Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Vice Chairperson Appointed to the Labour Relations Board

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on May 13, 2025

    Linda Zarzeczny, K.C. has been appointed to the Labour Relations Board as vice chairperson.  

    Ms. Zarzeczny joins Kyle McCreary, Chairperson and Carol Kraft, Vice-Chairperson on the Labour Relations Board. Her appointment is for five years, beginning April 30, 2025.

    “Ms. Zarzeczny’s background in private law and her time spent in the Ministry of Justice make her an excellent addition to the board,” Deputy Premier and Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Minister Jim Reiter said. “Ms. Zarzeczny’s appointment will ensure timely service and continuity for hearings before the board.”

    Zarzeczny received her Bachelor of Laws at the University of Saskatchewan and spent time in private practice in Alberta before returning to Saskatchewan where she served in the Ministry of Justice as the Senior Crown Counsel, executive Director of the Civil Law Division, the first assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Legal Services Division and most recently as the Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General for Saskatchewan. 

    The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal that adjudicates disputes under The Saskatchewan Employment Act and deals with applications for union certification or decertification. The board operates independently of government and is comprised of equal numbers of employee and employer representatives. 

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister announces new Ministry

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced the members of Canada’s new Ministry.

    Canadians elected this new government with a strong mandate to define a new economic and security relationship with the United States, to build a stronger economy, to reduce the cost of living, and to keep our communities safe. This focused team will act on this mandate for change with urgency and determination.

    The new government will act to catalyze investment and build a new Canadian economy – one that creates higher-paying careers, raises incomes, and can withstand future shocks. They will work in collaboration with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to advance the nation-building investments that will support the government’s core mission of building one strong, united economy – the strongest economy in the G7.

    The new Cabinet is appointed as follows:

    • Shafqat Ali, President of the Treasury Board
    • Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations
    • Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs
    • Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety
    • François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue
    • Rebecca Chartrand, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
    • Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
    • Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
    • Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade
    • Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages
    • Mandy Gull-Masty, Minister of Indigenous Services
    • Patty Hajdu, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
    • Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
    • Mélanie Joly, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
    • Dominic LeBlanc, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy
    • Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement
    • Heath MacDonald, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
    • Steven MacKinnon, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
    • David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence
    • Jill McKnight, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
    • Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
    • Marjorie Michel, Minister of Health
    • Eleanor Olszewski, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada
    • Gregor Robertson, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada
    • Maninder Sidhu, Minister of International Trade
    • Evan Solomon, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
    • Joanne Thompson, Minister of Fisheries
    • Rechie Valdez, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)

    The Cabinet will be supported by 10 secretaries of State who will provide dedicated leadership on key issues and priorities within their minister’s portfolio.

    The new secretaries of State are appointed as follows:

    • Buckley Belanger, Secretary of State (Rural Development)
    • Stephen Fuhr, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)
    • Anna Gainey, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)
    • Wayne Long, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
    • Stephanie McLean, Secretary of State (Seniors)
    • Nathalie Provost, Secretary of State (Nature)
    • Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)
    • Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)
    • Adam van Koeverden, Secretary of State (Sport)
    • John Zerucelli, Secretary of State (Labour)

    Quote

    “Canada’s new Ministry is built to deliver the change Canadians want and deserve. Everyone is expected and empowered to show leadership – to bring new ideas, a clear focus, and decisive action to their work.”

    Associated Links

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Saskatchewan Recognizes May 11-17 as National Police Week

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on May 13, 2025

    Recognizing Police Officers and Agencies in Saskatchewan

    The Government of Saskatchewan has proclaimed May 11 to 17, 2025 as National Police Week.

    This year’s national theme, “Committed to Serve Together,” highlights the collaborative efforts of police services and community organizations working together to ensure community safety and wellbeing across the province. 

    “It is very fitting that this year’s Police Week theme is ‘Committed to Serve Together’ because that is exactly how we approach public safety in Saskatchewan,” Corrections, Policing and Public Safety Minister Tim McLeod, K.C. said. “The RCMP, municipal police services and law enforcement agencies work in close partnership every day, whether it is by conducting traffic safety services together to keep our roadways safe or through several provincially-funded specialized enforcement teams working in tandem to address complex crimes, partnerships between Saskatchewan police and law enforcement agencies remain strong. With the Saskatchewan Marshals Service set to be operational this summer, we will have another layer of support to further strengthen that network and contribute to delivering safer communities across the province.”

    National Police Week began in 1970 as a public awareness campaign to encourage connections between police and the communities they serve. 

    “This week, we take the opportunity to thank all the policing agencies in Saskatchewan and their hardworking officers for the work they do to keep our communities safe,” McLeod said. 

    In 2025-26, the Government of Saskatchewan is investing $260 million to fund RCMP operations in the province, including $23.7 million for the First Nations Policing Program. The 2025-26 budget also includes $23.5 million to fund 160 municipal police positions, including 17 Combined Traffic Services positions and additional public safety initiatives, through the Municipal Police Grants program.

    “We are celebrating National Police Week, but I want to emphasize that I’m proud of the police officers throughout this province year-round,” Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police President Rhonda Blackmore said. “They work hard every day to maintain the safety of our communities. A police officer’s day is never the same, but whether it’s investigating a crime, searching for a missing person, conducting traffic patrols, or overseeing a bike rodeo – all their actions contribute to safety. Thank you for your service. We are also grateful for the continued partnership between police and other public safety-related agencies in this province – that commitment to serve together helps ensure Saskatchewan is a safe and great place to live, work and play.”

    Over the past year, the province has funded 21 new police officer positions in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Estevan and Weyburn, as part of government’s $11.9 million commitment to hire approximately 100 new municipal police officers through the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods initiative.

    In 2024-25 and 2025-26, the Government of Saskatchewan invested $2 billion in public safety to support policing and community safety in the province and enhance access to justice services. 

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Saskatchewan Launches New Program to Boost Oil Production and Generate Investment

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on May 13, 2025

    The Government of Saskatchewan has launched the Low Productivity and Reactivation Oil Well Program (LPRP) to create new incremental oil production and revenue from low-producing or inactive wells. 

    The LPRP promotes industry investment in low-producing or inactive horizontal oil wells through a new royalty structure for eligible wells. In the final year of the four-year LPRP program, it is projected to add 30,000 barrels per day of oil production and generate $21 million in additional royalty revenue for the province.

    “Growing Saskatchewan’s oil and gas industry is a priority for our government,” Energy and Resources Minister Colleen Young said. “This new program will encourage companies to make new investments in existing assets and increase oil production in our province. With our abundant resources, competitive regulatory environment, and targeted incentives, Saskatchewan is one of the best places in the world to develop oil and gas projects.”

    The LPRP can extend the life of wells that have already been drilled and allow access to oil that would otherwise have been left in place. The incremental oil production generated through the program will contribute to reaching Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan goal of increasing oil production to 600,000 barrels per day.

    “Not only does the LPRP support the government’s goal of increasing oil production, it has the added benefits of reducing inactive asset retirement obligations, improving environmental performance and enabling companies to convert liabilities into assets,” Saturn Oil and Gas CEO John Jeffrey said. “Saturn recently completed a successful Frobisher re-entry and is excited to identify further candidates, as we believe the LPRP will spur increased production, activity and revenue for the province; reduce the inactive well count and create additional employment and investment opportunities. Ultimately, the new LPRP represents a win-win for all stakeholders.”

    Last year, the value of Saskatchewan oil and gas production reached $13.5 billion, with the sector employing more than 26,000 people. Saskatchewan is the second-largest oil producer in Canada and sixth largest onshore oil producer in North America.

    For more details about LPRP, including information about how to apply for the program, visit: link.

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Statement: Congratulating Speaker McIver

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Alberta takes action: Ending gender-based violence

    [. It often goes unnoticed or unreported and whether directly or indirectly, all Albertans are affected by it. A made-in-Alberta strategy is required to end the violence and create a safer home for every Albertan. 

    Building on our Strengths: Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender-Based Violence is a bold, provincewide plan that addresses all forms of gender-based violence. The strategy implements clear, immediate, short- and long-term actions that strengthen the work already underway. This foundational strategy outlines initiatives that ensure efforts across government and community partners are coordinated, so that Alberta can put an end to gender-based violence. Central to the strategy are commitments to engage men and boys as partners, enhance women’s economic empowerment and ensure targeted programs are Indigenous-led.

    Alberta’s 10-year strategy is focused on building an understanding around what appropriate behavior is, raising awareness on every form of gender-based violence and increasing coordination across all sectors. The strategy builds on the excellent work of dedicated organizations across the province and outlines a reasonable and responsible approach to grow programs that work, address service gaps and ensure prevention, early intervention, crisis response and long-term supports are available in all corners of the province, when and where they are needed.

    “Our government is proud to release Building on our Strengths: Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender-Based Violence, the most comprehensive strategy of its kind in Canada. Through this strategy, our government will lay the groundwork for lasting change while addressing the root causes of gender-based violence and supporting survivors.”

    Tanya Fir, Minister of Arts, Culture and Status of Women

    “Our commitment to public safety is reflected in Alberta’s approach to preventing and responding to gender-based violence by supporting victims, preventing violence and ensuring high-risk offenders are held accountable. This strategy is a bold step forward – one that brings together government, community partners and front-line professionals. United, we are proud to unveil Alberta’s decade-long commitment to ending gender-based violence, a crucial step towards a safer future for all.”

    Mike Ellis, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services

    “By releasing Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender Based Violence, our government is leading the charge to eradicate domestic and family violence in our communities. This will empower and support the important work of women’s shelters and sexual assault centres to ensure that every woman and child is protected and able to receive the supports they need.”

    Searle Turton, Minister of Children and Family Services

    “Our justice system must be a place where survivors of gender-based violence feel heard, protected and supported. This strategy is a critical step towards building a safer Alberta where accountability and compassion go hand in hand.”

    Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice

    “Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit plus people disproportionately face gender-based violence. This must stop. The strategy announced today is a beacon of hope and includes tangible actions for everyone working to end gender-based violence. It builds on other work already underway to address the root causes of gender-based violence and prevent it before it occurs, such as work done by the Premier’s Council on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two Spirit Plus People, and the First Nations and Métis Women’s Councils on Economic Security, and work done under the Human Trafficking Action Plan. I am honoured to continue this important work.”

    Rick Wilson, Minister of Indigenous Relations

    Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender-Based Violence complements and enhances existing initiatives such as the Premier’s Council on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two Spirit Plus People and the Human Trafficking Action Plan to address the root causes of gender-based violence and prevent it before it occurs.

    Alberta’s strategy is the most comprehensive of its kind in the country, with actions that will:

    • Increase awareness of what gender-based violence is and what Albertans should do when they see it.
    • Prevent gender-based violence before it begins by addressing its underlying causes and implementing early-intervention strategies.
    • Empower women to be economically independent, supporting them with financial and social resources to achieve true financial independence, enabling them to live safely and build strong, independent lives.
    • Support Indigenous-led solutions and incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing and being into programs that address the unique needs, lived experiences and practices of Indigenous people, families and communities.
    • Support those affected how, where and when they need it, with timely, culturally informed, accessible and responsive support for survivors, families, those at risk, perpetrators and potential perpetrators, ensuring they receive the help they need in their own communities.

    “As Chair of the Premier’s Council on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two Spirit Plus People, I am pleased that the Government of Alberta is taking a comprehensive and coordinated approach to ending gender-based violence. The Premier’s Council looks forward to working with the Government of Alberta to implement Building on Our Strengths: Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender-Based Violence, especially in areas that intersect with factors related to missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two spirit plus people and the Alberta Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Roadmap. We are stronger when we work together.”

    Rachelle Venne, chair, Premier’s Council on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two Spirit Plus People

    “By prioritizing financial empowerment and Indigenous-led solutions, this strategy will help more Alberta women avoid or leave high-risk situations. Women Building Futures applauds the Government of Alberta for this farsighted, whole-of-government approach to the pervasive and complex problem of gender-based violence.”

    Carol Moen, president and CEO, Women Building Futures

    “This strategy signals a shift: to end gender-based violence, we must engage men and boys as part of the solution. By investing in prevention and including men in efforts to shift norms and behaviours, Alberta is paving the way for a safer, more just future.”

    Lana Wells, associate professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, and founder of Shift2Learn

    Budget 2025 invests $19.8 million to support Alberta’s 10-year Strategy to End Gender-based Violence. This funding will be used to make targeted investments to ensure provincial programs are coordinated, collaborative, effective and sustainable. In total, Alberta’s government invests more than $188 million in related programming and services across government.

    The strategy was informed by extensive engagement with more than 500 Albertans and organizations, including survivors, community organizations working on the front lines, Indigenous communities and academics.

    Quick facts

    • From fall 2023 to spring 2024, Arts, Culture and Status of Women conducted extensive engagement with the public and key stakeholders, including an online survey for Albertans, specific engagement with Indigenous groups and meetings with more than 500 stakeholders in 11 communities across the province.
    • Gender-based violence refers to harmful acts directed at an individual based on their gender. It can take many forms, including physical assault, sexual assault, murder, femicide, family violence, intimate partner violence, human trafficking, stalking, financial control, threats, hate speech, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, pornography and coercive control.
    • Alberta’s government invests more than $188 million annually in gender-based violence related programming across several ministries, including:
      • Expanding voluntary and court-ordered programming for perpetrators and those at risk of causing harm.
      • Implementing electronic monitoring technology to monitor offenders under court ordered supervision.
      • Supporting women’s shelter programming to focus on access to safety and inclusive services.
      • Improving the reporting and prevention efforts at post-secondary institutions and First Nations colleges to address campus sexual violence.
      • Increasing service provider access to education and resources related to elder abuse.
      • Supporting academic research on gender-related injury and illness in the workplace.
      • Strengthening support for Albertans navigating the justice system, including developing more survivor-centered, culturally sensitive, trauma-informed services.
      • Implementing Indigenous-led initiatives that advance the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Roadmap.
      • Strengthening safe, accessible and reliable transportation options for victims, survivors and their families seeking GBV support and services.
      • Specialized 24-7 support to patients experiencing domestic and family violence.
      • Working with professionals to help seniors who are experiencing GBV.
      • Raising awareness of Clare’s Law to allow people to make informed choices about potentially harmful intimate partners and how it is an important tool in protecting Albertans from domestic violence.

    Related information

    • Ending Gender-Based Violence

    Multimedia

    • Watch the news conference
    • Ending Gender-Based Violence Video

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    Legislation Summary

    H. Con. Res. 14, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2025, instructed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to recommend legislative changes that would decrease deficits by a specified amount over the 2025-2034 period. As part of the reconciliation process, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved legislation on April 30, 2025, that would decrease deficits.

    Estimated Federal Cost

    In CBO’s estimation, the reconciliation recommendations of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform would, on net, decrease deficits by $51.0 billion over the 2025‑2034 period. The estimated budgetary effects of the legislation are shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation mainly fall within budget functions 550 (health), 600 (income security), 800 (general government), and 950 (undistributed offsetting receipts).

    Return to Reference

    Table 1.

    Estimated Budgetary Effects of Reconciliation Recommendations Title IX, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as Ordered Reported on April 30, 2025

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2025-2029

    2025-2034

     

    Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending

       

    Budget Authority

    -22

    -116

    -11

    -575

    -1,007

    -1,418

    -1,784

    -2,046

    -2,277

    -2,491

    -1,731

    -11,747

    Estimated Outlays

    -22

    -189

    4

    -560

    -992

    -1,403

    -1,771

    -2,046

    -2,277

    -2,491

    -1,759

    -11,747

     

    On-Budget

    -22

    -3

    -182

    -560

    -992

    -1403

    -1771

    -2046

    -2277

    -2491

    -1,759

    -11,747

     

    Off-Budget a

    0

    -186

    186

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

     

    Increases in Revenues

       

    Estimated Revenues

    9

    1,839

    4,229

    4,811

    4,802

    4,779

    4,747

    4,707

    4,664

    4,617

    15,690

    39,204

     

    Net Decreases in the Deficit

    From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues

       

    Effect on the Deficit

    -31

    -2,028

    -4,225

    -5,371

    -5,794

    -6,182

    -6,518

    -6,753

    -6,941

    -7,108

    -17,449

    -50,951

     

    On-Budget Deficit

    -31

    -1,842

    -4,411

    -5,371

    -5,794

    -6,182

    -6,518

    -6,753

    -6,941

    -7,108

    -17,449

    -50,951

     

    Off-Budget Deficit a

    0

    -186

    186

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    a.Cash flows for USPS are recorded in the federal budget in the Postal Service Fund and are classified as off-budget direct spending.

    Basis of Estimate

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted in summer 2025. CBO’s estimates are relative to its January 2025 baseline and cover the period from 2025 through 2034.

    Direct Spending and Revenues

    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would decrease direct spending by $11.7 billion and increase revenues by $39.2 billion over the 2025-2034 period; the deficit would be reduced $51.0 billion over the 2025-2034 period (see

    The rate for most federal employees, Members of Congress, and Congressional staff who entered the system in 2013 would increase from 3.1 percent to 4.4 percent over the phase-in period. Contributions would remain constant at 3.6 percent for employees who entered in 2013 who are eligible for enhanced benefits and also subject to mandatory retirement. The contributions for FERS Further Revised Annuity Employees (those who entered after 2013) would remain constant at 4.4 percent of their annual salary over the phase-in period for most federal employees, Members of Congress, and Congressional staff and at 4.9 percent for employees who are eligible to receive enhanced benefits.

    Contributions paid by federal employees toward their retirement are recorded as revenues in the federal budget. CBO estimates that the proposed increases in employee contributions would increase revenues by $34.5 billion over the 2025-2034 period.

    Federal agencies also contribute to their employees’ retirement. For each increase proposed for employees, there would be a corresponding reduction for employing agencies. Reducing employers’ contributions for FERS employees (other than employees of the Postal Service, USPS) would reduce spending subject to appropriation by $31.8 billion over the 2025‑2034 period, CBO estimates. That, in turn, would reduce the intragovernmental offsetting receipts paid into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) by an equal amount. Because that budgetary action is contingent on future appropriations, the increase in the deficit from the decline in estimated offsetting receipts is not attributed to this legislation.

    By contrast, outlays by USPS are classified as off-budget direct spending. Reducing that agency’s contributions to employee retirement would result in smaller intragovernmental offsetting receipts being paid into the CSRDF, therefore increasing on-budget direct spending by that same amount.

    Under section 90001, the total amount of retirement contributions (employee plus agency shares) paid into the CSRDF would remain the same as under current law. That is, the legislation would replace some of the payments by agencies with payments by federal employees. CBO attributes budgetary savings to the proposal because employees’ contributions are classified in the budget as revenues, whereas agency payments are classified as intragovernmental transfers that are subject to future appropriation. If the reduction in intragovernmental transfers makes possible an offsetting increase in other appropriations, the net effect would be an increase in outlays—because an intragovernmental payment would be replaced by spending that goes outside the government.

    CBO estimates that reducing the USPS contribution rate for affected employees would reduce that agency’s required payments to the CSRDF by nearly $2.7 billion over the 
    2025-2034 period. That reduction of receipts into the fund would result in a nearly $2.7 billion increase in on-budget direct spending over the period. Because CBO projects that USPS will exhaust both its borrowing authority and its reserve funds in 2027, any savings to the Postal Service Fund from lower retirement contributions would be fully offset beginning in that year. As a result, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would result in a reduction in off-budget outlays in 2026 that would be offset by increased off-budget direct spending beginning in 2027 as USPS would spend the amount it saved from lower accrual payments to fund its operations.

    Elimination of FERS Annuity Supplement

    Under current law, certain FERS employees who retire before age 62 receive a supplement to their annuity that is intended to equal the amount they would receive from the Social Security Administration if they were eligible for Social Security benefits at the time of retirement.The annuity supplement ends when the retiree turns 62 or becomes eligible to receive Social Security benefits.

    Section 90002 would eliminate the annuity supplement for most newly retired people under FERS. Employees who retire under a mandatory authority would continue to receive the supplement as under current law. Current FERS annuitants and those who retire before enactment also would continue to receive the supplement.

    Using data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), CBO estimates that about 21,000 new FERS retirees who do not retire under a mandatory authority are added to the annuity supplement rolls each year. In fiscal year 2025, the average annual supplement for affected annuitants would be about $18,000, CBO estimates. Those annuitants begin to receive the supplement, on average, at age 59 and would therefore receive the supplement for about three years. On that basis, CBO estimates that eliminating the supplement for new annuitants would reduce direct spending by $10.0 billion over the 2025-2034 period.

    High-5 Average Pay for Calculating CSRS and FERS Pension

    Most federal employees hired before 1987 are part of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the defined benefit pension plan that was replaced by FERS. Under current law, retirement annuities under both systems are based on a participant’s average salary over the three consecutive years with their highest earnings.

    Section 90003 would change the annuity calculation to use a five-year average for most CSRS and FERS employees who retire on or after January 1, 2027. The annuity calculation for employees who are subject to mandatory retirement would remain at the three-year average, as under current law.

    Using data from OPM, CBO estimates that about 90,000 employees who are not subject to mandatory retirement are added to the CSRS and FERS retirement rolls each year. Under current law, the average monthly benefit for CSRS annuitants was about $5,700 in fiscal year 2024; for FERS the average was about $2,300. Using the five-year average, rather than the three-year average, would reduce an affected retiree’s annuity by about 3 percent. CBO estimates that enacting section 90003 would reduce direct spending by $3.1 billion over the 2025-2034 period.

    Election for At-Will Employment and Lower FERS Contributions for New Federal Civil Service Hires

    Section 90004 would require most new federal civilian hires to choose either to serve as at-will employees or to contribute an additional five percent of their salary toward their retirement. The change would apply to employees hired or appointed after enactment. It would not apply to employees who cannot appeal adverse actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board, including most USPS employees. It also would exclude certain other employees, including positions excepted from the competitive service due to the confidential, policy focused nature of their work.

    At-will employees can have their employment terminated at any time without cause. Those employees retain protection under antidiscrimination laws, however, including laws that prohibit termination on the basis of race, sex, or religion. Under this provision, new hires who choose not to become at-will employees would retain civil service protections that require employers to show cause for any adverse personnel action and would retain the right to appeal employment termination.

    Based on data from OPM, CBO estimates that roughly 124,000 affected federal hires will enter FERS in fiscal year 2026 with an annual salary of about $71,000, on average. Using data about employees’ perceptions of job security and willingness to forgo current compensation for future benefits, CBO estimates that roughly one quarter of affected federal hires would choose to contribute an additional 5 percent of their salary toward retirement rather than enter into at-will employment. On that basis, CBO estimates that the larger retirement contributions of those who reject at-will employment would increase revenues by $4.7 billion over the 2025-2034 period.

    Federal agencies also are required to contribute toward employees’ retirement. Under section 90004, agencies’ contributions would decrease by the same percentage that employees’ contributions rise. CBO estimates that reduced employer contributions for FERS employees in agencies other than USPS would decrease spending subject to appropriation by $4.5 billion over the 2025-2034 period.

    CBO estimates that section 90004 would apply to roughly 10 percent of USPS employees. A reduction in USPS’s contributions for affected hires who do not choose at-will employment would reduce that agency’s required payments to the CSRDF (as well as receipts into the fund) by $112 million over the 2025‑2034 period, CBO estimates, thereby boosting on-budget direct spending by that amount. Because CBO projects that USPS will exhaust both its borrowing authority and its reserve funds in 2027, any savings to the Postal Service Fund would be fully offset beginning in that year. Thus, CBO estimates no net change in off-budget outlays by USPS over the 2025-2034 period.

    Filing Fee for Merit Systems Protection Board Claims and Appeals

    Section 90005 would direct the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to impose fees for employees, former employees, or applicants for employment to file certain types of claims against federal agencies. Fees collected from claimants whose appeals are denied would be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. CBO expects that under this provision fewer claims would be filed than the 4,000 that are filed annually, on average, under current law. Using information from the MSPB, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues by $3 million over the 2025‑2034 period.

    FEHB Protection

    Section 90006 would require federal agencies to verify the eligibility of enrollees’ dependents to participate in the FEHB program. That program provides health insurance to about 8 million federal workers and annuitants, including current and retired USPS employees, and coverage for their dependents and survivors. Verification would occur when the employee or annuitant starts or changes a dependent’s enrollment—for example, during open season, because of a change in employment, or in response to a qualifying life event, such as a marriage or the birth or adoption of a child. Within six years of enactment, the legislation would require OPM to conduct a verification audit of all dependents enrolled in the program. Dependents found to be ineligible would be denied enrollment or disenrolled. The legislation also would expand OPM’s annual assessment of fraud risk to include a risk assessment for enrollment by ineligible dependents.

    Agencies currently verify dependents’ eligibility at initial enrollment or when employees change their coverage at the time of a qualifying life event. OPM requires federal agencies to verify 10 percent of enrollment elections during open season. However, the Government Accountability Office has indicated that some ineligible dependents have been enrolled and that additional measures could be taken to reduce fraud in the program.

    Over the 2026-2034 period, the legislation would authorize OPM to spend $604 million from the FEHB trust fund to expand that agency’s oversight of the program, increasing outlays by the same amount. Authorized amounts would be for the following activities:

    • $474 million to develop, maintain, and conduct ongoing verifications for and oversight of the FEHB program’s enrollment and eligibility systems;
    • $80 million to audit enrollment of dependents; and
    • $50 million for program oversight by OPM’s Office of the Inspector General.

    Those amounts would be used in part for activities that would reduce enrollment in FEHB and result in smaller government contributions to premiums. CBO anticipates that OPM would implement the section’s auditing requirements using contracts with private-sector entities. Given the likely duration and complexity of such an undertaking, CBO expects that the audit would begin later in fiscal year 2026 and continue through 2031.

    Using data on the composition of enrollment in the FEHB program, along with information about the share of dependents removed as a result of other verification audits, CBO expects that implementing the section would cause enrollment to decline by about 100,000 people, on average, in each year over the 2026-2034 period, of which about 10,000 would be removed as a result of open-season verifications.

    Government contributions to premiums for federal annuitants and USPS employees are classified in the budget as direct spending. Therefore, a decline in FEHB enrollment among those groups would reduce direct spending. CBO estimates that about 35 percent of the people disenrolled would be ineligible dependents of federal annuitants and USPS employees, at an average annual cost of about $6,900 per dependent, for a total reduction in direct spending of $2.1 billion over the 2026-2034 period.

    In total, CBO estimates enacting the section would reduce direct spending by about $1.5 billion over the 2026‑2034 period.

    Uncertainty

    CBO’s estimates for the budgetary effects of enacting title IX are subject to uncertainty. Several areas in particular are difficult to estimate:

    • Anticipating federal employees’ responses to changes in FERS contributions and benefits is uncertain because decisions related to employment and retirement depend on a wide variety of individual circumstances.
    • Estimating new federal employees’ responses to a requirement to contribute a larger percentage of their salary toward their retirement or accept at-will employment is subject to significant uncertainty due to limited data and historical experience related to how workers have responded in similar situations.
    • Estimating the budgetary effects of section 90006 is subject to significant uncertainty because no similar verification audit of the FEHB program has been undertaken. CBO projected the cost of an audit, length of time required to complete an audit, the number of dependents who could be found ineligible, and the number disenrolled, but actual amounts could be larger or smaller than estimated. Moreover, given the inherent uncertainty concerning patterns of health care use by people who would be newly found ineligible, the reductions in spending that would be generated by an audit also could be larger or smaller than estimated here.

    Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Chief, Projections Unit

    Ann E. Futrell
    Acting Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit

    Sarah Masi
    Senior Adviser, Budget Analysis Division

    Kathleen FitzGerald 
    Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit

    Christina Hawley Anthony
    Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

    H. Samuel Papenfuss 
    Deputy Director of Budget Analysis

    Chad Chirico 
    Director of Budget Analysis

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    Table 2.

    Estimated Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues Under Reconciliation Recommendations Title IX, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as Ordered Reported on April 30, 2025

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2025-2029

    2025-2034

     

    Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending

       

    Sec. 90001, Increase in FERS Employee Contribution Requirements

                       

    Budget Authority

    0

    0

    578

    415

    378

    341

    306

    273

    242

    214

    1,371

    2,747

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    0

    578

    415

    378

    341

    306

    273

    242

    214

    1,371

    2,747

     

    On-Budgeta

    0

    183

    395

    415

    378

    341

    306

    273

    242

    214

    1,371

    2,747

     

    Off-Budgetb

    0

    -183

    183

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sec. 90002, Elimination of FERS Annuity Supplement

                       

    Budget Authority

    -22

    -229

    -530

    -781

    -1,013

    -1,219

    -1,387

    -1,521

    -1,623

    -1,709

    -2,575

    -10,034

    Estimated Outlays

    -22

    -229

    -530

    -781

    -1,013

    -1,219

    -1,387

    -1,521

    -1,623

    -1,709

    -2,575

    -10,034

    Sec. 90003, High-5 Average Pay for Calculating CSRS and FERS Pension

                       

    Budget Authority

    0

    0

    -38

    -122

    -224

    -329

    -435

    -541

    -650

    -761

    -384

    -3,100

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    0

    -38

    -122

    -224

    -329

    -435

    -541

    -650

    -761

    -384

    -3,100

    Sec. 90004, Election for At-Will Employment and Lower FERS Contributions for New Federal Civil Service Hires

                       

    Budget Authority

    0

    0

    6

    7

    10

    13

    15

    18

    20

    23

    23

    112

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    0

    6

    7

    10

    13

    15

    18

    20

    23

    23

    112

     

    On-Budgeta

    0

    2

    4

    7

    10

    13

    15

    18

    20

    23

    23

    112

     

    OffBudgetb

    0

    -2

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sec. 90006, FEHB Protection

                       

    Budget Authority

    0

    113

    -27

    -94

    -158

    -224

    -283

    -275

    -266

    -258

    -166

    -1,472

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    40

    -12

    -79

    -143

    -209

    -270

    -275

    -266

    -258

    -194

    -1,472

     

    On-Budgetc

    0

    41

    -13

    -79

    -143

    -209

    -270

    -275

    -266

    -258

    -194

    -1,472

     

    Off-Budgetd

    0

    -1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total Changes

                           

    Budget Authority

    -22

    -116

    -11

    -575

    -1,007

    -1,418

    -1,784

    -2,046

    -2,277

    -2,491

    -1,731

    -11,747

    Estimated Outlays

    -22

    -189

    4

    -560

    -992

    -1,403

    -1,771

    -2,046

    -2,277

    -2,491

    -1,759

    -11,747

     

    On-Budget

    -22

    -3

    -182

    -560

    -992

    -1403

    -1771

    -2046

    -2277

    -2491

    -1,759

    -11,747

     

    Off-Budget

    0

    -186

    186

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    (Continued)

    Table 2.

    Estimated Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues Under Reconciliation Recommendations Title IX, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as Ordered Reported on April 30, 2025

    (Continued)

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2025-2029

    2025-2034

     

    Increases in Revenues

       

    Sec. 90001, Increase in FERS Employee Contribution Requirements

                       

    Estimated Revenues

    0

    1,768

    4,052

    4,525

    4,404

    4,270

    4,123

    3,967

    3,805

    3,634

    14,749

    34,548

    Sec. 90004, Election for At-Will Employment and Lower FERS Contributions for New Federal Civil Service Hires

                       

    Estimated Revenues

    9

    71

    177

    286

    397

    509

    624

    740

    859

    981

    940

    4,653

    Sec. 90005, Filing Fee for Merit Systems Protection Board Claims and Appeals

                     

    Estimated Revenues

    *

    *

    *

    *

    1

    *

    *

    *

    *

    2

    1

    3

    Total Changes

                           

    Estimated Revenues

    9

    1,839

    4,229

    4,811

    4,802

    4,779

    4,747

    4,707

    4,664

    4,617

    15,690

    39,204

     

    Net Decrease in the Deficit

    From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues

       

    Effect on the Deficit

    -31

    -2,028

    -4,225

    -5,371

    -5,794

    -6,182

    -6,518

    -6,753

    -6,941

    -7,108

    -17,449

    -50,951

    On-Budget Deficitta,c

    -31

    -1,842

    -4,411

    -5,371

    -5,794

    -6,182

    -6,518

    -6,753

    -6,941

    -7,108

    -17,449

    -50,951

    Off-Budget Deficitb,d

    0

    -186

    186

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    a. The on-budget effect arises from reduced contributions by the Postal Service for FERS employees’ retirement, resulting in smaller deposits of offsetting receipts into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

    b. The off-budget effect arises from reduced contributions by the Postal Service for FERS employees’ retirement. Under current law, CBO expects that the Postal Service will exhaust both its borrowing authority and its reserve funds in 2027. As a result, CBO expects that the savings to the Postal Service Fund under the legislation would be fully offset beginning in that year.

    c. The on-budget effect arises from reductions in enrollment in the FEHB program of dependents of federal annuitants.

    d. The off-budget effect comes from reduced Postal Service contributions for postal employees’ health benefits. Under current law, CBO expects that the Postal Service will exhaust both its borrowing authority and its reserve funds in 2027. As a result, CBO expects that the savings to the Postal Service Fund under the legislation would be fully offset beginning in that year.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: H.R. 1286, Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office

    H.R. 1286 would require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess the forms that the department sends to people who have applied for VA benefits. The bill also would reduce the amount of VA pensions the department pays to certain veterans and survivors who reside in nursing homes.

    Spending Subject to Appropriation

    Section 2 would require VA to enter into an agreement with an FFRDC to assess forms sent to claimants for benefits administered by VA. (FFRDCs are public-private partnerships between the federal government and universities or corporations that conduct research and development for the federal government.) The FFRDC would consult with organizations and individuals who assist veterans to determine if such forms could be better organized and clearer to claimants. The bill would require VA to submit the assessment to the Congress and implement any such recommendations within two years of receipt of the assessment. Using information on the cost of similar studies, CBO estimates that the assessment would cost $1 million in fiscal year 2026. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that it would cost the department $1 million to analyze and implement the assessment’s recommendations. In total, implementing section 2 would cost $2 million over the 2025-2035 period. Such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriations (See Table 1).

    Table 1. 
    Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1286

     

    By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars

       
     

    2025

    2026

    2027

    2028

    2029

    2030

    2031

    2032

    2033

    2034

    2035

    2025-2030

    2025-2035

     

    Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation

       

    Estimated Authorization

    *

    1

    *

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    Estimated Outlays

    *

    1

    *

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

     

    Decreases (-) in Direct Spending

       

    Budget Authority

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -4

    Estimated Outlays

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    -4

    * = between zero and $500,000.

    Direct Spending

    Section 3 would extend through December 31, 2031, the reduction of pension payments for veterans and survivors who reside in a Medicaid nursing home. Under current law, VA reduces payments to those beneficiaries to $90 per month. The requirement to reduce pension payments expires on November 30, 2031. CBO estimates that extending that requirement by one month would reduce VA benefits by $10 million. (Those benefits are paid from mandatory appropriations and are therefore considered direct spending.) As a result of that reduction in beneficiaries’ income, Medicaid would pay more of the cost of their care, increasing spending in that program by $6 million. On net, capping pensions for the approximately 4,000 veterans and survivors in Medicaid nursing homes would reduce outlays by $4 million over the 2025-2035 period.

    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Logan Smith. The estimate was reviewed by Christina Hawley Anthony, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

    Phillip L. Swagel

    Director, Congressional Budget Office

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘The red Welsh way’: Welsh Labour attempts to distance itself from the UK party

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nye Davies, Lecturer in Politics, Cardiff University

    David Michael Bellis/Shutterstock

    More than two decades ago, Rhodri Morgan, then first minister of Wales, put “clear red water” between Welsh Labour and the UK party. It’s a phrase that became one of the most enduring cliches in Welsh politics.

    Now, his successor Eluned Morgan is trying to chart a fresh course with a new slogan: “the red Welsh way”. In a recent speech, Morgan set out Welsh Labour’s core values ahead of the 2026 Senedd (Welsh parliament) election: “Solidarity, equality, sustainability and justice.” These, she argued, are progressive principles rooted in Wales’ political traditions.

    But the speech also had a clear strategic purpose: to reassert Welsh Labour’s distinct identity at a time when its dominance in devolved politics is under pressure.

    Morgan pledged to stand up for Wales whenever she believed it was being neglected by Westminster or when UK government policies disproportionately harmed the nation. Deploying nationalistic language, while insisting she is not a nationalist, Morgan invoked a history of exploitation in Wales and vowed that such injustices would not be tolerated under Welsh Labour’s watch.


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


    It was also a notable shift in rhetoric. During the 2024 general election, Welsh Labour leaned heavily on the idea of “two governments at both ends of the M4” working together. Morgan’s speech also represents her most forthright attempt yet to replenish the red waters between the Welsh government and Keir Starmer’s leadership, and her most passionate defence of Welsh Labour as a distinct entity.

    Poll pressure

    On the very same day, a new poll placed Welsh Labour in third place, behind Plaid Cymru and Reform UK. The polling comes with the familiar caveats. It is only one poll, a lot can change in the course of a year and it would be unwise to underestimate the strength of Welsh Labour’s electoral machine.

    Nevertheless, while the Senedd is expanding from 60 to 96 members, Welsh Labour’s presence within it is at risk of shrinking.

    Morgan’s speech implicitly recognises that the Labour brand is tainted. With the UK government chasing Reform UK’s voter base in light of recent election results, the red Welsh way feels like an effort to reclaim ground from Plaid Cymru, to which Welsh Labour appears to be losing support, particularly from left-leaning and Welsh-identifying voters.

    Morgan will hope that formulating a new image (or, rather, resurrecting an old one) can revive the party’s fortunes and allow it to continue its over 100 years dominance of Welsh politics.

    There is logic to this strategy. I have argued before that Welsh Labour thrives when it articulates a clear, values-driven Welsh identity. But there are now formidable obstacles in Morgan’s path.

    First, trying to position a party that has been in government for 26 years as an insurgent force is challenging. The clear red water rhetoric, rooted in progressive principles, has not always been matched in reality.
    Strained public services and entrenched poverty in Wales undermine Welsh Labour’s claims to achieving social justice. While constitutional constraints and funding limitations from Westminster are real, slogans alone do not shield people from hardship.




    Read more:
    Devolving justice and policing to Wales would put it on par with Scotland and Northern Ireland – so what’s holding it back?


    Ultimately, after years of austerity, people in Wales are looking for a party that will offer them hope of a brighter future. Instead of slogans, Welsh Labour will need to show the electorate that it is making a tangible difference to people’s lives. As Morgan herself insisted in the speech: “Less chat, and more do.”

    Second, Morgan faces a further challenge from an emboldened Welsh parliamentary Labour party (PLP). A recent Politico article documents the various ways in which the central Labour party is attempting to have a greater say in Welsh Labour’s affairs, from manifesto writing to candidate selection. One Labour figure was quoted as stating: “The Welsh PLP hate the Senedd group.”

    Amid reports that Morgan accused Welsh MPs of not standing up for Wales, a Labour Senedd member has warned of “simmering discontent” with Westminster.

    A party at a crossroads

    Among these challenges, Welsh Labour will struggle with its claim to be standing up for Wales when judged against outcomes. Repeated failures to secure rail funding, further devolution and even consideration for the effects of policy changes on Wales, suggest that Welsh Labour’s voice in Westminster still struggles to carry weight. That’s even under a Labour-led UK government.

    In truth, the red Welsh way reflects a party caught in a strategic bind. It’s eager to differentiate itself, but hamstrung by its own long-term incumbency, internal divisions and limited power.

    As the 2026 Senedd election draws closer, Welsh Labour will throw everything at shifting the narrative. But as things stand, the clear red water that once symbolised distance from Westminster has become muddied.

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

    ref. ‘The red Welsh way’: Welsh Labour attempts to distance itself from the UK party – https://theconversation.com/the-red-welsh-way-welsh-labour-attempts-to-distance-itself-from-the-uk-party-256496

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How breast tissue density affects your risk of breast cancer

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

    Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    Breast density is a significant yet often overlooked factor in breast cancer awareness, risk assessment and screening practices. Understanding what breast density is, how it affects breast cancer risk and what it means for screening can help women make informed decisions about their health.

    Breast density refers to the proportions of glandular and connective tissue compared to fatty tissue in the breast, as seen on a mammogram. Simply put, dense breasts have more glandular and fibrous tissue and less fat.

    On a mammogram, both dense tissue and tumours appear white, making it harder to detect abnormalities in women with dense breasts. This masking effect can lead to cancers being missed during routine screening, which is why breast density is not just a risk factor for developing breast cancer, but also for having it go undetected until it is more advanced.

    Recent large-scale studies have confirmed that women with dense breasts face a higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to women with less dense, fattier breasts. For example, a major study involving more than 33,000 women found that those with dense breasts were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer than those with low breast density.

    This increased risk is seen across both pre-menopausal younger women and post-menopausal older women, although the proportion of women with high breast density tends to decrease with age.

    In practical terms, women with the lowest breast density have about a 6% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer after age 50, while those with the highest density face a risk closer to 15%.


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


    The impact of breast density on cancer detection is also significant. Mammography, the standard screening tool, is less sensitive in women with dense breasts. While mammograms can detect about at least nine out of ten cancers in women with mostly fatty breasts, the sensitivity drops to about seven out of ten in women with extremely dense breasts.

    This means that tumors can be missed, leading to what are known as “interval cancers”, cancers that are diagnosed between regular screenings, often at a more advanced stage.

    Supplemental screening methods, such as MRI scanning, can help detect cancers that mammography might miss in women with dense breasts, and some pilot studies have shown that additional cancers are found this way.

    Breast density is now recognised as one of the most important risk factors for breast cancer, even as much as family history or other commonly discussed risk factors.

    About 40% of women fall into the higher density categories, and dense breasts are common in younger women, those taking hormone replacement therapy, and those with certain genetic backgrounds and ethnicities. However, breast density can also be influenced by lifestyle and hormonal factors, and it tends to decrease with age and higher body mass index and obesity.

    Given the importance of breast density, there has been a growing movement to ensure women are informed about their own breast density after mammograms, and to address this appropriately. A recent UK survey showed that most women aren’t aware of their breast density.

    In the US, new regulations require that all women undergoing mammography be notified if they have dense breasts and be advised about the associated risks. This aims to empower women to have more informed discussions with their healthcare providers about their personal risk and the potential need for additional screening.

    Despite the increased risk, it is important to remember that the majority of women with dense breasts will not develop breast cancer. Breast density is just one factor among many, and decisions about screening and risk reduction should be made on an individual basis.

    For women with dense breasts, discussing options for supplemental screening with their doctor is recommended. While there is currently no widely accepted intervention to reduce breast density, in my own research, I’m exploring new ways to address this risk factor.

    In summary, breast density is both a common and significant risk factor for breast cancer, and it can complicate the detection of cancer through standard mammography.

    Women should be aware of their breast density status, understand its implications for both risk and screening, and work with their doctors to determine the best approach for their individual situation. As awareness grows and screening practices evolve, the hope is that more cancers will be detected earlier, improving outcomes for all women.

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

    ref. How breast tissue density affects your risk of breast cancer – https://theconversation.com/how-breast-tissue-density-affects-your-risk-of-breast-cancer-256028

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Everyone isn’t ‘a little bit autistic’ – here’s why this notion is harmful

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aimee Grant, Senior Lecturer in Public Health and Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow, Swansea University

    MDV Edwards/Shutterstock

    I recently had a medical appointment and explained that I’m autistic. It affects how I communicate and understand information, and sometimes I’m misinterpreted as being rude. The person nodded and replied: “Well, everyone’s a little bit autistic.” They then shared something they struggle with, sometimes, when they haven’t had enough sleep.

    It wasn’t the first time I’ve heard that line, and I doubt it’ll be the last. It happens often – not only in doctors’ surgeries but in social situations, on social media and many other places besides. And it’s not just me. Online spaces are full of autistic adults and the parents of autistic children expressing frustration at this phrase.

    So where does the idea come from, that autistic traits are merely universal human behaviour, just to an exaggerated degree in autistic people?

    To answer that, we need to understand what autism is. Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference. You’re either born autistic, or you’re not. It’s not something you develop over time.


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


    Historically, autism has been underdiagnosed among many groups of people, although least affecting white boys. That isn’t because other people are less likely to be autistic.

    It’s because diagnostic practices and clinical assumptions have been based on a narrow idea of what autism “looks like”. It fails to recognise that many autistic people – but especially girls and women – “mask” their autism. This means they suppress their natural autistic behaviour to reduce the chance of a negative response from those around them. Fortunately recognition of masking is changing, albeit slowly.

    Challenges

    The challenges an autistic person faces, and the distress we may experience, arise from our interactions with other people or the environment around us as a result of our neurological differences.

    Autism affects how we experience the world, how we communicate and how we process sensory information. Communication can be challenging for us, especially in settings where social expectations aren’t clearly defined.

    We may also struggle with certain lights, sounds or textures. These experiences can fluctuate depending on how many difficult things have already happened to us that day, our hormone levels, and consequently how overwhelmed we already are.

    Autistic people often find comfort in familiarity and routine, and can become overwhelmed by unexpected change. To manage that, many autistic people “stim”, which is short for self-stimulatory behaviour, and can include doing things like rocking or tapping, or fidgeting with an object. These repetitive movements can help calm us down or regulate sensory overload.

    When I teach about autism, I sometimes ask students to think about how they react to sensory discomfort or disruption. There’s usually a long list of things. For instance, being irritated by roadworks, bothered by scratchy clothes or stressed out by a house move. These are all human traits. But they don’t mean you’re autistic.

    Life is often stressful, so cortisol levels rise accordingly. That doesn’t mean you’re autistic. It means your nervous system is working as it should. Likewise, noticing loud noises or being anxious about change is perfectly normal. But it doesn’t mean your brain is wired the same way as someone who is autistic.

    There are clear differences between autistic and non-autistic people, not just in the kinds of challenges they experience, but in how often and how intensely those challenges occur. Research shows that autistic people have significantly higher rates of sensory sensitivity, communication differences, repetitive behaviour and social difficulties than non-autistic people. For most autistic people, these aren’t things that happen once in a while. They are constant features of life.

    If you think this sounds like you, there is a chance that you could be autistic. While we expect around 3% of people to be autistic, only around 1% of adults are diagnosed.

    So, when someone says “everyone is a little bit autistic”, they’re relying on a myth that flattens those differences. It suggests a spectrum from “not autistic” to “very autistic”, with everyone fitting somewhere on that line.

    That’s understandable, because we don’t have a biological test for autism, to give a clear yes or no answer. Instead, questionnaires are often used to initially assess the likelihood of being autistic. But you can’t be a “little bit” autistic.

    The term “autism spectrum disorder” was first used in 1994 in diagnostic manuals, to bring together people diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome, a contentious name linked to Nazi genocide.

    Many autism researchers argue that we shouldn’t be dividing autistic people into different groups, as support needs can vary from day to day. Others dislike the term “autism spectrum” because it can be misleading. It’s too often misunderstood as a fixed linear scale. In reality, autism is multidimensional. Different people have different combinations of strengths, needs and experiences. Two autistic people may have little in common apart from their diagnosis.




    Read more:
    Why the autism jigsaw puzzle piece is such a problematic symbol


    The “everyone’s a bit autistic” myth can be actively harmful. It’s often used to dismiss the challenges we face or to argue that autistic people don’t really need support. It also contributes to a culture where autism becomes the punchline. Non-autistic people do something like parking in the same space each day, but attribute it to being “a little bit autistic”.

    For decades, autistic people weren’t given a platform to share our experiences. The stories told about us, especially in the media, were often created by non-autistic people, and were full of stereotypes. That’s starting to change, but those outdated ideas persist.

    Use empathy

    So, the next time an autistic person tells you what they’re struggling with, please don’t respond by comparing it to your own mild discomfort. Try empathising instead: “I’m sorry” or “that sounds really hard”. And if you can, ask if there’s anything you could do to help. Even small accommodations can make a big difference to someone’s comfort and wellbeing.

    Because no, not everyone is “a little bit autistic”. And saying that doesn’t help us – it makes it harder for us to be seen, heard and supported.

    Aimee Grant receives funding from the Wellcome Trust and UKRI. She is a non-executive director of Disability Wales.

    ref. Everyone isn’t ‘a little bit autistic’ – here’s why this notion is harmful – https://theconversation.com/everyone-isnt-a-little-bit-autistic-heres-why-this-notion-is-harmful-256129

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could the assisted dying bill fall at the next hurdle?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

    Almost six months after MPs backed the principle of assisted dying, the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill – sponsored by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater – is set to return to the House of Commons chamber on May 16 to undergo further debate.

    This is the report stage of the bill’s passage, during which MPs will consider whether to make further amendments to the bill, followed by a third reading, when MPs vote on the bill in its final form. After this, the bill would then need to complete a similar process in the House of Lords.

    There had been fears that because this is a backbench private member’s bill, the assisted dying bill would not be subjected to meaningful scrutiny. But these fears have not been borne out in practice.

    Between January and March, a committee of MPs considered the bill over 29 separate sittings, heard evidence from around 50 expert witnesses, and received hundreds of written submissions from the public – all unheard of on backbench bills. The committee made many detailed amendments to the bill, informed partly by this evidence. It is the amended version of the bill that is now being put to MPs.


    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


    When MPs debated the bill’s second reading in November, an absolute majority supported the legislation – by 330 to 275. But second reading is a vote only on the bill’s principle.

    Several MPs indicated that they could vote the other way next time if changes were not made to the specifics of the legislation. So it is not certain that the bill will pass so easily at third reading – or indeed that it will pass at all.

    During the bill’s committee scrutiny, over 150 amendments were made. Although the majority of these were put forward by Leadbeater herself – for instance to improve the bill’s operability after discussions with civil servants – around 40 of them were proposed by other MPs – including many led by MPs who voted against the bill at second reading.

    They cover a range of topics, including the training for medical staff involved in assisted dying to identifying domestic abuse and coercive control, and a requirement that those considering an assisted death should be given information about palliative care alternatives.

    Concerns raised by some disability groups have also led to a new requirement for a disability advisory board that will feed into the implementation of the law and report on its impact on disabled people. Such changes may provide some reassurance to wavering MPs.

    But other issues remain unresolved. One example is the question of whether medical practitioners may raise assisted dying with a patient rather than leaving it to them. This is now the subject of a change proposed by Meg Hillier, the senior Labour MP who chairs the high-profile Liaison Committee and a vocal opponent of the bill.

    A bumpy road ahead?

    Even if MPs can agree on the text of the bill itself, it nonetheless faces significant procedural hurdles. This is because there is very little House of Commons time for private members’ bills – typically just 13 Fridays per annual session for all bills. This in practice means they must usually complete their report stage in a single five-hour sitting to stand any chance of passing.

    The key challenge is that MPs could table large numbers of amendments, and speak at length, meaning that the bill runs out of time. The bill’s supporters can counter this by attempting to move the “closure” – which if successful brings that part of the debate to a close – but this requires at least 100 MPs to vote in support. This is a high threshold on most Fridays, though may be possible in this case.

    Even then, it may not be enough. Much will depend on key decisions by the Speaker – in particular, how he groups the amendments up for debate. In recent years, the trend has been towards all amendments being discussed together in a single group.

    But if he splits them up into more than one group, this would likely mean “closure” is required multiple times – creating a high risk that the debate overruns the available five hours.

    If the bill does not complete report stage in a single day, it would then drop down the queue behind any other bills awaiting report on the next available Friday. This is usually fatal to a bill’s passage.

    Yet something unusual may be about to occur in this case. As things stand, the next bill in line is scheduled to begin its committee stage only this week, after a long – and quite possibly tactical – delay. It is therefore possible that the assisted dying bill could secure a second day for report.

    To the Lords…and back?

    Yet any delay in the bill’s Commons passage would present further complications down the line. If the bill requires two days for report, this would push the final third reading vote to June 13 or 20. If it passed, the bill would then need to go through an equivalent series of stages in the House of Lords.

    Lords scrutiny is likely to be rigorous on the bill. The chamber contains many members with expertise directly relevant to this bill – including medical, legal, disability advocacy and health. They are likely to want to scrutinise the bill in depth and to make their own amendments. Yet if peers make any changes, these would then need to be approved by the Commons.

    As things stand, the last available sitting Friday for private members’ bills in the Commons is scheduled for July 11, potentially leaving less than a month for Lords scrutiny. This is a very tight timetable, and it is very possible the bill could run out of time.

    One way of addressing this would be for the Lords to expedite its scrutiny of this bill. If not, ministers would need to provide additional time for any final Lords amendments to the bill to be considered – something for which there is recent precedent. Since 2010, two regular private members’ bills have had stages for MPs to approve Lords amendments (in 2019 and 2023); in both cases these required ministers to make available additional Fridays.

    Daniel Gover 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. Could the assisted dying bill fall at the next hurdle? – https://theconversation.com/could-the-assisted-dying-bill-fall-at-the-next-hurdle-256512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Closing off social care jobs to migrant workers will only harm a sector that’s already in crisis

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Majella Kilkey, Professor of Social Policy, University of Sheffield

    shurkin_son/Shutterstock

    One big talking point to emerge from the UK government’s recently announced plans to reform the immigration system was the proposal to end recruitment of social care workers from overseas. Anyone who has experienced the sector recently will know that it is hugely dependent on workers from abroad. So the move – laid out in a new white paper which went further than many expected – will have huge implications.

    For those international workers already sponsored to work in the sector, a transition period will allow them to extend their visa until 2028. Other overseas nationals already in the UK with the right to work will be able to switch to a job in social care.

    Critics have argued for overhauling the visa system that allows employers to recruit care workers from overseas amid evidence of widespread and systemic exploitation of workers. But the plan to completely axe the health and care visa, without any proposed alternative, was unexpected.

    In fact, a 2024 strategy for adult social care, published by industry body Skills for Care, acknowledged that international workers are “crucial” for the sector. It also recommended that the UK’s immigration policy recognise the sector’s need to recruit care workers from abroad.


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


    The government’s decision to make reducing net migration the central plank of its immigration policy explains its apparent disregard of the care sector’s recommendation. This is based on the belief, contradicted by research, that becoming even tougher on migration will fight off the electoral threat posed by the rightwing Reform party.

    In fact, the share of net migration taken up by the care worker visa has been falling. This is not least because of the previous government’s decision to ban those on the visa from bringing their dependants.

    Care work was categorised as “low-skilled” work by the previous Conservative government when it introduced its new global points-based immigration system in January 2021. This categorisation made the sector particularly vulnerable in the context of the white paper’s preference for migration into “higher-skilled” jobs because of its purported economic benefits.

    This approach privileges particular sectors over others, leaving the care sector facing huge labour gaps. Yet, in contrast to the white paper’s position, evidence shows that 54% of people in the UK favour making it easier for people to come to the UK to do care work, implying that the public recognise the value of this sector.

    In contrast, while only 27% favour making it easier for people to come to work in the financial sector, the white paper proposes to give preferential treatment to this sector.

    The government’s vision is that “British workers” will replace migrants in the care sector. The white paper, however, presents no evidence that migrant workers have been displacing “British workers” in the industry. Instead, it acknowledges that low rates of domestic recruitment and retention are “largely driven by historic levels of poor pay and poor terms and conditions”.

    This is a systemic issue. Despite care being crucial to human survival and society’s functioning, the work that it requires is either unpaid or hugely underpaid.

    Labour unions and research evidence highlight the the key barriers to recruitment and retention: low rates of pay in the sector, the prevalence of zero-hours contracts (21% in March 2024), the limited opportunities for training and career progression, as well as the low status of care work.

    The government has defended its white paper by pointing to its plans to address these recruitment and retention challenges, most notably through measures like the fair pay agreement, the employment rights bill and the care workforce pathway, which aim to improve pay and conditions in the sector. But Care England has said these initiatives are “years away from delivery” and underfunded.

    The proposed fair pay agreement, through which the government hopes to tackle the staffing crisis in social care, would give care workers stronger collective bargaining powers and provide stricter enforcement of agreements on pay, terms and conditions. The government’s impact assessment suggests, however, that the agreement will increase costs to councils, as well as those funding their own care. Higher costs to councils would need to be mitigated by increased investment from central government.

    Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, and Christina McAnea, general secretary of trade union Unison, have said that the white paper’s depiction of care work as “low-skilled” adds to its low social status. It also runs contrary to the professionalisation agenda set out in the government-endorsed care workforce pathway. And, of course, it undermines efforts to attract “British workers” into the sector.

    A crisis in staffing

    In the meantime, the latest data from industry body Skills for Care show that the sector has 131,000 vacancies in England alone. Its vacancy rate at 8.3% is higher than the 6.9% for the NHS, and significantly higher than the 2.8% for the economy as a whole.

    The same data source estimates that 540,000 new social care posts will be needed by 2040 to meet rising demand, as more people live longer with major illnesses and disabilities. Relatives are put under immense pressure to fill these care gaps, without the pay or resources to do so.

    Without the international care workers who have helped the social care sector keep its head above water since Brexit, the prospects look unimaginably bleak for the health and wellbeing of workers in the sector. And this is before we consider the impact on some of society’s most vulnerable people who need their care and support, as well as their families and kin.

    Majella Kilkey receives funding from UKRI-ESRC.

    Jayanthi T. Lingham receives funding from the Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF).

    ref. Closing off social care jobs to migrant workers will only harm a sector that’s already in crisis – https://theconversation.com/closing-off-social-care-jobs-to-migrant-workers-will-only-harm-a-sector-thats-already-in-crisis-256626

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Threat of enslavement hangs over reported plans to deport migrants from US to Libya

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Plaut, Senior Research Fellow, Horn of Africa and Southern Africa, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London

    Human rights organisations have expressed alarm at possible US plans to send a group of migrants from Vietnam, Laos and the Philippines to Libya on a military flight. They have pointed to the appalling conditions migrants face there, which the US State Department described as “harsh and life-threatening” in its 2023 Libya review.

    The review quoted the UN support mission in Libya and civil society groups as saying they had “numerous reports of women subjected to forced prostitution in prisons or detention facilities”. A UN fact-finding mission to Libya, also in 2023, made similarly shocking allegations about conditions in Libya’s network of official migrant detention centres.

    Such centres are run by the Directorate for Combating Illegal Migration, an official entity of the Libyan interior ministry. But, in reality, it is Libya’s complex patchwork of militias that is in control.

    Based on interviews with more than 100 migrants, the report concluded that it had “reasonable grounds to believe that migrants were enslaved in detention centres … in Abu Salim, Zawiyah and Mabani, as well as in places of detention in al-Shwarif, Bani Walid, Sabratah, Zuwarah and Sabha”.


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


    There is no evidence that the proposed US scheme is in any way connected to the Libyan organisations involved in slavery. Trump has also denied any knowledge of the Libya deportations, referring journalists questioning him about it to the US Department of Homeland Security.

    But the situation is dire for the tens of thousands of refugees and migrants who wind up in Libya each year in an attempt to cross into Europe. The threat of enslavement poses a real threat to anyone sent there.

    Concern about slavery in Libya was perhaps most visibly highlighted in a CNN report from 2017. After receiving grainy footage of a slave sale, CNN sent journalists to Libya to gather evidence. They reported uncovering nine migrant slave auction sites.

    In their report, which gained widespread international attention, the journalists wrote:

    Carrying concealed cameras into a property outside the capital of Tripoli last month, we witness[ed] a dozen people go ‘under the hammer’ in the space of six or seven minutes.

    ‘Does anybody need a digger? This is a digger, a big strong man, he’ll dig,’ the salesman, dressed in camouflage gear, says. ‘What am I bid, what am I bid?’ Buyers raise their hands as the price rises, ‘500, 550, 600, 650 …’ Within minutes it is all over and the men, utterly resigned to their fate, are being handed over to their new ‘masters’.

    After the auction, we met two of the men who had been sold. They were so traumatised by what they’d been through that they could not speak, and so scared that they were suspicious of everyone they met.

    Unlike the Libyan media, which questioned the credibility of the CNN report, Libya’s authorities denounced the migrant slave auctions and said they would launch a formal investigation. But there is no indication that the proposed investigation has changed the operation of the detention centres.

    CNN journalists witnessed migrants being sold at auctions in 2017.

    CNN’s findings were replicated by other investigations. Shamsuddin Jibril, a Cameroonian migrant who saw men traded publicly in the streets of the Libyan town of Sabha, told the Guardian in 2017: “[The slave traders] took people and put them in the street under a sign that said ‘for sale’. They tied their hands just like in the former slave trade, and drove them … in the back of a Toyota Hilux”.

    These practices are still happening. David Yambio, who himself experienced enslavement in Libya, is now the president of the Refugees in Libya movement. I spoke to Yambio while writing my book, Unbroken Chains: A 5,000 year history of African enslavement. He told me:

    From my own experience, and through my daily work with Refugees in Libya, I can confirm that slavery is taking place inside Directorate for Combating Illegal Migration detention facilities.

    I was held in places in such conditions between 2019 and 2022. To this day, people are still being enslaved inside these centres: Tariq al-Sikka, Ain Zara, Abu Salim, Al-Nasr in Zawiya, Al-Mabani, Bir Al-Ghanam, Al-Assah, Al-Maya, Ganfouda and Ajdabiya. The list goes on.

    Just hours ago, I was in contact with around 130 women still enduring the same conditions inside Al-Nasr detention centre (known as Osama Prison) in Zawiya. It is concerning and it is an indisputable fact.

    The Libyan route

    Libya is one of the leading destinations for migrants attempting to reach Europe through Africa. In April 2025 alone, the European border force, Frontex, recorded 15,718 migrants from across the world making what they term “illegal border crossings” by traversing the central Mediterranean from Libya.

    One of the largest groups seeking to reach Europe via Libya are Eritreans. Work led by Mirjam van Reisen of Leiden University has provided firsthand accounts of Eritreans describing the situation in the Tajoura detention centre, where Libyans come to select people to work.

    The labourers are often referred to as slaves. One interviewee said: “Every morning when someone comes there, he says: ‘We need five eubayd, which means five slaves. I need five slaves.’ Everybody that is hearing that one, they are feeling angry.” Their forced labour ranges from farm and construction work to road work and garbage collecting.

    Some refugees manage to raise funds from friends and family members to escape captivity. They are held in detention centres until they are deported or traffickers receive fees for taking them across the Mediterranean. Research by the UN suggests this ranges between US$850 (£644) and US$4,500 (£3,400) per crossing.

    US officials say the military could start flying migrants to Libya imminently. However, authorities in Tripoli have rejected the use of Libyan territory as a destination for deporting migrants without its knowledge or consent.

    There are also judicial hurdles. On May 7, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the deportation of immigrants to Libya would be in violation of a court order he issued in March.

    However, the Trump administration’s record suggests it does not always follow such rulings. This leaves the migrants in considerable jeopardy.

    Martin Plaut 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. Threat of enslavement hangs over reported plans to deport migrants from US to Libya – https://theconversation.com/threat-of-enslavement-hangs-over-reported-plans-to-deport-migrants-from-us-to-libya-256145

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: From blood clots to rare cancers, a plastic surgeon explains the risks to consider before going under the knife – or the needle

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James D. Frame, Professor of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Anglia Ruskin University

    RomarioIen/Shutterstock

    A series of ads for Brazilian butt lifts (BBL) on social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook were recently banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). These ads were found to be misleading and irresponsible, often downplaying serious health risks and pressuring consumers with time-limited offers.

    This move highlights growing concerns over how cosmetic surgery is marketed online and the safety of BBL procedures. But BBLs are not the only cosmetic surgeries under scrutiny.

    Liposuction has a high rate of post-operative complications, and even non-surgical procedures like lip fillers and liquid BBLs have raised health concerns among experts.


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


    According to recent data from the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), there were 27,462 cosmetic procedures performed in 2024 – a 5% rise from 2023. More than nine out of ten (93.5%) of these procedures were performed on women.

    Body contouring – including liposuction, abdominoplasty and thigh lifts – are the most popular surgeries, while facial rejuvenation procedures, particularly face and neck lifts, brow lifts and eyelid surgery have all increased in popularity since 2023.


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


    Risk factors

    Many of these popular procedures are also among the riskiest. Body contouring surgeries like liposuction, tummy tucks and fat grafting, for example, are major operations that typically take hours and involve general anesthesia.

    And the aesthetic outcomes are not always as expected either. Fat removal can sometimes lead to uneven body contours, lumps, or skin irregularities, which may worsen as the body continues to age.

    All surgeries carry risks, but complications from cosmetic procedures are often downplayed or misunderstood. These risks can manifest immediately after surgery or even weeks later, ranging from minor issues like infection and scarring to life-threatening conditions such as blood clots or organ failure.

    One of the most dangerous risks is pulmonary embolism, which occurs when a blood clot travels to the lungs. In the US, around 18,000 cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) occur annually among plastic surgery patients, with about 10% resulting in death within just one hour of symptoms appearing.

    This already serious threat has become even more pressing in the post-COVID era, as VTE cases are rising. COVID is known to increase the body’s tendency to form blood clots – even in those with mild or no symptoms.

    These lingering effects can persist for weeks or months and, when combined with the usual surgical risks like immobility, tissue trauma and inflammation, they significantly increase the likelihood of a life-threatening event like a pulmonary embolism. As a result, people undergoing plastic surgery today may face a higher baseline risk than before the pandemic.

    Fat embolism is another potentially deadly complication, often associated with procedures like liposuction or BBLs. This occurs when fat particles enter the bloodstream and travel to vital organs, leading to serious medical emergencies.




    Read more:
    Brazilian butt lifts are the deadliest of all aesthetic procedures – the risks explained


    After surgery, some patients may wake up disoriented, confused, or with lingering neurological symptoms – signs of a serious medical emergency. Fat embolism can have immediate, life-threatening effects and, in severe cases, can cause permanent brain damage, organ failure, or sudden death.

    Procedures like rhinoplasty (nose reshaping) or breast augmentation can come with relatively high rates of dissatisfaction. Implants, in particular, can cause issues like rupture, deflation, capsular contracture (hardening around the implant), or asymmetry. There is also some concern about a rare form of cancer – breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – linked to certain types of implants.

    Even if surgery doesn’t result in major complications, many patients still walk away unhappy. A common issue is that procedures don’t account for how the body continues to age. A facelift or tummy tuck might look great initially, but the natural ageing process can quickly undo or distort those results.

    The problem is that many cosmetic procedures fail to account for the inevitable changes our bodies undergo with age. Our bodies change over time – skin loses elasticity, fat distribution shifts and trends evolve. What feels like a good decision in your 20s might look very different in your 40s.

    Non-surgical treatments

    One of the most troubling issues in the cosmetic industry is the lack of consistent regulation. This is particularly true for non-surgical treatments, where injectable products can be administered by anyone, from trained doctors to self-taught beauty influencers. Cosmetic tourism adds another layer of complexity. Many people travel abroad for cheaper procedures, only to face complications once they return home – with limited recourse or support.

    Non-surgical treatments like dermal fillers and Botox have become increasingly popular due to their quick results and minimal downtime. However, they are not without risk.




    Read more:
    The hidden health risks of lip fillers


    Modern fillers like hyaluronic acid are generally safer than older materials such as silicone. They’re less likely to cause issues like granulomas – as long as they don’t become infected – and they can even be reversed if needed. However, when injected incorrectly, especially into a blood vessel, fillers can cause serious complications like tissue death, permanent scarring, or even blindness.

    Botox injections also carry risks, including muscle paralysis, nerve damage, and uneven facial results – particularly when performed by unqualified practitioners.

    Before undergoing any cosmetic procedure – whether surgical or non-surgical – it’s essential to research a qualified practitioner, understand the risks and set realistic expectations.

    Cosmetic surgery can be empowering for many people, helping them feel more confident in their own skin. But the decision to alter your appearance permanently should never be taken lightly. Behind the glamour and glossy Instagram stories lies a more serious picture – one where the risks are real and the consequences, sometimes irreversible.

    James D. Frame 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. From blood clots to rare cancers, a plastic surgeon explains the risks to consider before going under the knife – or the needle – https://theconversation.com/from-blood-clots-to-rare-cancers-a-plastic-surgeon-explains-the-risks-to-consider-before-going-under-the-knife-or-the-needle-229093

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can AI help prevent suicide? How real-time monitoring may be the next big step in mental health care

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ruth Melia, Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Limerick

    Nan_Got/Shutterstock

    Suicide represents one of the most complex and heartbreaking challenges in public health. One major difficulty in preventing suicide is knowing when someone is struggling.

    Suicidal thoughts and behaviour can come and go quickly, and they’re not always present when someone sees a doctor or therapist, making them hard to detect with standard checklists.

    Today, many of us use digital devices to track our physical health: counting steps, monitoring sleep, or checking screen time. Researchers are now starting to use similar tools to better understand mental health.

    One method, called ecological momentary assessment (EMA), collects real-time information about a person’s mood, thoughts, behaviour and surroundings using a smartphone or wearable device. It does this by prompting the person to input information (active EMA) or collecting it automatically using sensors (passive EMA).


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


    Research has shown EMA can be safe for monitoring suicide risk, which includes a range of experiences from suicidal thoughts to attempts and completed suicide.

    Studies with adults show that this kind of monitoring doesn’t increase risk. Instead, it gives us a more detailed and personal view of what someone is going through, moment by moment. So how can this information actually help someone at risk?

    Adaptive interventions

    One exciting use is the creation of adaptive interventions: real-time, personalised responses delivered right through a person’s phone or device. For example, if someone’s data shows signs of distress, their device might gently prompt them to follow a step on their personal safety plan, which they created earlier with a mental health professional.

    Safety plans are proven tools in suicide prevention, but they’re most helpful when people can access and use them when they’re needed most. These digital interventions can offer support right when it matters, in the person’s own environment.

    There are still important questions: what kind of changes in a person’s data should trigger an alert? When is the best time to offer help? And what form should that help take?

    These are the kinds of questions that artificial intelligence (AI) – and specifically machine learning – is helping us answer.

    Machine learning is already being used to build models that can predict suicide risk by noticing subtle changes in a person’s feelings, thoughts, or behaviour. It’s also been used to predict suicide rates across larger populations.

    These models have performed well on the data they were trained on. But there are still concerns. Privacy is a big one, especially when social media or personal data is involved.

    There’s also a lack of diversity in the data used to train these models, which means they might not work equally well for everyone. And it’s challenging to apply models developed in one country or setting to another.

    Still, research shows that machine learning models can predict suicide risk more accurately than traditional tools used by clinicians. That’s why mental health guidelines now recommend moving away from using simple risk scores to decide who gets care.

    Instead, they suggest a more flexible, person-centred approach – one that’s built around open conversations and planning with the person at risk.

    Person viewing real-time mobile phone data.
    Ruth Melia, CC BY-SA

    Predictions, accuracy and trust

    In my research, I looked at how AI is being used with EMA in suicide studies. Most of the studies involved people getting care in hospitals or mental health clinics. In those settings, EMA was able to predict things like suicidal thoughts after discharge.

    While many studies we looked at reported how accurate their models were, fewer looked at how often the models made mistakes, like predicting someone is at risk when they’re not (false positives), or missing someone who is at risk (false negatives). To help improve this, we developed a reporting guide to make sure future research is clearer and more complete.

    Another promising area is using AI as a support tool for mental health professionals. By analysing large sets of data from health services, AI could help predict how someone is doing and which treatments might work best for them.

    But for this to work, professionals need to trust the technology. That’s where explainable AI comes in: systems that not only give a result but also explain how they got there. This makes it easier for clinicians to understand and use AI insights, much like how they use questionnaires and other tools today.

    Suicide is a devastating global issue, but advances in AI and real-time monitoring offer new hope. These tools aren’t a cure all, but they may help provide the right support at the right time, in ways we’ve never been able to before.

    Ruth Melia received funding from the Fulbright Commission as part of a Health Research Board Fulbright HealthImpact Award. This award supported a visiting scholarship at Florida State University to facilitate international collaboration in the area of suicide research.

    ref. Can AI help prevent suicide? How real-time monitoring may be the next big step in mental health care – https://theconversation.com/can-ai-help-prevent-suicide-how-real-time-monitoring-may-be-the-next-big-step-in-mental-health-care-255993

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How optical fibres are transforming cancer care

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sinead O’Keeffe, Senior Research Fellow, Limerick Digital Cancer Research Centre, University of Limerick

    asharkyu/Shutterstock

    In rural areas, the arrival of high-speed internet is often a game-changer. Homes are more connected, businesses have new opportunities and telehealth becomes more accessible.

    At the heart of this transformation is a tiny but mighty piece of technology: the optical fibre. Known for transmitting data at incredible speeds, these hair-thin strands of glass or plastic have become symbols of modern digital life. But what many don’t realise is that the same fibres helping us stream movies and connect with loved ones are also quietly transforming cancer care.

    Optical fibres are being repurposed in the medical world in fascinating ways. One particularly exciting application lies in radiation therapy, the treatment of cancer using targeted radiation to destroy cancerous cells. Because precision is vital in these treatments, optical fibres provide a powerful way to monitor, in real time, the exact amount of radiation reaching the tumour and surrounding organs.


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


    Traditionally, it has been difficult to measure radiation doses inside the body as the treatment is happening. Radiation therapy, particularly brachytherapy, where radioactive sources are placed inside or very near the tumour, is generally safe and effective.

    But things can shift. The tumour or surrounding organs like the bladder, bowel, or urethra can move slightly during treatment. Even a small change in position can result in radiation hitting healthy tissue instead of the tumour, leading to side effects such as urinary and bowel problems, erectile dysfunction, or fertility issues.

    This is where optical fibres come in. I’m part of a research team at the University of Limerick that has developed special fibre optic sensors capable of being inserted into the body to measure radiation levels in real time. These fibres are tipped with a special material that lights up when exposed to radiation.

    The light then travels through the fibre to an external detector, providing instant feedback on the radiation dose being delivered inside the body. This allows doctors to adjust the treatment on the fly, delivering the maximum dose to the cancer while sparing healthy tissues.

    Optical fibres are ideal for this role because they are biocompatible, non-toxic, flexible, and do not conduct electricity. They’re safe to use inside the body and don’t interfere with other medical equipment. Their small size, comparable to a strand of hair, means they can be inserted with minimal discomfort to the patient.

    This innovative technology is particularly valuable for treating pelvic cancers, such as prostate and cervical cancers, where nearby organs are at high risk of accidental radiation exposure. With real-time monitoring, side effects can be significantly reduced, improving the patient’s comfort, outcomes, and overall quality of life.

    Not just sensors

    But this is only part of the story. Optical fibres are not just passive sensors, they can be active diagnostic tools too. Researchers in Italy have pioneered a technique called lab-on-fibre, which integrates various sensors at the tip of a fibre.

    This essentially transforms a single optical fibre into a tiny, high-tech lab that can assess tissue properties, detect cancerous changes, and even help predict how a tumour will respond to treatment.

    Lab-on-fibre technology has the potential to replace larger, more invasive diagnostic tools. Imagine being able to detect cancer or track treatment progress through a tiny sensor embedded in a needle, without the need for bulky machines or repeated invasive biopsies. That’s the future these technologies are making possible.

    In addition to cancer care, optical fibres have been used in other areas of medicine too, from monitoring blood pressure and glucose levels to checking for signs of infection. The possibilities are growing rapidly as researchers continue to develop new fibre-based sensors and integrate them into clinical practice.

    As we marvel at how high-speed broadband is connecting our world, it’s worth pausing to appreciate the dual role of this technology. While we stream our favourite shows or take Zoom calls from the countryside, optical fibres are also quietly saving lives, helping doctors deliver safer, smarter, and more personalised cancer treatments.

    These tiny strands are doing far more than connecting us to the internet. They’re helping connect us to a healthier future.

    Sinead O’Keeffe receives funding from The Royal Society – Research Ireland University Research Fellowship Award, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement n° 871324.

    ref. How optical fibres are transforming cancer care – https://theconversation.com/how-optical-fibres-are-transforming-cancer-care-255378

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What to look out for from the music of the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samuel Murray, Lecturer in Music Management, University of Leeds

    I’m in Basel, Switzerland – host city of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest – to present research about treatment of songwriters in the contest. While I’m here, I’ll be conducting field research and attending one of the shows. Here’s what I’ll be looking out for during this year’s competition.

    One of the joys of Eurovision is hearing songs in different languages and different musical styles. Of the 37 entries in this year’s contest, 23 songs include languages other than English (13% more than in 2024), and 17 of those are entirely sung in languages other than English (14% more than in 2024).

    With more than half of the entries now featuring languages other than English, the chances of a non-English song winning have increased. Among these entries, there are some particularly interesting language choices.


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


    One of the biggest controversies regarding language this year has been the Maltese entry Serving, performed by Miriana Conte. The song was originally titled Serving Kant. Kant is the Maltese word for singing but is pronounced in the same way as the English swear word “cunt”.

    It is a knowing reference to the phrase “serving cunt”. Drawn from black queer ballroom culture, popularised through shows like Rupaul’s Drag Race, it means to do something in a powerfully feminine manner.




    Read more:
    They’re serving what?! How the c-word went from camp to internet mainstream


    Despite therefore provocatively sounding as though it includes a word many viewers will find offensive, the Maltese broadcaster PBS has robustly defended Conte’s right to sing in her native Maltese.

    This was deemed within the rules, but then the BBC complained that it couldn’t broadcast the song. Subsequently the European Broadcasting Union have made Malta change the lyrics – although don’t be surprised if you hear fans in audience fill in the missing word.

    The controversy around the song has provided it with priceless PR and firmly placed it in contention for the win. I rather suspect this may have been the plan all along.

    Another interesting linguistic choice has been this year’s entry from The Netherlands. C’est La Vie, sung by Claude Kiambe, is in the French language, not Dutch, as a tribute to his Congolese roots.

    C’est La Vie by Claude.

    In an interview for the official Eurovision website Kiambe explained: “C’est La Vie is a tribute to a parent and for me that’s my mother. As a little boy and throughout my youth, she taught me to see the positive in the things you experience in life, even when you experience setbacks.”

    French allows Kiambe to authentically express his identity and personal story. This song is significant as it becomes the first from The Netherlands to be sung in French.

    Unusual song topics

    It wouldn’t be Eurovision without songs that cover unusual subject matters. The current favourite to win the contest is the Swedish entry Bara Bada Bastu, or Let’s Just Sauna, by the group KAJ. KAJ are from Finland where sauna is a core fundamental of culture.

    Bara Bada Bastu by KAJ.

    Ireland’s entry Laika Party, meanwhile, takes the unusual approach of creative lyrical speculative fiction. The song ponders what would happen if Laika, the first dog in space, was still alive and partying above Earth.

    Another unusual offering is Tommy Cash’s Espresso Macchiato, representing Estonia. Some viewers have interpreted the song as mocking Italian culture. It has attracted criticism from Italian politicians including senator Gian Marco Sentinaio who produced a flyer in response with the message: “Whoever insults Italy must stay out of Eurovision.”

    The songwriters

    Quite often in Eurovision, songwriters are overlooked for their role in the contest. As you read this article, many writers are already locked away at songwriting camps working away on entries for next year. In fact the Norwegian songwriting camp has already taken place for next year’s Eurovision.

    This year 134 songwriters are behind the 37 songs performed across the contest.

    In popular music songwriting it is now quite commonplace for writers to work in large groups, with each team member making contributions to creating the melody, harmony or the production of the track. This year the Armenian song Survivor, performed by Parg, has the most writers. Ten people were involved in its creation, including Parg himself. The UK comes a close second with seven writers contributing to the entry What the Hell Just Happened?, performed by Remember Monday.

    Survivor by Parg has ten songwriters.

    Another notable statistic this year is that in 30 out of 37 songs, the singer has a songwriting credit. This makes it very likely that we will see a songwriter lift the Eurovision trophy. This year many artists share personal stories in their songs, including France’s Louane who pays tribute to her mother with Maman and Italy’s Luca Corsi, who reflects on his childhood in Volevo Essere un Duro.

    Many of this year’s songwriters have competed in the contest before. Swedish songwriters Peter Boström and Thomas G:Son, who are no strangers to Eurovision having won the contest twice writing Loreen’s entries Euphoria (2012) and Tattoo (2023), are back once again, this time co-writing Survivor for Armenia.

    Another winning Swedish songwriter returning is Linnea Deb. She wrote Sweden’s winning song Heroes in 2015. This time she has co-written Hallucination for Denmark. Alongside the returning Swedes are fellow serial contest writers Dimitris Kontopoulos and Darko Dimitrov, who between them have over 20 contest entries under their belt but are yet to have a victory.

    There will also be a return to the contest for Teodora Špirić, better known a Teya, who alongside Salena, performed Who the Hell is Edgar? for Austria in 2023. This year she is the songwriter for Austrian entry Wasted Love performed by JJ. It’s currently the bookies favourite.

    There are also many new British writers in the contest to keep an eye on, including Emma Gale who has co-written the Croatian entry Poison Cake.

    This year’s contest brings a diversity of languages, subject matter and songwriters together to present 37 unique offerings from which the juries and voters of Europe will choose a winner. While the bookies and fans may have favourites, at this stage a clear winner is not a given – all can change when the songs are performed live.

    Samuel Murray is affiliated with the Musicians’ Union and a writer member of PRS for Music.

    ref. What to look out for from the music of the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest – https://theconversation.com/what-to-look-out-for-from-the-music-of-the-2025-eurovision-song-contest-256388

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke leads a four-day US Midwest trade and investment mission

    Source: Government of Ireland – Department of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation

    • Minister for Enterprise embarks on ambitious US Trade Mission to the Midwest
    • The trip will also see him lead the largest ever delegation of Irish companies to Select USA, the US government-backed FDI summit

    Minister Peter Burke is embarking on a trade and investment mission to the Midwest of the US this week. Minister Burke will be accompanied by IDA Ireland CEO Michael Lohan and Department of Enterprise officials.

    IDA Ireland operates three offices in the region – Chicago, Atlanta and Austin. In 2024, the US Midwest and South Territory supported 313 headquartered companies operating in Ireland, employing a total of 67,879 people with 80% of the jobs located in regional locations.

    Ireland and the US enjoy a significant and mutually beneficial economic relationship. The economic benefits flow both ways, creating prosperity and jobs for large numbers of people on both sides of the Atlantic. The US continues to be Ireland’s largest trading and investment partner, and Ireland is the sixth largest source of foreign direct investment into the US, with more than 200,000 people employed directly by 770 Irish companies across all 50 States.

    Over the course of the week, the Minister will meet with some of IDA’s clients in Minneapolis and Chicago, highlighting the unique advantages of locating in Ireland to service a European marketplace of 450 million people.

    The Minister will also visit Washington DC where he will meet with a number of Enterprise Ireland client companies and attend the Select USA Investment summit. This year marks the biggest ever Irish delegation to Select USA by Irish companies, with over 25 companies travelling to partake. Strengthening and diversifying trade links in this context means working at the federal level, the State level and at regional levels, to promote and advocate the value of two-way trade.

    Minister Burke said:

    “During this trade mission I will be working to strengthen our trade links, promoting and advocating the value of our two-way trade relationship with some of our most important transatlantic businesses.  US companies employ over 210,000 people in Ireland and our value proposition to companies looking to do business here or expand continues to be strong, with companies based here having access to the European market of 450 million customers. It is important we invest in these partnerships with business leadership, and that we promote and encourage new business relationships into the future”.

    List of Enterprise Ireland Companies attending Select USA Summit:

    3C Global

    Kerry Group

    Amesto Global

    Konversational

    Bard Global

    MCS Tech

    Clark Hill

    Net Feasa

    Core Optimisation

    Nomad Analytics

    DAA International

    Nua Surgical

    FuturFaith

    OptaHaul

    Gasgon Medical

    Prodigy Learning

    iTARRA

    PRONAV Clinical

    Relate Care

    Reddy Architecture + Urbanism

    Sonolake

    VRAI

    Sisk

    Suretank

    ENDS

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: CTI Chairman Pfluger Responds to House Democrats Storming ICE Facility

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

    CTI Chairman Pfluger Responds to House Democrats Storming ICE Facility

    Washington, May 9, 2025

    WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, released the following statement after several House Democrats stormed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Delaney Hall detention facility in New Jersey:

    “Members of Congress have an obligation and responsibility to uphold the rule of law, yet today’s reckless and frankly absurd publicity stunt by several House Democrats undermined that duty. The dangerous actions we witnessed today double down on Democrats’ support of illegal entry, criminals, and lawlessness over American interest, and were woefully disrespectful to the men and women who risk their lives every day to secure our borders. These facilities are not political props – they are operational site visits vital to our national security and immigration enforcement.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Issa Reintroduces Legislation, Law Enforcement Child Care Support Options

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Darrell Issa (CA-50)

    WASHINGTON – This week, Congressman Darrell Issa (CA-48) joined House colleagues Rep. Scott Peters (CA-50), Rep. David Valadao (CA-22), and Rep. Josh Harder (CA-09) to reintroduce the Providing Child Care for Police Officers Act. This bipartisan bill aims to address the nationwide police staffing shortages by making it easier for parents to enter and maintain work in law enforcement that often requires night, weekend, and holiday work. 

    “We have a responsibility to provide our police officers with the tools, training, and equipment they need to safeguard our streets and protect our communities,” said Rep. Issa. “This bill represents a creative and innovative approach to not only advance law and order everywhere it is needed, but allowing these brave men and women on the front lines to be both parents and police.” 

    The Providing Child Care for Police Officers Act would:

    • Establish a pilot program to supply grants to law enforcement agencies to provide childcare benefits.
    • Authorize funding for five fiscal years. Law enforcement agencies will be able to use this funding to construct or operate new center for police departments’ exclusive use, offer scholarships to subsidize the cost of care, or provide assistance for care for children with disabilities.  
    • Allow law enforcement agencies, local governments, and child care providers to determine each of their responsibilities while requiring local entities to contribute a scaled matching requirement over a three-year grant period.
    • Set aside 20% of the total grant funding for police departments employing fewer than 200 officers. 

    In 2023, San Diego opened the nation’s first childcare center for local police. In April 2025, Boone County, Missouri, broke ground on a new public safety childcare center.

    Supporting organizations include: 30×30 Initiative, International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), National Association of Police Organizations, Fraternal Order of Police, and Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC).

    Full bill text of the Providing Child Care for Police Officers Act can be found here.

    Darrell Issa is the Representative of California’s 48th Congressional District, which encompasses the central and eastern parts of San Diego County and a portion of Riverside County, including the communities of Fallbrook, Valley Center, Ramona, Escondido, Santee, Lakeside, Poway, Temecula, Murrieta, and the mountain and desert areas of the San Diego-Imperial County line. Issa served as the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from 2011-2015.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ezell, Carter, Letlow Introduce Bipartisan Safer Shrimp Imports Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mike Ezell (Mississippi 4th District)

    Representatives Mike Ezell (MS-04), Julia Letlow (LA-05), and Troy Carter (LA-02) today introduced the Safer Shrimp Imports Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at tightening federal inspection standards for imported shrimp and protecting American consumers and domestic seafood producers.

    Imported shrimp accounts for roughly 90% of the shrimp consumed in the United States, much of which comes from countries with weak food safety standards and inadequate oversight of harmful contaminants such as antibiotics, pesticides, and bacteria. The Safer Shrimp Imports Act would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to significantly increase testing of imported shrimp and publicly report inspection results, giving consumers more confidence in the safety of what’s on their plates.

    “Growing up on Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, I know how important the shrimp industry is—not just to our economy, but to our way of life,” Ezell said. “Our local gulf coast shrimpers are playing by the rules while foreign producers are flooding the market with unsafe, low-quality products. This bill is about leveling the playing field and protecting our American producers, and keeping America healthy.”

    “As we work to restore an economy built on American sweat and labor, it’s vital that Congress stands up for our Gulf Coast shrimpers,” Letlow said. “Our Safer Shrimp Imports Act would hold foreign governments accountable for dumping inferior, subsidized shrimp into American markets, contaminating our food supply and undercutting our Louisiana shrimpers.”

    “This bill is a crucial step toward protecting Louisiana families and supporting Louisiana’s fishing industry. By holding foreign shrimp imports to the same safety standards as our domestic producers, this legislation will safeguard public health, promote fair trade, and guarantee consumers can trust what’s on their plates. I want to thank my colleagues Rep. Ezell and Rep. Letlow for standing with me and fighting for American shrimpers and the safety of our food supply,” Carter said.

    “The Safer Shrimp Imports Act is common sense legislation to ensure the safety of our nation’s most consumed imported seafood commodity, shrimp. For far too long, importing countries have dumped products into the American marketplace that are manufactured and processed without the same strict regulations that American producers must face,” Ryan Bradley, Executive Director of Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United said.

    “We are very grateful to Congressman Ezell for introducing this important legislation to ensure the safety of foreign shrimp imported into this country,” Armond Gollott III, the President of C.F. Gollott & Son Seafood, Inc. said. “As a fourth-generation shrimp processor, we are committed to producing the safest, best tasting gulf shrimp for our customers. It is only fair that foreign producers be required to meet the same health and safety standards as the domestic industry.”

    “The American Shrimp Processors Association strongly supports the Safer Shrimp Imports Act,” Trey Pearson, the president of the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) said. “Imports account for over 90 percent of the shrimp that Americans eat, and for far too long domestic shrimp producers have been forced to compete with imports that do not have to comply with our health and safety rules. If foreign countries cannot show that they meet our food safety standards, their shrimp should not be in this country, period.”

    “We need the Safer Shrimp Imports Act to guarantee that foreign shrimp imports meet the same rules as domestic, gulf-caught shrimp,” Dean Blanchard, the owner of Dean Blanchard Seafood said. “The U.S. government inspects less than one percent of the 1.5 billion pounds of shrimp imported into our country each year, while our U.S. shrimp fishermen, docks, and processors must comply with strict health and safety rules. This bill will help ensure that imports meet the same standards as our Gulf shrimp industry.”

    “Under the USDA’s equivalency requirements, if you want to import catfish or pangasius into this country, there are just 42 companies in three countries approved to ship that fish to the United States. Under the FDA’s current system, if you want to import shrimp, you can do so from anyone, anywhere, at any time. That’s why the FDA refused shrimp from ‘Rudong Zhengxiong Trade Co., Ltd.’ shipped to our East Coast in March and then, a month later, refused shrimp from ‘Zhengxiong (Rudong) Trade Co., Ltd.’ shipped to our West Coast,” John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance said. “The Safer Shrimp Imports Act sets a common-sense minimum standard for exporting shrimp to this country by requiring that our trading partners administer a food safety system that is equivalent to our own.”

    “FWC is pleased to support the Safer Shrimp Imports Act. For years, Florida shrimpers have been hurt by foreign companies that have been dumping their products into US markets while skirting safety standards. This bill brings more accountability to foreign companies and is an important step to helping US shrimpers and US customers,” Jessica McCawley, director, Division of Marine Fisheries Management at Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said. 

    The legislation works to execute on President Trump’s and HHS Secretary Kennedy’s vision to keep America health and eradicate its public health crisis. This bill is supported by a coalition of Gulf Coast seafood industry groups and food safety advocates. This is the House companion to S. 667 introduced by Senator Hyde-Smith in the Senate. 

    ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Sues U.S. Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security Over Illegal Immigration Enforcement Conditions on Grant Funding

    Source: US State of California

    California receives over $15.7 billion in transportation grants and around $20 billion in homeland security grants annually 

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) grants. These grants are unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement. Attorney General Bonta is leading a coalition of 20 states in filing the DHS lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and is leading the same coalition in filing the DOT lawsuit, alongside the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maryland. In the lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that imposing this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violates the Spending Clause.

    “President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement – and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands. He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip. But this is not a game. I’ll continue taking the President to court each time he breaks the law and puts Californians’ interests on the line.” 

    California receives over $15.7 billion in grant funding from DOT to support and maintain the roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect our communities and carry our residents to their workplaces and their homes. This includes $5.7 billion in funding to maintain and build highways. It also includes $2 billion in funding for transit systems in urban and rural communities across the state — including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement. 

    California also receives around $20 billion in funding from DHS to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. This includes counterterrorism grants, grants that allow states to prepare for terrorism in high-concentration urban areas, emergency preparedness grants, cybersecurity grants, and many others that are similarly not connected to civil immigration enforcement. And state and local law enforcement already work closely with federal agencies on the counterterrorism measures that these grants fund.  

    The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the President, decides how federal money is spent. And for decades, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing funding to states like California to protect their security and improve their roads — funds that the federal government generally has by virtue of the taxes paid to it by states like California. Yet despite the constraints imposed by Congress and the Constitution, the Trump Administration is attempting to seize Congress’s power of the purse by imposing an immigration-enforcement conditions on transportation and homeland security grants. In doing so, the Trump Administration is violating two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce states into adopting its preferred policies.

    In filing today’s lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition seek to prevent the Trump Administration from imposing immigration-enforcement conditions on any DOT or DHS grants unless the department provides the specific statutory authority that permits it to do so. 

    Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuits. 

    A copy of the DOT lawsuit is available here. A copy of the DHS lawsuit is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyer Statement on President Trump’s Dismissal of Dr. Carla Hayden

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

    WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) issued the following statement regarding President Trump’s dismissal of Dr. Carla Hayden from her position as Librarian of Congress:

    “Throughout her historic tenure as the Librarian of Congress, my friend Dr. Carla Hayden has demonstrated time and time again that she is a patriot and one of the most qualified professionals to hold the post in history. Over the past nine years, she has modernized the Library of Congress, expanded Americans’ access to the library resources, improved the institution’s efficiency, and preserved America’s history. She has done so in cooperation with both Democrats and Republicans. Donald Trump dismissed her last night with an abrupt, two-sentence email from one of his lackeys.

    “Once again, Trump makes it clear that he doesn’t care if the government works for the American people. He only cares if it works for him and him alone. Dr. Hayden’s removal ought to concern every American who believes in government efficiency, transparency, and integrity. 

    “I thank Dr. Hayden for her service. She has the respect and admiration of so many on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump can never take that away.

    “It is deeply disappointing that someone so extraordinarily qualified by ability and experience would have her service to the Congress and the country so shamefully cut short.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyer Leads Pocan, Bishop, Ivey in Sending Letter to Top Appropriations Republicans Demanding They Respect Judiciary’s Independence

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

    WASHINGTON, DC –  Today, Congressman Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) led Subcommittee Members Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02), Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), and Rep. Glenn Ivey (MD-04) in sending a letter to Appropriations Chair Tom Cole and FSGG Subcommittee Chair David Joyce demanding they respect the independence of the federal judiciary.
     
    The letter condemned recent calls from House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan to use the appropriations process to retaliate against federal courts and judges that issue rulings unfavorable to the Trump Administration. The letter implored Republicans to reject this unprecedented assault on the rule of law and the separation of powers and system of checks and balanced enshrined in the Constitution.
     
    “Policy riders to punish courts because one political party does not like how judges are ruling undermines our Constitution and misuses our authority as appropriators,” the lawmakers wrote. “All are free to criticize judgments where one’s opinions differ from the rulings. All are free to vigorously appeal nationwide injunctions to the Supreme Court. However, judges make their ruling based on the law and facts of the case and must do so without any fear that their rulings could provoke attempts to diminish the independence of the judicial branch. We should not be politicizing our judicial system to score political points.”
     
    The full text of the letter is included below:

    Dear Chairman Cole and Chairman Joyce:

    We write in response to Chairman Jordan’s letter of March 31, 2025 requesting that the Committee on Appropriations take the unprecedented action of leveraging the appropriations process to retaliate against the federal judiciary for unfavorable rulings. The type of policy riders that Chairman Jordan recommends would not only undermine our constitutional system of separation of powers with checks and balances but are not within the purview of this Committee or the appropriations process. They must be rejected outright.

    Since his inauguration, we have seen a dangerous trend seeking to eviscerate the independence of the judiciary. Members of the Administration have argued that the President can defy court orders it disagrees with and that they “don’t care what the judges think.” The President and his allies have bullied and threatened judges who rule against the President. One of our colleagues has even introduced articles of impeachment against a federal court judge. Further, the President has signed a flurry of executive orders to penalize individual law firms and lawyers who bring cases challenging the administration, strong-arming firms into so-called “settlements” that exact significant concessions.

    The president has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nationwide injunctions issued by judges have impeded on political priorities for both parties throughout history, but our commitment to the rule of law must remain steadfast. President Trump’s actions undermine that sacred duty, endangering the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects our rights, our economy, our communities, and our safety. Moreover, rather than exercising Congress’s constitutional role to reinforce our system of checks and balances, Chairman Jordan now seeks to sideline the courts and allow the president to continue his disregard of our laws and American values. This is inconsistent with the constitution’s three co-equal branches, the system that the Framers felt necessary to preclude that “the King can do no wrong.”

    It is the role of the courts, not the President, to “say what the law is.” In its recent rulings, the courts have not exceeded their constitutional authority; rather, they have upheld their constitutional duty to fairly and impartially adjudicate cases, even when brought against the executive branch. As recently as 2023, conservative Members of Congress and state Attorneys General have celebrated judicial rulings granting the very nationwide  injunctions that Chairman Jordan seeks to undermine. Courts are ruling against the President at record rates because so many of his actions disregard established law, often demonstrating contempt for core constitutional principles like the rights to free speech, dissent, and due process. The Trump administration’s lawlessness is readily apparent to judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including some put on the bench by President Trump himself.

    Our judicial system cannot function if the courts are not sufficiently resourced. It is our responsibility as members of the Appropriations Committee to carefully review the budget requests submitted by the Supreme Court, Judicial Conference, and Administration Office of the U.S. Courts and to provide appropriations to allow the judiciary to appropriately serve the communities, businesses, and individuals that rely on the courts for justice. We should be providing the resources the courts need to meet their critical operational needs at a time when caseloads in the federal court system are the highest they have ever been and security threats against judges and their staff are increasing.

    Questions about the judiciary’s budget request are more appropriately addressed by holding hearings and conducting oversight, as we have done in years past. Policy riders to punish courts because one political party does not like how judges are ruling undermines our constitution and misuses our authority as appropriators. All are free to criticize judgments where one’s opinions differ from the rulings. All are free to vigorously appeal nationwide injunctions to the Supreme Court. However, judges make their ruling based on the law and facts of the case and must do so without any fear that their rulings could provoke attempts to diminish the independence of the judicial branch. We should not be politicizing our judicial system to score political points.

    As we continue the appropriations process, we must remain good stewards of taxpayer dollars while ensuring that our nation maintains an independent judiciary that is capable of upholding the rule of law. If we do not, we become a government of men, not laws.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hagerty Introduces Adam Telle, Trump’s Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty
    Telle has served as Hagerty’s Chief of Staff for the past four years
    WASHINGTON—Today, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introduced his Chief of Staff Adam Telle, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

    *Click the photo above or here to watch*
    Remarks as prepared for delivery:
    Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed, thank you for holding this hearing.
    I am privileged today to introduce my good friend and esteemed colleague, Mr. Adam Telle—who is President Trump’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
    As you all know, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has a range of important responsibilities, including oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers.
    The Corps and its 26,000 civilian and military personnel play a vital role for the United States—not just for the Department of Defense, but also for the safety, security, and prosperity of the many Americans who benefit from the ports, waterways, and flood control infrastructure maintained by the Corps across our nation.
    When you consider Adam’s background and expertise, it is no surprise why the President picked him for this key role.
    As a native of Northport, Alabama, and magna cum laude graduate in computer science and communication from Mississippi State University’s Bagley College of Engineering, Adam hails from some of the very states that depend greatly on the critical civil works that he is now called to lead.
    Indeed, Adam knows firsthand how the work of the Army Corps of Engineers will impact the lives of people in the United States and around the world.
    Moreover, Adam is a true patriot and has served in the U.S. government faithfully and with great distinction for the last 20 years.
    Adam began his Senate career in the Office of Senator Richard Shelby in 2005.
    Starting in 2007, he worked for the next 10 years in the Office of the late Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and rose through the ranks to become Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director.
    Adam then worked as the chief staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security Subcommittee, serving under the chairmanship of Senators Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, John Boozman, and Shelley Moore Capito. 
    In this role, Adam served as the point person in the Senate for an organization comprised of nearly 20 agencies, 260,000 personnel, and an annual budget of approximately $70 billion dollars.
    From 2019 to 2021, Adam led the Senate team at the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs, a position that included managing all national security and appropriations matters.
    Of note, Adam played a critical role in helping to conclude and implement President Trump’s historic Abraham Accords that brought peace and security to Israel and four Arab nations.
    He also played an outsized role in working with the Armed Services Committee on the establishment of the Space Force, the first new branch of the military to be authorized in more than 70 years.
    Adam is now my Chief of Staff, where each and every day I rely on his expertise, experience, and judgment.
    I have seen Adam bring people together to solve problems, mentor and grow staff, and provide thoughtful and effective strategic direction on some of the toughest problems facing our nation.
    In short, Adam is just the leader that our nation needs in the Pentagon.
    His native roots, work ethic, and intelligence make him more than qualified.
    The kindness, mentoring, and heart that he demonstrates with his teams will make him an inspirational leader of this critical organization.
    I urge this Committee to move quickly in consideration of Adam Telle’s nomination and confirm him as quickly as possible.
    Thank you for your time this morning.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Markey, Luján Urge FCC to Operate Transparently with Paramount-SkyDance Merger

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Letter Text (PDF)
    Washington (May 13, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Senator Ben Ray Luján, Ranking Member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Telecommunications and Media Subcommittee, today wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, urging the FCC to take a vote on the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media. Given the reports that Paramount is considering settling a frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump against CBS, a Paramount subsidiary, the senators stated that the FCC should only approve the merger with an affirmative vote by the full Commission.
    In the letter the lawmakers write, “In late October, then-candidate Trump sued CBS for $10 billion — later raising this outrageous amount to $20 billion — for supposedly deceptively editing an interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris on its programs 60 Minutes and Face the Nation. As the transcript of the interview showed, the excerpts that CBS aired were a quintessential example of editorial decision-making. Trump’s claim that such conduct constituted “voter interference” and violated Texas’s consumer protection law is both false and a clear attempt to intimidate the news media. CBS has rightfully moved to dismiss the case.”
    The lawmakers continue, “Despite the obviously frivolous nature of the lawsuit, Paramount is reportedly considering settling the case to ‘increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay’ its merger with Skydance. In fact, Paramount executives and directors are reportedly concerned that such a settlement could open them up to accusations of bribery. Paramount would not be the first to settle a lawsuit brought by the President in the past few months. In the weeks following the inauguration, ABC ($16 million), Meta ($25 million), and X ($10 million) all settled cases brought by Trump. With Paramount on the hook to pay Skydance a $400 million breakup fee if the FCC blocks the deal, the company has strong financial incentives to facilitate FCC approval of the merger.”
    The lawmakers conclude, “For those reasons, this transaction has signs of a deal between a company eager for approval of a multi-billion dollar merger and a President willing to exploit his position to intimidate the media and secure a multi-million dollar payout. The unique position of this merger necessitates the utmost transparency at the FCC. A matter of this significance deserves the scrutiny of the entire Commission. We urge you to only approve this merger through a full Commission vote.”
    Senator Markey has aggressively pushed back on efforts by the Trump administration to attack news organizations and intimidate the media. In February 2025, Senators Markey and Luján, along with Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) wrote to FCC Chairman Carr and Commissioner Nathan Simington regarding recent actions taken by the FCC under the Trump administration demonstrating that the FCC is weaponizing its authority over broadcasters and public media for political purposes. In March, Senators Markey and Luján, along with Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), introduced the Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act, legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from revoking broadcast licenses or taking action against broadcasters based on the viewpoints they broadcast.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Booker, Schatz, Coons, Murphy Joint Statement on Qatar Luxury Jet Gift to Trump

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Jersey Cory Booker
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following joint statement on reports that President Trump will accept a luxury jet valued at $400 million from the royal family of Qatar. According to reports, Trump intends to designate the plane as Air Force One while in office and then transfer it to a foundation for personal use following the end of his term. 
    “The Constitution is clear: elected officials, like the president, cannot accept large gifts from foreign governments without consent from Congress.
    “Air Force One is more than just a plane — it’s a symbol of the presidency and of the United States itself. Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government. No one — not even the president — is above the law.
    “This week, we will ask the Senate to vote to reiterate a basic principle: no one should use public service for personal gain through foreign gifts.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Challenges Unlawful Conditions on Federal Transportation Funding

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and 19 other attorneys general today sued the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for unlawfully conditioning billions of dollars in critical transportation funding on state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. On April 24, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that DOT would cut off funding to any state that refuses to comply with the administration’s immigration agenda – a directive that threatens essential infrastructure projects nationwide. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the administration’s attempt to tie federal transportation funds to immigration enforcement violates the constitutional separation of powers. The attorneys general are asking the court to block this unlawful attempt to coerce states into carrying out the president’s agenda in exchange for funds allocated by Congress.

    “Once again, the administration is attempting to seize Congress’ power of the purse – this time at the expense of immigrant communities and vital infrastructure projects,” said Attorney General James. “DOT’s blatant overreach threatens to divert critical resources away from public safety and undermine projects that keep our communities connected and safe. We won’t allow the federal government to hold essential funding hostage to advance a political agenda.”

    For over a century, Congress has provided federal funding to states to develop and maintain safe, reliable, and effective transportation infrastructure. Each year, state and local governments receive over $100 billion to build and maintain roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect communities and help residents travel to work and home. All of this funding is congressionally allocated, with no statutory immigration enforcement conditions attached.

    Now, Attorney General James and the coalition allege that Secretary Duffy and DOT are attempting to seize control of federal funds by imposing an immigration enforcement condition on transportation funding, including funding intended to protect firefighters, repair roads and highways, and ensure safe air travel – funds that have no connection to civil immigration enforcement. The attorneys general contend that the directive has no legal basis and is unconstitutionally coercive, forcing states to choose between protecting public safety and receiving essential federal funding.

    The attorneys general argue that DOT’s unlawful conditions put billions in federal funding necessary for vital public safety and reliable transportation projects at risk, including those that prevent injuries and deaths from traffic accidents, protect riders from train collisions, and help improve airport safety measures – a concern underscored by recent staffing and infrastructure issues at Newark Liberty International Airport that left thousands stranded and exposed critical vulnerabilities in the airport’s aging systems. Among the programs at risk due to this mandate are:

    • Federal-Aid Highway Program, which allocates over $100 billion annually for highway maintenance, safety improvements, and bridge repairs;
    • Federal Transit Administration’s grant programs, which sustain public transit systems that millions of Americans rely on;
    • Federal Railroad Administration’s Rail Crossing Elimination Grant Program, which funds crucial safety upgrades to prevent accidents and fatalities; and
    • Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program, which finances safety enhancements and infrastructure expansions at airports nationwide.

    Without these funds, states will have to scale back or end several critical programs and projects. The attorneys general warn that without these funds, “more cars, planes, and trains will crash,” as vital safety projects are halted or delayed.

    Attorney General James and the coalition contend that DOT is presenting states with an impossible choice. Either states forego the billions of dollars in congressionally allocated funds that keep their transportation systems running safely and smoothly, or they undermine their law-enforcement efforts by diverting resources to enforce federal immigration law. More critically, accepting these unlawful terms would destroy the trust that many states have worked hard to build between immigrant communities and law enforcement. The attorneys general emphasize that immigrants are less likely to report crimes if they fear local authorities may turn them over to federal immigration agents – a chilling effect that would jeopardize public safety.

    New York receives more than $5 billion annually in DOT funding, including $2.8 billion in federal highway funds, $2.3 billion in public transportation funding, $215 million in rail improvement funding, $18.8 million in highway safety funding, and $8.7 million in airport improvement funding.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue recent aviation tragedies underscore the urgent need for federal transportation funding to support critical safety measures. On January 29, 2025, a mid-air collision between an American Airlines plane and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River claimed the lives of all 67 passengers aboard both aircraft. Days later, a regional airline flight crashed off the coast of Alaska, resulting in 10 fatalities. Similar incidents involving small aircraft have occurred in Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York, illustrating the critical importance of maintaining funding for programs that prevent such disasters – funding now threatened by DOT’s unlawful directive.

    The attorneys general argue that DOT’s directive was issued without congressional authorization, blatantly disregarding Congress’ intent in allocating transportation funding. The coalition asserts that the administration is unlawfully attempting to leverage federal funds to coerce states into implementing the president’s immigration agenda, which is unlawful.

    Attorney General James and the coalition assert that this immigration enforcement mandate will have life-threatening impacts on nearly every aspect of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, from highways and railroads to airports and public transit systems. They are asking the court to prevent DOT from enforcing the new conditions and to ensure that federal transportation funds remain available to support infrastructure projects as Congress intended.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues U.S. Department of Homeland Security to Protect Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief Funding

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and 19 other attorneys general today filed a lawsuit to block new U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conditions that unlawfully tie emergency management and disaster relief funding to state immigration enforcement actions. Since January, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and other administration officials have engaged in a concerted, coordinated effort to pressure states to assist with the administration’s mass deportation agenda. Now, Secretary Noem has given states an ultimatum: cooperate with the administration on civil immigration enforcement or lose out on essential funding for emergency preparedness and disaster response efforts. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that DHS’s attempt to use federal funds as leverage to compel state immigration action violates the Constitution and puts communities at risk. The attorneys general are seeking a court order declaring these conditions unlawful and protecting states’ access to life-saving emergency management funds.

    “DHS is holding states hostage by forcing them to choose between disaster preparedness and enabling the administration’s illegal and chaotic immigration agenda,” said Attorney General James. “This funding is vital to keeping New Yorkers safe during hurricanes, floods, and other catastrophes. The federal government cannot weaponize disaster relief to coerce states into abandoning public safety and community trust. My office will fight to ensure all New Yorkers are protected – both from tragic disasters and from cruel and unnecessary immigration policies.”

    In recent months, DHS has imposed sweeping new requirements on its grant programs, mandating that states divert law enforcement resources to support federal civil immigration enforcement or risk losing billions of dollars in funding for emergency preparedness, disaster relief, and cybersecurity. States have also been ordered to immediately halt any program that “benefits” undocumented immigrants or “incentivizes” illegal immigration. Attorney General James and the coalition assert that DHS has no legal basis to withhold critical emergency funding and cannot lawfully force states to choose between disaster preparedness and long-standing public safety policies that build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

    The attorneys general argue that the at-risk funding was authorized by Congress to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters, not to enforce federal immigration policies. These grants fund essential emergency operations, including first responder salaries, training programs, and building improvements to protect houses of worship and schools from malicious attacks. They support search and rescue missions, food aid, and recovery efforts after major disasters. The attorneys general highlight that many of the grant programs at risk were created in response to national emergencies like the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, including:

    • State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), which was established after 9/11 to support state counterterrorism and emergency preparedness efforts, including the creation of bomb squads, SWAT teams, and hazmat units;
    • Urban Area Security Initiative, which was also established after 9/11 to fund cities’ counterterrorism and emergency response efforts;
    • Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which was established after 9/11 and made permanent after Hurricane Katrina to strengthen state and local emergency management;
    • State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program, which was created after COVID-19 to protect from cyberattacks; and
    • Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), which was created in 2004 to protect nonprofits and faith-based organizations from extremist attacks.

    New York received $44 million in NSGP funding last year, much of which was allocated to religious institutions and private schools at high risk of extremist violence. This funding, which in particular helps protect synagogues and Jewish day schools facing antisemitic violence, supports measures like security systems, metal detectors, and impact-resistant building upgrades. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that cutting NSGP funding would endanger vulnerable communities during a period of heightened extremist threats, especially because nonprofit organizations generally lack other funding sources for such improvements.

    Disaster response funds and programs, which states rely on to rebuild communities after major natural or mass casualty events, are also at risk, including:

    • Public Assistance Program, which supports emergency work in the immediate aftermath of disasters, from debris removal to temporary shelter construction;
    • National Urban Search & Rescue Response System, which funds around-the-clock search and rescue operations;
    • Disaster Case Management, which provides recovery planning for disaster survivors;
    • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which assists with rebuilding in a way that reduces future risks; and
    • Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants, which reduce flood damage risks in coastal communities.

    Also at risk are Fire Management Assistant Grants, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction, National Dam Safety Program, National Flood Insurance Program Community Assistance Grants, Port Security Grants, State Recreational Boating Safety Grants, and grants to participate in the FEMA Flood Mapping program.

    New York in particular stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency preparedness funding under DHS’s new conditions, including resources for certified bomb squads, the New York State Intelligence Center, SWAT teams, and hazmat units. Additionally, New York relies on DHS grants for more than $30 billion in FEMA Public Assistance funding, which has been critical in responding to disasters like Superstorm Sandy, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2024 tornadoes and flooding in Upstate New York.

    Attorney General James and the coalition argue that DHS is presenting states with an impossible choice. Either they forego the millions of dollars in federal funds that Congress has appropriated – and which their emergency preparedness and response efforts rely on – or they undermine their law-enforcement efforts by diverting their resources to enforce federal immigration law. More critically, accepting these unlawful terms would destroy the trust that many states have worked hard to build between immigrant communities and law enforcement, threatening the public safety of all residents who rely on law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes and bring culprits to justice.

    The attorneys general contend that DHS is unlawfully using federal funds to coerce states into adhering to the administration’s civil immigration enforcement policies – exceeding the grant programs’ scope and violating constitutional limits on executive power. The attorneys general are asking the court to declare these conditions unlawful and block DHS and the federal government from using vital emergency funds as leverage to enforce immigration policies.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

    MIL OSI USA News