Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK at heart of NATO talks on strengthening Euro-Atlantic security and support for Ukraine

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Press release

    UK at heart of NATO talks on strengthening Euro-Atlantic security and support for Ukraine

    NATO Allies are in Turkey to underline the Alliance’s support for Ukraine and commitment to a secure and stable Euro-Atlantic.

    • UK leading calls for Europe to support Ukraine
    • UK and NATO Allies will commit to building a stronger, fairer and more lethal NATO at meeting of Foreign Ministers in Antalya 
    • Visit follows UK hosted talks with European partners on bolstering security and support for Ukraine 

    As President Zelenskyy further demonstrates his commitment to peace by travelling to Istanbul for direct talks with Russia, NATO Allies are gathering in Turkey today to underline the Alliance’s support for Ukraine and commitment to a secure and stable Euro-Atlantic, with a stronger, fairer and more lethal NATO at its core. 

    At the NATO informal Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Antalya, the Foreign Secretary will lead calls for the strongest Alliance in history to stand united in the face of a generational threat from our adversaries, and stand behind Ukraine to secure a just and lasting peace. Security is the foundation of our Plan for Change and central to this government’s plans to deliver growth and prosperity to British working people.

    Ahead of the Hague Summit in June, Allies are meeting in Antalya with a clear message that NATO must step up together to meet this critical moment for our collective security. The Foreign Secretary will say that Europe must shoulder more responsibility for its own security, as security threats from Russia and its enablers continue to mount. 

    Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: 

    Today, President Zelenskyy is in Turkey in a further demonstration of his commitment to peace, ready to enter talks direct with Russia and continuing to push for a full ceasefire as a first crucial step.

    As myself and my fellow NATO Allies also travel to Turkey, we are united alongside Ukraine in our determination to secure a just and lasting peace. We are working to deliver more for our collective security and bring this barbaric war to an end.

    Euro-Atlantic security is the foundation of our Plan for Change. Without the security NATO provides, we cannot deliver the growth and prosperity the British people deserve.” 

    During his remarks in an informal meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the Foreign Secretary will update on UK steps to protect Euro-Atlantic security and disrupt Russia’s reckless actions to force Putin’s hand. He will say that every step the Alliance takes to increase pressure on Russia and achieve peace in Ukraine is another step towards security and prosperity at home and abroad. 

    Earlier this week, six spies working for Russia were sentenced in the UK, as the UK cracks down on Russian espionage attempts on British soil. The successful convictions came about as a result of close international cooperation with a number of NATO Allies, including Bulgaria, France and Germany, demonstrating a unified front against hostile Russian activity. 

    The visit follows the UK-hosted Weimar+ meeting on Monday, where representatives from France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland and the EU joined the Foreign Secretary in London to share Europe’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to peace and freedom. 

    It also comes after the Prime Minister’s visit to Oslo last week where the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) announced enhanced support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces through intensive training exercises, increasing interoperability across military platforms and enhancing countering disinformation support as well as allowing JEF Nations to learn from the battlefield experience of Ukraine’s armed forces.

    Media enquiries

    Email newsdesk@fcdo.gov.uk

    Telephone 020 7008 3100

    Email the FCDO Newsdesk (monitored 24 hours a day) in the first instance, and we will respond as soon as possible.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Competition watchdog gets green light for growth in latest move to back business

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Press release

    Competition watchdog gets green light for growth in latest move to back business

    Businesses and consumers will benefit from new growth-focused Strategic Steer set for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), in the latest step of the government’s agenda to reform regulation to drive growth as part of the plan for change.

    • Government delivers new strategic steer to competition watchdog to prioritise growth while ensuring effective competition and consumer protection
    • The steer reset CMA’s priorities with aim to create a level-playing field for businesses through more transparent, timely and responsive regulation
    • Part of wider push to ensure regulators drive investor confidence and support economic growth across the UK as part of the plan for change

    Businesses and consumers will benefit from new growth-focused Strategic Steer set for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) today (Thursday 15 May), in the latest step of the government’s agenda to reform regulation to drive growth as part of the plan for change.

    The steer resets the competition watchdog’s priorities, with a renewed focus on prioritising growth and investment while ensuring free and fair competition and protecting the rights of consumers.

    In addition to this, the steer is focused on minimising uncertainty for businesses by encouraging the CMA to be proactive, transparent, timely, predictable and responsive in its engagement, underpinning the government’s upcoming industrial strategy.

    The independent CMA has already set out positive plans to address these issues to deliver meaningful reforms, by announcing their new public commitment to the pace, predictability, proportionality and process of their mergers investigations, digital and consumer work   – giving businesses more clarity and confidence in the CMA’s work. The Government wants to see the same level of ambition from other regulators.

    This is just one part of its wider commitment to reforming the regulatory landscape with work underway to improve licensing regulations for businesses, a new regulation innovation office to speed up regulatory decisions and consolidating the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

    This is to ensure delivery not only for businesses but for taxpayers too by driving investment, boosting confidence and setting out the stall for the upcoming industrial strategy that will articulate a new relationship between business and government to boost growth – delivering the plan for change.

    Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said:

    This government believes in promoting and protecting competition – that is fundamental to our growth mission and Britain’s modern Industrial Strategy. Our economic regulators are crucial to creating the conditions for increased growth and investment. This steer sets out the government’s priorities for the CMA.

    I am grateful for the positive approach taken by the new Interim Chair and the Chief Executive as they re-focus the work of the CMA, supporting our Plan for Change to drive growth, investment and business confidence while protecting consumers.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, said:

    Competitive markets are more important than ever for attracting investment into the UK and driving economic growth, and our new Strategic Steer for the CMA will help us achieve these goals, making Britain the best country to do business.

    We fully support the CMA’s independence and welcome the steps it has already taken to act swiftly, predictably, independently, and proportionately to promote competition, protect consumers and strengthen our economy.

    Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: 

    The Strategic Steer reinforces the importance of a strong, independent competition and consumer protection regime, whilst situating this squarely in the context of the growth mission. 

    The steer provides helpful clarity on how the CMA should prioritise and go about our work, promoting competition and protecting consumers with a sharp focus on supporting higher levels of investment and economic growth.

    It reinforces the approach we have set out in the CMA’s 2025/26 Annual Plan and in the roll out of our 4Ps approach, focused on driving greater pace, predictability, proportionality and an improved process committed to strong stakeholder engagement. 

    The government expects the CMA to clearly communicate how it is taking account of the steer and report on how it has applied the steer in practice in its annual report.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ramirez to Noem: “YOU are not fit to hold the office, and I, again, – to your face – demand your resignation.”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Delia Ramirez – Illinois (3rd District)

    Washington, DC —  Today, Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03) demanded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s resign after confirming her understanding of her constitutional duties and confronting her with her unconstitutional, illegal weaponization of DHS to pursue a campaign of persecution, mass incarceration, and deportation. 

    During her questioning of Secretary Noem, Congresswoman Ramirez slammed Noem for profiling and dehumanizing individuals, betraying the constitutional commitment to due process, undermining court orders, breaking the law, engaging in corruption, and weaponizing the immigration system to violate our civil rights. 

    Video of Ramirez’s remarks here. 

    Remarks as prepared for delivery:

    Do you agree that the Judiciary is a coequal branch of government, and it is your obligation as a member of the Executive Branch to honor decisions made by the highest court of the land? Yes or no.   

    Do you agree that Congress is a coequal branch of government, and it is your obligation as a member of the Executive Branch to honor legislation and appropriations duly authorized by Congress? Yes or no

    Do you agree that Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse? Yes or no

    Do you believe you have the power to disregard Congressional appropriations and unilaterally repurpose funds that have been duly appropriated by Congress? Yes or no.

    Since you have been Secretary, you have repeatedly disregarded the law. You have illegally impounded funds that Congress appropriated, and your branch of government must implement pursuant to the law. Yet…

    You closed offices established in law, including the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.

    You cancelled contracts for programs authorized in law, including shelter and services programs, and citizenship and integration grants. 

    You obstructed and roughed up Members of this committee as they conducted Congressional oversight. 

    You redirected funds to terrorize our communities, create taxpayer-funded political propaganda campaigns, and hold sick, disrespectful press conferences in my state, where let me be clear, you are not welcome. 

    You corruptly used emergency authority to avoid procurement to make Trump’s private prison donors richer by directing $45 billion to them for expanded ICE detention centers.

    You defunded work to address real threats to the Homeland, while you pursue the college newspaper editor, labor leaders, and a Harvard scientist who failed to declare frog embryos at the airport. 

    Clearly, we don’t have time for all my questions, so I will be submitting questions to the record that I expect you and the Administration to answer. 

    Here is my final question: When you took your oath did you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Yes or no. 

    See, I find that laughable. You don’t behave like someone who takes that oath seriously. Let me tell you why…

    We don’t live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Trump’s will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies. 

    We are a democracy. We defend the Constitution, and we affirm the rule of law. We respect the co-equal branches of government, and we uphold our rights, even when we disagree. The foundation of our nation is based on a core set of constitutional rights, upon which our prosperity, pluralism, and peace depend. 

    You, however, have been leading this work for 110 days. And in that time, you have profiled and dehumanized our neighbors, betrayed our constitutional commitment to due process, undermined the courts, broken the law, engaged in corruption, and weaponized the immigration system to violate our civil rights. As Senator Murphy stated, your department is out of control, and as their leader, YOU are responsible. YOU have betrayed the sacred fundamentals of your oath; YOU are not fit to hold the office, and I, again, – to your face – demand your resignation and place that request on the record. 

    Mr Chairman, I yield back. “

    For the full text of the letter demanding Noem’s resignationCLICK HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Must Watch: Rep Dan Goldman Grills Secretary Kristi Noem Over Violation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Due Process Rights

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Goldman: “How can you say he’s been treated appropriately if the Supreme Court has ruled 9-0 that he hasn’t been treated appropriately? Why does your opinion have more authority than the Supreme Court?” 

     

    Watch the Video of the Exchange Here 

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today cross-examined Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the Secretary unlawfully deported to the notorious Salvadorian CECOT mega-prison as a result of an “administrative error” in March. Despite admitting his deportation was done in error and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling requiring the Secretary to actively facilitate Garcia’s return, she has taken no steps to return him to the United States pursuant to his constitutional right to due process. 

    A rush transcript of Congressman Goldman’s committee remarks is below: 

    Congressman Goldman:  I would like to go back to Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case, Madam Secretary. But my first question for you is a pretty simple one. It’s basic civics.  

    Which branch of government does the Constitution give the authority to interpret what the law is? The judiciary or the Executive Branch? 

    Secretary Noem: Sir, going forward, the interpretation of the law, you make the laws in this body, the Judicial Branch makes sure that they have integrity and they’re applied properly to individuals. 

    Congressman Goldman:  Okay. So I’m just going to take that as the judiciary branch.  

    Now, let’s focus for a second on what the Judiciary Branch has said about this case. We know the Supreme Court has said nine to nothing– notwithstanding your statements under oath here today that Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was afforded due process– that he was in fact not afforded due process because if he were, you would have seen the withholding order that did not permit him to be deported to El Salvador.  

    Now, you allege, and I guess the Attorney General alleges, that he’s a member of MS-13. That may very well be the case. And if he is, now that MS-13 is a Foreign Terrorist Organization, certainly the immigration laws would allow him and in fact to require him to be deported. I certainly would support that.  

    But the problem that we have here is that what you allege, what Ms. Green alleges, what the Attorney General alleges, is not the judiciary. 

    You don’t get to decide whether or not he is an MS-13 member. 

    And you don’t have to take my word for it, because Judge Wilkinson, a Fourth Circuit judge, very conservative, addressed this argument. 

    He said, “the government asserts that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident in its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order.” 

    Will you commit right now to give Mr. Abrego Garcia due process where you can prove your allegation that he is a member of MS13?

    Secretary Noem: Congressman, that judge that you just quoted did not say he was not a member of MS-13. Who did say that he was a member of MS-13 was law enforcement officers that encountered this individual. 

    Congressman Goldman: Yeah, he knows that. This is a Fourth Circuit judge. He knows what all of the evidence is. And he’s saying if that evidence– 

    [Interruption] 

    So won’t commit to follow this court order? 

    [Interruption

    Madam Secretary, I reclaim my time. Stop filibustering.  

    [Interruption] 

    Stop filibustering. 

    Will you give Mr. Abrego Garcia the due process at the Supreme Court and Judge Wilkinson has required you to give him? 

    Secretary Noem: Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador resident who is in his home country. If he were to come back to this country, he would be immediately removed again.  

    Congressman Goldman: How do you know?  

    Secretary Noem: He has received and been treated appropriately. 

    Congressman Goldman: How can you say he’s been treated appropriately if the Supreme Court has ruled nine-nothing that he hasn’t been treated appropriately? 

    Why is your opinion better and have more authority than the Supreme Court? 

    Secretary Noem:  We had instigators, two judges in immigration court that all said he was MS-13. 

    Congressman Goldman:  But you understand that that is you saying that. That is you saying that. 

    [Interruption] 

    No. That is you making that determination. The court considered all that. The judge has considered all that, Madam Secretary. 

    [Interruption] 

    If you would be quiet because I’m reclaiming my time. You are not following this court order. 

    But let’s focus on the court order because this opinion also says that to facilitate, as the Supreme Court requires, is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken.  

    What steps have you taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to allow him to get due process? 

    Secretary Noem: Abrego Garcia is in his home country. 

    Congressman Goldman: What steps have been taken? 

    I’m not advocating for him. I’m advocating for a court order, Madam Secretary. The court order says that you must take steps to follow the court order. 

    You are here under oath. What steps have you taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia pursuant to this court order? 

    Secretary Noem: It’s got to be extremely discouraging to be one of your constituents. To see you fight for a terrorist like this and not fight for them is extremely alarming to me.  

    Congressman Goldman: I’m fighting for due process, and that’s under the Constitution.  

    And you should fight too for due process.  

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Media law reforms to boost press sustainability and protect independence

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    Media law reforms to boost press sustainability and protect independence

    People’s access to independent and accurate news will be better protected under updated government rules, which will modernise powers around media mergers while supporting investment and growth.

    • Long-term sustainability and independence of UK press protected with government plans to modernise media merger rules in public interest
    • Powers to call in media mergers extended beyond TV, radio and newspapers to include online news sites and news magazines
    • Introduction of a 15% cap for state-owned investors will minimise potential ‘chilling effect’ whilst ensuring there is minimal risk of foreign state influence or control

    People’s access to independent and accurate news will be better protected under updated government rules being set out today, which will modernise powers around media mergers while supporting investment and growth.

    The Culture Secretary will today confirm reforms to extend powers to scrutinise takeovers beyond traditional media to online news sites and magazines for the first time.

    The media mergers regime will now cover acquisitions of UK online news publications and periodical news magazines, expanding beyond just television, radio and print newspapers as it presently stands.

    This reflects modern news consumption habits, with Ofcom reporting that seven in ten UK adults say they consume online news in some capacity.

    The expanded powers will allow greater scrutiny of takeovers that might negatively impact accurate reporting, freedom of expression and media plurality – which are essential to the UK’s democracy.

    The government is also introducing targeted exceptions to allow certain state-owned investment funds – such as sovereign wealth funds or pension funds – to invest up to 15% in UK newspapers and news periodicals. This balanced approach will still limit any scope for foreign state control or influence of news organisations while giving them much-needed flexibility to seek business investment that supports their long-term sustainability. 

    Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said:

    Britain’s free and independent press is a national asset like no other and it is right that we have strong measures in place to allow scrutiny of UK takeovers that might go against the public interest.

    These important, modernising reforms are about protecting media plurality and reflect the changing ways in which people are consuming news.

    We are fully upholding the need to safeguard our news media from foreign state control whilst recognising that  news organisations must be able to raise vital funding. We are taking a proportionate, balanced approach to a threshold for low-risk investments that will remove a potential chilling effect on press sustainability, while supporting growth under our Plan for Change.

    Secondary legislation will be laid to enact these changes and will be subject to votes in both Houses of Parliament.

    The proposed amendments to the definition of newspaper for the Foreign State Influence regime will apply with retrospective effect from today.

    ENDS

    Notes to editors:

    Exceptions to Foreign State Influence Regime 

    The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 created new rules to prevent foreign states from acquiring ownership, control or influence over UK newspapers and news magazines.

    The legislation covers a number of scenarios in which a foreign power could control or influence the policy of a newspaper or a news magazine enterprise – including if it holds, whether directly or indirectly, any shares or voting rights in a corporate body that carries on a newspaper enterprise, or if it has the right to appoint or remove members of staff.

    The regime defines ‘foreign power’ broadly to include: the sovereign or head of a foreign state, any part of a foreign government including ministers, government agencies and authorities, and any governing political party or its officers. It applies where a foreign power could acquire control or influence over the policy of a newspaper through persons associated with it.

    As permitted by the Act, the Government intends to introduce a number of targeted and specific exceptions to the regime via regulations, which are intended to offset potential negative impacts on inward investment into the press sector without undermining the core principles of the regime.

    The previous government launched a consultation on exceptions to the regime which closed in July 2024. Ministers have carefully considered the responses received, including the views of newspaper groups that the previous government’s suggested thresholds were too low and would place unnecessary restrictions on their ability to raise funding. 

    Ministers consider that setting the threshold for State Owned Investors’ investment at 15% of shares or voting rights in a newspaper or news magazine is the most effective, simple and proportionate approach. State Owned Investors (SOIs) include sovereign wealth funds or public pension or social security schemes that make long-term investments on behalf of that state and which in many cases are operated at arms length. 

    The new measures carefully balance the need for newspapers and news magazines to have access to a range of investment from SOIs where control or influence by foreign states is unlikely to be a risk. It will avoid the need for the Culture Secretary to refer low levels of investment to the CMA for investigation where there is no likelihood of any material influence.

    The UK has a strong track record for encouraging investment critical to growth within the media industry, and this pro-growth decision will continue that trend while providing a robust regulatory framework that protects press freedom and free speech. 

    Extending the scope of the media mergers regime

    In November, the government launched a consultation on proposals to broaden the scope of the UK’s media merger regime. Having taken into account responses to the consultation, the government has decided to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online news platforms and periodical news magazines.

    This will mean the Culture Secretary has the ability to intervene in a merger involving an online news publication that meets certain conditions relating to turnover or share of supply, where they believe a public interest consideration may be relevant. According to Ofcom’s annual report on news consumption in the UK, 71 percent of UK adults consume online news in some capacity, level with news consumed via TV and on demand (70 percent); and nearly a quarter of UK adults (22 percent) access news via print newspapers, increasing to 34 percent when including their online platforms.

    News publications circulated on a weekly or monthly basis will also be brought in scope of the regime to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose given daily, local, and Sunday publications are already included. 

    The measures will ensure that the public interest can be safeguarded across these popular sources of news content for people across the UK. They will enable the Culture Secretary to intervene where necessary to protect the availability of a wide range of accurate and high-quality news, particularly for younger audiences as technology and news habits evolve. 

    The announcement follows recommendations from the independent regulator Ofcom as part of its statutory review of media ownership rules.

    The inclusion of online news sites will apply both to the public interest media mergers regime and to the new Foreign State Influence regime.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 May 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI USA: Zinke and Neguse Introduce Bill to Extend Successful Forest Management Program

    Source: US Congressman Ryan Zinke (Western Montana)

    Originally authorized in 2009, the program has treated and restored 5.7 million acres of forests

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Ryan Zinke (R-MT-01) and Joe Neguse (D-CO-02) introduced the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program Reauthorization Act of 2025, which would extend and expand a successful program focused on reducing wildfire risk, restoring forest health, and supporting rural economies through proven, locally driven strategies. Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

    Originally authorized in 2009, the CFLR program is a model of how communities, industry partners, landowners, and local governments can work together to improve forest conditions and prevent catastrophic wildfires. In its first decade, CFLR projects treated and restored 5.7 million acres of forest, improved 1,000 miles of trails, and maintained over 25,000 miles of forest roads helping keep public lands open and safe.

    The CFLR Program Reauthorization Act of 2025 will:

    • Extend the program for ten years.
    • Increase support for collaborative, science-based forest projects.
    • Expand the program’s reach to more high-risk areas.
    • Improve project flexibility and reduce bureaucratic delays.

    “Every year hundreds of thousands of acres of forest burn to the ground destroying landscapes, watersheds and homes. We can’t prevent every fire, but we can certainly manage our forests, so they are in better health and more resilient against catastrophic fires,” said Congressman Zinke. “The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was a proven success that leverages public and private entities to grow more resilient forests. When a program works, we should extend it. Montana forests must be multi-use. Recreation, conservation, and resource development all have their place and must be part of the conversation, but none of them can exist if our forests are unhealthy or burning down. The continuation of this program will promote the collaboration needed preserve more of our forests for use by the communities around them.”

    “In Colorado and across the Rocky Mountain West, we know that protecting our forests and lands benefits our communities,” said Congressman Neguse. “The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is a successful partnership program that bolsters community-based stewardship, supporting efforts to promote cooperative, science-based wildfire mitigation. I’m incredibly proud to lead my colleagues in the House to champion its reauthorization.”

    “The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program has a proven track record of improving forest health and reducing wildfire risk in Montana. Collaborative fuel reduction work completed as part of the Colt Summit Project in Seeley Lake protected homes and infrastructure during the 2023 Colt Fire,” said Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Director Amanda Kaster. “Montana DNRC thanks Representative Zinke for his leadership in working to maintain this impactful work that directly helps communities in Montana.”

    “Wildfire doesn’t recognize state or county lines, and the Kootenai National Forest in Montana and the Panhandle National Forest in Idaho share the same fire shed, the Kootenai Complex. The 80,000-acre Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative project on the Panhandle National Forest funded under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program has benefitted our residents here in neighboring Lincoln County, Montana in several ways,” said Jim Hammons, Lincoln County Commissioner. “Treatments under the project have reduced the risk of wildfire crossing into the county from Idaho and has sustained one of the few local mills vital to our timber infrastructure, while providing jobs to our local logging contractors, many that work in Idaho forests. The CFLR program addresses the values that large landscapes have in providing wildlife habitat, timber products and the large-scale wildfire threats that exist in our neck-of-the-woods.”

    “I’m grateful to Congressman Zinke for sponsoring this critical legislation,” said Beaverhead County Commissioner, Mike McGinley. “Beaverhead County has already seen a 1,500-acre wildfire this spring, a clear sign that we’ve got to get control of our forest management.” 

    The legislation is also co-led by Representatives Andrea Salinas (OR-06) and Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) and the companion is additionally supported by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Steve Daines (R-MT).

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Ogles Calls for Probe Into Nashville Mayor Over ICE Obstruction

    Source:

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, during a Homeland Security briefing, Congressman Andy Ogles (TN-05) directly questioned Governor Kristi Noem on whether public officials who are found aiding and abetting illegal aliens to evade federal law enforcement, impede ICE, in defiance of federal law, are committing a crime.

    Secretary Noem responded unequivocally: “Yes.”

    Following that exchange, Congressman Ogles announced he will formally request that both the House Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee open investigations into Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell and other city officials for their repeated efforts to obstruct lawful ICE operations.

    “When federal agents and Tennessee law enforcement risk their lives to detain rapists, traffickers, and gang members, the only appropriate response from our leaders should be gratitude—not obstruction,” said Congressman Ogles.

    “Mayor Freddie O’Connell is blatantly obstructing ICE officials. By ordering city agencies to monitor and potentially sabotage ICE operations, he has crossed a dangerous line—using the power of government to shield criminal illegal aliens from the law.”

    “Let me make this plain: aiding and abetting illegal aliens to evade federal enforcement is not just reckless—it is a crime. That’s why I’m calling for immediate investigations by the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees into the actions of Mayor O’Connell and Nashville’s city government, Congressman Ogles Said.

    “This isn’t San Francisco. This isn’t Portland. And I refuse to let Democrats turn our state into a playground for cartels and predators. Nashville will not become a sanctuary city on my watch.”

    Watch The Exchange Here

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Lankford Continues Push to Safeguard Conscience Rights of Health Care Workers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Lankford

    WASHINGTON, DC – Senator James Lankford (R-OK) introduced the Conscience Protection Act to protect health care providers and insurance plans from government discrimination if they decline to participate in abortions. The Conscience Protection Act provides enforcement for existing conscience laws by providing a private right of action for victims of conscience discrimination. 

    “When conscience protections aren’t enforced, health care workers are forced to decide if they should lose their job or violate their beliefs by performing an abortion. Many health care professionals went into their careers to protect life, not take life. Doctors and nurses should never have to make the choice between their career and their conscience. The Conscience Protection Act defends health care workers and empowers them to stand by convictions as they care for their community,” said Lankford.

    Lankford first introduced the Conscience Protection Act in 2019 and again in 2021 and 2024.  He spoke on the Senate floor after Democrats blocked his bill to protect all Americans’ conscience rights.

    Lankford is joined on the bill by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Jim Risch (R-ID), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Ted Budd (R-NC), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Todd Young (R-IN), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jim Banks (R-IN), and Mike Crapo (R-ID). Representative August Plfuger (R-TX) is leading the legislation in the House of Representatives.

    This legislation is also supported by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Action, Alliance Defending Freedom, Eagle Forum, National Right to Life Committee, First Liberty Institute, CatholicVote, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, and March for Life.

    Background

    Congress has enacted more than 25 laws to protect conscience rights for individuals who have a religious or moral objection to performing certain medical procedures, including abortion. Yet, courts have consistently declined to find that these laws provide a “private right of action” for an individual to commence litigation to defend their right of conscience—thereby leaving victims of conscience discrimination unable to defend their rights in court. Currently, if a health care worker refuses to provide abortions, the only recourse available is to file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR). 

    In 2014, California required that health plans must cover abortions, which forced religious employers to offer plans that violate their religious beliefs. In December 2014, under the Obama Administration, HHS opened an investigation. Despite the then-current laws protecting conscience rights, in June 2016, HHS declared that California could force all its health plans to cover elective abortions, which President Biden’s nominee for HHS Secretary has advocated for and enforced as Attorney General of California.

    During the first Trump Administration, several landmark actions were taken to enforce current law and protect conscience: (1) created the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, (2) partnered with the Department of Justice to notice and enforce conscience violations in Vermont and California, resulting in the disallowance of $200 million per quarter from the state due to former Attorney General Becerra’s refusal to comply with the law, and (3) issued the final rule “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights In Health Care” to enforce existing statutory protections, which Lankford supported. Unfortunately, a federal court vacated the conscience rule in November 2019. Litigation on the final rule continued at the Second Circuit in New York v. HHS, and seventy-eight Members of Congress filed an amicus brief led by Senator Lankford in the case.

    In response to the Biden Administration’s proposed rule that would insufficiently enforce conscience protections for medical professionals, Lankford led his colleagues in filing a public comment letter demanding greater implementation and enforcement of all of the statutory conscience protections enacted by Congress, as reflected in the previous rule issued under the Trump Administration. 

    This week, President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it is initiating a compliance review under the Church Amendments, which is central to the legislation. This key development pairs perfectly with the Conscience Protection Act and underscores the need for further action to protect conscience rights.

    You can read the exclusive in the Daily Signal HERE, and can read the full text of the Conscience Protection Act HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior to return for 40th anniversary of French bombing

    By Russel Norman

    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

    The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

    Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa’s Dr Russel Norman . . . “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective.” Image: Greenpeace

    As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

    It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

    We will not be intimidated
    But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

    We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

    In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

    Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

    This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

    In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

    Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Africa Road Builders: Angolan President João Lourenco, winner of the Babacar Ndiaye Prize 2025

    Source: African Development Bank Group

    Angolan President João Lourenço has won the 2025 “Africa Road Builders” prize –awarded to African leaders who have invested in infrastructure development. He follows Equatorial Guinea’s Téodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Congo Denis Sassou-Nguesso, who were joint winners in 2024.

    The selection committee for the Babacar Ndiaye Road Builder Super Prize, meeting in Dubai on 25 April, awarded it to Lourenço for the construction of major transport infrastructure in Angola. Projects include the Lobito Corridor, a strategic regional railway line between Zambia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The African Development Fund, the African Development Bank Group’s concessional loans window, provided a grant of $8.14 million towards implementing the project, which will improve regional integration and support trade between the three countries.

    The construction of the new Dr Agostinho Neto international airport, which opened in November 2023, paving 2,000 km of roads, resurfacing a further 2,000 km and building a light metro system in Luanda were the key factors in making their decision, the committee said.

    “We were aware that in recent years, Angola has embarked on a major transformation of its transport infrastructure, with the aim of strengthening its strategic position in southern and central Africa and diversifying its economy. The immediate impacts of these various projects and achievements have been the creation of several services, including the use of new information and communication technologies,” explained the Africa Road Builders selection committee.

    The latest winner of the Babacar Ndiaye prize will receive his award in Abidjan on 28 May, alongside the Annual Meetings 2025 of the African Development Bank Group.

    Sponsored by the African Development Bank Group, the Babacar Ndiaye Africa Road Builders prize is awarded by Acturoutes, a platform that provides information on the road network and infrastructure in Africa, and the organization Media for Infrastructure and Finance in Africa (MIFA), a network of African journalists specializing in road infrastructure.

    The prize was created in honour of Babacar Ndiaye (1936-2017), President of the African Development Bank Group from 1985 – 1995. Each year, the “Africa Road Builders” Selection Committee evaluates ambitious, tangible projects that have a real impact on people’s mobility in Africa.

    Since its launch in 2016, the Babacar Ndiaye Prize has been awarded to the following heads of state: King Mohamed VI (Morocco), Edgar Lungu (Zambia), Alassane Ouattara (Côte d’Ivoire), Ali Bongo Ondimba (Gabon), Macky Sall (Senegal) and Paul Kagamé (Rwanda) as joint winners in 2017, Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya), Adama Barrow (Gambia), Abdel Fattah-al Sissi (Egypt), Muhammadu Buhari (Nigeria), Samia Suhulu Hassan (Tanzania), Andry Rajoelina (Madagascar), and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (Equatorial Guinea) and Denis Sassou-Nguesso (Congo), joint winners in 2024.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Bipartisan Jewish American Heritage Month Resolution Passes the House

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

    “As we celebrate the 20th year of Jewish American Heritage Month, I am proud to open the doors of understanding to everyone about all the remarkable contributions that generations of Jewish Americans made to shape our nation’s history, culture and society,” said Wasserman Schultz. “This celebration is also one of the most effective ways to combat rising antisemitism, as Jews and non-Jews alike come to learn about all the amazing Jewish Americans who served in pivotal government and military posts, won Nobel prizes, led universities and corporations, developed lifechanging inventions, authored great American novels, and worked to advance America’s noble experiment in democracy. I am so proud to join my bipartisan House colleagues in this effort.”

    Washington D.C. – Today, a resolution led by U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01), Troy A. Carter, Sr. (LA-02), and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) to recognize Jewish American Heritage Month (JAHM) passed the House of Representatives in a 421 to 1 vote. JAHM aims to recognize the significant contributions of Jewish Americans to the society and culture of the United States.

    “As we celebrate the 20th year of Jewish American Heritage Month, I am proud to open the doors of understanding to everyone about all the remarkable contributions that generations of Jewish Americans made to shape our nation’s history, culture and society,” said Wasserman Schultz. “This celebration is also one of the most effective ways to combat rising antisemitism, as Jews and non-Jews alike come to learn about all the amazing Jewish Americans who served in pivotal government and military posts, won Nobel prizes, led universities and corporations, developed lifechanging inventions, authored great American novels, and worked to advance America’s noble experiment in democracy. I am so proud to join my bipartisan House colleagues in this effort.”

    “Jewish Americans have helped shape every corner of our nation—from science and technology to public service and the arts. As antisemitism rises at home and abroad, we must lead with strength, clarity, and unity,” said Miller-Meeks. “I’m proud to cosponsor this resolution to honor the contributions of Jewish Americans and to reaffirm our commitment to combating hate in all its forms.”

    “Jewish American Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the rich contributions of Jewish Americans to our nation. As we continue to see antisemitism and other forms of hatred on the rise, this resolution both honors Jewish American heritage and sends a powerful message of solidarity and support to Jewish communities across the country,” said Carter. “By educating ourselves about Jewish history and culture, we deepen our understanding of America’s diversity and reaffirm our commitment to combatting prejudice in all its forms.”

    “Jewish American heritage is woven into the fabric of our nation’s history. With the House’s passage of this bipartisan resolution, we’re not just recognizing those contributions—we’re making clear that antisemitism has no place in our country,” said Fitzpatrick. “As Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I’ll continue leading efforts to ensure Jewish history is honored, Jewish communities are protected, and hate is confronted head-on.”

    This year’s JAHM resolution was endorsed by AJC, ADL, The Jewish Federations of North America, National Council on Jewish Women, and Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

    The United States observes JAHM annually each May to encourage all Americans to learn more about Jewish culture and pay tribute to the generations of Jewish Americans who have helped shape American history. With antisemitism on the rise in our country, fueled by the spread of hatred, disinformation, and Holocaust distortion online, JAHM provides an opportunity to celebrate Jewish voices and bring together all our communities in the fight against antisemitism and hate.

    JAHM was first introduced as a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives by Wasserman Schultz, and in the U.S. Senate by the late Arlen Specter in 2006. Passing unanimously, it was then established by presidential proclamation and has since been renewed every May by Presidents George W. BushBarack ObamaDonald Trump, and Joseph Biden.

    Read the full resolution here.

    Watch Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s floor speech on the resolution here.

    ####

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Brownley Introduces Legislation to Improve Federal Government Use of Renewable Energy Certificates

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Relief Available to Arkansas Small Businesses, Private Nonprofits and Residents Affected by Severe Storms and Tornadoes

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – In response to a Presidential disaster declaration issued May 8, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to Arkansas small businesses, private nonprofit (PNP) organizations and residents affected by severe storms and tornadoes occurring March 14-15.

    The disaster declaration covers the Arkansas counties of Greene, Hot Spring, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, Sharp, and Stone.

    Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.

    Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.

    Applicants may be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include insulating pipes, walls and attics, weather stripping doors and windows, and installing storm windows to help protect property and occupants from future disasters.

    SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and PNPs impacted by financial losses directly related to this disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.

    EIDLs are for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

    “One distinct advantage of SBA’s disaster loan program is the opportunity to fund upgrades reducing the risk of future storm damage,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “I encourage businesses and homeowners to work with contractors and mitigation professionals to improve their storm readiness while taking advantage of SBA’s mitigation loans.”

    Interest rates can be as low as 4% for small businesses, 3.62% for PNPs and 2.75% for homeowners and renters with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    As soon as Federal-State Disaster Recovery Centers open throughout the affected area, SBA will provide one-on-one assistance to disaster loan applicants. Additional information and details on the location of disaster recovery centers is available by calling the SBA Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955.

    To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ernst Details How to Fuel the Great American Industrial Comeback

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
    WASHINGTON – Today, at a U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship hearing, Chair Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) discussed how Congress can continue to fuel the manufacturing boom across America by reigniting investment in small manufacturers.
    Ernst highlighted that small manufacturers are the key to the great American industrial comeback because they make up 98% of all manufacturing firms in the United States.
    Watch Chair Ernst’s remarks here.
    Ernst’s full remarks:
    “I am excited to hold this hearing to discuss opportunities to reignite investment in small American manufacturers and ensure our industrial future is built right here, at home.
    “America is and has always been a nation of builders — men and women who roll up their sleeves, put in a hard day’s work, and take pride not just in what they make, but what it means for their families, their communities, and their country. That entrepreneurial spirit is in our DNA.
    “For far too long, Washington looked the other way as factories and farms shut down and the jobs that once sustained many U.S. families were shipped overseas.
    “Despite the importance of domestic industrial production to our national security, production of critical goods was off shored to foreign countries.
    “In doing so, we’ve made ourselves dependent on an international supply chains offering fast, mass-produced goods — mostly coming from China.
    “This came at a cost. Not just economic, but strategic.
    “In January of this year, the U.S. recorded a $29.7 billion trade deficit with China —we’ve been massively reliant on our chief adversary for the goods and services we consume.
    “Today, the manufacturing sector comprises only 10.1 percent of America’s gross domestic product, a figure trailing most other industrialized nations.
    “We’ve left ourselves economically beholden to the rest of the world and hollowed out our industrial core that once employed millions of Americans.
    “We cannot accept that status quo.
    “I believe in a great American comeback, one driven by the world’s most talented workforce and a new era of domestic manufacturing ensuring this nation’s economic security.
    “We can make ‘Made in America’ the norm instead of the exception.
    “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are already seeing the early signs of a manufacturing revival and industrial boom in Iowa and all across the country.
    “No group is more eager to lead this charge than small manufacturers, who make up 98 percent of all manufacturing firms in the United States.
    They are ready to build, ready to grow, and they want to do it here – in the United States.
    “But Washington needs to do its part.
    “It’s time Congress acts to ensure that the federal government does not stand in the way of small manufacturers.
    “We must empower them by providing them the tools they need to generate new jobs – to rebuild and fortify American supply chain stability, and to reduce our reliance on other countries, including adversaries.
    “However, breaking ground on new manufacturing facilities or upgrading existing ones is a major investment.
    “In many cases, these projects require long-term financing options, which can be particularly difficult for small businesses to access.
    “That is why I was proud to introduce the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act, along with another member of this Committee, Senator Coons.
    “This bipartisan legislation would double the SBA-backed loan limit from $5 million to $10 million for small manufacturers.
    “By allowing manufacturers to access greater capital my legislation encourages small manufacturers to invest in their operations and support the training and expansion of our manufacturing workforce.
    “This is about leveling the playing field for American manufacturers on the world stage. It is a straightforward, commonsense, and bipartisan solution to unlock the potential small manufacturers have to secure our national and economic security.
    “I am also interested in how we can leverage another SBA program—the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) to support small manufacturers.
    “This program supports the flow of private capital to small businesses across the country.
    “I am grateful that we’re joined today by Mr. Mickelson, from Iowa, and Mr. Geis, from Missouri, who invest in small businesses across the heartland through the SBIC program.
    “I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses about how we can best align SBA programs and private investment to spark America’s next industrial boom.
    “The independence, prosperity, and security of our next generation depends on it.
    “Thanks to our witnesses for being here today and I look forward to your testimony.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: In Berlin, broad backing for UN peacekeeping as global threats mount

    Source: United Nations – Peacekeeping

    By Vibhu Mishra

    More than 130 countries and international partners threw their weight behind UN peacekeeping at a high-level ministerial summit in Berlin on Wednesday, pledging military, tech and political support.

    UN Secretary-General António Guterres meanwhile warned that peace operations are under growing strain and must adapt to meet today’s rising threats.

    The two-day conference on peacekeeping, hosted by the Government of Germany, brought together over 1,000 participants – including defence and foreign ministers – to reaffirm commitment to the UN’s flagship tool for maintaining peace and stability.

    It concluded on Wednesday with a wide array of pledges, including 88 military and police units, specialized training, and investments in emerging technologies and strategic communications.

    Difference between life and death

    In trouble spots around the world, ‘blue helmets’ can mean the difference between life and death,” Mr. Guterres said in his opening remarks.

    “Now more than ever, the world needs the United Nations. And the United Nations needs peacekeeping that is fully equipped for today’s realities and tomorrow’s challenges.”

    Germany, which currently contributes troops to UN missions in South Sudan, Lebanon, and Western Sahara, announced €82 million (around $91.7 million) in funding, along with commitments in training, renewable energy solutions and drone technology.

    “Germany continues to be a steadfast supporter of UN peacekeeping,” said Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

    Broad and diverse commitments

    A total of 74 UN Member States made specific pledges, ranging from uniformed personnel to training and strategic support.

    This includes pledges which will bolster military and police units, including airlift and rapid deployment capabilities (53 national contributions), specialized training (59), technological enhancements (18), advancing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda (38) and safety and protection (16).

    Eleven countries also committed to improving accountability and conduct, including support to the trust fund for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, and eight nations supporting the UN’s efforts to counter mis- and disinformation through strategic communications.

    Mounting pressures

    At a press conference following the meeting, Secretary-General Guterres acknowledged that peacekeepers operate in an increasingly complex and dangerous environment, citing a record number of global conflicts, the targeting of peacekeepers by drones and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the rising threat from disinformation campaigns.

    We need to ask some tough questions about the mandates guiding these operations, and what the outcomes and solutions should look like,” he said, speaking alongside German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and Defence Minister Pistorius.

    Every context is different, and missions must be adapted accordingly.

    The UN chief also stressed the importance of sustained financial backing, highlighting that many missions continue to struggle with cash flow shortages due to delayed payments from Member States.

    “It is absolutely essential that all Member States respect their financial obligations, paying their contributions in full and on time,” he said.

    Crucial reforms

    The Berlin meeting feeds into the UN’s broader reform efforts, including an ongoing Review of Peace Operations announced in last year’s Pact for the Future, aimed at making peacekeeping and peace enforcement more flexible, cost-effective, and aligned with real-world needs.

    This year’s Ministerial also coincides with the 80th anniversary of the United Nations and the 10-year anniversary of the 2015 New York Summit on Peacekeeping. It follows similar high-level meetings in AccraSeoulVancouver and London.

    Peacekeeping remains one of the UN’s most visible activities, with over 61,000 uniformed personnel from 119 countries currently deployed across 11 missions, supported by more than 7,000 civilian staff.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: More jet fuel to be stored near Auckland Airport

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    Cabinet has approved regulations that will give fuel companies until 1 November 2026 to increase the jet fuel they hold at or near Auckland Airport to protect New Zealand against unexpected fuel supply disruptions, Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says.

    “As an island nation far from the rest of the world it is essential New Zealand has uninterrupted access to air travel,” Mr Jones says.

    “In 2019, an inquiry into the 2017 pipeline rupture recommended fuel companies invest in additional storage at or near the Airport ‘without delay’.

    “Since 2019, fuel companies have allowed jet fuel cover to fall below the inquiry’s recommended resilience target of 10 days’ cover at 80 per cent operations, leaving New Zealand susceptible to the impacts of an unexpected fuel supply disruption.

    “The regulations provide the extra impetus fuel companies need to avoid any further delay for investing in additional fuel storage.

    “The 2017 fuel disruption saw almost 300 flights impacted. As our largest and busiest airport, is it essential we have enough jet fuel storage in place near Auckland Airport to help prevent future impacts to air travel in case of unexpected disruptions,” Mr Jones says.

    “Fuel companies have told me they will invest in a new storage tank near Auckland Airport to meet the new requirement. Cabinet’s decision also updates existing rules to ensure fuel companies give government visibility on the amount of readily available jet fuel held near Auckland Airport.

    “Fuel security is a top priority for this Government. This new rule along with our work to develop a fuel security plan will help keep the New Zealand economy moving and connected to the world,” Mr Jones says.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Launch of the Social Investment Fund

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    Kia ora koutou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai, piki mai.  Ki te mihi atu ahau, ki ngā mana whenua nei, tenei te mihi i kaikarakia ko Riki Minhinnick, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. 
    Thank you to the Southern Initiative for hosting us in Manukau today. 
    As many of you will know the Southern Initiative champions social and community innovation in south Auckland to drive real change for people in need. 
    There are many parallels with the work the Social Investment Agency is doing, and I’m delighted to be making today’s announcement here.
    I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Social Investment Board members Dr Graham Scott, David Woods and Mike Williams.
    Last year I told a story about Jack. It was not your classic Hollywood underdog story – maybe something closer to home, gritty and independent and without a cosy fairytale ending. 
    When we left Jack he was 22-years-old, had been arrested for assault and was heading to prison. His pregnant partner Danni and four-year-old son were living in a damp, overcrowded rental in South Auckland. He’d had frequent and extensive interactions with government services, which had not been successful in providing the intervention or support he needed to break the cycle. 
    Over successive decades and successive governments it’s become increasingly clear that despite billions of dollars being spent major barriers in the system are holding back change.
    The sad reality is that despite many good intentions, outcomes haven’t improved for many of our most vulnerable – people like Jack and his partner Danni – whose complex needs span multiple government portfolios. 
    Since we last talked about Jack, the Social Investment Agency has been developing a new social investment approach for better delivery of social services. 
    The Government currently funds a huge number of non-government organisations to deliver social services to improve the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders. But many of these providers are operating with one arm tied behind their backs because of a traditionally fragmented, short-term approach to contracting. 
    I’ve been told of providers juggling over 100 contracts with up to 17 different agencies – many of them renewed annually. That creates uncertainty, pushes up costs, and drives short-term thinking. 
    Contracts are often highly prescriptive, focused on easily measured inputs and outputs, rather than the outcomes that actually matter to peoples’ lives.
    Social providers report spending up to a third of their time on auditing and reporting, rather than working with the people they are supposed to be helping. 
    Those delivering services that span multiple government agencies often find their overall impact goes unrecognised. Each agency sees only the part that relates to its silo, missing the broader value of the work. As a result, effective, integrated community support is undervalued, and the people who need it most, like Jack and Danni, miss out.
    The people in this room know that New Zealanders like Jack and Danni require intensive and bespoke services, which are most effective when provided in their communities, not one-size-fits-all programmes driven by the organisational needs of Wellington bureaucracies.
    Social investment flips the model. It puts people – like Jack and his whānau – at the centre of social service delivery. 
    It means being clear about the outcomes we’re purchasing, who we’re targeting, and the data and evidence we’ll use to determine what is and isn’t working – and what we should, and shouldn’t, be funding.
    And it means partnering better with the organisations like many of you here today, who are best placed to help the likes of Jack, Danni and Jack Jr thrive – as long as Government will let you.
    SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND
    To drive this change, today I am announcing that Budget 2025 allocates $275 million over the next four years to Vote Social Investment. 
    The centrepiece of the Social Investment Budget is a new $190 million Social Investment Fund, designed to change lives and tackle the very problems we’ve talked about – short-term contracts, siloed funding, and a lack of focus on outcomes. 
    In addition, the Social Investment Agency has been allocated: 

    $20 million for initiatives that strengthen parenting in the first 2000 days of a child’s life, reducing harm and setting children up for better long-term outcomes; and
    $25 million for initiatives to help prevent children and vulnerable adults from entering state care, as part of the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care.

     
    The hero of today’s announcement is the Social Investment Fund. 
    It will invest in services that deliver measurable improvements in the lives of those who need our help, guided by data and evidence. It will support both new approaches and strengthen existing services that work. 
    Each investment will have robust evaluation built in from the start, so Government can track the Fund’s impact and invest taxpayer money with confidence.
    The Fund is expected to invest in at least 20 initiatives over the next year.  
    Today, I’m pleased to announce the first three initiatives which demonstrate how the Fund will work in practice:
    The first is an Autism NZ initiative to each year help 50 families of young children who are autistic or showing signs of autism by intervening early so that families, teachers, and other professionals, are better able to help these young people to thrive at school.
    The second extends to another 80 families an evidence-based Emerge Aotearoa programme that has been proven to reduce youth offending and truancy.
    The third is He Piringa Whare, an expanded programme delivered by Te Tihi o Ruahine, an alliance of nine hapū, iwi, Māori organisations, partners and providers with a track record of using data and evidence to shape its services.
    The He Piringa Whare programme will support over 130 families at a time to live in warm, dry homes, engage them in education, training and employment and support whānau to live in relationships that are free from violence.
    All three of these initiatives have established expertise, but all have historically struggled to secure funding for their services because the outcomes span multiple government agencies. 
    My goal is that the Government’s new approach will help us prove the return on these investments so we can scale them up over time.
    But what might the work of the Social Investment Fund actually mean for someone like Jack and Danni?
    It could mean a coordinated response from Te Tihi: support for Jack as he reintegrates into his community after prison, parenting programmes for him and Danni, smoking interventions while Danni is pregnant; tailored housing support; and education and health services wrapped around their young family.
    Not a patchwork of agencies working in silos, and providers cobbling together piecemeal funding and contracts.
    It means a dedicated support worker who knows their whānau and a stable home for Jack, Danni, and their children.
    It means early identification of autism for Jack Jr, when his Plunket nurse sees early signs of autism and refers him to Autism NZ.
    Autism NZ, in turn, could provide Jack’s whānau with tools to better understand his needs and get him ready for school, provide access to the learning support his father would likely have benefited from and didn’t get, and on-going support for the whole family, setting the foundation for long-term success. 
    We’re not talking about waving a magic wand, applying a quick fix or simply servicing misery. This is about investing in smart, targeted early interventions that not only make a difference in the lives of Jack and his whānau, but mean the Government reduces the money it might otherwise have spent on treating the symptoms rather than the cause of dysfunction – be it at the crisis end of the justice or health systems or government provided income support. 
    Maybe if Jack had received something like Emerge’s services as a youth, things wouldn’t have progressed to where he was heading to prison. Its Multi-Systemic Therapy programme has seen at least 80 per cent of the young people it works with engaged in education or work with no new arrests. 
    The Social Investment Fund is starting small but I see potential for it to achieve significant scale over time. 
    Government agencies currently spend about $7 billion each year buying social services designed to improved lives from non-government agencies. 
    In the years ahead we want to see more of this funding and more of these contracts transferred into the Social Investment Fund. 
    We will work with providers and communities who want to consolidate their multiple government contracts into one genuinely outcomes-based contract. 
    The Government is also open to the pooling of social sector funding from multiple government budgets into a single fund under local decision-making. We often hear local leaders saying that they could do a better job of investing in outcomes than multiple government agencies and we want to hear from you how we can make that work.
    We’re also creating the opportunity for future co-investment opportunities with the philanthropic and private sector. 
    The Social Investment Fund is a rejection of the failed approaches of the past. It’s being set up as a totally new way of working with you, the people who know Jack and Danni best and who are best placed to impact their lives for the better. I see it as a force for enduring change that will survive changes of Government.
    Because Jack doesn’t care that the providers that have been in contact with him have been doing it hard. He doesn’t know that they scrounge and scrape to get by, managing dozens of contracts with agencies, getting endlessly audited and reporting back on every minor detail.  
    A central fund with a clear mandate gives us the best chance of working with those outside of government to improve the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders.  
    SOCIAL INVESTMENT ACROSS GOVERNMENT
    The Social Investment Agency also has a wider leadership role. It’s purpose is to demonstrate and accelerate change that ensures all government agencies invest more effectively to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders.
    It is building tools, infrastructure and methods that both government agencies and the wider social sector can use. That includes better ways to track progress, measure outcomes and understand what’s actually working. 
    This will also improve the way the Government delivers mainstream social services in health, education and other areas.
    For example, the Government invests billions of dollars in education every year, but the returns – in terms of literacy, school attendance, and long-term outcomes – are not where they should be. 
    We know that many kids with additional needs struggle throughout their time at school. We also know that if we intervened earlier to help them they’d be capable of achieving a whole lot more. 
    This is a prime area for applying a social investment approach – targeting resources earlier, backing what works, and ensuring that spending leads to better outcomes later in life. 
    If we get it right early, we reduce the need for far more expensive interventions down the track.  You can expect to see that thinking heroed in this year’s Education Budget. And I’m looking forward to saying more about it next week. 
    It’s not just about education. We want every government agency to be asking: how can we invest smarter? How do we make sure out spending is improving lives, not just funding activity?
    That means being open to innovation – and by that I mean being open to, and enabling, new approaches to existing challenges. We need to recognise that the overly risk-averse approach traditionally taken by government agencies has not shifted the dial – especially for families with high and complex needs or intergenerational issues. 
    We also know that innovation is happening outside of the Wellington system – in spite of the barriers government can put up. We want to back communities and non-government organisations who show insight in their use of data and evidence, who are willing to innovate and to clearly evaluate what’s working and what’s not working. 
    It’s about constant improvement. We want to see data used to constantly measure the progress being made and to identify how we can do better together. 
    Data, evidence and infrastructure form the backbone of the social investment approach. Together, they provide for safe and secure data sharing that enables the Government to understand where it should focus its efforts. They also enable providers to understand their impact and what else they need to do.
    A key goal for the Social Investment Agency is to reduce the amount of reporting and data being sought by government agencies from providers. 
    We recognise that the amount of meaningless information presently sought by agencies can be burdensome for NGOs and often adds very little value relative to the work required to provide it. 
    Social investment contracts will be designed to reduce the amount of data being required while improving our insights about what actually has impact.
    SPEND TO SAVE
    Social investment not only improves lives, it also frees up resources for investment in other priorities. 
    When we invest even relatively small amounts in the right places, that can lead to bigger and better impacts – both socially and fiscally. 
    Our Government is willing to make investments up front to drive durable savings down the line. 
    We’re starting to shift how this logic is reflected in the Budget process — recognising that not all spending is a cost. Some spending is investment that provides a social and financial return over the longer-term. And when it’s well-targeted and backed by evidence, it pays for itself many times over.
    We’ve already put this theory into action. 
    In December 2023, over 3,100 households were living in emergency housing motels – often for months at a time and at one point costing the country around a million dollars a day. Some of these motels became long-term living arrangements for families with young children. It was one of the most visible policy failures in recent memory – unsustainable, expensive, and harmful to the people stuck in the system.
    So we changed approach. We made families with children a priority for social housing. We made an upfront investment of $80m and we worked across agencies to support people into stable housing – including private rentals.
    The result was that by December 2024, the number of households in emergency housing motels dropped to 591 – a 75% reduction in just 12 months, and five years ahead of the target we set on coming into office. 
    This is not just a huge social success for the thousands of families now raising their children in proper homes. It’s also a huge success for the taxpayer – with savings of nearly $1.35 billion forecast over the next four years. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been spent on motel bills instead being reinvested back into social services, education, and health.
    Budget 2025 builds on this approach. It includes further initiatives where smart, early investment is expected to generate real savings, including in areas like employment, where helping someone into work today not only improves that person’s life prospects, but lead to savings for the taxpayer. 
    This is how our Government will build a social system that’s more effective, more sustainable, and that replaces heavy-handed bureaucracy with real results. 
    CONCLUSION
    Fast forward ten years. On this trajectory, we expect to see Jack, Danni and their children thriving, living in a home full of hope, not hardship. 
    Jack and Danni have been able to give their children stability they themselves haven’t had. With parenting programmes and community support, they have a confidence and a sense of belonging brought about by interventions that were targeted, holistic, and locally-driven.
    We’re looking forward to seeing communities drive the change we want to see. We know that real change will come from the leadership of people like those in this room, not policy advisors on the Terrace.
    Today’s Budget announcement is a big step forward. Over the next few years, I expect to see significant amounts of funding transferred to the Social Investment Fund, which will enable providers to work holistically and flexibly to improve people’s lives.
    Our Government believes in the potential of every person growing up in this country.
    Because every New Zealander deserves the chance to live in a home full of hope, not hardship. That’s the vision for social investment and I’m looking forward to working with you to make it happen. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Social Investment Fund to help vulnerable Kiwis

    Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

    Vulnerable families and young New Zealanders will benefit from a new approach to the delivery of social services with a $275 million boost to Vote Social Investment, Social Investment Minister Nicola Willis says.
    “The centrepiece of the Social Investment Budget package is a new $190 million Social Investment Fund that will make carefully targeted investments designed to improve the lives of New Zealanders in need.  
    “The Fund is about more than new money. It’s about Government investing earlier, smarter and with much more transparent measurement of the impact interventions are having for the people they are designed to help.  
    “The Fund will invest in services that deliver measurable improvements in people’s lives, guided by data and evidence. It will support both new approaches and strengthen existing services that work, to improve the Government’s return on investment and change vulnerable people’s lives for the better.
    “Over the next year the fund will invest in at least 20 initiatives, using a completely different contracting approach than that traditionally used by Government agencies. 
    “Each initiative will have robust evaluation built into it from the start, so that its impact can be tracked. 
    “The Government is already investing around $7 billion each year buying social services from non-government agencies. Despite this, we know too many New Zealanders remain trapped in cycles of inter-generational dysfunction. Communities, NGOS and iwi all tell us they could have much more impact in people’s lives if the Government was smarter about the way it selects, contracts, and monitors the social services we fund. 
    “The Fund will start relatively small and grow over time as it proves itself, setting up the infrastructure for large scale delivery of integrated contracts with support from the social sector.
    “The Fund will be the catalyst for improving the way Government works with communities to drive social impact. 
    “Over the next two to three years, I expect to see significant amounts of funding transferred from current social services to the Social Investment Fund as communities and providers develop new approaches to working with government.” 
    As part of the $275 million, the Budget also provides:   

    $20 million for programmes that strengthen parenting in the first 2000 days of a child’s life, reducing harm and setting children up for better long-term outcomes; and
    $25 million to help prevent children and vulnerable adults from entering state care, as part of the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

    Note for editors
    The first three initiatives funded by the Social Investment Fund are: 

    Autism New Zealand’s early screening and intervention programme that provides services and support for family/whānau, caregivers and professionals.
    Ka Puta Ka Ora Emerge Aotearoa’s evidence-based approach to tackling youth offending and truancy that will help at least 80 families each year to address youth offending and truancy; and
    The He Piringa Whare programme with Te Tihi o Ruahine an alliance of nine hapū, iwi, Māori organisations and providers that will support 130 families at a time with a wraparound service that delivers stable housing, education, training and employment, and other services  

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can we confront cancel culture by finding common ground between moderate leftists and ‘wokists’?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

    A.C. Grayling’s new book Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars sees the renowned philosopher wading into the ethical minefields of “woke” activism, cancellation, and conservative backlash.

    Filled with thoughtful analysis, deep reflection, and fascinating historical detail, Discriminations argues the differences between leftist moderates and “woke activists” centrally concern means rather than ends.


    Review: Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars (Oneworld Publications)


    The book’s core contribution lies in Grayling’s searching examination of “othering”. This allows him to explain the core ethical concern about racism and sexism while simultaneously providing a principled basis to resist the more intolerant strategies that might be used in the struggle against such evils.

    Defining ‘woke’

    “Woke” and “wokist” now have pejorative implications and are terms used mainly by critics of progressive views. Grayling defines “wokism” in terms of the passionate advocacy of things like:

    • Critical Race Theory in history classes

    • Campaigning for same-sex marriage

    • Educating about diversity in sexuality

    • Supporting medical gender transition

    • Advocating changes in language use, such as with non-gendered pronouns

    • Encouraging Me Too avowals.

    A significant number of identity politics activists, he adds, “promote no-platforming and cancellation as weapons in the struggle”.

    This last point is critical in the way Grayling pictures the differences between moderate leftists like himself and “woke activists”. After all, the bulleted list above – apart perhaps from the reference to Critical Race Theory – includes many concerns broadly shared across the political left.


    Goodreads

    For Grayling, the differences between moderates and activists are mainly ones of strategies they employ to achieve their shared social justice goals.

    Through their justifiable anger at systemic injustice, he argues, some “woke activists” have been drawn into employing weapons like no-platforming and cancellation. These tactics can sometimes be morally mistaken, especially when driven by online mobs.

    Grayling worries that the use of these practices can “other” their targets, without any attempt at due process and constraints of proportionality.

    A contrasting view?

    Discriminations stands in stark contrast to another recent work on wokism: Yascha Mounk’s The Identity Trap. Like Grayling, Mounk is a moderate leftist. Like Grayling, he is critical of woke activism. But that is where their similarities end.

    For Mounk, wokism is not a continuation of traditional leftist civil rights struggles but a sharp deviation from them. On this view, wokism (which Mounk calls “the identity synthesis”) differs from liberal progressivism not merely in means but fundamentally in ends.

    Mounk sees wokism as committed to three foundational claims: the world must be understood through the prism of identities like sex, race and gender; supposedly universal rules merely serve to obscure how privileged groups dominate marginalised groups; and a just society requires norms and laws that explicitly treat (and require citizens to treat) different identity groups differently.

    None of these are claims about means; they concern fundamental values and goals. For Mounk, woke intolerance – in the form of cancellation and no-platforming – is a feature, not a bug. In contrast, Grayling sees online cancellations (when they go wrong) as a betrayal of the traditional leftist values he shares with the woke activists.

    Cancelling

    Grayling understands cancelling as efforts to “deprive opponents not only of a platform to state their views, but to deprive the persons and groups themselves of a presence.” This can include social ostracism and getting people fired.

    Discriminations contains no detailed discussions of contemporary cases of cancellation and their impacts. This is deliberate. Grayling worries that discussing current cases might invite an automatic identification with the cancelled target. Alternatively, it might counter-productively draw attention to victims who have already been excessively targeted.

    Granting these points, the absence of any case studies carries costs. For one thing, it’s never shown in the book that these objectionable practices are widespread enough to warrant a movement against them.

    Equally, there is no appeal to the reader’s sympathies by examining cases of cancellation through social media pile-ons and the human costs involved. Unless the reader already believes these practices to be widespread and harmful, they are unlikely to see what all the fuss is about.

    Without examination of actual cases, it also can be hard to know exactly what Grayling is recommending. Grayling believes cancelling is often justified. However, he wants to make clear the serious problems it creates in the cases where it is not justified.

    The problem is that different readers, interpreting some of his terms differently, might be led to see an act of cancellation as justified accountability where another reader would see objectionable mob justice.

    ‘Othering’

    Grayling defines “othering” as

    the practice of treating individuals and groups, typically on the basis of stereotyping and prejudice, as a ground for discriminating against them; and discrimination involves exclusion.

    Othering occurs any time one group of people decides they are different to another group (which they see as the “other”), thus treating that group in a morally different and worse way.

    Racism and sexism are examples of othering and “exclusion”. Grayling argues the goal of social justice is necessarily opposed to all such othering, especially if the exclusion is done without proportionality and safeguards, like due process. (Grayling allows that criminal punishment can be a type of justified othering.)

    Crucially, Grayling argues that acts of cancellation and no-platforming are instances of othering. These practices explicitly involve attempted punishment, shaming and ostracism and often occur without due process.

    Suppose you are a progressive activist concerned about the injustices of systemic racism and sexism. You might have strategic reasons that constrain the methods you use in fighting those injustices. However, your concerns with racism and sexism will generally not themselves restrain the methods you use.

    But suppose now you accept Grayling’s argument that the root social justice concern is not with racism or sexism specifically, but rather with the more fundamental injustices of othering and exclusion. Because cancelling and no-platforming are themselves instances of such things, you now have a deeply held reason not to cancel others (except perhaps in the most compelling cases). You do not want to become the very thing you are fighting against.

    Should we accept Grayling’s argument? There are some worries his notions of othering and exclusion are over-broad, given they capture commonplace practices like national borders and criminal justice punishments.

    Overall though, Grayling shows through his historical discussions that political othering for ideological or doctrinal reasons has caused enormous injustices and even horrifying slaughters.

    It turns out that political and ideological intolerance – Grayling recounts religious massacres and China’s Cultural Revolution – has a history every bit as awful as racially motivated massacres like the Holocaust. As he sombrely concludes: “tragedy attends entrenched positions that make mutual comprehension impossible”.

    Grayling stresses it is right to feel anger at the world’s injustices. But a wariness of being drawn into othering should incline us towards what he terms “Aristotle’s Principle”: to be “angry with the right person, in the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose”.

    Rights versus interests

    Grayling adopts a human-rights-based approach as his moral compass, seeing it as a system that can transcend different cultures and parochial outlooks. He endorses the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – importantly including the right to free speech.

    Cancelling can impinge on people’s free speech rights. As well as being wrong in itself, Grayling emphasises it’s also a strategic mistake. Activism itself requires free speech and it is unwise to “gift the high moral ground on free speech” to one’s political opponents. (That said, the political right in the United States is currently showing itself to be no friend of free speech either.)

    Grayling distinguishes rights and interests. He argues, “no exercise of any right can deny the fundamental rights of others.” Too often, he insists, figures on both sides of politics interpret their opponents as violating their rights when the opponents are just impacting on their interests.

    Grayling is surely correct that all sides of politics could benefit from seriously thinking through the differences between rights and interests. Setting back someone’s interests is not the same as violating their rights. Interests are inevitably in conflict and always require negotiation and compromise.

    Still, there remains something of an elephant in the room. What if an opponent’s words or actions don’t violate anyone’s rights, but nevertheless plausibly contribute to a world where such violations are more likely?

    Arguably, the problem of political intolerance isn’t driven by a conflation of rights with interests, but instead the ease with which any attack on a group’s interests can be represented as an indirect attack on their rights.

    Does Grayling get ‘woke’ right?

    It is a hard task to define an amorphous, contested and evolving concept like “wokism”. Grayling’s definition seems to map reasonably onto the original idea of being “woke to” (that is, newly aware of) structural racism and other inequities.

    John McWhorter.
    Columbia University

    But as Grayling himself observes, “woke” is now more commonly used as a pejorative term. The linguist John McWhorter argues the term has evolved from describing those with a leftist political awareness to referring to “those who believe anyone who lacks that enlightenment should be punished, shunned or ridiculed.”

    This is very different from Grayling’s understanding of the term. Most of the attributes Grayling ascribes to “the woke” are standard leftist positions. Worryingly, this sometimes seems to prevent him from engaging seriously with what many of the “woke” actually say and believe.

    For example, Grayling reflects on those who say that wokist social justice has been strongly influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism includes the denial of things like “objective truth” and “factual knowledge” on the basis that these are constructs of power and discourse.

    But Grayling finds this confusing. After all, postmodernism seems to undercut the objective values of equality and social justice. He concludes:

    What this suggests is that those who begin with the postmodern analysis of objectivity and knowledge are not actually saying that there are no such things, but that how they have been constituted in the past should be replaced by new and better conceptions of them.

    This is simply not what the postmodernists are saying. The worry here is that Grayling takes it upon himself to stipulate what another school of thought is “actually” saying, rather than listening carefully to their ideas and arguments, and being open to the possibility that these may differ profoundly from his own.

    Given the book aims to persuade the woke activists he thinks are going too far in cancelling others, the possibility Grayling is misreading their actual position is a concerning one.

    Throughout, he appeals to the importance of democracy, free speech, human rights, the rule of law and due process, and the Enlightenment. He argues from what he sees as empirical evidence and “common knowledge”. But all these notions are wide open for criticism (from the woke perspective) that they are inventions of racist, patriarchal, and colonialist systems of oppression.

    As such, Grayling’s arguments may fall flat for the very group he is trying to persuade because he does not take their beliefs seriously enough to engage directly and critically with them.

    So who is right? Is Grayling correct that woke activists are just like him, except they have been led by their shared passions for social justice to indulge in often counter-productive and mistaken strategies of cancellation? Or is Yascha Mounk correct? Is wokism a profound departure from traditional leftist social justice goals?

    Perhaps time will tell.

    Hugh Breakey 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. Can we confront cancel culture by finding common ground between moderate leftists and ‘wokists’? – https://theconversation.com/can-we-confront-cancel-culture-by-finding-common-ground-between-moderate-leftists-and-wokists-254571

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Statement from the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson congratulating the new Minister of Finance and National Revenue

    Source: Government of Canada News

    OTTAWA, May 14, 2025 – I would like to congratulate the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, on his added responsibilities in Cabinet.

    I look forward to working with Mr. Champagne to improve services at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA has the dual responsibility of administering tax legislation and distributing benefit payments to those who need them most. I trust that he will give both aspects of this role the attention they require.

    Mr. Champagne brings a wealth of experience. He has held a variety of ministerial portfolios, from Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to Minister of Foreign Affairs to Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I am sure that his variety of expertise will be an important asset in his dual role as Minister of Finance and National Revenue.

    As well, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Honourable Wayne Long, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions). He brings an interesting perspective acquired through his active engagement with numerous parliamentary committees, notably the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I am therefore confident he will be proactive in making sure the CRA pursue its dual role, especially for the most vulnerable among us.

    I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Honourable Élisabeth Brière. Although I was her special advisor for only a short period of time, it was a pleasure working with her to improve the CRA’s services.

    During her time as Minister, our Office released two systemic examination reports—Timing Is Everything, about how the CRA administers the Canada child benefit, and Unintended Consequences, about the CRA’s administration of the bare trust filing requirements. Between these two reports, we made a total of 16 recommendations. I was pleased to see that she provided thoughtful responses for how the CRA could improve the areas we identified. I wish her the best in her work as a member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.

    I am looking forward to working with both the Minister and the Secretary of State in implementing the aforementioned recommendations made in our last two systemic reports.

    Mr. François Boileau, Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson

    Background information

    The Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson works independently from the CRA. Canadians can submit complaints to the Office if they feel they are not receiving the appropriate service from the CRA. Our main objective is to improve the service the CRA provides to taxpayers and benefit recipients by reviewing individual service complaints and service issues that affect more than one person or a segment of the population.

    The Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson assists, advises and informs the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about matters relating to services provided by the CRA. The Ombudsperson ensures, in particular, that the CRA respects eight of the service rights outlined in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Judicial appointments increase Albertans access to court

    Albertans deserve to have access to a fair, accessible and transparent justice system. To increase capacity in the courts and improve access to justice for those involved in civil, criminal and family matters, Alberta’s government has made five new judicial appointments to the Alberta Court of Justice.

    “Continuing to fill judicial appointments directly strengthens the capacity of our courts, helping ensure Albertans have timely access to justice. Those newly appointed will serve Albertans well in their respective divisions and I congratulate them on their new roles.”

    Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

    Alberta’s government has appointed the following individuals to the Alberta Court of Justice:

    • Tracey Bailey, KC, Edmonton Family and Youth Division, effective June 23.
    • Sheri Epp, Calgary Criminal Division and Calgary Region, effective June 2.
    • Karen McGowan, Edmonton Family and Youth Division, effective June 2.
    • Alicia Wendel, Edmonton Region, effective June 2.
    • Colin Wetter, part-time justice of the peace in Edmonton, effective May 14.

    “The Alberta Court of Justice is pleased to welcome and congratulate these new appointments. Access to justice is a fundamental value of our society, ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to be heard, receive fair treatment, and obtain timely, meaningful resolution to their legal challenges. I am confident that their backgrounds and experience will serve Albertans well in achieving these goals.”

    James Hunter, chief justice, Alberta Court of Justice

    Since June 2023, Alberta’s government has made 30 judicial appointments.

    Tracey M. Bailey, KC, received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1991. She started her career as an articling student, continuing as a lawyer at Milner Fenerty. Following academia, she practiced law at Alberta’s Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General before returning to private practice in 2020 as associate counsel at Miller Thomson, LLP, where Ms. Bailey was made partner in 2025.

    Sheri Epp received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1997. She began her career as an articling student, and then as a litigation associate at Code Hunter Wittmann/Gowlings. She then gained litigation experience at Code Hunter LLP, Scott Hall LLP, McCarthy Tetrault LLP, and Talisman Energy Inc. Most recently, Ms. Epp was senior counsel, then became assistant vice-president and associate chief counsel of Individual Insurance and Affinity at Manulife.

    Karen McGowan received her bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1998. Her focus has always been criminal law, beginning as an articling student at Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham. Since being called to the bar in 1999, she has practiced law for Legal Aid Alberta in the Youth Criminal Defence Office, then as a senior advisory counsel, and finally, in the Criminal Trial Group.

    Alicia Wendel received her bachelor of laws degree from Dalhousie University in 1999. She started her career as an articling student at McAllister and Sinclair, then as a barrister at Fix and Smith. From 2001 to present, she has been a Crown prosecutor in rural jurisdictions, practicing in regional courts with the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service. Currently, Ms. Wendel is a member of the Alberta Justice Restorative Justice Working Group, the Alberta Justice Sexual Violence Working Group, and the Gladue Systemic Change Project Committee.

    Colin Wetter received his bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alberta in 1986. He began his career as an articling student at Howard Mackie in Calgary, then practiced law in the private sector until 1992. He then joined the federal Department of Justice as legal counsel, and –with ever-increasing roles of responsibility – in 2012 became regional director of the Aboriginal Law Services Section (Alberta). Mr. Wetter was regional director of the Tax Law Services Section (Prairie Region) from 2019 to 2022.

    Quick facts

    • Lawyers with at least 10 years at the bar can apply to become a justice with the Alberta Court of Justice. 
    • Lawyers with at least five years at the bar can apply to become a justice of the peace. Justice of the peace appointments are for 10 years.
    • Applications are reviewed by the Alberta Judicial Council and Alberta Judicial Nominating Committee, and then recommended to the minister of justice and cabinet for appointment.

    Related information

    • Alberta’s government is actively recruiting justices and justices of the peace and encourages qualified lawyers to apply. Qualified lawyers who wish to be considered for appointment can access the application form online.

     Related news

    • Ensuring access to justice for Albertans (May 7, 2025)
    • Judicial appointments increase Albertans access to justice (April 9, 2025)
    • Increasing court capacity (Jan. 15, 2025)
    • Strengthening Alberta’s courts (Dec. 4, 2024)

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Premier leading Asia trade mission to promote B.C. investment, support good jobs

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Premier David Eby is leading a trade mission to Asia with business leaders and key government officials to strengthen partnerships, increase investment, diversify trade and create good jobs for British Columbians.

    “Our largest trading partner has become increasingly unreliable, so now is the time to expand international markets for B.C. goods and develop deeper bonds with other countries,” Premier Eby said. “This trade mission is about showcasing all that B.C. has to offer, deepening our relationship with major customers, supporting good jobs here at home and building our province’s position as the economic engine of a stronger and more independent Canada.”

    The trade mission is from June 1 until June 10, and includes: Tokyo and Osaka, Japan; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and Seoul, South Korea. Premier Eby will be accompanied by Lana Popham, Minister of Agriculture and Food, and Paul Choi, parliamentary secretary for Asia-Pacific trade, along with representatives from B.C. businesses and research universities.

    “Farmers and food processers run an economic engine for the province, creating more than 40,000 jobs and nearly $6 billion in export sales every year,” Popham said. “I am excited to showcase the best of what B.C. has to offer on an international stage while opening up new opportunities for trade, growth and innovation.”

    The team will be promoting B.C.’s strengths and seeking to build relationships that will support new trade and investment in key sectors, including surging demand in Asia for clean energy, B.C. wood and forestry products, technology, LNG and critical minerals, and agricultural products such as halal foods and seafood.

    This mission builds on B.C.’s trade diversification strategy and is a followup to the Premier’s trade mission to the region in 2023. Over the 10-day trip, the Premier, minister and team will be meeting with government officials, business leaders and investors to discuss trade and partnership opportunities, as well as shared priorities in key sectors.

    Itinerary:

    June 1-5: Tokyo and Osaka, Japan
    June 5-7: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    June 8-10: Seoul, South Korea

    Quick Facts:

    • The Indo-Pacific is the world’s fastest-growing economic region, and by 2040 is expected to account for more than half the global economy.
    • More than 41% of B.C.’s merchandise exports – totalling approximately $22.4 billion in 2024 – are directed toward Indo-Pacific markets.
    • Japan and South Korea are B.C.’s third- and fourth-largest trading partners, with 17% of all B.C. merchandise exports going to those two markets.
    • Almost half of all Canadian exports to South Korea originate in B.C., and B.C.’s share of Canadian exports to Japan is more than 38%.

    Learn More:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister announces Chief Government Whip

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced that Mark Gerretsen, Member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, will serve as Chief Government Whip.

    Mr. Gerretsen was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2015. He has previously served as Deputy Government House Leader, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and as a member of various parliamentary committees.

    The decisions made by this new Parliament, starting on May 26, 2025, will be decisive for Canada’s future. We will govern constructively and collaboratively, working with Caucus and across parties in Parliament to deliver the change that Canadians voted for.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Penning a new chapter on mutually beneficial trade

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ranking Member Lauren Underwood Remarks at Immigration and Customs Enforcement Oversight Hearing

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, Representative Lauren Underwood, Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations delivered the following the remarks at the subcommittee’s oversight hearing on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE):

    “Thank you, Chairman Amodei, and I would like to welcome our witness Todd Lyons, the Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    As the Federal agency charged with the enforcement of violations of customs and immigration laws, the scope of ICE’s investigatory and operational work is broad. ICE has an incredibly important role in preserving public safety and national security by combatting cartels and other transnational criminal organizations, investigating illicit drug trafficking, including deadly fentanyl, human trafficking and smuggling networks, and going after violations of trade and intellectual property laws that seek to undermine our economic security.

    However, since January 20 we have seen a shift in priorities by this Administration away from data-driven, security-focused approaches and toward impossible politically-driven goals, like a million removals in a year. Leadership at DHS, and ICE in particular, are operating with disrespect and disregard for the foundational constitutional principles that govern our country.

    As we endeavor to secure the homeland, we must continue to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As I told the Secretary last week: that is not a secondary mission.

    But under the Trump Administration, ICE’s work appears to be dominated by egregious mistakes, misuse of taxpayer funds, and flagrant violations of constitutional rights like due process.

    Let’s take last month in Oklahoma, where ICE sent 20 armed agents, with their rifles drawn, to storm the home of a mom who was home alone with her young daughters in the middle of the night.

    These American citizens who did nothing wrong were forced to wait outside their home in the rain during a midnight investigation that had nothing to do with them.

    Agents reportedly confiscated not just their phones and laptops but also their cash savings – again, these are U.S. citizens who, based on publicly available information, were never implicated in any of the crimes being investigated. It’s not even clear whether the family’s devices and savings were ever returned to them.

    Your department has issued no apology, taken no accountability, just doubled down.

    How can Americans trust an organization that operates like this – that treats them like this – with their national security?

    ICE is the second-largest law enforcement component within DHS, America’s largest federal law enforcement agency. You are charged with upholding our laws – which start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, representing our values as Americans, and using taxpayer dollars responsibly.

    And the standard we expect from our federal law enforcement is excellence. The American people deserve nothing less.

    But instead of prioritizing the actual greatest threats facing America – because we all know the data shows encounters at the southern border started declining in March 2024 and keep hitting new lows – this Administration is cashing checks it does not have to reach questionable goals it cannot meet.

    You’re removing people so hastily and with so little care that you’re defying court orders.

    Your department is wasting millions flying the Secretary around the country for publicity stunts so she can post photos on social media from operations that are still ongoing, putting actual agents at risk.

    Let me be clear – you are roughly two months away from running out of funding and a violation of the Antidefiency Act. As I said to Secretary Noem, the reliance on funding from a reconciliation bill that has not passed Congress is an incredibly risky strategy that sets you up for failure.

    Lastly, let me remind you of Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress, and only Congress, the power of the purse. Increases to ICE at the expense of other national security programs and initiatives that members on both sides of the aisle voted for undermine our core work and Congressional intent. And if this committee provides funding for your agency, we have every right to oversee how those taxpayer dollars are spent.

    Last week, ICE blocked members of Congress from conducting an unannounced inspection at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey. That too appears to be in violation of federal law, which clearly states we have the right to enter ICE facilities even if we show up unannounced.

    Mr. Lyons, you cannot accept federal funding and then shut the door on oversight from the people’s elected representatives. 

    ICE is already burning the money Congress appropriated – and frankly, right now ICE has much more work to do to justify being entrusted with even more taxpayer dollars.

    I am deeply concerned about the administration of funds by this department, but ICE in particular, and I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss this further with you today.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.”

     

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Make America Sick Agenda: Senator Markey Compiles Stories from Trump, RFK Jr.’s First Five Months

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Read stories from Massachusetts and across the country
    Washington (May 14, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security, today unveiled a selection of dozens of stories received by his office on Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr.’s first five months. The stories, titled “The Make America Sick Agenda,” contains stories from people who have shared their experiences under the Trump administration’s Health and Human Services, including the impacts of cutting billions in life-saving research into diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer, revoking grants to hospitals and community health centers, and firing staff dedicated to helping families pay their utility bills. All the while, RFK, Jr. spreads misinformation about vaccines amidst an uncontrolled measles outbreak.
    “The stories included here are from the voices of people across the country who the Trump administration has betrayed. They are terrified of losing life-saving care. They are angry that their government would treat them this way. And they are frustrated that protecting billionaires is more important to the Administration than ensuring their ability to get the care they need, when they need it, without going into debt,” wrote Senator Markey. “These are the stories of the Trump administration’s Make America Sick Agenda. The American people deserve better.”
    Selected excerpts from the compilation:
    “My parents were the first generation in their families to go to college and I was a Pell Grant recipient. I am not from an ‘elite’ upbringing. I am a mother, a pediatrician and public health professor have dedicated my career to trying to address the health disadvantages accrued by people in lower income and otherwise socially disadvantaged and stigmatized populations with a specific focus on women and children. One of my NIH grants that sought to understand and improve the experiences in behavioral/mental health care of LGBTQIA+ youth ages 14-17 was terminated. The message sent is that these vulnerable youth do not matter, further making them feel unwelcome in this society. It also has had a chilling effect on my students and staff who are funded through this research, discouraging them from continuing to be part of the workforce trying to understand and make better the care and opportunities for those whom our societal decisions have disadvantaged for reasons that are beyond their control.” – Anonymous, Amherst, MA 
    “I have kidney cancer. As an active patient receiving extremely expensive immunotherapy treatment, if I lose my job, I’ll also lose health insurance. That is literally a death sentence.” – Joe, Bridgewater, MA 
    “I am a stage 4 cancer patient at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and am currently enrolled in a clinical trial there. I have a rare cancer that has no cure and few drugs to treat it. In the past 20 years, clinical trials and research about my cancer have been instrumental in helping people live longer. Cuts to the NIH and cancer research are devastating to cancer patients. Cuts to vaccine research also indirectly affect cancer patients as we are typically immunocompromised and need vaccines and for the population around us to be vaccinated. Anti-vaccine sentiments from HHS and the CDC could be detrimental to cancer patients like myself.” – Jennifer, Shrewsbury, MA
    “These drastic cuts aren’t just going to devastate local jobs and people’s livelihoods and a generation of scientists. They’re rapidly destroying the infrastructure for scientific research in this country, and that’s going to have very real effects on the public’s health. The treatment and prevention advances we need for ourselves and our loved ones just won’t be there. I cannot overstate how critical it is that we act NOW. The scientific research infrastructure is far easier to break than it will be to rebuild.” – Julia, Newton, MA
    “It is a sad commentary, that in a high-income country such as the US, we lagged behind other similar high-income countries in all healthcare indicators and now we are jeopardizing the even further the health of all Americans and our scientific reputation in the world. There is always room for improved organization and being efficient with our taxpayer monies but the restructuring that is taking place is without any reasonable justification based on evidence and thus, lacks in transparency to the American people. The future of all Americans is at risk here and the damage being done to the health of our people and the education system as well as our scientific innovation is devastating. We must push back.” – Anonymous, East Longmeadow, MA

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: RELEASE: Senator Mullin Secures Commitment on Critical Infrastructure Improvements to the Port of Catoosa

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)

    RELEASE: Senator Mullin Secures Commitment on Critical Infrastructure Improvements to the Port of Catoosa

    Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, participated in the hearing, “To consider the nominations of: Mr. Richard L. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Mr. Adam R. Telle to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Dr. Matthew C. Napoli to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation National Nuclear Security Administration.” 
    In his remarks, Senator Mullin detailed the importance of the Port of Catoosa and the critical infrastructure updates that are desperately needed. Mr. Telle, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works nominee, committed to addressing the issue.

    The full committee hearing can be found here. 
    The exchange between Senator Mullin and Mr. Adam Telle, nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, is below.  
    Sen. Mullin: “Mr. Telle, I want to talk to you about the Port of Catoosa. It’s a 445-mile channel that runs from essentially the Mississippi all the way up to the Port of Catoosa, which is the largest inland water port west of the Mississippi and on the Gulf of America. It also provides roughly 50% of all agricultural products that flow in and out of the Midwest, and it goes up to the Port of Catoosa, which is just outside of Tulsa. And from there, it gets on rails and trucks and gets trucked the rest of the way up. It was opened in 1971 and since roughly the 90s, we have talked about increasing the depth, because the amount of traffic that’s on it. Right now, it’s dredged at nine feet in depth, and it also has a critical backlog, which means that any of the levees could shut down at any given time, of increasing almost a billion dollars critical backlog needs.” 
    “The Port of Catoosa, for some reason continues to be treated like, this is not politically correct but whatever the red headed stepchild is, and other projects in Ohio or the Mississippi or other areas of waterways seem to get the most attention. However, the Midwest feeds the United States and many parts around the world, yet we’re in a critical situation here where we need to increase the depth of the channel from 9 feet to 12 feet. The study has been going on literally since the 90s. An additional study started again in 2005 and expired in roughly 2014. We could see a 40% increase in cargo influx into the port and out of the port for every foot we increase it. 40% increase cargo. Which would be drastically an improvement to what we deal with today. Not to mention the timing, the cost to get Ag products in and out of the Midwest, because as we hit the Mississippi, we actually change out of one barge to another barge that actually is obviously deeper and bigger for us to be able to navigate through the channel with.” 
    “My concern is that since the Corp has continued to overlook this, I’m looking for a commitment for you that you will actually take a hard look at this and understand that literally, the heartbeat of America, which is our Ag products, is in dire straits of being able to get products in and out. And if this navigation channel goes down, the cost is going to bring to all Americans’ tables, because it will increase in cargo. So, would you commit to helping us with this channel?”  
    Mr. Telle: “Senator Mullin, absolutely, I will. This is emblematic, the situation you described, in providing access for Oklahoma’s farmers and ranchers to the rest of the world through our waterways is emblematic of the Corp’s mission, which was originally to use our waterways for the benefit of the American public.” 
    “Your state’s so critical in getting the products from your state the world. And the opposite of that, getting the world’s products to you is critically important. I understand that this issue has been going on for a long time, affects the state of Arkansas as well. And certainly, as vessel traffic changes, the types of traffic change based on commercial patterns across the globe, we need to make sure that our infrastructure is up to date to meet it. And I look forward to doing everything we can to take a very hard look at this critical asset and make sure that we modernize it to the degree that we can.” 
    “And I would also, as you describe when we were in your office, the critical role that it plays in flood protection in that area as well. And you know, dredge material often can have a beneficial use in terms of building flood control infrastructure, levees and otherwise. So, I look forward to working with you on that and I commit to do my very best.”  
    Sen. Mullin: “Thank you. And I look forward to hosting you when we can get you there.”  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Justice on demand? The true crime podcasts serving up Erin Patterson’s mushroom murder trial

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Cantrell, Senior Lecturer – Writing, Editing, and Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

    The trial of the so-called “mushroom cook” Erin Patterson, currently underway in the Victorian town of Morwell, continues to generate global attention.

    The mother of two is charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, all of which she denies.

    Due to the regional location of the hearing and Australia’s conservative attitude toward the use of cameras in the courtroom, many people are following the case via podcast. This is not surprising, given Australia has among the world’s highest percentage of podcast consumers.

    Currently Apple Australia’s Top 10 True Crime podcast chart includes three network-backed podcasts dedicated to the mushroom case. They essentially present the same information, but through different formats and structures, and to varying degrees of success.

    Unlike cold case investigations, which are retrospectives that focus on breakdowns in the legal system, real-time true crime podcasts unpack complex issues and provide information to listeners while a case is under judgement.

    Death cap dinner claims recapped

    Prosecutors allege in July 2023 Erin Patterson laced four beef wellingtons with death cap mushrooms and served the deadly lunch to her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson; Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson; and her husband, Ian Wilkinson. But the defence has raised doubts about those claims.

    The trial, now in its third week, has captured the nation. The jury has heard from Erin’s children, along with Facebook friends and the sole surviving guest Ian Wilkinson, a pastor who spent almost two months in hospital following the lunch.

    Justice on demand

    In Australia, the principle of open justice – that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done – is a cornerstone of the legal system. This includes making fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, and ensuring court information is accessible to the media and public.

    New media forms, such as podcasts, also depend on democracy and accessibility. Anyone can speak and anyone can listen, anywhere, at any time. So true crime podcasts have naturally (and sometimes problematically) converged with the process of open justice.

    Take The Australian’s 2018 podcast The Teacher’s Pet, which followed the controversial investigation of the disappearance of Lynette Dawson from the northern beaches of Sydney in 1982. It marked the first time in Australian legal history that a serialised podcast was cited as the primary reason for an application for a permanent stay of proceedings.

    While the permanent stay was denied, the court did grant a temporary stay for nine months. At the hearing, Justice Elizabeth Fullerton called the podcast “the most egregious example of media interference with a criminal trial process”. She described it as “overzealous”, “uncensored” and “imbued with hubris”.

    But there are some key differences between The Teacher’s Pet and the new mushroom case podcasts.

    The Teacher’s Pet resurrected a cold case, and uses investigative journalism to propel interest in the real-time solving of the case, with listeners’ help. This process, known as jurification, positions the podcast host as a journalist-turned-investigator, and the listeners as jurors weighing up the evidence.

    In contrast, the podcasts on the Patterson case largely rely on objective reporting to build on listeners’ understanding of the context that led to the tragic deaths of three people. These podcasts include no explicit judgement of evidence. And this allows them to skirt the potential for “trial by media”.

    The Mushroom Case Daily

    One of the most popular podcasts tracking the Patterson case is the ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily.

    As the top-ranked podcast in Australia’s Apple charts at the time of writing, the Daily provides digestible summaries of key moments in the trial, with court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell (Stocky) recording daily from a makeshift studio in Morwell.

    As the first podcast of its kind in the market (starting in March 2024), the Daily is informative and engaging, but not sensationalist or self-serving. It reports on the facts, but does not shy away from empathetic identification with the victims – helping the audience feel involved in the story.

    Interestingly, the Daily even builds empathy for Patterson herself. It humanises the accused by reporting on her emotional displays, and by seeking to understand her actions and reactions, rather than merely vilifying her.

    The Daily also refuses to speculate about whether Patterson is guilty or not, as do its competitors. In doing so, it upholds the legal and ethical obligation of court reporters to maintain impartiality and not misinterpret or misrepresent information.

    At the same time, it is one of the more intimate accounts of the trial, with a relaxed and conversational style. It’s also more interactive than its rivals, as listeners are encouraged to write in with questions.

    The Mushroom Cook and Say Grace

    The Mushroom Cook: The Trial and The Mushroom Trial: Say Grace are also popular with listeners.

    Both are uploaded regularly, with a goal to summarise the events of the day’s trial and highlight the most significant revelations.

    The Mushroom Cook is presented by Herald Sun journalists Brooke Grebert-Craig and Laura Placella. It began in April 2024 with a detailed explanation of the case, in anticipation of the criminal proceedings, and has continued to report on developments over the past year via short episodes of 15 minutes or less.

    Say Grace, a 9Podcast presented by Penelope Liersch (Nine) and Erin Pearson (The Age), started on April 20 of this year, the day of jury selection. It provides more detailed episodes of about 30 minutes in length.

    Unlike the Daily, both of these podcasts use reenactments with voice actors performing the witness testimony. This provides a sense of authenticity and immediacy; listeners feel like they themselves are in the courtroom, privy to the evidence. However, the ethics of reenactments in video and audio documentary are murky. While some people say they aid understanding, others may see them as introducing bias or distorting reality.

    Like the Daily, both The Mushroom Cook and Say Grace are acutely aware of the potential ethical and legal risks of reporting on the case. They take care to avoid conjecture and misrepresentation, such as by using explicit disclaimers before reenactments.

    Although both podcasts are presented in a casual and conversational style, Say Grace offers more in-depth commentary on the case, using descriptive language to paint a vivid picture of courtroom proceedings.

    Ultimately, each of these three podcasts is serving more than listeners’ suspicions; they are providing an important public service by reporting the truth and preserving open justice.

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

    ref. Justice on demand? The true crime podcasts serving up Erin Patterson’s mushroom murder trial – https://theconversation.com/justice-on-demand-the-true-crime-podcasts-serving-up-erin-pattersons-mushroom-murder-trial-256209

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell, Merkley, Welch, Sanders Introduce Bill to Lower Prescription Drug Prices for All Americans

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) along with Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), today introduced the End Price Gouging for Medications Act.

    The bicameral bill would lower prescription drug costs for all Americans and end pharmaceutical price gouging by requiring drug companies to offer medications in the United States at no more than the lowest price per drug in twelve other similarly developed countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

    “In the wealthiest nation on earth, no one should have to choose between buying groceries and affording the medications they need to survive.” said Dingell. “There’s no reason we should be spending more on prescriptions than any other country. This legislation will bring down the cost of prescription drugs, hold drug companies accountable for their unchecked greed, and provide much-needed relief to American families.”

    “Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, even though we invest the most in cutting-edge research and development. That is unconscionable,” said Merkley. “In my town halls across every corner of Oregon, I’ve heard time and again from Oregonians about how sky-high prescription drug prices are pushing their budgets to the limit. The End Price Gouging for Medications Act will crack down on Big Pharma’s greed. If President Trump is serious about lowering prescription drug costs for families and seniors across America, he should work with Congress to ensure we get the best prices, not the worst.”

    “No one should ever be forced to choose between paying for the prescriptions they need or putting food on the table. It’s unacceptable, and for too many Americans it’s a reality because of Big Pharma’s price gouging,” said Welch. “The End Price Gouging for Medications Act would put an end to this bad practice and help more Vermonters access the medications they need. I’m proud to join Sen. Merkley to introduce this bill and help Vermonters get the care they need.”

    On average, Americans spend over $1,400 on prescription drugs every year—the highest per capita drug spending in the world—largely because the pharmaceutical industry is hiking up the cost of drugs to make billions in profits each year. The American people want action, and lowering prescription drug prices to levels obtained in nations similar to the United States has strong bipartisan support. This includes medication such as:

    • Ozempic, which costs Americans nearly $13,000 annually to treat type 2 diabetes compared to roughly $820 in Japan; and
    • Humira, which costs Americans with Crohn’s disease more than $100,000 per year compared to roughly $3,320 per year in Austria.

    Unlike Trump’s recent executive order (EO) on international reference pricing, which only applies to Medicare and Medicaid, the End Price Gouging for Medications Act goes further by requiring drug companies to offer prescription drugs at the established reference price to all individuals in the U.S. market, regardless of insurance or health care status. That includes individuals utilizing all federal health programs, uninsured individuals, individuals covered under a group health plan, or individuals who have purchased their own health insurance coverage.

    In addition to Dingell, Merkley, Welch, and Sanders, the End Price Gouging for Medications Act is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). The bicameral bill is endorsed by Public Citizen, Center for Health and Democracy, Just Care USA, Center for Medicare Advocacy, and Social Security Works.

    “American consumers pay far too much for drugs, not because it is costly to manufacture them, or even because of the expense of research and development. We pay too much because the U.S. government grants patents and other monopolies to brand-name drug corporations and then does far too little to rein in Big Pharma’s exploitation of those monopolies to price gouge consumers and the government itself. If President Trump were serious about bringing U.S. drug prices down to levels in other countries, he would embrace this legislation and use the bully pulpit to urge legislators to support it instead of retrograde proposals to take away health care from millions of people to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. We applaud Senators Merkley, Sanders and Welch for their leadership,” said Peter Maybarduk, Director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines Program.

    “There’s no good reason Americans should be forced to pay as much as four times more for our drugs than people in France, Japan and Canada. Senator Merkley, Senator Welch, Ranking Member Sanders, and Representative Dingell’s ‘End Price Gouging for Medications Act’ legislation recognizes that monopoly pricing by drug corporations is killing tens of thousands of Americans each year and driving countless more into medical debt. It rightly calls for fair drug pricing, which is essential to our health and well-being,” said Diane Archer, President, Just Care USA.

    Full text of the End Price Gouging for Medications Act can be found here. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: House Natural Resources Committee Advances Reconciliation Responsibility

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02)

    Washington, D.C. – This week, the House Natural Resources Committee passed its directives for the Reconciliation process, which includes $18.5 billion in savings. In addition, Rep. Mark Amodei’s amendment pertaining to disposal of Federal lands in Nevada was included in the package.

    “This week, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced our portion of the budget reconciliation bill, delivering on the Administration’s commitment to curb reckless spending, steward taxpayer dollars responsibly, and identify smart investments,” said Rep. Mark Amodei. “Our contributions will generate a total of $18.5 billion in savings, well beyond our $1 billion target.

    “In addition to these historic savings, my Nevada-centric lands amendment was included in the package. The reality is, most of my colleagues don’t fully grasp the unique challenges Nevada faces as a state that is 80% federally owned. For years, folks from my district, and even across district lines, have voiced serious concerns about how these vast stretches of public land could threaten Nevada’s economic momentum and competitiveness if we run out of usable acreage.

    “With Republicans holding only a slim majority, the reconciliation process presented a rare vehicle to advance these land disposal requests and ensure the priorities of our county commissions were heard. This is only the first step in our efforts to support responsible development in our state while also delivering a meaningful return for the American taxpayer.”

    Background

    The Reconciliation Process

    Reconciliation is a rigorous process that allows the President’s agenda to move forward without being blocked by a Senate filibuster. It began with both the House and Senate passing an identical budget blueprint that provided clear directives for committees to identify areas for saving and investment. Congressional committees have been working to turn those directives into actionable legislation within their respective jurisdictions.

    All proposed legislation must meet deficit-reducing or revenue-related targets. The end goal is to compile all legislation passed through committees and bring it onto the chamber floors for voting in one big bill.

    Rep. Amodei’s Land Disposal Amendment

    Nevada’s population centers are all encumbered by Federal lands and can’t meet their housing and development needs without disposal of Federal lands. Unlike most other states, Nevadans rely on Congress to make these lands available.  

    Each of the maps included in this amendment was generated by the respective counties referenced in the bill. National Parks and areas of significant environmental value are not included in the list of disposal lands within the amendment, and all disposal of Federal lands must still go through the NEPA process and comply with existing federal regulations. This amendment focuses on communities who have been starved of development and housing needs.

    Breakdown of the Amendment

    * 449,174 acres are encompassed in the amendment; however, 356,100 acres are part of the Pershing County checkerboard resolution that have no net change in federal ownership. 

    Washoe County

    The amendment identifies 15,860 acres in Washoe County for disposal, also allowing for joint selection between the County and Federal government to prioritize lands for affordable housing development.

    Clark County

    The amendment identifies 65,129 acres in Clark County for disposal, also allowing for joint selection between the County and Federal government to prioritize lands for affordable housing development. The amendment includes a savings clause to ensure that no proceeds deposited into the SNPLMA special account under previous lands sales are to be rescinded or redirected.

    Lyon County

    The amendment identifies 12,085 acres in Lyon County, which will be sold for fair market value to the City of Fernley, Nevada and be developed as the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRIC) II.

    Pershing County

    The amendment authorizes the sale or exchange of lands previously identified for disposal by the BLM in a streamlined manner. This encompasses approximately 356,100 acres of land to be exchanged at a 1:1 ratio.

    MIL OSI USA News