implementation of the plan on the continent. 

    The delegation was hosted by African Development Bank Senior Vice President Marie-Laure Akin-Olugbade, who was joined by three vice presidents –Nnenna Nwabufo, Beth Dunford and Kevin Kariuki, as well as several directors from the energy, resource mobilization and finance departments, among others. 

    Participants in the meeting exchanged on ways to strengthen public-private sector collaboration with Italy in reducing hunger and boosting agriculture in Africa. The conversation also discussed the importance of the African Development Fund, the Bank’s concessional lending arm in addressing the challenges of the continent’s most disadvantaged countries. 

    Akin-Olugbade expressed satisfaction at the progress made since the announcement of the Plan in July 2024, in particular, the Rome Process/Mattei Plan Financing Facility (RPFF), a multi-donor Special Fund aimed at supporting climate aligned sovereign infrastructure projects that help to address the root causes of migration. The RPFF with contributions from Italy and the UAE amounting to over $170 million, is now operational.  

    The senior vice president commended Italy for demonstrating its commitment and thanked the government for its choice of The African Development Bank as partner. “We appreciate, of course, the choice of the African Development Bank to accompany you in your strategy, very ambitious strategy for the continent. We are really very happy to hear that Italy, indeed, is still strongly committed to the continent, and of course, to working with the African Development Fund.” 

    Other instruments under the Plan with the African Development Bank include the Growth and Resilience Platform for Africa (Graf), and a bilateral co-financing facility. Under Graf, CDP and the African Development Bank intend to invest up to EUR 400 million over five years in private equity funds to accelerate private sector development in Africa. 

    “We are grateful for the outstanding job that the bank has done. We really appreciate it,” Ortan said. “We really believe that in order to enhance the Mattei plan in Africa and the visibility of it, we need partners like you.”  

    Concluding the discussions, Akin-Olugbade said the Mattei plan has emerged as a template for future cooperation between Italy and other developed countries and Africa. 

    She said: “I believe that Italy has seen the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund as trusted partners. I believe we have a good track record of providing and achieving results. There’s a leveraging effect that multilateral development banks have that sometime bilateral resources do not have. And we need to take advantage of this.” 

    Italy has been a strong partner to the African Development Fund and pledged EUR 298.88 million to its sixteenth replenishment. Italy has been a partner in Mission 300, as well as advocating for strengthening private sector engagement, especially for youth entrepreneurship.  

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Global: Disarming Hezbollah is key to Lebanon’s recovery − but task is complicated by regional shifts, ceasefire violations

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies and Associate Professor of Francophone and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Dickinson College

    Slain Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah looms large in Lebanon. Anwar Amro/AFP via Getty Images

    Within a span of two weeks from late April to early May 2025, Israel launched two aerial attacks ostensibly targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon: The first, on April 27, struck a building in Beirut’s southern suburbs; the second, an assault in southern Lebanon, left one person dead and eight others injured.

    While the attacks may not be an aberration in the long history of Israel’s military action in Lebanon, the latest episodes were notable given the context: Israel and Hezbollah have been nominally locked in a truce for five months.

    As an expert on Lebanese history and culture, I believe the latest violations clearly show the fragility of that ceasefire. But more importantly, they complicate the Lebanese government’s mission of disarming Hezbollah, the paramilitary group that remains a powerful force in the country despite a series of Israeli targeted killings of its senior members. That task forms the backbone of a nearly 20-year-old United Nations resolution meant to bring lasting peace to Lebanon.

    The long road to a ceasefire

    In the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Hezbollah vowed solidarity with the Palestinian movement, resulting in a running series of tit-for-tat attacks with Israel that escalated into a full-blown war in the fall of 2024.

    On Oct. 1, 2024, Israel invaded Lebanon – the sixth time since 1978 – in order to directly confront Hezbollah. That operation led to the killing of an estimated 3,800 Lebanese people and the displacement of over 1 million civilians. The damage to Lebanon’s economy is estimated at US$14 billion, according to the World Bank.

    Hezbollah lost a lot of its fighters, arsenal and popular support as a result. More importantly, these losses discredited Hezbollah’s claim that it alone can guarantee Lebanon’s territorial integrity against Israel’s invasion.

    The United States and France brokered a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel on Nov. 27, 2024. The agreement was based in part on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was adopted in 2006 to end that year’s 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. The resolution had as a central tenet the disarmament of armed militias, including Hezbollah, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

    The 2024 ceasefire built on that resolution. It required Hezbollah’s retreat beyond the Litani River, which at its closest point is about 20 miles from northern Israel. In return, and by February 2025, Israel was to gradually withdraw from Lebanese territories in order to allow the Lebanese army to take control of areas in the south and to confiscate all unauthorized weapons – a nod to Hezbollah’s arsenal.

    Yet, Israel maintained the occupation of several posts in southern Lebanon after that deadline and continued to launch attacks on Lebanese soil, the most recent being on May 8, 2025.

    The challenge of disarming Hezbollah

    Despite these violations, large-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah has not resumed. But the next step, a lasting peace based on the laying down of Hezbollah arms, is complicated by a series of factors, not least the sectarian nature of Lebanese politics.

    Since its inception in 1920, Lebanon’s governance has been defined by a polarized and formally sectarian political system, which seeded the roots of a decades-long civil conflict that began in 1975. A series of invasions by Israel in response to attacks from Lebanese-based Palestinian groups exacerbated sectarianism and instability.

    From this mix, Hezbollah emerged and became a powerful force during the late 1980s.

    The Taif Agreement, ending Lebanon’s civil war in 1989, formally recognized the state’s right to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories – and with it Hezbollah’s presence as a force of resistance. An uneasy coexistence between the government and Hezbollah emerged, which often spilled over into violence, including assassinations of important public figures.

    More recently, Hezbollah was responsible for a two-year political vacuum as it mobilized members to repeatedly block opposition candidates for the vacant presidency in the hopes of installing a leader that would support its agenda.

    A view from the southern Lebanese district of Marjeyoun shows smoke billowing from the site of Israeli airstrikes on May 8, 2025.
    Rabih Daher/AFP via Getty Images

    In January 2025 that standoff ended when Lebanon’s parliament elected army chief Joseph Aoun, a Maronite Christian, as president.

    The acquiescence of Hezbollah and its allies was in part a sign of how much the power of the Shiite militia had been diminished by Israel during the conflict.

    But it is also the result of a widespread general understanding in Lebanon of the need to end the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel’s war. The new president has brought much-needed hope to a battered country – one that has been plagued by numerous crises, including a collapsed economy that by 2019 had pushed 80% of the population into poverty.

    But Aoun’s presidency signals the changing political environment in another key way; unlike his predecessors, Aoun has not endorsed Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.

    Further, Aoun has announced his intentions to disarm the group
    and to fully implement resolution 1701.

    To this end, Aoun has made impressive gains. According to state officials, the Lebanese army had by the end of April 2025 dismantled over 90% of Hezbollah’s infrastructure south of the Litani River and taken control over these sites.

    Yet Hezbollah’s chief, Naim Kassem, doggedly rejects calls to disarm and integrate the group’s fighters into the Lebanese armed forces.

    Even in Hezbollah’s weakened position, Kassem believes only his movement, and not the Lebanese state, can guarantee Lebanon’s safety against Israel. And Israel violations of the ceasefire only play into this narrative.

    “We will not allow anyone to remove Hezbollah’s weapons,” Kassem said after one recent airstrike, vowing that the group would hand over weapons only when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and ended it’s air incursions.

    Can Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun, untangle the Gordian knot of Lebanese politics?
    Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

    The challenge going forward

    Yet countries including the United States and Qatar – not to mention Israel – consider Hezbollah’s disarmament a prerequisite to both peace and much-needed international assistance.

    And this makes the task ahead for Aoun difficult. He will be well aware that international aid is desperately needed. But pressing too hard to accommodate either Israel’s or Hezbollah’s interests risks, respectively, exacerbating either domestic political pressures or jeopardizing future foreign investment.

    To complicate matters further, the situation in Lebanon is hardly helped by developments in neighboring Syria.

    The fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad in December 2024 has added another element of regional uncertainty and the fear in Lebanon of further sectarian violence. Although Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has vowed to protect all religious groups, he was not able to prevent the massacre of Alawite civilians in several coastal towns – an attack that triggered a fresh wave of refugees heading toward Lebanon.

    The removal of Assad was another blow for Hezbollah, a strong Assad ally that benefited from years of Syrian interference in Lebanon.

    The challenge of international relations

    For now, a return to full-scale war in Lebanon does not appear to be on the table.

    But what comes next for Lebanon and Hezbollah depends on many factors, not least the state of Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza and any spillover into Lebanon. But the actions of other regional actors, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran, matter too. Should Saudi Arabia be encouraged down the path of normalizing relations with Israel – a process interrupted by the Oct. 7 attack – then it would impact Lebanon in many ways.

    Any deal would, from the Saudi perspective, likely have to include a solution to the question of Palestinian statehood, taking away one of Hezbollah’s main grievances. It would also likely put pressure on Lebanon and Israel to find a solution to its long-standing border dispute.

    Meanwhile, Iran, too, is seemingly turning to diplomatic means to address some of its regional issues, with nascent moves to both improve ties with Saudi Arabia and forge forward with a new nuclear deal with the U.S. This could see Tehran turn away from a policy of trying to impose its influence throughout the region by arming groups aligned with Tehran – first among them, Hezbollah.

    Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with the American Red Cross.

    ref. Disarming Hezbollah is key to Lebanon’s recovery − but task is complicated by regional shifts, ceasefire violations – https://theconversation.com/disarming-hezbollah-is-key-to-lebanons-recovery-but-task-is-complicated-by-regional-shifts-ceasefire-violations-255671

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why we’ve fallen out of love with dating apps

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anh Luong, Assistant Professor of Business Analytics, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    pathdoc/Shutterstock

    Dating apps have transformed how people meet romantic partners. But they seem to be falling out of favour.

    Data shows that last year, four of the biggest dating apps in the UK lost over a million users between them. And research my colleague and I worked on suggested that this is because people have become frustrated and bored with digital matchmaking.

    The frustration is usually the result of inconsiderate behaviour from other app users. And the boredom appears to stem from a growing belief that the AI used by these apps seems to prioritise short-term engagement metrics over meaningful connections.

    This marks a significant shift from earlier online dating websites, which were notably more transparent about how they tried to establish authentic connections. Often this was through detailed answers to compatibility quizzes or personality assessments.


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


    For example, OkCupid.com (founded 2004) asked users a wide range of multiple-choice questions. It then went further by also asking them to specify the responses to those same questions they wanted to see from prospective partners.

    In contrast, today’s dating apps increasingly rely on less transparent AI which seems to be based on simplistic engagement metrics (number of swipes, frequency of texts, time spent on the app) rather than a path to genuine compatibility.

    The result is often a selection of vague, fleeting connections that do not amount to meaningful relationships. And the business model of today’s dating apps – selling increased visibility and access to matches – creates a challenging environment for many users to find the matches they want.

    Because of this, many users experience a sense of dissatisfaction which manifests itself in four stages.

    It begins with what I call a “boredom cycle”. General boredom prompts many daters to use the app in the first place, but resulting conversations often turn into uninspired and lacklustre exchanges. This adds to the boredom, which then spreads and grows throughout the entire dating app network.

    After that is a general sense of disappointment, as users become jaded from regular “ghosting” (cutting off communication without notice), “flaking” (cancelling dates at the last minute), and mundane message exchanges which don’t lead to actual dates.

    This all leads to a third stage of “algorithmic cynicism”. At this point, users become increasingly sceptical of dating app algorithms, suspecting that their primary function is to encourage the purchase of certain features rather than to establish authentic connections.

    Finally, communication fatigue kicks in. Users go through the motions of swiping and texting with a sense that there are no better alternatives. It all becomes a somewhat hollow experience which ultimately drives many away from the platforms completely.

    Swipe on, swipe off

    Research has also shown that the initial rise of online dating usage among millennials coincided with early enthusiasm about social media. But this enthusiasm has diminished.

    Social media users are now increasingly suspicious (and vigilant) about the risks of misinformation, scams, and offensive content.

    ‘And how’s the algorithm working out for you guys so far?’
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    Despite all of this, people still seek connections through dating platforms – whether for casual or long-term partnerships. So perhaps the issue is not with digital dating itself, but with how the industry uses AI. And an alternative is possible.

    In related research on human-AI joint decision-making, my colleagues and I found that when people interact with an imperfect AI system, but also receive clear feedback about the their own behaviour patterns and how the AI responds, they can help to correct errors.

    That research focused on financial decisions, but dating apps could do a similar thing by openly providing daters with personalised insights about how AI algorithms are responding to their activity. This is something that no dating app currently does.

    Instead, they let users adjust certain filters, such as age, location and ethnicity. But then they use AI to create “revealed preferences” based on people’s patterns of engagement with the app, like swiping and messaging. These “revealed preferences” seem to greatly influence the kinds of profiles that the dating apps’ AI recommends.

    For example, even if someone says they are keen to date people across a wide age range, the app may still end up recommending profiles of a narrower age group, because the user has tended to swipe right on those in the past. Because of this, users have expressed concerns that the AI could be adding unwanted limitations to their potential dating pool.

    In the AI of the beholder

    Indeed, our research shows that a cynical view of dating app algorithms is a key reason why something as potentially exciting as finding a romantic partner can become so dreadfully boring.

    Addressing this issue, by simply explaining to daters how AI interprets their use of the app (the swipes, the matches, and actual dates) could be a valuable selling point. Giving users freedom to adjust other filters besides demographics, such as those related to their values and interests, could further increase interest.

    This would represent a return to the more transparent match-making principles of earlier dating websites, but with the benefits of the latest technology.

    Our research suggests that as dating app users grow ever more discerning, they will demand greater transparency and an improved overall dating app experience. The industry’s future may ultimately depend on whether companies can shift focus from impersonal engagement metrics to fostering authentic connections.

    And platforms which embrace transparency and empower users could make many fall in love with dating apps all over again.

    Anh Luong 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. Why we’ve fallen out of love with dating apps – https://theconversation.com/why-weve-fallen-out-of-love-with-dating-apps-249333

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The roots of dementia can start in childhood – prevention should be a lifelong goal

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Chiesa, Senior Research Fellow and Alzheimer’s Research UK David Carr Fellow, UCL

    Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock

    More than 60 million people are estimated to be living with dementia, resulting in over 1.5 million deaths a year and an annual cost to the global healthcare economy of around US $1.3 trillion (almost £1 trillion).

    Despite decades of scientific research and billions of pounds of investment, dementia still has no cure. But what of the old saying that prevention is better than cure? Is preventing dementia possible? And if so, at what age should we be taking steps to do so?

    Despite what many believe, dementia is not simply an unavoidable consequence of ageing or genetics. It is estimated that up to 45% of dementia cases could potentially be prevented by reducing exposure to 14 modifiable risk factors common throughout the world.

    Many of these risk factors – which include things like obesity, lack of exercise, and smoking – are traditionally studied from middle age (around 40 to 60 years old) onwards. As a result, several of the world’s leading health bodies and dementia charities now recommend that strategies aimed at reducing dementia risk should ideally be targeted at this age to reap the greatest benefits.


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


    We argue, however, that targeting even younger ages is likely to provide greater benefits still. But how young are we talking? And why would exposure to risk factors many decades before the symptoms of dementia traditionally appear be important?

    To explain, let’s work backwards from middle age, starting with the three decades covering adolescence and young adulthood (from ten to 40 years old).

    Many lifestyle-related dementia risk factors emerge during the teenage years, then persist into adulthood. For example, 80% of adolescents living with obesity will remain this way when they are adults. The same applies to high blood pressure and lack of exercise. Similarly, virtually all adults who smoke or drink will have started these unhealthy habits in or around adolescence.

    This poses two potential issues when considering middle age as the best starting point for dementia-prevention strategies. First, altering health behaviour that has already been established is notoriously difficult. And second, most high-risk individuals targeted in middle age will almost certainly have been exposed to the damaging effects of these risk factors for many decades already.

    As such, the most effective actions are likely to be those aimed at preventing unhealthy behaviour in the first place, rather than attempting to change long-established habits decades down the line.

    The roots of dementia

    But what about even earlier in people’s lives? Could the roots of dementia stretch as far back as childhood or infancy? Increasing evidence suggests yes, and that risk factor exposures in the first decade of life (or even while in the womb) may have lifelong implications for dementia risk.

    To understand why this may be, it’s important to remember that our brain goes through three major periods during our lives – development in early life, a period of relative stability in adult life, and decline (in some functions) in old age.

    Most dementia research understandably focuses on changes associated with that decline in later life. But there is increasing evidence that many of the differences in brain structure and function associated with dementia in older adults may have at least partly existed since childhood.

    For example, in long-term studies where people have had their cognitive ability tracked across their whole lives, one of the most important factors explaining someone’s cognitive ability at age 70 is their cognitive ability when they were 11. That is, older adults with poorer cognitive skills have often had these lower skills since childhood, rather than the differences being solely due to a faster decline in older age.

    Similar patterns are also seen when looking for evidence of dementia-related damage on brain scans, with some changes appearing to be more closely related to risk factor exposures in early life than current unhealthy lifestyles.

    Taken together, perhaps the time has come for dementia prevention to be thought of as a lifelong goal, rather than simply a focus for old age.

    A lifelong prevention plan

    But how do we achieve this in practical terms? Complex problems require complex solutions, and there is no quick fix to address this challenge. Many factors contribute to increasing or decreasing an individual’s dementia risk – there is no “one size fits all” approach.

    But one thing generally agreed upon is that mass medication of young people is not the answer. Instead, we – along with 33 other leading international researchers in the field of dementia – recently published a set of recommendations for actions that can be taken at the individual, community and national levels to improve brain health from an early age.

    Our consensus statement and recommendations deliver two clear messages. First, meaningful reductions in dementia risk for as many people as possible will only be achievable through a coordinated approach that brings together healthier environments, better education and smarter public policy.

    Second – and perhaps most importantly – while it’s never too late to take steps to reduce your risk of dementia, it’s also never too early to start.

    Scott Chiesa receives funding from an Alzheimer’s Research UK David Carr Fellowship.

    Francesca Farina receives funding from the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Chicago.

    Laura Booi 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 roots of dementia can start in childhood – prevention should be a lifelong goal – https://theconversation.com/the-roots-of-dementia-can-start-in-childhood-prevention-should-be-a-lifelong-goal-255845

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cockney Yiddish: how two languages influenced each other in London’s East End

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nadia Valman, Professor of Urban Literature, Queen Mary University of London

    Yiddish is a familiar presence in contemporary English speech. Many people use or at least know the meaning of words like chutzpah (audacity), schlep (drag) or nosh (snack).

    These words have been absorbed into English from their original speakers, eastern European Jews who migrated to Britain in the late 19th century, through generations of living in close proximity in areas like London’s East End.

    Linguistics scholars have even theorised that elements of a Yiddish accent may have influenced the cockney accent as it evolved in the early 20th century. Phonetic analysis of cockney speakers recorded in the mid-20th century suggests that East Enders who grew up with Jewish neighbours spoke English with speech rhythms typical of Yiddish.

    A distinctive pronunciation of the “r” sound is thought to have originated among Jewish immigrants and spread into the wider population.


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


    But, as we explore in our new podcast, cockney reshaped the Yiddish language too. This can be seen in surviving texts from the popular culture of the Jewish immigrant East End, including newspapers and songsheets, where songs, poems and stories dramatise the thrills and challenges of modern London.

    The Yiddish music of London’s East End brought together the Yiddish language and Jewish culture of eastern Europe with the raucous, irreverent style of the cockney music hall. Theatres and pubs overflowed with audiences eager to see the immigrant experience in Whitechapel represented in all its perplexity and pathos, with a good measure of slapstick comedy.

    A Yiddish music hall song from around 1900 jokes that East Enders live on “poteytes un gefrayte fish” – a Yiddish version of the cockney staple fish and chips. The song lists the many novelties that immigrants encountered on arriving in the metropolis: trains running underground, women wearing trousers and people speaking on telephones.

    Yiddish music hall song ‘London hot sikh ibergekert’ (London has turned itself upside down) performed by the author’s (Vivi Lachs) band Katsha’nes.

    Yiddish was also the language of street protest in the Jewish East End. During the “strike fever” of 1889, when workers throughout east London were demanding better pay and working conditions, the Whitechapel streets resonated with the voices of Jewish sweatshop workers singing:

    In di gasn, tsu di masn fun badrikte felk rasn, ruft der frayhaytsgayst (In the streets, to the masses / of oppressed peoples, races / the spirit of freedom calls).

    This song was penned by the socialist poet Morris Winchevsky, an immigrant from Lithuania who spoke Yiddish as a mother tongue but preferred to write in literary Hebrew. In London he switched to writing in the vernacular language of Yiddish in order to make his writing more accessible to immigrant Jewish workers. The song became a rousing anthem in labour protests across the Yiddish-speaking world, from Warsaw to Chicago.

    The decline of Yiddish

    Yet from the earliest days of Jewish immigration to London, the Yiddish-language culture of the East End was a focus of anxiety for the Jewish middle and upper class of the West End. They regarded Yiddish as a vulgar dialect, detrimental to the integration of Jewish immigrants in England.

    While they provided significant philanthropic support for immigrants, they banned the use of Yiddish in the educational and religious institutions that they funded.

    In 1883, budding novelist Israel Zangwill was disciplined by the Jews’ Free School, where he worked as a teacher, for publishing a short story liberally sprinkled with dialogues in cockney-Yiddish.

    By the 1930s Yiddish had begun to decline. As Jews moved away from the East End, local Yiddish newspapers folded and publications dwindled.

    The Yiddish writer I.A. Lisky, who wrote fiction for a keen but diminishing readership in the London Yiddish newspaper Di tsayt, movingly described a young woman and her grandmother who each harbour complex hopes and worries but cannot communicate: “Ken ober sibl nit redn keyn yidish un di bobe farshteyt nor a por verter english. Shvaygt sibl vayter.” (But Sybil spoke no Yiddish, and her grandmother knew only a few words of English. So she remained silent.)

    Yiddish-language newspapers like Der Fonograf flourished in the early 20th century East End.
    Courtesy of Jewish Miscellanies website.

    Jewish writers of the postwar period were haunted by the sense of a lost connection to the Yiddish language and culture of previous generations.

    The novelist Alexander Baron, who grew up in Hackney, remembered his grandparents reading Yiddish literature and newspapers, and his parents speaking Yiddish when they did not want their children to understand what they were saying.

    In his novel The Lowlife (1963) the narrator’s vocabulary is peppered with Yiddish words. But these fragments are all that remains of his link to the East End where he was born. When he returns to these streets, he feels that “my too, too solid flesh in the world of the past is like a ghost of the past in the solid world of the present; it can look on but it cannot touch”.

    Yiddish in London today

    If you walk through the north London neighbourhood of Stamford Hill today, you’ll hear Yiddish on the streets and see new Yiddish books on the shelves of the local bookshops. Although they have no connection to the Victorian Jewish East End, the ultra-orthodox Hasidic community who live there speak Yiddish as their first language.

    And for a younger generation of secular Jews, Yiddish is also acquiring a new appeal. They look to past traditions of Jewish diasporism to forge an identity rooted in language, culture and solidarity with other minorities rather than nationalism.

    London is one centre of this worldwide revival: the Friends of Yiddish group established in the East End in the late 1930s is now flourishing in its contemporary incarnation as the Yiddish Open Mic Cafe. And Yiddish is once again a language that anyone can learn.

    The Ot Azoy Yiddish summer school is in its 13th year, and new Yiddish language schools are thriving, including east London-based Babel’s Blessing, which teaches diaspora languages including Yiddish and offers free English classes to refugees and asylum seekers. The annual Yiddish sof-vokh hosts an immersive weekend for Yiddish learners.

    Yiddish culture too is being rejuvenated. Projects we have been involved with include the Yiddish Shpilers theatre troupe, the Great Yiddish Parade marching band, which has brought Winchevsky’s socialist anthems back onto London’s streets, and the London band Katsha’nes, which has reimagined cockney Yiddish music hall songs for the 21st century.

    If Yiddish was once reviled as a debased, slangy mishmash, full of borrowings and adaptations, it’s precisely for those qualities that it is celebrated today.

    Nadia Valman received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for research included in this article.

    Vivi Lachs received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for research included in this article.

    ref. Cockney Yiddish: how two languages influenced each other in London’s East End – https://theconversation.com/cockney-yiddish-how-two-languages-influenced-each-other-in-londons-east-end-252779

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Putin dodges peace talks in Istanbul as Russia pushes for territorial concessions from Ukraine

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    Demands by British, French, German and Polish leaders in Kyiv last weekend that Russia agree to a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine or face possible “massive” sanctions went down in Moscow about as well as you’d expect. In an address from the Kremlin, Russian president Vladimir Putin lambasted European powers for talking to Russia “in a boorish manner and with the help of ultimatums”.

    He did, however, offer a counter-proposal: an invitation for Ukraine to take part in direct talks in the Turkish city of Istanbul. Putin called the talks “the first step towards a long-term, lasting peace”. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, accepted the invitation and announced he would attend the talks in person. He challenged Putin to do the same.

    But on the eve of the talks it was announced that, no, Putin wouldn’t attend and a junior delegation would be sent in his place. Zelensky, who is in Turkey anyway for talks with the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has called the Russian envoy “phony” and accused Moscow of sending “stand-in props”.

    Putin’s no-show, alongside Russia’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire as a precursor to negotiations, probably says all you need to know about whether Moscow truly intends to bring the war to an end. But, regardless, the talks are the first to take place directly between the two warring parties since the early weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    The Russian delegation in Istanbul is being led by Vladimir Medinsky, a Putin aide who led the previous round of direct peace talks with Ukraine. This is evidence, as Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko also point out, that Russia wants the talks to be based on the same framework as in 2022 – namely, forcing Ukraine to accept significant restrictions on its military and sovereignty.

    Wolff and Malyarenko, who are two regular contributors to our coverage of the war in Ukraine, explain that Russia’s territorial demands have become more contentious since the start of the war. Russia’s current position is that it sees international recognition of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as part of Russia as “imperative”.

    This is a non-starter for Ukraine. But Wolff and Malyarenko suggest there could be some flexibility on accepting that some parts of Ukrainian territory are under temporary Russian control in exchange for peace.

    The problem, they write, is that much of the territory Russia currently occupies, including Crimea and land on the shores of the Azov Sea, is of key strategic value for Russia. Donetsk and Luhansk, meanwhile, have substantial economic value because of the resources located there.

    In any case, there is no guarantee that territorial concessions from Kyiv now would put a permanent end to the war, write Wolff and Malyarenko. This is because it “does not address the fundamental issue of how to deal with a vengeful and revisionist autocracy on Europe’s doorstep”.




    Read more:
    Territorial concessions will be central to any Ukraine peace deal, and to Russia’s long-term plan


    Lasting peace between India and Pakistan, two countries that regularly clash over control of the disputed Kashmir region, is proving equally tricky to find. Several rounds of military strikes, prompted by a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in April that killed at least 31 people, have recently brought the nuclear powers closer to war than they have been in decades.

    The Trump administration initially expressed reluctance to get involved, saying it was “none of our business”. But as hostilities rapidly escalated, raising the prospect of nuclear war, US officials stepped in and talked down the two countries. A ceasefire was agreed that, for almost a week now, seems to have held.

    Alex Waterman and Sudhir Selvaraj, experts on peace studies at the University of Bradford, say the ceasefire represents an “incredibly precarious peace”.

    That ceasefires have been agreed – and respected – by the two parties before is cause for optimism, they write. But cross-border tensions have increased in recent years. Waterman and Selvaraj argue this has been part of a strategy used by Pakistan’s powerful army to deflect attention away from political and economic crises at home.

    Tensions remain high and may, at some point, spill over again. Some of the decisions taken by India after the recent terror attack, for instance, such as the suspension of a treaty governing water sharing of rivers in the Indus basin, could compel further support for militant groups in Kashmir. Despite a US offer to mediate talks between the two countries, deeper resolution looks a way off.




    Read more:
    India and Pakistan have agreed a precarious peace – but will it last?


    Donald Trump, meanwhile, is wrapping up his four-day tour of the Middle East. His visit has seen him sit down with the Saudi crown prince and the Qatari emir (as well as Syria’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa) to discuss bolstering economic and security ties.

    In that sense, the trip has been a resounding success. Trump signed a US$142 billion (£107 billion) arms deal with Saudi Arabia and agreements with Qatar that, according to the White House, will “generate an economic exchange worth at least US$1.2 trillion”.

    Adam Hanieh, a professor of political economy at the University of Exeter, explains that arrangements like these are part of a long history in which the Gulf monarchies have supported the architecture of US global power.

    In this piece, Hanieh explores how the vast amounts of income generated by the Gulf’s nationalised petroleum industries in the 20th century was invested into US financial markets. Gulf states, he writes, were essential contributors to the growth of the US as a global financial power.

    The US promised military protection in return, resulting in a web of American military bases across the region. As Trump’s lavish welcome in the Middle East shows, the relationship between the US and Gulf monarchies looks robust.

    But much has changed in the past two decades, says Hanieh, referring to China’s rise as a global manufacturing hub. The Gulf is a critical energy lifeline for Beijing, while China’s demand for oil, gas and petrochemicals will be a vital part of the Gulf’s economic future.




    Read more:
    Not every US president gets a free private jet, but the Gulf states have boosted US economic dominance for decades


    Trump is no stranger to competition with China, as his first five months in office have shown. Tit-for-tat tariffs that the US and China imposed on each other quickly snowballed into heavy duties, as high as 145% on Chinese goods looking to enter the US.

    However, after weeks of signalling that tariff levels could reduce, US and Chinese officials announced this week that US tariffs on Chinese goods would drop to 30% for a period of 90 days, while Chinese tariffs on US products would drop back to 10%. Trade negotiations between the two countries will continue.

    We asked Chee Meng Tan, an assistant professor of business economics at the University of Nottingham, what the deal means for China. He says the tariff reduction has provided China with much-needed relief as it attempts to repair its ailing economy.

    But China will ultimately hope to bring US tariffs down to around 10%, in line with the rest of the world. And, as Tan explains, there is more China can do to persuade the Trump administration to cut tariffs further. Ensuring the flow of critical minerals to the US and assuring its support for US agriculture, an important political support base for Trump, will be key.

    China needs to engage with the US and lower US tariffs as much as possible. But it will want to look at other options, writes Tan, rather than relying on an unpredictable Trump. The next 90 days are a big deal for Beijing.




    Read more:
    China-US trade war: the next 90 days are a big deal for Beijing as it seeks long-term solutions


    Jonathan Este is on holiday.

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. Putin dodges peace talks in Istanbul as Russia pushes for territorial concessions from Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/putin-dodges-peace-talks-in-istanbul-as-russia-pushes-for-territorial-concessions-from-ukraine-256504

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to write a perfect wedding speech – according to ancient orators

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Roberts, Professor of English and University Orator, Birmingham City University

    IVASHstudio/Shutterstock

    Looking for an example of how not to give a wedding speech? Try this. I was recently told an anecdote about guests at a wedding who became suspicious about the detached, cliched style of the groom’s speech, and the monotonous way it was read. Gathered at the reception afterwards, they asked ChatGPT to write a groom’s wedding speech. Bingo! The result was as good as identical.

    Admittedly, whether you’re bride or groom, best man or chief bridesmaid, giving a wedding speech can be a scary prospect. But if you want to keep it personal and memorable, AI is not the answer.

    So what is? You could do a lot worse than following the five canons of classical rhetoric, as recommended by the great practitioners of the ancient world, Cicero and Quintilian: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery.

    1. Invention

    The first canon of classical rhetoric is invention. That’s the process of discovering and developing the ideas you’ll use in your speech.

    You can’t speak about everything, and no one likes a speech that drones on. Around ten minutes is all you need. That leaves you time for maybe six or seven events in the life of the person you’re talking about.

    If you visualise those six or seven events, that will help you remember them. Is there a theme or characteristic that binds them together? Identify one or two, and use them to create a thread.

    Good speakers often begin with a bit of a warm-up – maybe some light-hearted comments about the venue, or something in the news, or just a good joke. Plan to single out people in the audience for a mention or a laugh. Say something nice about the new family, or friendship groups you’ve discovered through the relationship.


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    2. Arrangement

    History is your best friend when it comes to arranging the order of your speech. The events you’ve chosen under “invention” happened in order of time. So lean on history and organise them chronologically.

    Also, remember that many of the best wedding speeches often follow an arc from light to serious. You can make fun of your subject for a while, but nothing quite beats ending with love.

    3. Style

    This will vary depending on your role. Best men and chief bridesmaids traditionally skirt the boundaries of politeness, or sometimes go crashing through them (the worst best-man jokes are not repeatable here, nor anywhere else, and there’s no shortage of books dedicated to them).

    Mostly you’ll be talking to a mixed audience. You can be a bit risqué without offending anyone (sexist jokes are not recommended). And because you’re likely to be talking to people you know, try to be informal – the “familiar style”, as it used to be called. That also means being personal. The speech has to sound like you.

    Keep your speech as personal as possible.
    Dupe/Chloe Christianson, CC BY-SA

    4. Memory

    The prospect of remembering a speech may feel daunting or impossible. But speaking without notes makes a huge difference to how you engage your audience.

    Look into their eyes and they will be drawn in. The ancient Roman educator Quintilian was one among many orators to recommend visual analogues as a memory aid – often, the ground plan of a house, where a porch leads to a hall, which leads to a dining room, and so on. You populate each room with clues. They might be verbal or visual.

    Anything that helps you lift your eyes from a script will increase your chances of getting the audience on your side.

    5. Delivery

    Calm your nerves by visualising the scene ahead of time. Most people visit their wedding venue before the big day, so take the opportunity to get used to the space, and then run it through in your head afterwards.

    Try rehearsing the speech while you’re going for a walk. When it comes to the big day and the room is full, remember that you can’t speak directly to everyone. Instead, pick out maybe three or four people to focus on, in different parts of the room.

    Taking a walk around the venue ahead of time can help you to memorise your speech.
    Dupe/Marissa Gradei, CC BY-SA

    There are novel approaches and there are disasters. The double-act approach can work brilliantly, where bride and groom take turns to deliver a single speech, but it may need scripting. If the venue has the facilities, a slide show can work well. Picking out the various groups of families and friends and getting them to wave usually works as a good warmup.

    When you get a laugh, ride it – start speaking again just as the laughter is dying down. Don’t wait for silence. If you get into a panic and can’t think of anything, just say you’re so happy that you’re speechless, and raise your glass for a toast.

    David Roberts 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. How to write a perfect wedding speech – according to ancient orators – https://theconversation.com/how-to-write-a-perfect-wedding-speech-according-to-ancient-orators-251284

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Symptoms of androgen excess in women are too often being overlooked – or dismissed as ‘just cosmetic’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael O’Reilly, Clinical Associate Professor of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

    Hair loss can be a symptom of androgen excess Hazal Ak/Shutterstock

    Acne that won’t go away. Hair thinning at the crown. Unwanted facial hair, unpredictable periods, mood swings and weight gain. For millions of women, these aren’t just annoying symptoms – they’re signs of a deeper, often ignored condition: androgen excess. Despite affecting at least one in ten women worldwide, this hormonal imbalance remains underdiagnosed, misunderstood, and too often dismissed.

    Androgens are commonly known as “male hormones”, but all women have them too. The problem arises when levels become too high. This excess can wreak havoc across multiple systems in the body, disrupting menstrual cycles, fertility, metabolism and even mental health. Yet because some of the more visible symptoms, like acne or hirsutism, are often brushed off as cosmetic, many women don’t get the support or treatment they need.

    The most well known cause of androgen excess is polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). It affects up to 13% of women globally and costs the US alone an estimated US$15 billion (£11 bllion) each year.


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


    But, even though PCOS dominates the conversation, it’s not the only condition behind androgen excess. Other, sometimes more serious, disorders can also cause elevated hormone levels like hormone-secreting tumours, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (a group of genetic disorders that affect your adrenal glands), Cushing’s syndrome (a rare hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure to very high levels of the hormone cortisol) and severe insulin resistance. Yet too often, the assumption is that any woman with high androgens has PCOS, which can delay diagnosis of these rarer but potentially serious conditions.

    The effects of androgen excess go far beyond skin deep. It’s associated with significant metabolic issues – insulin resistance affects the majority of women with PCOS, putting them at higher risk for type 2 diabetes. Many also live with higher body weight and are more likely to develop high blood pressure, liver disease and cardiovascular problems.

    For some, difficulty conceiving is what finally leads them to seek medical help. But even among women not trying to become pregnant, hormonal imbalance can take a toll: anxiety and depression are two to three times more common in women with PCOS than in the general population.

    And yet, hormonal health is still too often treated as an afterthought. Many women describe years of feeling dismissed by doctors, told to “come back if you want to get pregnant”, or offered little more than the contraceptive pill. On average, women with PCOS wait over two years and consult several different healthcare professionals before receiving a diagnosis. Nearly half say their symptoms were initially ignored.

    Part of the problem may be the name itself. “Polycystic ovary syndrome” is a misnomer – many women with PCOS don’t actually have cysts on their ovaries, and having ovarian cysts doesn’t necessarily mean you have PCOS. It’s a complex metabolic and hormonal disorder, not just a reproductive one. That’s why some experts and patient advocates around the world are calling for a name change to better reflect the condition’s true nature. A more accurate label could raise awareness and improve the way it’s diagnosed and treated.

    Encouragingly, there’s been a major step forward in how androgen excess is addressed. In June 2024, the Society for Endocrinology in the UK published new clinical guidelines to help doctors better identify and manage the condition. These guidelines include clear diagnostic pathways, recommendations for when to carry out blood tests or scans, and guidance on when to refer patients for specialist care. Crucially, they acknowledge that androgen excess can affect women at all ages – not just during the reproductive years.

    A real difference

    Publishing guidelines is only the first step. To make a real difference in women’s lives, several things need to happen. First, there must be greater investment in research. We still don’t fully understand why some women develop excess androgens while others don’t, or why symptoms vary so much between individuals. Research in women’s health has long been underfunded and androgen-related conditions are no exception.

    Doctors also need better training. General practitioners, gynaecologists, dermatologists and even mental health professionals all have a role to play in recognising the signs of androgen excess. If they don’t feel confident identifying the symptoms or knowing when to investigate further, women will continue to fall through the cracks.

    Just as importantly, women need access to clear, trustworthy information. Too many are left to Google their symptoms or rely on online forums. Knowing what to look out for – and what to ask a doctor – can empower women to advocate for themselves and get the care they deserve.

    Finally, we need to move toward more joined up, holistic care. Hormonal health doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It affects – and is affected by – mental wellbeing, lifestyle, metabolism and reproductive health. Effective treatment means looking at the whole picture, not just prescribing a pill or focusing on fertility alone.

    Androgen excess may be invisible to those who don’t experience it, but its impact is profound. For too long, it has flown under the radar. With better understanding, better care, and a stronger voice for women’s health, we can ensure that hormonal symptoms are taken seriously – and treated with the urgency and compassion they deserve.

    Michael O’Reilly receives research funding from the Health Research Board (Ireland) and Wellcome

    Leanne Cussen 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. Symptoms of androgen excess in women are too often being overlooked – or dismissed as ‘just cosmetic’ – https://theconversation.com/symptoms-of-androgen-excess-in-women-are-too-often-being-overlooked-or-dismissed-as-just-cosmetic-255743

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is the pope a mathematician? Yes, actually – and his training may help him grapple with the infinite

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Balthasar Grabmayr, Junior Professor of Philosophy, University of Tübingen

    Humans are finite creatures. Our brains have a finite number of neurons and we interact with a finite number of people during our finite lifetime. Yet humans have the remarkable ability to conceive of the infinite.

    This ability underlies Euclid’s proof that there are infinite prime numbers as well as the belief of billions that their gods are infinite beings, free of mortal constraints.

    These ideas will be well known to Pope Leo XIV since before his life in the church, he trained as a mathematician. Leo’s trajectory is probably no coincidence since there is a connection between mathematics and theology.

    Infinity is undoubtedly of central importance to both. Virtually all mathematical objects, such as numbers or geometric shapes, form infinite collections. And theologians frequently describe God as a unique, absolutely infinite being.


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


    Despite using the same word, though, there has traditionally been a vast gap between how mathematicians and theologians conceptualise infinity. From antiquity until the 19th century, mathematicians have believed that there are infinitely many numbers, but – in contrast to theologians – firmly rejected the idea of the absolute infinite.

    The idea roughly is this: surely, there are infinitely many numbers, since we can always keep counting. But each number itself is finite – there are no infinite numbers. What is rejected is the legitimacy of the collection of all numbers as a closed object in its own right. For the existence of such a collection leads to logical paradoxes.

    A paradox of the infinite

    The most simple example is a version of Galileo’s paradox and leads to seemingly contradictory statements about the natural numbers 1,2,3….

    First, observe that some numbers are even, while others are not. Hence, the numbers – even and odd – must be more numerous than just the even numbers 2,4,6…. And yet, for every number there is exactly one even number. To see this, simply multiply any given number by 2.

    But then there cannot be more numbers than there are even numbers. We thus arrive at the contradictory conclusion that numbers are more numerous than the even numbers, while at the same time there are not more numbers than there are even numbers.

    Because of such paradoxes, mathematicians rejected actual infinities for millennia. As a result, mathematics was concerned with a much tamer concept of infinity than the absolute one used by theologians. This situation dramatically changed with mathematician Georg Cantor’s introduction of transfinite set theory in the second half of the 19th century.

    Georg Cantor, mathematical rebel.
    Wikipedia

    Cantor’s radical idea was to introduce, in a mathematically rigorous way, absolute infinities to the realm of mathematics. This innovation revolutionised the field by delivering a powerful and unifying theory of the infinite. Today, set theory provides the foundations of mathematics, upon which all other subdisciplines are built.

    According to Cantor’s theory, two sets – A and B – have the same size if their elements stand in a one-to-one correspondence. This means that each element of A can be related to a unique element of B, and vice versa.

    Think of sets of husbands and wives respectively, in a heterosexual, monogamous society. These sets can be seen to have the same size, even though we might not be able to count each husband and wife.

    The reason is that the relation of marriage is one-to-one. For each husband there is a unique wife, and conversely, for each wife there is a unique husband.

    Using the same idea, we have seen above that in Cantor’s theory, the set of numbers – even and odd – has the same size as the set of even numbers. And so does the set of integers, which includes negative numbers, and the set of rational numbers, which can be written as fractions.

    The most striking feature of Cantor’s theory is that not all infinite sets have the same size. In particular, Cantor showed that the set of real numbers, which can be written as infinite decimals, must be strictly larger than the set of integers.

    The set of real numbers, in turn, is smaller than even larger infinities, and so on. To measure the size of infinite sets, Cantor introduced so-called transfinite numbers.

    The ever-increasing series of transfinite numbers is denoted by Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, whose mystic nature has been explored by philosophers, theologians and poets alike.

    Set theory and Pope Leo XIII

    For Cantor, a devout Lutheran Christian, the motivation and justification of his theory of absolute infinities was directly inspired by religion. In fact, he was convinced that the transfinite numbers were communicated to him by God. Moreover, Cantor was deeply concerned about the consequences of his theory for Catholic theology.

    Pope Leo XIII.
    Wikipedia/Braun et Compagnie

    Pope Leo XIII, Cantor’s contemporary, encouraged theologians to engage with modern science, to show that the conclusions of science were compatible with religious doctrine. In his extensive correspondence with Catholic theologians, Cantor went to great lengths to argue that his theory does not challenge the status of God as the unique actual infinite being.

    On the contrary, he understood his transfinite numbers as increasing the extent of God’s nature, as a “pathway to the throne of God”. Cantor even addressed a letter and several notes on this topic to Leo XIII himself.

    For Cantor, absolute infinities lie at the intersection of mathematics and theology. It is striking to consider that one of the most fundamental revolutions in the history of mathematics, the introduction of absolute infinities, was so deeply entangled with religious concerns.

    Pope Leo XIV has been explicit that Leo XIII was his inspiration for his choice of pontifical name. Perhaps among an infinite number of potential reasons for the choice, this mathematical link was one.

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

    ref. Is the pope a mathematician? Yes, actually – and his training may help him grapple with the infinite – https://theconversation.com/is-the-pope-a-mathematician-yes-actually-and-his-training-may-help-him-grapple-with-the-infinite-256721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA: Grassley Introduces AI Whistleblower Protection Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
    WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Whistleblower Protection Act to provide explicit whistleblower protections to those developing and deploying AI. Currently, 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.  
    The legislation merges existing AI and whistleblower protection laws to shield the communications of current and former AI employees who make disclosures. The bill would also provide relief for AI whistleblowers who suffer retaliation, including reinstatement, back pay and compensation for damages incurred, where applicable.
    “Transparency brings accountability. Today, too many people working in AI feel they’re unable to speak up when they see something wrong. Whistleblowers are one of the best ways to ensure Congress keeps pace as the AI industry rapidly develops. We need to act to make these protections crystal clear. I’m proud to introduce this legislation to increase accountability and protect AI whistleblowers,” Grassley said.
    Additional co-sponsors include Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i). Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.  
    “AI is rapidly evolving in ways that have the potential to radically reshape our society and transform our world for the better and for the worse,” Coons said. “I have long been concerned with how much more tech companies know about the risks and harms of their products compared with regulators, independent researchers, and the public. The AI Whistleblower Protection Act is a critical tool among others that Congress must enact to ensure that we can get the best out of AI while also learning when it poses a substantial danger to public safety.”
    “As AI continues to develop at breakneck speed, we need to know about the risks that come with it,” Schatz said. “This bill protects whistleblowers from employer retaliation in the event that they report on significant dangers, security failures, or breaches of the law.”
    “Protecting whistleblowers who report AI security vulnerabilities isn’t just about workplace fairness—it’s a matter of national security,” Obernolte said. “As artificial intelligence becomes more powerful and more deeply embedded in our infrastructure, we must ensure that those who identify potential threats can speak up without fear of retaliation. This bill will help safeguard the American people from emerging technological risks and protect the integrity of our AI systems.”
    The legislation is endorsed by the National Whistleblower Center, Government Accountability Project, Center for AI Policy, The Anti-Fraud Coalition, Encode and Americans for Responsible Innovation.
    “The introduction of the [AI Whistleblower Protection Act] answers the call for AI industry employee whistleblower protections that will serve to protect the public, marking a turning point in guaranteeing transparency and accountability over AI companies,” said Stephen Kohn, Co-Founder and Chairman of the Board of the National Whistleblower Center. “National Whistleblower Center extends its sincere appreciation to [Senator Grassley], and [his] fellow sponsors and cosponsors, for championing this bill and taking a stand for all AI employees.”
    “In a time when AI technologies are advancing faster than many institutions can keep up, it’s absolutely vital that the federal government has access to accurate, truthful information about the dangers AI poses to public health and public safety,” said Jason Green-Lowe, Executive Director of the Center for AI Policy. “Senator’s Grassley’s strong and effective whistleblower protection bill will honor the brave individuals who step up to report genuine dangers and make it possible for them to do the right thing without giving up their careers. The Center for AI Policy firmly endorses this important and well-drafted bill and urges Congress to advance it without delay.”
    “Sen. Grassley’s bill offers crucial protection for AI whistleblowers,” said Jacklyn DeMar, President & CEO of The Anti-Fraud Coalition. “Sector-based whistleblower protections are desperately needed to allow insiders within the AI industry to best protect investors and ensure proper safety protocols are implemented. Given the rapid development and adoption of AI throughout our society, insiders working within the industry need to be properly protected when they blow the whistle.”
    “As AI systems grow more powerful and autonomous, we must shield those who sound the alarm about emerging risks. The engineers and researchers closest to these systems are the first to spot dangerous vulnerabilities or safety gaps,” said Sunny Gandhi, Vice President of Political Affairs at Encode AI. “The AI Whistleblower Protection Act creates a vital safety valve for our AI ecosystem, ensuring that legitimate national security concerns reach regulators before they spiral into preventable harm.”
    “Ensuring transparency and accountability in the rapidly evolving field of AI is a public interest and national security imperative,” said Brad Carson, President of Americans for Responsible Innovation. “Employees in the industry have firsthand knowledge of practices that may jeopardize public safety and our national security. The AI Whistleblower Protection Act ensures they aren’t silenced by a fear of retaliation.”
    Full text of the legislation is available HERE.
    Background:Last year, Grassley sent a letter to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman raising concerns about the alleged use of illegally restrictive NDAs, as well as the company’s employment, severance and non-disparagement agreements.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – New European biotech act: Which way forward? – 15-05-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    The new European biotech act, announced in Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines for 2025, was not included in the Commission work programme published on 11 February, but has recently been announced for early 2026. Strong uncertainty on the timing and scope of the biotech act have existed since the initial announcement. The Commission ordered a complex study to provide a foundation for the act only in early 2025, and it has become evident that discussions about the scope, key components, and timeline of the new European biotech act were still at an early stage. Expectations about the possibility for the Danish Presidency to initiate the discussions on the biotech act in the second half of 2025 have therefore faded. A key area of debate among stakeholders – from research to manufacturing, but also Member States – is the scope of the act. Concerns have been raised about the possibility that Commissioner Várhelyi and DG SANTE (currently leading on this file) might limit it primarily to healthcare, potentially overlooking the biotech industry’s broader potential in critical sectors including defence, energy, agriculture, and climate change mitigation. The European Parliament has the opportunity to use the time until a draft is presented to be proactive and use its tools to shape the proposal (see below), aiming for a comprehensive approach that encompasses biotech’s full impact across essential sectors. Discussions are currently taking place in the Committee on Public Health (SANT) and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), to demonstrate that it is about strengthening a competitive comprehensive European biotech sector.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – Hearings of Executive Director candidates for eu-LISA and EUDA – Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    On 20 May the LIBE committee will hold two hearings to assess the short-listed candidates for the positions of Executive Directors of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), and Executive Director of the European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA), respectively.

    The Executive Directors of eu-LISA and the EU Drugs Agency each leads and manages the agencies, with overall responsibility for their operations, and they are accountable to the Management Board. Each Executive Director is appointed for a period of a five-year period, with the possibility of a single renewal.

    The Executive Director will be appointed by the Management Board on the basis of a short-list of candidates proposed by the European Commission, following the selection process.

    Before appointment, the candidates proposed by the Commission shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee or committees of the European Parliament and answer questions from the committee members. After hearing the statement and the responses, the European Parliament shall adopt an opinion setting out its view and may indicate a preferred candidate.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Issues Legal Alert on Legislation Authorizing New Civil Penalties for Housing Law Violations

    Source: US State of California

    OAKLAND  California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a legal alert to help California local officials — such as council and board members, planning directors, city attorneys, and county counsel — understand new requirements of state housing law under Senate Bill 1037 (SB 1037). Authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta, SB 1037 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and establishes new court-ordered civil penalties for cities (including charter cities) and counties that (1) fail to adopt a compliant housing element and/or (2) fail to ministerially approve a housing development application that state law requires be approved ministerially. In today’s legal alert, Attorney General Bonta includes five hypothetical examples to assist local officials in understanding the practical effects and implementation of SB 1037. 

    “Increasing the production and affordability of housing is a top priority of mine. That’s why I created the Housing Justice Team, and that’s why my office regularly works with the Legislature on bills that will help us build housing faster. SB 1037, which I proudly co-sponsored, is one of those pieces of legislation,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This new law imposes bigger financial penalties than ever before when cities and counties deny or delay the homes that Californians desperately need, and the fines will go toward building even more affordable housing. We need every local government to build their fair share of housing, and SB 1037 requires the bare minimum: prepare your housing element on time and follow state law when you receive a housing development application.” 

    “Robust enforcement is absolutely critical to ensuring that the bold pro-housing policies California has enacted in recent years translate into actual new homes on the ground. With this legal guidance, cities have everything they need to comply with state housing law—these requirements aren’t surprises for anyone,” said Senator Scott Wiener. “I’m grateful for the Attorney General for being a strong pro-housing champion and using tools like SB 1037 to hold bad actors accountable for exacerbating our housing shortage.” 

    Previously, when a court found a locality in violation of state housing law, monetary penalties could only be imposed 60 days, or in some cases up to a year, after a court ordered compliance. SB 1037 provides that: 

    • If a court finds, in an action brought by the Attorney General or the California Department of Housing and Community Development, that a city, county, or local agency violated the housing element adoption deadline or ministerial approval requirements set forth in SB 1037, that court must subject violators to a minimum civil penalty of $10,000 per month, and not to exceed $50,000 per month, for each violation, accrued from the date of the violation until the date the violation is cured. 
    • When a city, county, or local agency refuses to adopt a legally compliant housing element and also ignores a court order directing them to do so for more than 120 days, a court must impose the maximum penalty of $50,000 per month. In addition, these violators will face serious curtailment of their local land use authority. 
    • Any civil penalty levied pursuant to SB 1037 must be earmarked to support the development of affordable housing located in the affected jurisdiction, to be spent within five years of deposit. Cities, counties, and local agencies may not use funds already dedicated to affordable housing to pay for these penalties.

    Background on Housing Element

    Under the state’s Housing Element Law, every city and county in California must periodically update its housing element to meet its share of the regional and statewide housing needs. Among other things, a compliant housing element must include an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and a program to implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the housing element. Once the housing element is adopted, it is implemented through zoning ordinances and other actions that put its objectives into effect and facilitate the construction of new homes for Californians at all income levels.  

    The housing element is a crucial tool for building housing for moderate-, low-, and very low-income Californians and redressing historical redlining and disinvestment. State income limits for what constitutes moderate-, low-, and very low-income Californians vary by county and can be found here. 

    Background on Ministerial Approval

    Ministerial, or streamlined, approval is where review by public officials, such as local planning staff, is limited to ensuring that a proposed development meets all objective standards in effect at the time that the application is submitted to the local government. If the objective standards are met, the project must be approved, without being subjected to special discretion or personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.  

    Laws requiring ministerial approval include but are not limited to streamlined housing approvals under SB 423 (Wiener, 2023), certain ADUs, duplexes, and lot splits under SB 9 (Atkins, 2021), small lot subdivisions under SB 684 (Caballero, 2023), and affordable housing located in commercial zones under AB 2011 (Wicks, 2022). 

    A copy of the legal alert can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Merkley, Wyden, Bonamici Demand Reinstatement of Critical Disaster Mitigation Program for Oregon

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
    May 15, 2025
    Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden—along with U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)—joined over 80 of their Senate and House colleagues in a bipartisan effort to demand that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem reinstate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This essential program supports local efforts to protect and harden communities in Oregon and nationwide from natural disasters.
    “BRIC funds are spurring communities across the country to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather, and forgoing these critical investments will only make it harder and more expensive for communities to recover from the next storm,” Merkley, Wyden, Bonamici, and the lawmakers wrote.
    The BRIC program provides grants for hazard mitigation planning and projects that reduce risks posed by natural hazards to communities, Tribal Nations, and territories requesting assistance. The lawmakers’ bipartisan letter emphasizes the urgent need to continue investing in pre-disaster mitigation and community resilience and calls on the Administration to work with Congress to improve the program’s accessibility and efficiency.
    “The BRIC program was established by Congress in the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump with bipartisan support. In the years since, this program has catalyzed community investments in resilient infrastructure, saving federal funds by investing in community preparedness before a disaster strikes,” they continued. “According to research, one dollar invested in disaster mitigation can save up to $18 in response and recovery expenditures.”
    Previously, Merkley led his Democratic colleagues in the Oregon delegation to denounce the cancellation of awards under the BRIC program. These grants are critical to ensure that Oregon’s communities—especially in frontier, rural, and coastal regions of the state—can withstand the increasing threat of natural disasters.
    “We urge the Administration to take swift action to reinstate the BRIC program, and to work with Congress to identify and implement reforms to strengthen our nation’s resilience for decades to come,” the lawmakers concluded.
    This latest letter was led by U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as well as U.S. Representatives Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.-11), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas-29), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.-01).
    In addition to Merkley, Wyden, and Bonamici, the letter was also signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Representatives Alma Adams (D-N.C.-12), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33), Donald Beyer (D-Va.-08), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.-08), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.-13), Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.-20), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-33), Angie Craig (D-Minn.-02), Sharice Davids (D-Kan.-03), Donald Davis (D-N.C.-01), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.-03), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.-22), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.-10), Chuy García (D-Ill.-04), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.-07), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.-04), Bill Keating (D-Mass.-09), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Jen Kiggans (R-Va.-02), Kimberlyn King-Hinds (R-Northern Marina Islands), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.-08), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Sarah McBride (D-Del.-01), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.-04), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.-08), Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.-03), Dave Min (D-Calif-47), Blake Moore (R-Utah-01), James Moylan (R-Va.-09), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Richard Neal (D-Mass.-01), Dan Newhouse (R-Wash-04), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.-01), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.-03), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine-01), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.-07), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.05), Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa), John Rutherford (R-Fla.-05), Linda Sánchez (R-Calif.-38), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.-05), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.-08), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.-07), Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.-03), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii-02), Norma Torres (D-Calif-35), David Valadao (R-Calif-22), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.-07), Eugene Simon Vindman (D-Va.-07), Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.-24), and Robert Wittman (R-Va.-01).
    The full letter is available by clicking here and follows below:
    Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator Richardson,
    We are writing to urge the Administration to reinstate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant (BRIC) program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). BRIC funds are spurring communities across the country to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather, and forgoing these critical investments will only make it harder and more expensive for communities to recover from the next storm. We acknowledge that the BRIC program, like all grant funding programs, has room for improvement, and we urge you to couple the reinstatement of the program with an opportunity for Congress and FEMA to improve the application review and funding distribution process to more effectively reduce the costs disasters pose to our communities, economies, and livelihoods.
    The BRIC program was established by Congress in the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump with bipartisan support. In the years since, this program has catalyzed community investments in resilient infrastructure, saving federal funds by investing in community preparedness before a disaster strikes.
    According to research, one dollar invested in disaster mitigation can save up to $18 in response and recovery expenditures. BRIC funds are making communities safer in the next storm through projects like upgrading and protecting wastewater and drinking water plants after the facilities suffered repeated flooding, or bridge upgrades and road drainage improvements to improve driver safety. Because of its benefits, the demand for BRIC grants continues to increase, and our states and communities benefit from the reliability of the funding cycles.
    The BRIC program also plays an essential role in helping Tribal Nations and rural communities strengthen their defenses against natural disasters and safeguard critical infrastructure. Through BRIC, Tribes and rural communities can access dedicated funding to strengthen community resilience by investing in hazard mitigation projects—such as flood protection, fire prevention, and infrastructure hardening—that are otherwise difficult to finance in rural or remote settings. Importantly, FEMA supports Tribal sovereignty by allowing Tribes to apply directly for funding, reserving a dedicated Tribal set-aside, and providing direct technical assistance—ensuring Tribes can lead their own planning and mitigation efforts. These investments not only strengthen community resilience but also honor the federal trust responsibility to support the safety, self-determination, and well-being of Tribal Nations.
    At the same time, we acknowledge that the BRIC program should be evaluated for opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce the complexities for recipients to access the critical resources. The benefits of the program should not be concentrated in or limited to jurisdictions with dedicated offices and the staff necessary to navigate the grant application requirements. Additionally, the program should be updated with a strategic approach that empowers states and local governments to address degraded and vulnerable infrastructure based on their localized priorities and understanding of risk.
    We urge the Administration to take swift action to reinstate the BRIC program, and to work with Congress to identify and implement reforms to strengthen our nation’s resilience for decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Three Bipartisan Klobuchar Bills to Support Law Enforcement and First Responders Advance out of Judiciary Committee

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Minnesota Amy Klobuchar
    WASHINGTON – During National Police Week, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that three of her bipartisan bills to bolster safety and resources for first responders and law enforcement officers passed out of the Judiciary Committee.
    The Honoring Our Fallen Heroes Act, which Klobuchar leads with Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), passed committee. This legislation would expand access to federal support for the families of firefighters and other first responders who pass away or become permanently disabled from service-related cancers. Currently, firefighters are only eligible for support under the Public Safety Officer Benefits (PSOB) program for physical injuries sustained in the line-of-duty, or for deaths from duty-related heart attacks, strokes, mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and 9/11 related illnesses.
    “First responders put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. It’s unacceptable that first responders who succumb to cancer from work-related exposure or become permanently and totally disabled don’t receive the same treatment as others who die in the line of duty,” said Klobuchar. “That’s why I’m working with Senator Cramer to ensure that firefighters and other first responders get the support they deserve. Our bipartisan legislation will honor the memory and sacrifice of St. Paul Fire Department Captain Mike Paidar and so many others who risk their lives in service of their communities.”
    “Our first responders epitomize courage and selfless sacrifice, confronting both the immediate perils of their duty and lingering health risks associated with their service,” said Cramer. “The exposure to dangerous carcinogens happens on our behalf. I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for passing the bill. It’s time to pass it on the Senate floor.”
    Klobuchar and Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) bipartisan Retired Law Enforcement Officers Continuing Service Act also passed the committee. The bill will support law enforcement agencies in hiring retired law enforcement officers to perform civilian law enforcement tasks. This includes helping with carjacking investigations by reviewing camera footage, helping with crime scene analysis, as well as investigations into financial and cyber-crimes, and to train new law enforcement officers.
    “Those in law enforcement have dedicated their careers to public service, and many want to continue serving their communities even after they have retired from the force,” said Klobuchar. “Our bipartisan bill will allow these law enforcement professionals to share the valuable skills they learned throughout their career by training the next generation of law enforcement and working on investigations for carjacking and other crimes.”
    ‘“Law enforcement in Iowa and across the nation are struggling with low recruitment and staffing shortages,” Grassley said. “Retired officers who are willing and able to continue serving their communities should have Congress’ support to do so. I’m glad to see this innovative and commonsense bill move forward.”
    The bipartisan Protecting First Responders from Secondary Exposure Act, which Klobuchar leads with Grassley, would support state and local emergency services with additional training and containment tools to guard against accidental exposure to lethal narcotics like fentanyl also passed.
    “As we continue fighting the fentanyl epidemic, we must also protect the health and safety of our first responders who are on the front lines responding to this crisis,” Klobuchar said. “Our bipartisan bill does this by giving first responders the resources necessary to prevent secondary exposures with lifesaving containment devices.”
    “As law enforcement officers and first responders work tirelessly to protect our communities, the federal government must act to ensure these brave individuals are equally protected. I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for advancing our bipartisan bill to help safeguard officers and responders from lethal narcotics exposure while on the job,” Grassley said.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Fitzgerald Introduces the Insurance Data Protection Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05) re-introduced the Insurance Data Protection Act. This legislation would crack down on the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) by repealing its subpoena authority and limiting how the office collects data from state insurance regulators.

    “FIO’s recent push to collect insurance underwriting data under the guise of climate risk is just another example of unelected bureaucrats advancing a political agenda that has no place in insurance regulation,” said Congressman Scott Fitzgerald. “The Insurance Data Protection Act curbs this federal overreach by repealing FIO’s coercive subpoena powers and strengthening safeguards for consumer data—so Americans can be confident their personal information isn’t being misused.”

    “The Insurance Data Protection Act would greatly enhance safeguards for consumer data and reaffirm state regulators’ authority to oversee the insurance industry,” said American Council of Life Insurers President and CEO David Chavern. “At the same time, it allows the FIO to fulfill its role in Washington as an advisor on insurance-related matters.”

    “FIO was created as an information resource, not a regulator. Its subpoena authority was meant as a last resort when data wasn’t available from other sources – not to help push political agendas,” said NAMIC’s Senior Vice President – Federal & Political Affairs Jimi Grande. “NAMIC commends Rep. Fitzgerald for his leadership in reintroducing the Insurance Data Protection Act to rein in FIO and reinforce collaboration with functional state insurance regulators.”

    “Since its creation, the Federal Insurance Office has repeatedly attempted to expand its authority beyond its original mandate, undermining the proven success of state-based insurance regulation,” said PIA CEO Mike Skiados. “The Insurance Data Protection Act offers meaningful reforms that reinforce the role of state insurance departments, which are best equipped to serve the unique insurance needs of their state. PIA commends Rep. Fitzgerald for his leadership in defending our state-based regulatory system.”

    BACKGROUND: For about 150 years, state insurance regulators and laws have regulated insurance companies. The Federal Insurance Office (FIO), created under Dodd-Frank, grew increasingly aggressive under the Biden-Harris Administration in collecting data from insurance companies, most recently issuing a proposed data collection to assess “climate-related financial risk.” Despite working with state regulators on previous efforts, Biden’s FIO intentionally chose to not collaborate with state regulators on an overarching nationwide climate data call.

    Although FIO has never issued a subpoena, as the office has accumulated power and become more aggressive in their encroachment of state regulators, the threat of a subpoena and other efforts to encroach on state-based insurance regulation should be eliminated.

    SUPPORTERS: American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), American Property & Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big “I”), National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), and National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA).

    Read the bill text here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Fallon Leads Introduction of the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Pat Fallon (TX-04)

    Congressman Fallon Leads Introduction of the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act

    Washington, May 15, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Pat Fallon (TX-04) led the House introduction of the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act today, a bill which would ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD)’s contracting for artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing tools prioritizes resiliency and competition. The bill would help spur competition and innovation with regards to the DOD contract bidding process, which would allow the US to stay ahead of competitors and ensure related data is kept secure. 

    “By relying on free market principles, the Department of Defense can help ensure competition and innovation when it comes to the bidding process for government AI and cloud contracts,” commented Rep. Pat Fallon. “It’s our duty to ensure the DOD is picking the winners now and, in the future, to keep ahead of our competitors. Due to the varied cyber threats facing our nation today, we must also ensure that AI and cloud related data is secure when it is held exclusively by the federal government. For these reasons, the Protecting AI and Cloud Competition in Defense Act is the next step forward Congress must take in the interest of US national security.”

    Representatives Sara Jacobs (CA-51) Chris Deluzio (PA-17) joined Rep. Fallon on the introduction of this bill. 

    MIL OSI USA News