NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Merkley Demand Trump Walk Back Dangerous Claims He Will Transfer U.S. Citizens to a Foreign Prison

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    April 28, 2025

    Senators also call for immediate return of Maryland father wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    Washington D.C. – U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) today demanded Donald Trump immediately rescind the dangerous and offensive claim that he may transfer incarcerated U.S. citizens to El Salvador.

    In a letter to Trump, the senators also urged him to follow the law and adhere to all applicable court orders to immediately facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. The senators underscore how these unprecedented actions threaten the constitutional protections of all Americans and violate the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, noting Trump’s flagrant disregard of a Supreme Court order to rightfully return Abrego Garcia and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” 

    “With regard to your shocking assertion about transferring Americans to El Salvador, you cannot deport Americans to a foreign country for any reason. This nation’s founding fathers declared independence based on ‘repeated injuries and usurpations’ by the then-King of Great Britain, including ‘transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences’ and ‘depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.’ Accordingly, Congress has passed no provision into law that would permit exiling United States citizens to a foreign country for any reason.  One conservative legal scholar called your threats to deport U.S. citizens ‘obviously illegal and unconstitutional,’” the lawmakers wrote. 

    “Our laws also do not allow you to send individuals from U.S. soil to El Salvador without due process. Further, the Executive Branch must comply with longstanding domestic and international law that prohibits the United States from transferring any person from our jurisdiction or effective control to a place where the person would face certain serious human rights violations. Your Administration’s actions in sending individuals to a Salvadoran prison notorious for inhumane conditions underscore the urgency and applicability of these requirements. The bedrock principles of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protect individuals from being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,’” the lawmakers continued. 

    “You must immediately facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, which is unquestionably within your power to do since your Administration is paying the government of El Salvador to detain him… You must also end your unlawful attempts to deport noncitizens without due process under the Alien Enemies Act, as the Supreme Court ordered this weekend. You have no authority to openly defy court orders requiring you: (1) to return someone who has been wrongfully deported, or (2) to grant individuals the due process they are owed under our laws… You must immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, follow all court orders, and withdraw your dangerous and offensive claims that you may transfer U.S. citizens to a foreign prison. The Constitution demands it,” the lawmakers concluded. 

    The letter, led by Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was co-signed by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Chris Coons (D-DE), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), in addition to Wyden and Merkley.

    Full text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Five ways to make cities more resilient to climate change

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul O’Hare, Lecturer in Human Geography and Urban Development, Manchester Metropolitan University

    John_T/Shutterstock

    Climate breakdown poses immense threats to global economies, societies and ecosystems. Adapting to these impacts is urgent. But many cities and countries remain chronically unprepared in what the UN calls an “adaptation gap”.

    Building climate resilience is notoriously difficult. Economic barriers limit investment in infrastructure and technology. Social inequities undermine the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt. And inconsistent policies impede coordinated efforts across sectors and at scale.

    My research looks at how cities can better cope with climate change. I have identified five ways to catalyse more effective – and ultimately more progressive – climate adaptation and resilience.

    1. Don’t just ‘bounce back’ after a crisis

    When wildfires, storms or floods hit, all too often governments prioritise rebuilding as rapidly as possible.

    Though understandable, resilience doesn’t just entail coping with the effects of climate change. Instead of “bouncing back” to a pre-shock status, those in charge of responding need to encourage “bouncing forward”, creating places that are at less risk in the first place.

    After the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011, the New Zealand authorities “built back better”, improving building codes and regulations and relocating vulnerable communities. Critics suggested reconstruction provided too much uncertainty and failed to acknowledge private property rights. But the rebuild did encourage better integration of planning policies and land use practices.



    Read more:
    ‘Build back better’ sounds great in theory, but does the government really know what it means in practice?

    Swales and sustainable urban drainage in Gorton climate resilient park, Manchester, UK.
    Paul O’Hare, CC BY-NC-ND

    2. Informed by risk

    It can be difficult to predict what the consequences of a crisis might be. Cities are complex, interconnected places. Transboundary risks – the consequences that ripple across a place – must be taken into account.

    The best climate adaptation plans recognise that vulnerability varies across places, contexts and over time. The most effective are holistic: tailored to specific locations and every aspect of society.

    Assessments must also consider both climatic and non-climatic features of risk. In 2015, in the UK, a flood affected one of Lancaster’s electrical substations, causing a city-wide power failure that took several days to rectify. In this instance, as with so many others, people had to deal not just with the direct impacts of flooding, but the ‘cascading’ or knock-on impacts of infrastructure damage.



    Read more:
    Giving rivers room to move: how rethinking flood management can benefit people and nature

    Many existing assessments have limited scope. But others do acknowledge how ageing infrastructures and pressures to develop land to accommodate ever intensifying urban populations exacerbate urban flood risk. Others too, such as the recently published Cambridge climate risk plan, detail how climate risk intersects with the range of services provided by local government.

    Systems thinking – an approach to problem-solving that views problems as part of wider, interconnected systems – can be applied to identify interdependencies with other drivers of change.

    Good risk assessments will, for example, take note of demographics, age profiles and the socio-economic circumstances of neighbourhoods, enabling targeted support for particularly vulnerable communities. This can help ensure communities and systems adapt to evolving challenges as climate change intensifies, and as society evolves over time.

    Complex though this might be, city leaders can access advice about improving risk assessments, including from the C40 network, a global coalition of 100 mayors committed to addressing climate change.

    3. Transformative action

    There is no such thing as a natural disaster. The effects of disasters including floods and earthquakes are influenced by pre-existing, often chronic, social and economic conditions such as poverty or poor housing.

    Progressive climate resilience looks beyond the immediacy of shocks, attending to the underlying root causes of vulnerability and inequality. This ensures that society is not only better prepared to withstand adverse events in the future, but thrives in the face of uncertainty.

    Progressive climate resilience therefore demands tailored responses depending on the population and place. In Bangladesh, for instance, communities are building floating gardens to grow crops during floods. These enhance food security and provide a sustainable livelihood option in flood-prone areas.

    Floating vegetable gardens in Bangladesh.
    Mostafijur Rahman Nasim/Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Climate change isn’t fair but Tony Juniper’s new book explains how a green transition could be ‘just’

    4. Collective approaches

    Effective climate resilience demands collective action. Sometimes referred to as a “whole of society” response, this entails collaboration and shared responsibility to address the multifaceted challenges posed by a changing climate.

    The most effective initiatives avoid self-protection, of people, buildings and cities alike, and consider both broader and longer-term risks. For instance, developments not at significant risk should still incorporate adaptation measures including rainwater harvesting or enhanced greening to lower a city’s climate risk profile and benefit local communities, neighbouring authorities and surrounding regions.

    So, progressive resilience is connected, comprehensive and inclusive. Solidarity is key, leveraging resources to address common challenges and fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual support.

    Solar panels on the surface of a reservoir not only provide a source of renewable energy but also provide shade and therefore help conserve water.
    Tom Wang/Shutterstock

    5. Exploiting co-benefits

    The most effective resilience projects exploit co-benefits – what the UN calls “multiple resilience dividends” – to leverage additional benefits across sectors and policies, reducing vulnerability to shocks while addressing other social and environmental challenges.

    In northern Europe, for example, moorlands can be restored to retain water helping alleviate downstream flooding, but also to capture carbon and provide vital habitats for biodiversity.

    In south-East Asia solar panels installed on reservoirs generate renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while providing shade to reduce evaporation and conserve water resources during droughts.

    In short, adaptation is obviously crucial for tackling climate change across the globe. But the real challenge is to deal with the impacts of climate change while simultaneously creating communities that are fairer, healthier, and better equipped to face any manner of future risks.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.

    – ref. Five ways to make cities more resilient to climate change – https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-make-cities-more-resilient-to-climate-change-252853

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority: 28 April 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    PM meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority: 28 April 2025

    The Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa this afternoon in Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa this afternoon in Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister began by expressing his sincere condolences for the appalling loss of life in Gaza. He said that the UK does not support the resumption in hostilities, which are in nobody’s interests. He added that the UK will continue to press for a return to the ceasefire as a first step to a lasting peace, and reiterated that the return of humanitarian aid into Gaza is critical. 

    He also said that we must not lose sight of the situation in the West Bank, where unlawful settlement and violence is of deep concern.

    Discussing the Arab Plan for Gaza, the Prime Minister shared the UK’s support for the Palestinian Authority’s reform programme, which he said is critical. The leaders agreed that a strategic political framework will be necessary as part of the implementation of a two-state solution, and that Hamas must have no role in Gaza’s governance. 

    They both agreed that the UK would continue to work closely with the Palestinian Authority and regional partners to find a constructive way forward, and deliver lasting peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

    The leaders looked forward to speaking again soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 28 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Iraqi Man Charged with Illegal Voting by an Alien

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    ALBANY, NEW YORK – Akeel Abdul Jamiel, age 45, formerly of South Glens Falls, New York, was charged on Friday with illegally voting in the 2020 election.  United States Attorney John A. Sarcone III; Craig L. Tremaroli, Special Agent in Charge of the Albany Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and Erin Keegan, Special Agent in Charge of the Buffalo Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), made the announcement.

    According to an information filed in federal court, Jamiel, an Iraqi who was not a United Citizen, voted in the November 2020 election in Saratoga County, New York.  The charge in the information is merely an accusation. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

    United States Attorney Sarcone stated: “As alleged, Jamiel’s voting in the 2020 election was a callous and illegal act.  We will continue to investigate and prosecute illegal schemes aimed at corrupting the election process.”  

    FBI Special Agent in Charge Craig L. Tremaroli stated: “Election security is and will continue to be one of the FBI’s highest national security priorities. Americans have a right to expect free and fair elections and the FBI is committed to working with our partners to seek justice for anyone trying to interfere with the democratic process.”

    HSI Special Agent in Charge Erin Keegan stated: “This defendant’s alleged crimes are an insult to the democratic process and demonstrate his blatant disregard for the sanctity of American constitutional rights. I commend HSI Albany and our law-enforcement partners for their success in this unified effort.”

    The charge filed against Jamiel carries a maximum term of 1 year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.  A defendant’s sentence is imposed by a judge based on the particular statute the defendant is charged with violating, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other factors.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Bridgeville Resident Pleads Guilty to Production of Material Depicting Child Sexual Abuse

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty on April 25, 2025, to one count of production and attempted production of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.

    Matthew Trax, 25, pleaded guilty before United States District Judge W. Scott Hardy.

    In connection with the guilty plea, the Court was advised that, on or about November 30, 2023, Trax employed, used, and enticed a 14-year-old female to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purposes of producing a visual depiction of such conduct, knowing that the visual depiction would be transported in and affect interstate commerce or created using a means and facility of interstate commerce. Specifically, Trax sent the minor nine images and one video of himself engaged in sexual intercourse with the minor, which Trax had recorded on his phone.

    Judge Hardy scheduled Trax’s sentencing for August 21, 2025. The law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 15 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offense and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.

    Trax remains detained pending sentencing.

    Assistant United States Attorney Nicole A. Stockey is prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mt. Lebanon Police Department conducted the investigation that led to the prosecution of Trax.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hospitals have huge environmental footprints – here’s how they can be more sustainable

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Scott Vandeventer, Senior Lecturer in Sustainability, Manchester Metropolitan University

    North Manchester General is a Victorian hospital that would benefit from a retrofit. James Scott Vandeventer, CC BY-NC-ND

    Hospital visits usually involve a medical emergency or appointment. The last thing on most patients’ minds will be how the building works. We expect the lights to be on, medical equipment to work, a comfortable room temperature, healthy food, an appropriate layout with efficient routes between departments and all the other features that make the healthcare system run smoothly.

    But many decisions about how hospitals will operate are made long before we enter the door – and have significant consequences for their environmental footprint.

    In England, the NHS contributes 4% of the country’s total carbon emissions, equating to 40% of all emissions from the public sector. In addition to carbon, NHS operations demand immense quantities of natural resources.

    This translates into significant environmental impact embodied in buildings – depending on how a hospital’s material form (think walls, floors, ceilings, windows, pipes, wires) is designed and built.

    Construction materials must be manufactured, transported to a building site and used by construction crews. Here, raw inputs come from mines, quarries or other extraction sites where environmental injustices are perpetuated on land and local communities.

    Then there are operational impacts, like electricity, water, medical equipment (PPE, hospital beds, syringes), medical gases and food. These essentials are also manufactured, require infrastructures (from the electricity grid to food systems) and are often constrained by previous building design decisions.

    Today, the UK’s NHS is facing major capacity pressures on healthcare services, with hospitals expected to handle significant increases in visits. And in January, the Labour government announced three waves of funding for new NHS hospital construction, with 16 hospitals greenlit as part of wave one.

    While investment in NHS hospitals is necessary, it brings more greenhouse gas emissions from the operational running of the building and its construction (that includes the extraction and manufacture of raw materials and is referred to as embodied carbon) and its raw materials. embodied and operational environmental impacts.

    Ensuring hospitals’ sustainability starts with their design. So, what would designing a more sustainable hospital really involve?

    For the past 18 months, I have been attending design meetings and interviewing the design team working on a wave one hospital, North Manchester General. It’s one of the major acute hospitals of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), whose forward-thinking leadership welcomed my research into hospital design.

    I have found that sustainability is predominantly integrated into the hospital design through adopting external technical specifications, like the NHS Net Zero Carbon Building Standard, and by aligning with local trust sustainability strategies. In this case MFT’s Green Plan.

    I’ve also seen how North Manchester General’s design must adapt to standardisations from the government’s New Hospital Programme. That’s a national initiative coordinating new hospital design and construction, including by working with suppliers.

    Adhering to existing statutory requirements related to sustainability – including building safety, social value, net zero carbon, and biodiversity net gain – also features in design considerations.

    While reducing carbon emissions remains a focus of North Manchester General’s designs, I’ve witnessed increasing interest in the broader environmental footprint – particularly water and waste. The bar for sustainability is being set high.

    But several key areas deserve further consideration in the design process – and the government’s national approach -– to minimise their overall emissions and translate sustainability ambition into action.

    For NHS hospitals, and sustainable cities generally, one of the most important decisions is whether to undertake renovation and retrofit of existing buildings as opposed to demolition and rebuild.

    Modernising existing buildings not only lowers the carbon emissions associated with materials and construction that come with starting anew, but also reduces impacts associated with construction – while inviting radical innovations like airflow retrofit and modular and mobile facilities.

    North Manchester General is a Victorian hospital, which, like historic homes and museums, has stood for well over a century. With the right care, maintenance and design, its older structures could be cost-effectively upgraded, while incorporating flexibility for future innovations into retrofit.

    Retaining parts of the existing estate – and only demolishing where absolutely necessary – respects the carbon footprint of the building structure already invested in hospitals and allows for sustainable adaptation rather than the significant environmental footprint of replacement.

    Designing 21st-century healthcare

    Looking ahead, a “fabric first” approach to new hospitals will prioritise the performance of the building’s envelope – walls, roofs, insulation, windows – before relying on technology to manage energy use. While high-efficiency models like Passivhaus (an approach to designing buildings that requires minimal-to-no energy for heating and cooling) often come with a slightly higher initial cost, they deliver long-term benefits in energy efficiency and cost savings.

    Beyond driving down operational impacts, investing in building fabrics could be coordinated by the New Hospital Programme to ensure localised suppliers can ethically source these materials. This could enhance buildings’ lifespan while improving UK healthcare and construction supply chains’ resilience.

    So many hospitals need retrofitting.
    richardjohnson/Shutterstock

    Sustainable hospital designs will change alongside the NHS’ model of healthcare. For example, smaller, more agile hospitals and community health services are becoming future priorities. While some major treatments (think open-heart surgeries) still require acute hospitals, future designs should think small and flexible, while learning from sustainable innovations that improve health outcomes and reduce environmental footprints.

    Take Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, where every ward has a kitchen and chef who cooks food to order, helping children recover faster and drastically reducing food waste. Capturing and systematising such learnings should be a priority for future hospitals.

    Will ever-larger hospitals become a thing of the past if preventative care, mobile surgical facilities and similar innovations become embedded in a future-fit, 21st-century NHS? Perhaps new hospitals’ target operating models need more flexible spaces, and lower overall floor areas, as healthcare shifts towards a community-oriented approach.

    Designing-out reliance on new materials and energy use through retrofit and fabric first approaches, while designing-in flexibility and best practices from contemporary hospitals, will help lower environmental footprints and place the NHS estate at the forefront of sustainable healthcare systems globally.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    James Scott Vandeventer received funding for this research from the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust (SRG-2223/230837), as part of the ‘Conceiving sustainable space’ project.

    – ref. Hospitals have huge environmental footprints – here’s how they can be more sustainable – https://theconversation.com/hospitals-have-huge-environmental-footprints-heres-how-they-can-be-more-sustainable-253693

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What excluded children think about their education in alternative provision – and why it matters

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Kinsella, Trinity College Dublin

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Nearly 16,000 children in England learn in state-funded alternative provision (AP). These are educational settings for school-aged pupils who are unable to attend mainstream school. These pupils may have been excluded from their previous school, have a medical condition or find themselves without a school place.

    There are around 333 state-funded APs in England, with a growing array of unregistered providers. While APs offer core elements of the national curriculum, they typically provide additional elements such as work-based qualifications and recreational activities like sports and art, as well as therapeutic pursuits. Class sizes are usually much smaller than in mainstream school, and many APs have a higher presence of support staff.

    For all their efforts at innovation, AP settings are still heavily stigmatised. They face questions around quality, reports of abuse and concerns about how pupils do in life after they leave.

    Some parents are reluctant to send their children to AP, feeling disempowered by the process of exclusion and limited by the school options presented to them. While adult voices on AP are prominent in these debates, pupils’ own insights have received far less attention.

    We carried out research on the experiences of children in AP, working with young boys who remained on the margins of everyday life there, as well as young people who were more actively engaged in creative classroom activities.

    Many of the students we spoke to in AP were acutely aware of their stigmatised identity. One spoke of how boys from his previous school saw him “as a freak” and that they think alternative provision is “for the stupid kids”. Others questioned the level of intellectual challenge in AP, calling it “baby school” and finding the classroom work undemanding.

    What really stood out in our studies was the pivotal influence of peers. When young people had little trust in the professionals around them or had experienced bullying, their friendship networks became critical.

    During creative activities, we saw close collaboration between young people, with particularly high levels of “affiliative agency”: supportive talk that emphasises social bonds. This helped young people keep each other emotionally and intellectually engaged when faced with challenging activities.

    Rethinking alternative provision

    Under the previous Conservative government, efforts were underway to “rebrand” AP as part of the special education needs system. With a new government now in place, it remains to be seen what will come of these plans.

    On the surface this appears to be a constructive policy move, because it draws attention to AP and those pupils accessing these provisions. But the special educational needs system itself demands further reflection.

    Nevertheless, the existing policy framework for special educational needs points us in some useful directions. The latest Code of Practice emphasises that pupils’ voices should matter.

    In contexts where young people have limited control over how they are perceived and the decisions institutions make about them, educational practices that recognise and build on the existing reciprocity, trust and cooperation between young people can have a lot of value.

    Today, the general trend is towards an increased emphasis on relational practices in AP: approaches to education that focus on building connections. This includes initiatives such as anger management and nurture groups, as well as trauma-informed practice, which takes into account the impact past trauma can have on a person’s development and ability to build relationships.

    We have little doubt that a learner who is anxious or in a distressed state is likely to find it extremely difficult to concentrate in a maths or English lesson. These relational practices matter. But learning should also be a holistic and liberating experience for pupils.

    Pupils in AP care about their education.
    BearFotos/Shutterstock

    Our research has found that young people in AP question their education but want to be challenged. The cognitive dimensions of the learning experience should not be downplayed for those in AP.

    We are committee members of the Alternative Provision Research Network, a network of academics and people working in AP who are committed to social justice for children in alternative provision. This means rethinking AP in ways that incorporate children’s voices on their education and is also based on evidence.

    In emphasising the cognitive, we do not mean simply trying to improve the GCSE grades of children in AP. We mean consulting with the pupils themselves about what truly matters to them when it comes to learning. The signs are that pupils value a challenging curriculum.

    Claire Kinsella is affiliated with the Alternative Provision Research Network which a network committed to a social justice agenda for children in Alternative Provision. See: https://www.apresearchnetwork.com/

    Craig Johnston is affiliated with the Alternative Provision Research Network, which highlights issues of social justice for disadvantaged children and young people.

    – ref. What excluded children think about their education in alternative provision – and why it matters – https://theconversation.com/what-excluded-children-think-about-their-education-in-alternative-provision-and-why-it-matters-252124

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Police Scotland bring in body-worn video, our research shows little is known about its effectiveness

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Webster, Professor and Director, Centre for Research into Information, Surveillance and Privacy, University of Stirling

    John Gomez/Shutterstock

    By autumn 2026, all frontline officers of the UK’s second largest police force will be expected to wear a camera while on duty, at a cost of over £13 million.

    Police Scotland is one of the last forces in the UK to employ this technology nationally. It has been a requirement for armed officers in Scotland since it hosted the UN climate conference, Cop26, in 2021. Devon and Cornwall Police ran the first body-worn trial in Plymouth some 20 years ago.

    The use of this technology was recommended by Lady Elish Angiolini (currently lord clerk register of Scotland) who led a 2020 independent review of complaints and misconduct in Scottish policing. The report argued that body-worn cameras have the potential to significantly reduce complaints against the police.

    In theory, being late to the party means Police Scotland is in a position of strength. They can adopt recognised best practice from other police forces in the UK, while steering clear of mistakes. But our review of the evidence reveals how little is really known about the effectiveness of this technology.

    Body-worn video promises to aid in evidence gathering, which can be used to support investigations and prosecutions. It is also seen to provide a level of personal protection for police officers, and increased transparency and accountability when it comes to police behaviour or misconduct.

    But there are still uncertainties about its actual impact on society. The evidence base is relatively mixed and ambiguous, with mostly small-scale studies and anecdotal evidence.

    Survey research shows there is significant public support for police using body-worn video, but this is mainly shaped by the technology’s perceived benefits.

    Does body-worn video work?

    Body-worn video is now commonplace in policing around the world. It is also seen to be critical equipment for security guards, traffic wardens and prison officers. It is even used by football referees, ticket inspectors, delivery drivers and healthcare and retail workers.

    While it is now commonplace, there is a notable lack of robust evidence about the consequences of its use. A lot rests on the assumptions about what the technology will do.

    There are no reliable measures capturing any reduction in violent incidents or levels of complaints about police behaviour.

    There are many uncertainties about body-worn video’s effectiveness.
    Loch Earn/Shutterstock

    An argument for the use of body-worn video is that it creates “objective” recorded accounts of interactions between police and citizens. In theory, the recordings can provide irrefutable proof about what happened, which in turn will enhance confidence in policing.

    The Scottish Police Authority notes that video recordings can streamline the process of resolving complaints against officers. It also can enhance the quality of evidence and “reduces the number of officers required to attend court” in investigations.

    However, the issue remains that officers may use their discretion to turn the cameras on or off. In 2023, a BBC investigation revealed more than 150 reports of camera misuse by officers in England and Wales. Forces need processes in place to prevent this and to hold officers accountable, or the digital account of an interaction will always be determined by the police.

    There is some evidence that body-worn video can exacerbate existing racial tensions. Research from North America suggests minority groups do not believe that police body-worn video will make the police more accountable or transparent, and that they instead reinforce existing power structures in society. This can fracture already strained relations with the police.

    Surveillance concerns

    There are technical, legal and ethical challenges emerging from the capture and processing of personal data.

    New body-worn video units, including those purchased by Police Scotland, also have the technical capability to integrate facial recognition software. If deployed, this would mean that the technology is no longer about a retrospective account of events, but a tool for live identity matching. This would significantly change the purpose and scope of the technology and how the police interact with citizens.

    Live facial recognition divides opinion and is seen to discriminate against women and minority ethnic groups. There are also concerns about its effectiveness.



    Read more:
    Banning face coverings, expanding facial recognition – how the UK government and police are eroding protest rights

    As we found in our research, police forces across the UK have different procedures for using this technology, and for holding officers accountable.

    A few UK forces have set up technology-specific oversight mechanisms, for example independent scrutiny panels that include members of the public. But these mechanisms are the exception, not the norm. In Scotland, scrutiny will take place via the Scottish Police Authority using existing arrangements.

    While we commend Police Scotland for the due caution they have exercised in delaying the national roll-out of this technology, our view is that technology-specific protocols and oversight mechanisms need to be in place at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Police need to be trained properly in the operation of cameras or they risk capturing inappropriate personal data and encroaching on citizens’ privacy expectations.

    William Webster has previously received funding from the Scottish Institute for Policing Research to undertake an evidence review into the police use of BWV.

    Diana Miranda received funding from SIPR (Scottish Institute for Policing Research), and ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) to investigate emerging policing technologies, namely body-worn video.

    – ref. As Police Scotland bring in body-worn video, our research shows little is known about its effectiveness – https://theconversation.com/as-police-scotland-bring-in-body-worn-video-our-research-shows-little-is-known-about-its-effectiveness-253388

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pope Francis began the process for Antoni Gaudí’s sainthood – an architect explains why

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Javi Buron Garcia, Associate Professor, School of Architecture & Product Design, University of Limerick

    Wiki Commons/Shutterstock/Canva

    In one of his final announcements before his death, Pope Francis granted Catalonian architect Antoni Gaudí the title of “venerable”, due to his dedication to the design and build of the Sagrada Família church in Barcelona. This recognition is the second of four steps towards sainthood, a process that started more than three decades ago by a secular association founded in Barcelona in 1992 and led by local architects. If this happens, Gaudí would be the first secular architect in history to be declared a saint.

    The Sagrada Família was originally devised by the religious book printer and seller José María Bocabella, who bought the site and founded an association to promote the construction. It was started in 1882, but in just one year the original architect Francisco de Paula del Villar y Lozano resigned due to creative differences with the association’s architectural adviser Joan Martorell.

    After declining the job himself, Martorell fervently recommended his protégée Antoni Gaudí who at that time was only 31 years old. He took over and redesigned it entirely, transforming Villar’s predictable neo-gothic design into what the American architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock described as “the greatest ecclesiastical monument of the last hundred years”.

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

    From the moment of his appointment, Gaudí worked obsessively on the project. In 1915, once he finished the crypt of the Church of Colònia Güell, his other lifelong project, he devoted himself entirely to the Sagrada Família. He suddenly died in 1926, when he was hit by a tram just a few blocks from the church.

    Gaudí was fully aware that he would never see the construction completed. Since its inception the construction was solely financed by donations, and its progress frequently slowed due to lack of funds.

    The Sagrada Família is the largest unfinished Catholic church in the world, and it has become a living piece of architectural history, showcasing design methodologies, materials and tools spanning the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

    Visionary techniques

    Though Gaudí was a gifted draftsman, he rarely drew detailed plans as his design methods. Instead, he relied on close working relationships with builders and crafts people. He preferred scaled models and developed all sort of unique techniques to develop and communicate his designs to others.

    Probably one of the most famous are his upside-down catenary curve models which he used to form-find the main structure of some of his buildings.

    In this process, he traced the outline plan of the Sagrada Família on a wooden board at a tenth of the scale and placed it on the ceiling. Then, he tied cords from the points of the plan where the columns were located. Later, he hung small sachets filled with lead to represent the weight that the arches would have to support. Finally, he carefully measured and photographed the resulting model from many angles and turned the photos upside down so the strings hanging in pure tension would represent stone and concrete arches in pure compression.

    The expertise required to construct these models was remarkable. In 1986, it was described in painstaking detail by professor of architecture Jos Tomlow at the Institute for Lightweight Structures under the supervision of the renowned architect and structural engineer Frei Otto.

    Tomlow and Otto analysed the hanging design model for Gaudí’s unfinished church of the Colònia Güell, which took him nearly ten years to complete. The research team made a scaled replica of the model which was instrumental for understanding Gaudí’s empirical design methods and bringing a renewed interest to his unfinished masterpiece.

    Completing the Sagrada Familia

    By the end of the 1980s, the construction of the Sagrada Familia was suffering an impasse. The architects continuing the work, now in their nineties, had completed much of the work started together with Gaudí. But they did not have further models or plans to guide their development, as many of the original models, drawings and photographs were destroyed during the 1936 Civil War.

    Fortunately, a younger generation of architects were able to analyse the existing design vocabulary and extend it to fill out the gaps using groundbreaking parametric design tools. Using parametric design, instead of simply reproducing digitally Gaudí’s existing geometries, endless new variations could be automatically generated by changing predefined variables.

    The Sagrada Familia in 1905.
    Jaume Morera Art Museum

    During the 1990s, the same team introduced newer digital fabrication technologies such as 3D printing and robotic stone carving. These were instrumental to keep the construction of Gaudí’s impossible shapes under a reasonable budget and time-frame.

    After several decades of long delays, the temple has experienced a substantial increase in visitors, which has boosted the construction efforts. The latest plans have set the completion for 2033 when it will become the tallest church building in the world. Just seven years after the 100th anniversary of Gaudí’s death, and probably in perfect timing for his canonisation.

    Javi Buron Garcia 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. Pope Francis began the process for Antoni Gaudí’s sainthood – an architect explains why – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-began-the-process-for-antoni-gaudis-sainthood-an-architect-explains-why-255147

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Oskar Fischer: the forgotten pioneer of Alzheimer’s disease research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Hornberger, Professor of Applied Dementia Research, University of East Anglia

    Davide Angelini/Shutterstock

    Ever heard of Fischer’s disease? No? Maybe that is not surprising, because it doesn’t exist. But it could have. In fact, the disease we now know as Alzheimer’s disease might just as easily have been called Fischer’s disease or Alzheimer-Fischer disease.

    Back in 1907, Dr Oskar Fischer published detailed research on what we now recognise as Alzheimer’s disease. Fischer described cases of older people who had cognitive symptoms in their lifetime and noted tiny plaque-like structures and fibrous tangles in their brains after their death.

    These changes were the same as those observed by Alzheimer’s at around the same time. But unlike Alzheimer’s brief two-page publication highlighting this new disease in one person, Fischer’s work, published in 1910, was a meticulous and wide-ranging study – spanning more than 100 pages – including several people he investigated. So why have we never heard of him?

    In my new book, Tangled Up: The Science and History of Alzheimer’s disease, I attempt to answer this question.

    A promising mind from Prague

    But before we get to why Fischer was forgotten, let’s look at who he was.

    Oskar Fischer was born in 1876 in a small town near Prague, part of the German-speaking minority in what is now the Czech Republic. After studying medicine in Strasbourg and Prague, he began working at the German University of Prague’s Department of Psychiatry.

    Fischer’s career flourished under the leadership of Professor Arnold Pick – another lesser-known scientific giant. Pick was the first to describe a different kind of dementia, now called frontotemporal dementia. It was in this forward-thinking academic environment that Fischer began his research into dementia.

    Fischer wasn’t working in isolation. At the time, other doctors had also noticed unusual plaques in the brains of people with dementia. Researchers like Paul Blocq and Georges Marinesco in Paris, Emil Redlich in Vienna and Koichi Miyake in Tokyo had all seen similar features.

    But Fischer, like Alzheimer, went a step further: he identified not only plaques but also twisted protein fibres — now known as tau tangles — that disrupt the brain’s function. This combination is still central to how we define Alzheimer’s disease today.

    Oskar Fischer, the forgotten great of Alzheimer’s research.
    Public Domain

    But if both men made this important discovery, why is only one name remembered?

    There are two theories as to why Fischer has been forgotten. One is that Fischer believed these brain changes were specific to a type of dementia called presbyophrenia, which was thought to affect people who showed unusual cheerfulness and confusion in old age.

    He may have limited his own findings by tying them to this narrow diagnosis. Indeed, in the 1920s it was realised that presbyophrenia was not a separate disease but simply how certain people with dementia presented – and the term was not used anymore.

    Another factor might be politics and influence. Alzheimer had a powerful supporter: Emil Kraepelin, one of the most influential psychiatrists of the time, who Alzheimer worked for. Kraepelin included Alzheimer’s work in his bestselling textbook and named the condition after him, helping to cement Alzheimer’s name in medical history.

    There’s no record showing whether Kraepelin knew of Fischer’s similar discoveries. If he did, he never acknowledged them in his textbook.

    Despite his scientific achievements, Fischer’s academic career stalled. In 1919, he was denied a permanent university position, despite his groundbreaking work. He opened a private practice in Prague and continued to teach, but without the recognition he deserved.

    A tragic end

    Then came the darkest chapter of his life. In 1941, during the Nazi occupation, Fischer was arrested by the Gestapo. He was imprisoned at Theresienstadt (now Terezín), a ghetto and transit camp for Jews and political prisoners. It’s unclear why he was targeted – perhaps for his Jewish ancestry or his earlier communist activism. He died there in 1942.

    Oskar Fischer’s story is a reminder that scientific discovery is rarely the work of one lone genius. It’s built on shared ideas, collaboration, and often forgotten contributors.

    It’s somewhat similar to Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace describing the theory of evolution at the same time but most only remember Darwin now. While Alois Alzheimer certainly made important observations, Fischer’s role in defining this devastating disease was just as significant.

    Maybe it’s time we remembered Oskar Fischer and gave him the credit he so rightly deserves.

    Michael Hornberger is the author of Tangled Up: The History and Science of Alzheimer’s Disease, published by Canbury Press.

    – ref. Oskar Fischer: the forgotten pioneer of Alzheimer’s disease research – https://theconversation.com/oskar-fischer-the-forgotten-pioneer-of-alzheimers-disease-research-254815

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Travelling to my ancestral home in China unearthed tragedy tinged by the climate crisis – it inspired me to write Red Pockets

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alice Mah, Professor in Urban and Environmental Studies, University of Glasgow

    My book Red Pockets explores questions of inheritance: what we owe to ancestors and to future generations, and what we owe to the places that we inhabit.

    It was inspired by visiting my ancestral village in Guangdong in south China, after nearly a century of intergenerational separation due to migration, war and revolution. My grandfather wrote about his childhood stay in this rice village in his unpublished memoirs, and I had always wanted to see it.

    In spring 2018, I finally found the chance, during a research trip to study the impacts of petrochemical pollution in Guangdong.

    My trip coincided with the Qingming festival in April, when people return to their ancestral villages to sweep their relatives’ tombs, making offerings of food, incense and burnt paper money to sustain them in the afterlife.

    Remarkably, my ancestral village was still intact, among the rice fields and western-style brick buildings, largely as my grandfather had described it. In fact, there are many similar clan villages in Taishan country, which is known as the “home of overseas Chinese”, due to its history of overseas emigration during the western gold rushes of the late 19th century.

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

    It was a moving yet unsettling experience, almost a comedy of errors, navigating different cultural expectations. One of the oldest villagers still remembered my family’s history, which turned out to have been troubled.

    My ancestors had suffered untimely deaths, their tombs were lost, and our ancestral house was expropriated during the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s. To restore my family’s place in the village would be impossible: we would have to build a new house and give all the clan villagers gifts of money in lucky red pockets. Even then, nothing could repair the ruptures of the past century.

    Observing the Qingming tomb-sweeping rituals on the hills, I wondered: what were the consequences of failing to sweep the tombs every spring?

    When I got home to the UK, I carried stories of pollution and ancestral neglect with me. They stayed with me and began to take on new meanings as I continued my research on toxic pollution and environmental injustice. I learned that in Chinese folk religious beliefs, neglected ancestors become hungry ghosts, unleashing misfortune and environmental destruction.

    As the climate crisis intensified, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the hungry ghosts somehow embodied collective experiences of climate grief, illness and anxiety.

    My idea to write Red Pockets came together in the wake of disappointment over COP26 in Glasgow. As I thought about the “heavy debts that we owe” to past and future generations, two, seemingly separate ideas merged into one – the personal story of my “return” to my ancestral village, and the wider story of confronting the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. I wanted to write a book that would explore the possibility of healing alongside the impossibility of returning to lost worlds.

    The writing process involved wrestling not only with different ideas but with different parts of myself. The hungry ghosts were difficult to summon in a way that felt real.

    At first, I tried a more academic approach, researching Chinese folk religious beliefs about death and burial rituals, and extreme climate disasters unfolding around the world.

    But I soon realised that the metaphor felt too thin in the absence of my own voice, and that I had to talk about hungry ghosts from a personal perspective. Once they came out, they seemed to take on a life of their own.

    Hungry ghosts animate the connections between the material and spiritual, how environmental devastation shows up in body, mind, and Earth: “A divided self, a divided world, a failure to listen, a failure to honour … They want us to face up to our broken obligations.”

    As I moved towards more positive themes in the final chapters of the book, the weight slowly began to lift. I learned that there are ways of living with ghosts, recognising joy alongside despair, possibilities for interconnection despite disconnection, and compassionate actions to “defend our lands and ourselves”. I found what I was looking for: an offering.

    Alice Mah received funding from the Leverhulme Trust (Philip Leverhulme Prize) and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 639583) for research on petrochemical pollution and environmental justice.

    – ref. Travelling to my ancestral home in China unearthed tragedy tinged by the climate crisis – it inspired me to write Red Pockets – https://theconversation.com/travelling-to-my-ancestral-home-in-china-unearthed-tragedy-tinged-by-the-climate-crisis-it-inspired-me-to-write-red-pockets-253987

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s first 100 days: economic uncertainty spikes while the president’s approval ratings tank

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

    When US president Donald Trump took office in January he inherited a strong economy, which was growing faster than those of many of its rivals. Nevertheless, he won the election in November on the back of strong voter dissatisfaction with the economy, especially the cost of living. This is the legacy of high inflation sparked first by COVID and then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    But Trump also won with his appeal to “left-behind” voters, especially working-class people in the US rust belt. This demographic has suffered a long-term decline in living standards as manufacturing jobs in traditional industries like car-making and steel have disappeared.

    Trump claimed during his campaign that high tariffs were the answer to most of America’s economic problems. He promised a revival in domestic manufacturing by blocking imports, while forcing foreign firms to shift production to the US. And there was also the promise of tax cuts paid for with the revenues raised from tariffs.

    But the erratic roll-out of his tariff policies have shattered business and consumer confidence. They have also tanked his poll ratings with respect to his management of the economy. And it is causing chaos to world trade and economic cooperation.


    How is Donald Trump’s presidency shaping up after 100 days? Here’s what the experts think. If you like what you see, sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter.

    The threat of higher prices for imported goods has made US consumers cautious. Businesses are facing the awesome task of rejigging global supply chains established over many decades, with no certainty over where they should invest.

    China was always the main target of Trump’s tariffs, but it is not clear who will win the battle. China has been preparing for this confrontation for years, shifting its exports to other countries and boosting domestic consumption.

    And blocking Chinese exports does not automatically mean that US industry will become more efficient and productive. This is especially true in the absence of any industrial policy and with massive cutbacks in federal support for business, including for research.

    Trouble ahead for Trump

    The dramatic swings in tariff policy are probably less a product of Trump’s deep strategic planning – “the art of the deal” – than a response to conflicting pressures from different factions of Trump’s supporters.

    What Trump probably did not anticipate was the negative reaction of financial markets to his April 2 announcement of massive global tariffs. The precipitous fall in the stock market (which arguably was overvalued already) has wiped US$4 trillion (£3 trillion) off the value of shares. This threatens the pensions of millions of US voters.

    Even more serious has been the reaction of the bond market. Trump’s plan for massive tax cuts for the rich, now being negotiated in Congress, could add nearly US$6 trillion to the already huge and growing stock of US government debt over the next decade. This strategy will only work if international bond holders are prepared to buy a lot more US Treasury bonds.

    But they are now fleeing that market, which is normally the bedrock of the international financial system. This has the effect of forcing up interest rates, both in the US and globally.

    The US president’s attack on the independence of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is further unsettling the markets. The Fed now has the unenviable task of trying both to stop a recession and prevent inflation getting out of hand.

    And the economic damage of Trump’s tariffs is having political consequences. The Democrats are now favoured to retake control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 mid-term elections.

    Targeting welfare may be a cut too far for many US voters.
    Christopher Penler/Shutterstock

    Trump’s popularity will suffer a further blow if Congress is forced to cut government spending even further to finance its tax cuts. One casualty could be Medicaid spending, which faces cuts of US$880 billion. Medicaid provides health insurance for 70 million people on low incomes or with disabilities. The cut has already been included in one version of the budget resolution.



    Read more:
    Trump thinks tariffs can bring back the glory days of US manufacturing. Here’s why he’s wrong

    Trump is now caught between his big business backers, who want to drastically reduce the role of the federal government but keep free trade, and his working-class supporters, who are hoping that his tariffs will restore manufacturing jobs.

    But this group would be deeply upset by cuts to major government programmes such as Medicare and social security, which many depend on for much of their income. These programmes make up a large portion of all government non-defence spending, and without major cuts it will be hard to find enough savings to fund tax reductions.

    With the International Monetary Fund now forecasting a 40% chance of recession in the US, the president’s economic ratings look unlikely to improve any time soon.

    Steve Schifferes 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. Trump’s first 100 days: economic uncertainty spikes while the president’s approval ratings tank – https://theconversation.com/trumps-first-100-days-economic-uncertainty-spikes-while-the-presidents-approval-ratings-tank-255449

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Joins Schatz, Murray, Colleagues in Condemning Labor Department’s Cancellation of Funding to Address Child Labor, Human Trafficking Worldwide

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    April 23, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI), Patty Murray (D-WA) and 10 Senate Democratic colleagues in condemning the Trump Administration’s cuts to federal funding that for decades helped address child labor, forced labor and human trafficking globally.
    “These cuts are inconsistent with bipartisan laws passed by Congress providing federal funds to combat child labor, forced labor, human trafficking, and enforce labor standards in over 40 countries,” the Senators wrote in a letter to Labor Secretary Lori M. Chavez-DeRemer. “Cancelling all existing cooperative agreements will only harm American workers, lower international labor standards, and hurt children.”
    The Senators continued, “ILAB grants level the playing field for American workers and ensure businesses cannot profit from labor abuses by stopping the problems at their source. Offshoring work will only drive down wages, incentivize abusive labor practices abroad, and take jobs away from hard working Americans. For example, the President and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has said that the cancellation of ILAB contracts will harm both their consumers and 3.5 million American workers. The only winners here will be the multinational corporations who want cheap labor, and our adversaries that benefit from these practices.”
    “We ask that you live up to your comments and urge you to take immediate steps to protect children, American workers, and other vulnerable populations by using funds Congress appropriated for ILAB for that purpose,” the Senators concluded.
    Along with Duckworth, Schatz and Murray, the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).
    The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below.
    Dear Secretary Chavez-DeRemer:
    We write to express our serious concerns about the Department of Labor (DOL)’s decision to terminate all existing cooperative agreements at the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). DOL and the United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Service have announced the cancellation of $577 million in cooperative agreements. These cuts are inconsistent with bipartisan laws passed by Congress providing federal funds to combat child labor, forced labor, human trafficking, and enforce labor standards in over 40 countries. We note that the Trump Administration identifies labor practices, including failures by foreign governments to protect internationally recognized worker rights, as a foreign trade barrier in the recently issued National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Cancelling all existing cooperative agreements will only harm American workers, lower international labor standards, and hurt children.
    ILAB was created by President Truman after World War II. Since its creation, it has served at the forefront of global efforts to eliminate child labor. Under international standards, child labor applies to work below the minimum age established under national legislation—usually 14 or 15 years old— and includes slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, illicit activities, and hazardous work that is likely to harm health or safety. Global estimates from the International Labor Organization (ILO) indicate that there are 160 million children between 5-17 years old in child labor, roughly half of them in hazardous conditions.
    ILAB also works to combat forced labor and human trafficking – serious violations of human rights. According to the most recent figures available, there are 5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the world, with women and girls disproportionately affected. Additionally, the ILO estimated that 24.9 million people around the globe were in forced labor as of 2016. Victims are rarely able to seek help for various reasons, due to language barriers, poverty, or unstable immigration status. Furthermore, ILAB plays a key role in addressing China’s use of slave labor as a member of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to enforce the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
    Critically, the findings from ILAB and ILAB funds provided by Congress have led to improved adherence to international labor standards that support American workers. Since 2019, ILAB has invested in eliminating the roughly 1.56 million instances of child labor violations in the production of cocoa in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire—countries that produce cocoa for chocolate bought by American consumers, as well as nearly 60 percent of the world’s cocoa each year. Recently, DOL’s November 2024 framework of action included improving access to quality education, as well as technical and vocational training, strengthening social services and social protection, and empowering women, youth and workers in cocoa-growing communities. Uzbekistan was pushed to address forced labor and child labor in the cotton sector, which unfairly competes with American cotton growers and exporters. Argentina’s government and private sector built technical assistance programs developed by DOL in the blueberry sector, ensuring that children and teenagers had access to child care and enrichment programs. In Honduras, one DOL cooperative agreement disbursed more than $13 million to fight child labor and other exploitation, resulting in more than 6,000 children enrolling in educational programs, aiding more than 1,800 families, and helping train around 500 inspectors on child labor exploitation and other labor laws.
    Unfortunately, your actions will prevent this work from continuing. A few of the contracts that have been eliminated by you and DOGE include the “Global Better Work Program (I)” and “Better Work Global (II)” in Haiti, Jordan, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam to establish strong labor enforcement and transparency; “Supporting Safe and Inclusive Work Environments in Lesotho” to stop violence against women; “Research, Innovation and Strategic Engagement Project (RISE-global)” in Brazil, Colombia, Cote D’Ivoire, Indonesia, and Guatemala to educate workers on their rights and how to protect them; and “Promoting Safe and Healthy Workplaces in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador” to improve worker safety and discourage migration to the United States. The cancellation of these contracts is neither efficient nor puts America’s interests first. Instead, we believe it will cause devastating, widespread harm to our most vulnerable populations, and put American workers at a disadvantage.
    Additionally, we are concerned about the economic impacts of this decision. One of the major missions of ILAB is to enforce the labor provisions in U.S. trade agreements. ILAB grants level the playing field for American workers and ensure businesses cannot profit from labor abuses by stopping the problems at their source. Offshoring work will only drive down wages, incentivize abusive labor practices abroad, and take jobs away from hard working Americans. For example, the President and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has said that the cancellation of ILAB contracts will harm both their consumers and 3.5 million American workers. The only winners here will be the multinational corporations who want cheap labor, and our adversaries that benefit from these practices.
    In your confirmation hearing on February 19th, you testified to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions that we must protect children from labor exploitation. You said this in response to questions from members on both sides of the aisle. We ask that you live up to your comments and urge you to take immediate steps to protect children, American workers, and other vulnerable populations by using funds Congress appropriated for ILAB for that purpose.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Durbin, Colleagues Condemn Trump and DOGE for Gutting AmeriCorps

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    April 28, 2025
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chris Coons (D-DE), along with 146 fellow Congressional colleagues, called out President Donald Trump for targeting AmeriCorps and NCC AmeriCorps members, demanding he reverse cuts to the program made last week by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The Trump Administration placed a majority of AmeriCorps employees on leave last week as part of DOGE’s broader spending cuts. Programs such as AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors deploy more than 200,000 Americans annually to carry out results-driven projects at over 35,000 locations across the country. Working in partnership with thousands of nonprofit, faith-based and community organizations, these dedicated volunteers and workers help promote employment opportunities, strengthen the workforce and support those in need.
    “We are deeply concerned these actions will prevent the agency from continuing to deliver critical services, which include supporting veterans, fighting wildfires, tutoring in schools, combatting the fentanyl epidemic, and much more,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to President Trump. 
    The lawmakers highlighted the program’s benefits to society, to AmeriCorps members and to the federal government—pointing to a non-partisan study showing that there are an estimated $17 in benefits returned for every taxpayer dollar spent. Additionally, the recently passed Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025 maintains AmeriCorps funding at its fiscal year 2024 level and serves as a continuing resolution to extend federal government funding through the end of fiscal year 2025. The senators emphasized that the administration is expected to implement the law in a manner consistent with the funding levels enacted in fiscal year 2024. Failing to do so would be a violation of the law.
    “If not reversed, these recent actions will both stop current programs and prevent timely and efficient execution of the agency’s fiscal year 2025 appropriations, delaying or even halting the recruitment and deployment of new AmeriCorps members around the country,” the lawmakers added.
    AmeriCorps programs serve communities nationwide, where roughly 200 AmeriCorps members and more than 1,000 AmeriCorps Seniors respond to disasters, improve housing, help veterans and support educational services. If the Trump Administration’s actions aren’t reversed, these critical services could come to a halt.
    “We are deeply concerned that this is the goal: to eliminate AmeriCorps, in direct conflict with recently enacted appropriations. However, even delays will disrupt programs Americans rely on for their health, education, and safety. We urge you to reverse these actions and instead work with Congress on bipartisan improvements to AmeriCorps so that more Americans have the opportunity to serve their communities,” the lawmakers concluded. 
    In addition to Duckworth, Durbin and Coons, the letter is co-signed by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Angus King (I-ME), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tina Smith (D-MN), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jack Reed (D-RI), Gary Peters (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ed Markey (D-MA), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), John Fetterman (D-PA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD). U.S. Representatives Doris Matsui (D-CA-07), Alma Adams (D-NC-12) and 103 other House Representatives signed on.
    Full text of the letter is available below and on Senator Duckworth’s website.
    We write to express our strong support for AmeriCorps and urge you to reverse both the recall of all NCCC AmeriCorps members and the recently implemented drastic reductions in force across the AmeriCorps agency. We are deeply concerned these actions will prevent the agency from continuing to deliver critical services, which include supporting veterans, fighting wildfires, tutoring in schools, combatting the fentanyl epidemic, and much more.
    For more than thirty years, AmeriCorps has been our nation’s leading provider of grants that support and promote national service and volunteerism. Through programs like AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors, more than 200,000 Americans participate in results-driven service projects at more than 35,000 locations across the country each year. Working hand in hand with thousands of nonprofit, faith-based, and community organizations, these dedicated Americans recruit and manage millions of additional volunteers as they work to promote employment opportunities, prepare a better-trained workforce, and provide essential services to veterans, children, and seniors. AmeriCorps’ track record of delivering for Americans has earned broad and longstanding support from business leaders, mayors, and governors of both parties.
    AmeriCorps is a public-private partnership that leverages approximately $1 billion in matched resources from the private sector, foundations, and local agencies to support organizations across the country working in creative ways to tackle our most persistent and costly challenges. While it is important the agency continues to make measurable progress toward an improved audit performance, federal investments in AmeriCorps already deliver returns for the American people. A 2020 study found that for every one dollar that Congress appropriates to AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors programs, they return over $17 in benefits to society, program members, and the government. Further, the AmeriCorps programs are a smart investment in our country’s future. AmeriCorps service allows members to gain marketable job skills in high-demand fields and pursue higher education, preparing more Americans to succeed in the workforce. We have seen firsthand the critical impact these programs have across the states we represent. We urge the administration to continue implementing the statutory requirements of the national service laws:
    Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, Public Law 93-113.
    National and Community Service Act of 1990, Public Law 101-610.
    National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, Public Law 103-82.
    Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, Public Law 111-13.
    Additionally, Congress recently passed the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, which maintained funding for AmeriCorps at its Fiscal Year 2024 level. We expect that the administration will implement this law in a manner consistent with the allocations enacted in Fiscal Year 2024. However, we have grave concerns that significant reductions in force will prevent AmeriCorps from being able to effectively and efficiently award appropriated funding to programs operating in communities across the country.
    We are deeply concerned by reports that a majority of AmeriCorps staff have been placed on administrative leave and that more than 750 NCCC members have already been recalled from their field assignments. Many of these volunteers were working in disaster response roles, including building homes for individuals who lost theirs in the wake of Hurricanes Helene and Milton. If not reversed, these recent actions will both stop current programs and prevent timely and efficient execution of the agency’s fiscal year 2025 appropriations, delaying or even halting the recruitment and deployment of new AmeriCorps members around the country. We are deeply concerned that is the goal: to eliminate AmeriCorps, in direct conflict with recently enacted appropriations. However, even delays will disrupt programs Americans rely on for their health, education, and safety. We urge you to reverse these actions and instead work with Congress on bipartisan improvements to AmeriCorps so that more Americans have the opportunity to serve their communities.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New King’s Gurkha Artillery Unit to boost Armed Forces Capabilities

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    New King’s Gurkha Artillery Unit to boost Armed Forces Capabilities

    Gurkhas are to take on artillery roles for the first time with the creation of a new regiment.

    • Over the next four years, 400 Gurkha personnel will join the unit known as The King’s Gurkha Artillery, bolstering UK security through the Plan for Change
    • New unit will offer career and development opportunities for Gurkha soldiers in recognition of their service to the UK
    • A new Gurkha unit is being created to bolster the Army – with the famous Nepalese soldiers taking up artillery roles for the first time.  

    The King’s Gurkha Artillery (KGA), announced today, will be a new unit in the Brigade of Gurkhas and will operate within the Royal Regiment of Artillery. 

    The regiment will strengthen the UK’s military capabilities by taking on 400 Gurkha personnel, yet another example of Government action to deliver national security for Britain as part of our Plan for Change.

    A new Gurkha cap badge has also been created – the first in 14 years – to represent the new unit and the expanded breadth of specialisms that the Brigade of Gurkhas deliver, continuing their proud tradition of military service to the UK. 

    The KGA will become an integral part of the UK Armed Forces’ artillery capabilities. As part of the new offer for Gurkha soldiers, and in recognition of the demands of modern warfare, personnel who join the KGA will be trained on advanced equipment, including the Archer and Light Gun artillery systems. In the future they will also train on the remote-controlled Howitzer 155 artillery system. 

    Today’s announcement follows the Prime Minister’s historic commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, recognising the critical importance of military readiness in an era of heightened global uncertainty.   

    Minister for Veterans and People Alistair Carns said: 

    The Brigade of Gurkhas has rightly earned a reputation as being amongst the finest soldiers in the world, and the formation of The King’s Gurkha Artillery recognises the outstanding contribution that they have made, through their years of dedicated service.  

    Our government is already delivering for defence through our Plan for Change, and this latest development will support retention efforts amongst Gurkhas while protecting and defending UK interests at home and abroad.

    The first recruits will finish initial training in November 2025 before going to Larkhill Garrison in Wiltshire, the home of the Royal Artillery for trade training.  

    Currently, around 4,000 Gurkhas serve across many trades in the British Army. All Gurkhas are recruited from Nepal, with thousands of candidates competing annually for a limited number of places. 

    Updates to this page

    Published 28 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Beyer Statement On Gerry Connolly

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)

    Beyer Statement On Gerry Connolly

    Washington, April 28, 2025

    Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) today issued the following statement on his longtime friend and colleague Congressman Gerry Connolly’s announcement that he would not seek reelection to the U.S. House:

    “Northern Virginia is a better place for Gerry Connolly’s decision to enter public service. He has left an indelible mark on Fairfax County, our region, our Commonwealth, and our country as a tireless advocate for our federal workforce, the U.S. Postal Service, and our public transit system. He served his constituents faithfully, was a vigorous fighter for government reform, and remains one of the most effective legislators in either party.

    “I cannot imagine the House without Gerry. We have been friends for many years, but for the past decade our partnership was an essential starting point from which so much important work followed. I deeply respect Gerry’s decision to put his constituents first by stepping back, but I will miss him terribly in Congress. Megan and I send our love to Gerry, Smitty, and the Connolly family, with thanks for years of friendship and a great career, and our best hopes for the future.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: April 28th, 2025 Heinrich, Luján Blast Trump Admin’s Attacks on Head Start, Demand RFK Jr. Immediately Unfreeze Head Start Funding & Reverse Firings of Early Childhood Education Workers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), one of only two Head Start graduates to serve in the Senate, sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to demand the Trump Administration stop its attacks on Head Start programs. In their letter, Heinrich and Luján reminded Secretary Kennedy of his legal obligation to administer Head Start, and demanded that HHS immediately unfreeze Head Start funding, reverse the mass firing of Head Start workers, and stop  gutting offices that ensure high-quality early childhood education services are available for thousands of children and families in New Mexico and nationwide.

    In New Mexico, Head Start and early Head Start programs serve 8,800 children living below the poverty line, including 271 children experiencing homelessness, and 139 children in foster care in 2022. 

    “We write to express our strong opposition to the actions you have taken to directly attack and undermine the federal Head Start program. Since day one, this Administration has taken unacceptable actions to withhold and delay funding, fire Head Start staff, and gut high-quality services for children. Already this year, this Administration has withheld almost $1 billion in federal grant funding from Head Start programs, a 37 percent decrease compared to the amount of funding awarded during the same period last year,” the senators wrote in a letter to Secretary Kennedy. “It is abundantly clear that these actions are part of a broader effort to ultimately eliminate the program altogether, as the Administration reportedly plans to do in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal.”

    The senators detailed how the program plays an instrumental role in supporting kids and families across the country, writing: “Head Start provides early childhood education and comprehensive health and social services to nearly 800,000 young children every year in communities across this country, and employs about 250,000 dedicated staff. Head Start is a critical source of child care for working families, particularly in rural and Tribal communities, where Head Start programs are often the only option for high-quality child care services. Head Start programs ensure children receive appropriate health and dental care, nutrition support, and referrals to other critical services for parents, such as job training, adult education, nutrition services, and housing support.”

    “You even acknowledged the value of Head Start following a recent visit to a Virginia Head Start center,” the senators wrote, contrasting that statement of support with the Trump administration’s actions. “However, as a result of your actions to withhold and delay funding and undermine the administration of this vital program, Head Start centers are in serious jeopardy and have already had their day to day operations impacted. Programs are increasingly worried that they will not be able to make payroll, pay rent, and remain open to serve the hundreds of thousands of children and families who depend on their services in communities across the nation.”

    “Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have been under attack,” the senators wrote, detailing office closures and funds that were frozen for Head Start grants across the country. “At one point, the National Head Start Association reported 37 programs serving nearly 15,000 children across the country could not access their federal funding. Head Start programs operate with thin margins and on short-term budgets from HHS, and without any communication from the Administration about the status of funding, programs were forced to temporarily close or to lay off staff.”

    The senators underscored how the gutting of Head Start offices and the firing of staff who keep the federal program running puts the entire program in jeopardy, “On April 1st, you abruptly closed five of the ten regional offices that help local grantees administer Head Start programs in 22 states. This left hundreds of programs without dedicated points of contact to address mission critical issues like approving grant renewals and modifications, investigating child health and safety incidents, and providing training and technical assistance to ensure high-quality services for children. While some grantees were assigned a new program specialist, we understand many have not been receiving responses to their inquiries. This is on top of the estimated 97 Office of Head Start central office staff that were terminated due to their probationary status and the recent reduction in force. You promised ‘radical transparency’ as Secretary, yet it is unclear how these actions will improve Head Start programs, and you and your staff refuse to respond to basic inquiries and requests for information.”

    Importantly, the senators noted that if Head Start funding is kept frozen by the Trump Administration, many more programs could be forced to close. 

    “Head Start grantees are still waiting on payments and grant renewals from the Office of Head Start, including programs whose grants end on April 30th, 2025. These notices should have gone out by now, yet we are concerned to hear programs report they have received little to no correspondence regarding their grant renewals,” the senators continued, detailing how local HeadStart programs are receiving no notice for the path forward for grant funding. “Additionally, because we started fiscal year 2025 under a short-term continuing resolution, as is usual, some grantees have only received partial funding for the first few months of the year. But with a full year funding bill in place, these grantees should have received full funding by now, yet some are reporting that they have not received the full amount of their grants and will run out of funds this month or next. On Wednesday, April 16th, the delays in Head Start funding led to the closure of Head Start centers serving more than 400 children in Sunnyside, Washington.”

    “The Administration has a legal and moral obligation to disburse Head Start funds to programs and to uphold the program’s promise to provide high-quality early education services to low income children and families across this country,” the senators stated. “There is no justifiable reason for the delay in funding we have seen over the last two months, and you have refused to offer any kind of explanation.”

    The senators concluded by warning that eliminating Head Start would be devastating, demanding answers on the Trump Administration’s actions, and demanding the reversal of these actions: “[W]e urge you to immediately reinstate fired staff across all Offices of HeadStart, and cease all actions to delay the awarding and disbursement of funding to Head Start programs across this country.”

    Community leaders in New Mexico are weighing in on the grave consequences of the Trump Administration’s continuous assault on Head Start for children’s futures:

    “As a Head Start Leader for over 40 years, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative impact Head Start has on children, families, and communities. Eliminating Head Start would be nothing less than a national tragedy. It would be a direct attack on the country’s most vulnerable children and families – those who have the least and need the most.” said Patricia Grovey Evans, President of New Mexico Head Start Association.

    “Defunding the Head Start program would be a grave injustice to young Zuni children, who depend on this vital resource to embark on their educational journey steeped in cultural identity and moral values. Early childhood education is not merely about teaching; it lays the foundation for self-awareness and community connection that will guide them throughout their lives. Cutting this crucial funding threatens to strip away their opportunity to nurture the skills and cultural heritage essential for their growth and future success,” said Anthony Sanchez, Head Councilman for Zuni Tribe.

    “Jemez Pueblo’s Walatowa Head Start Language Immersion Program offers a unique and valuable community-based education delivered solely in our Towa language. Education of our youngest community members is important and to have that education provided in our native language is of the utmost importance. As Native people, it was vital that our Head Start program incorporated the Pueblo’s vibrant traditional calendar through art, music and dance while also incorporating other subjects like math and science. Walatowa Head Start Language Immersion Program serves as a model for other tribal Head Start programs who wish to teach the children in their native language. Our community worked for over a decade to make this education culturally responsive and if funding for Head Start were to disappear, so would our community’s work. We cannot allow this to happen,” said Carnell Chosa, First Lieutenant Governor of Jemez Pueblo.

    “As someone working on the front lines of early childhood education in New Mexico, I am deeply alarmed by the proposed cuts to Head Start in President Trump’s leaked budget. At the Now Mexico Association for the Education of Young Children (NMAEYC), we see firsthand how essential this program is especially for families in our rural and underserved communities. Head Start has been a cornerstone for opportunity and stability for low-income families for 60 years. Eliminating this program would jeopardize early learning, health, and nutrition services for more than 150,000 children across the country, including thousands here in New Mexico. Head Start is not just a program- it’s a lifeline. Gutting this critical funding, would harm our most vulnerable children, undermine family stability, and set our state back for generations. Continued investment in Head Start is not optional – it’s essential to ensuring that every New Mexico child, regardless of zip code, has a fair shot at success,” said Alicia B. Borrego, MBA, Executive Director of New Mexico Association for the Education of Young Children.

    “Head Start has been a massively important force in changing the game for young children. The science tells us that 85% of brain development happens before age 5, so this is a common sense investment, and one that has contributed to decades of American prosperity,” said Kate Noble, President and CEO of Growing Up New Mexico. 

    “Thanks to my experience working as a Head Start teacher in Santa Fe, I’ve seen firsthand how the Head Start Program change lives – giving our youngest leaners the solid foundation they need to succeed in school and beyond. Cutting this program would mean turning our backs on the children who need us most. This program isn’t just early education; it’s lifeblood for families who are doing their best with so little. Taking it away would break something sacred in our community.” said Deyanira Contreras, Director of Kids Campus at SFCC. 

    Alongside Heinrich and Luján, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tim Kaine (D-Minn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Angus King (I-Maine), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.). 

    The full text of the letter is here and below:

    Dear Secretary Kennedy:

    We write to express our strong opposition to the actions you have taken to directly attack and undermine the federal Head Start program. Since day one, this Administration has taken unacceptable actions to withhold and delay funding, fire Head Start staff, and gut high-quality services for children. Already this year, this Administration has withheld almost $1 billion in federal grant funding from Head Start programs, a 37 percent decrease compared to the amount of funding awarded during the same period last year. It is abundantly clear that these actions are part of a broader effort to ultimately eliminate the program altogether, as the Administration reportedly plans to do in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal. 

    Head Start provides early childhood education and comprehensive health and social services to nearly 800,000 young children every year in communities across this country, and employs about 250,000 dedicated staff. Head Start is a critical source of child care for working families, particularly in rural and Tribal communities, where Head Start programs are often the only option for high-quality child care services. HeadStart programs ensure children receive appropriate health and dental care, nutrition support, and referrals to other critical services for parents, such as job training, adult education, nutrition services, and housing support.

    You even acknowledged the value of Head Start following a recent visit to a Virginia Head Start center, where you said, “I had a very inspiring tour. I saw a devoted staff and a lot of happy children. They are getting the kind of education and socialization they need, and they are also getting a couple of meals a day.”

    However, as a result of your actions to withhold and delay funding and undermine the administration of this vital program, Head Start centers are in serious jeopardy and have already had their day to day operations impacted. Programs are increasingly worried that they will not be able to make payroll, pay rent, and remain open to serve the hundreds of thousands of children and families who depend on their services in communities across the nation.

    Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have been under attack. On January 27th, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo (M-25-13) that suddenly froze the disbursement of grant funding for federal programs and services government-wide, including Head Start. Despite the Administration’s clarification that Head Start programs would not be the target of the funding freeze, many Head Startprograms across the country were unable to draw down their grant funds through the Payment Management System (PMS) for weeks. At one point, the National Head StartAssociation reported 37 programs serving nearly 15,000 children across the country could not access their federal funding. Head Start programs operate with thin margins and on short-term budgets from HHS, and without any communication from the Administration about the status of funding, programs were forced to temporarily close or to lay off staff. In Wisconsin, the National Centers for Learning Excellence, which serves more than 200 children and their families, shut down for a week and laid off staff due to the funding freeze.

    On April 1st, you abruptly closed five of the ten regional offices that help local grantees administer Head Start programs in 22 states. This left hundreds of programs without dedicated points of contact to address mission critical issues like approving grant renewals and modifications, investigating child health and safety incidents, and providing training and technical assistance to ensure high-quality services for children. While some grantees were assigned a new program specialist, we understand many have not been receiving responses to their inquiries. This is on top of the estimated 97 Office of Head Start central office staff that were terminated due to their probationary status and the recent reduction in force. You promised “radical transparency” as Secretary, yet it is unclear how these actions will improve Head Start programs, and you and your staff refuse to respond to basic inquiries and requests for information.

    On March 14th, 2025, the Office of Head Start (OHS) notified all Head Start programs that “the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives” will not be approved and that any questions should be directed to regional offices. Programs have not received any guidance for what would be considered “DEI” but this policy is potentially in direct conflict with statutory and regulatory program requirements, such as providing culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services for English learners. Many programs cannot direct questions to regional staff, as half of regional offices were abruptly closed, and as unprecedented actions are being taken to delay and withhold funding, Head Start programs have been intentionally left with little to no guidance.

    Head Start programs are now arbitrarily required to provide justifications for each draw down of funds that is necessary to operate their programs, despite already receiving a federal grant award for these purposes. As of April 14th, Head Startprograms have reportedly received correspondence from an email address “defendthespend@hhs.gov” requiring programs to submit a “specific description of why the funds are necessary and why they are aligned to the award” before programs can have funding disbursed. It has been reported that political appointees must sign off on every draw down of funds. This creates an illusion of improving oversight but only serves to add unnecessary red tape by requiring the manual sign off on hundreds of thousands of individual actions annually across the Department based on two to three sentence justifications. Already some grantees have reported delays in receiving funds, and have reported that furloughs or closures are imminent if funds are not released. For an administration that purports to value local autonomy and efficiency in federally funded programs, your actions have achieved the exact opposite.

    Finally, Head Start grantees are still waiting on payments and grant renewals from the Office of Head Start, including programs whose grants end on April 30th, 2025. These notices should have gone out by now, yet we are concerned to hear programs report they have received little to no correspondence regarding their grant renewals. Additionally, because we started fiscal year 2025 under a short-term continuing resolution, as is usual, some grantees have only received partial funding for the first few months of the year. But with a full year funding bill in place, these grantees should have received full funding by now, yet some are reporting that they have not received the full amount of their grants and will run out of funds this month or next. On Wednesday, April 16th, the delays in Head Start funding led to the closure of Head Start centers serving more than 400 children in Sunnyside, Washington.

    The Administration has a legal and moral obligation to disburse Head Start funds to programs and to uphold the program’s promise to provide high-quality early education services to low income children and families across this country. The fiscal year 2025 appropriations act provided $12.3 billion for Head Start, the same as the fiscal year 2024 level. The Head Start Act includes an explicit formula for how appropriated funds should be allocated. There is no justifiable reason for the delay in funding we have seen over the last two months, and you have refused to offer any kind of explanation. However, this week leaked fiscal year 2026 budget documents indicated the Office of Management and Budget was directing the Department, consistent with the Administration’s proposal to eliminate Head Start in fiscal year 2026, to “ensure to the extent allowable FY2025 funds are available to close out the program.” If this explains any of the delay in awarding fiscal year 2025 funding, we want to be clear, no funds were provided in fiscal year 2025 to “close out the program,” and it would be wholly unacceptable and likely illegal if the Department tries to carry out this directive.

    Finally, the leaked budget documents provided a justification, albeit brief, for eliminating Head Start in fiscal year 2026 that makes this Administration’s priorities clear and puts the Department’s actions over the last several months in context. The Administration argues that eliminating Head Start, “is consistent with the Administration’s goals of returning education to the States and increasing parental choice.” It is shocking to see an argument that eliminating a program that provides comprehensive early childhood care and education to 800,000 children and their families would increase parental choice. It is particularly concerning to see that argument in the context of the significant delay in awarding fiscal year 2025 appropriated funds and what that indicates about the intent behind the Department’s actions. We believe it is obvious that eliminating Head Start would be detrimental to hundreds of thousands of children and families. Similarly, we believe it is obvious that delaying funding like we have seen over the last two months, forcing Head Startprograms to close, and leaving families to scramble to find quality, affordable alternatives puts the education and well-being of some of the most vulnerable young children in America at risk. In our view, that is unacceptable.

    Therefore, we urge you to immediately reinstate fired staff across all Offices of HeadStart, and cease all actions to delay the awarding and disbursement of funding to HeadStart programs across this country. 

    Please provide us with a written response to the questions below no later than 10 days from receipt:

    1. Will you reinstate the staff who administer Head Start programs and reopen the closed regional offices responsible for overseeing Head Start programs in 22 states?

    a) When is HHS going to share information on the reorganization plan for the consolidation of the regional offices?

    b) Please provide the contact information for each program specialist designated to the 22 states who lost their regional office.

    c) Who is responsible for ensuring there are no delays or lapses in funding, nor any disruptions to Head Start program operations now that these states do not have a regional office?

    2. How many employees at the Offices of Head Start have been terminated, including the five regional offices and the central office?

    a) Which officials at HHS were involved in the staffing reduction decisions for OHS and what planning, if any, was undertaken prior to these reductions? Please describe the events that unfolded and name each office that was involved in the decision. Further, please name the official(s) who approved the staffing reductions.

    3. Can you confirm that the Administration will distribute all Head Start funds appropriated by Congress to Head Start programs in FY 25, as required by the HeadStart Act?

    4. Please provide a list of all grantees with 5-year Head Start grant renewals that startbetween now and the end of the fiscal year: May 1st, June 1st, July 1st, August 1st, and September 1st.

    a) Will any funding be delayed for grantees that are due to receive their annual funding on May 1st or beyond?

    5. Why are funding awards delayed for grantees that received partial awards during the first continuing resolution for FY25?

    a) When can HHS guarantee that all funds will be awarded for partially funded Head Start programs?

    6. What is the “Tier 2” department for review that is delaying drawn down for HeadStart programs in the Payment Management System?

    a) When should programs expect to receive their funds?

    b) Please provide all communication that went to Head Start grantees on the new review process.

    7. What guidance and clarifications have been provided to Head Start grantees on DEI expenditures?

    a) How is HHS evaluating Head Start programs’ expenditures and grant awards for DEI?

    b) What justifications are being used to prohibit DEI?

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Referendum date confirmed

    Source: City of Plymouth

    A notice of referendum has today been published, confirming that the referendum on how Plymouth will be governed in the future will be held on Thursday 17 July.  

    At the referendum, those on the electoral register will be asked to have their say whether Plymouth City Council’s governance model should be changed from a Leader model to a Directly Elected Mayor.   

    This process is separate – and not related to – the ongoing discussions about Plymouth potentially joining a combined regional authority that could be led by an elected Strategic Mayor.   

    There are a number of ways to cast your vote. You can vote in person at a polling station, by post, or by appointing someone you trust to vote on your behalf, which is known as a proxy vote.   

    Registering to vote is quick and easy, it only takes five minutes and can be done online. Once registered you will be placed onto the electoral register. However, you will need to register again if you’ve changed your name, address or nationality.   

    Once registered, you can request for a postal vote application online. Having a postal vote means that a postal ballot pack containing your ballot paper will be sent to your home, so you can vote via post, avoiding the need to go to a polling station. If you’re unable to vote in person you can apply for a proxy vote and ask someone to vote on your behalf.   

    All registered voters in Plymouth will also need to show an eligible photographic ID to vote in person at a polling station.  

    Accepted forms of ID include a UK, European Economic Area (EEA) or Commonwealth passport; a full or provisional UK, EEA or Commonwealth drivers’ licence; some concessionary travel passes, such as an older person’s bus pass and a blue badge.  

    Anyone who does not have one of the accepted forms of ID can apply for free Voter Authority Certificate online or by completing a paper form which is available from the Council.   

    It is anticipated that the deadlines will be:   

    • Deadline to register to vote: 1 July 2025  
    • Deadline to apply or change a postal vote: 5pm on 2 July 2025  
    • Deadline to apply for Voter ID certificate: 5pm on 9 July 2025  
    • Deadline to apply for a proxy vote: 5pm on 9 July 2025  

    It is important to note that this is a totally separate process to work already underway to establish a strategic combined authority with directly elected mayor for the region. 

    For more information about registering to vote or applying for a postal vote or voter ID see our register to vote page.

    Referendum on how Plymouth City Council is run | PLYMOUTH.GOV.UK

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: United States Signs Agreement to Advance American Civil Nuclear Deal in Poland

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WARSAW, POLAND—U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright today joined the Westinghouse/Bechtel Consortium (WBC), Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe (PEJ) and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk for the signing of the Engineering Development Agreement (EDA) for Poland’s first AP-1000 nuclear power plant. This agreement is a follow-on to an initial contract and is part of a larger nuclear energy security deal worth tens of billions of dollars to build large-scale civil nuclear reactors in Poland. This initiative originally started during the first Trump Administration and could ultimately accommodate a total of six AP-1000s across two sites. 

    “The strong partnership between our two countries is united by a long history of steadfast friendship and shared values, and I am proud to be here to mark this significant milestone for the United States and Poland,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “This first of a kind intergovernmental agreement, which began during President Trump’s first term, will provide Poland enormous levels of energy security and create tens of thousands of Polish and American jobs. It will truly be a joint endeavor that will include not just the construction of a very large power plant that will power the Polish economy for decades to come, but also marks the start of a long-term nuclear cooperation between the United States and Poland that will result in building future reactors.”  

    The EDA is an important step for the project in Choczewo, Pomeranian Voivodeship and paves the way for the next steps of the project, which include design, sitework, regulatory and procurement activities. This Westinghouse AP-1000, already operating in the U.S., will be constructed by Bechtel as a key partner in the proposed U.S. delivery team. Project construction for the three-unit site in northeastern Poland will generate almost 40,000 well-paying U.S. manufacturing, engineering and related jobs that support the project. Actual construction is expected to begin in 2026. 

    This agreement is also a significant milestone for the U.S.-Poland strategic relationship and underscores the commitment of the United States to work with Poland and other partners in the region to advance global energy security. The cooperation between the two countries will strengthen U.S. leadership in Europe and bolster America’s position as a secure and reliable provider of civil nuclear energy. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Energy Secretary Chris Wright Delivers Keynote Remarks at the Three Seas Business Forum in Warsaw, Poland

    Source: US Department of Energy

    WARSAW, POLAND— U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright delivered keynote remarks today at the Inaugural Session of the Three Seas Business Forum. 

    Secretary Wright’s full remarks from the Three Seas Business Forum are below:

    It is a great honor to stand here before you all at the 2025 Three Seas. A truly visionary idea from 10 years ago to unite the proud Central European nations in building infrastructure and investment in pursuit of opportunity and prosperity.

    Eight years ago, President Trump addressed the Three Seas right here in Poland and I will quote his words: “We support your drive for greater prosperity and security. We applaud your initiative to expand infrastructure. And we welcome this historic opportunity to deepen our economic partnership with your region.” 

    I can’t top those words, but I can reiterate them today. The United States stands here in partnership with all of you. We seek to work with you all for much betterment via energy, economic and strategic cooperation. 

    President Trump’s agenda is simple: Prosperity at home and peace abroad. He was elected by the American people to bring back commonsense to Washington and focus on bettering the lives of our citizens and our allies. I am in a room full of allies. Thank you all for that. 

    I thank Poland for hosting this fabulous conference and for inviting me to attend. I thank Poland and its people for its steadfast alliance with the United States that began with our Revolutionary War and continues today, as evidenced by our growing cooperation in LNG and our large-scale partnership in nuclear energy that was highlighted earlier today with a signing ceremony and press conference. 

    This nuclear partnership is strategic and long-lasting. It will grow and scale as we jointly pursue expansions of nuclear deployment in Poland and other countries. I am here to celebrate this emerging nuclear partnership between the United States and Poland, made possible through the tireless efforts of President Duda and Prime Minister Tusk.

    Partnership in energy, if chosen wisely, tends to be very long lasting. The U.S. nuclear relationship with Poland will tightly bind our nations through the next century. I will come back to natural gas and nuclear at the end of my words. 

    This visit is personal to me. I love the Three Seas nations. You have faced grave geopolitical challenges throughout history and have always faced them with courageous resolve. 

    I traveled on my own to Czechoslovakia — yes, that was a country then — and Hungary in 1987. I saw a people struggling under an external yoke and stymied in their pursuit of freedom and prosperity. Yet, I also saw unbowed commitment to our universal values and a yearning for freedom. I engaged in hushed conversations with those that I met. I left with the conclusion that surely this externally imposed suppression cannot last forever. 

    Little did I realize then that it would all come crashing down only two and half years later. Amen. A fork in the road arrived and Central Europe chose freedom and prosperity. 

    As a lifelong energy entrepreneur, please allow me to be blunt regarding another fork in the road. This is a “time for choosing”, to quote the late, great President Ronald Reagan. 

    After the Global Financial Crisis 15 years ago, the major nations of Western Europe — not Central Europe — choose one side of a fork in the road and the U.S. chose the other side. On one side is energy for the sake of human flourishing. Energy that is abundant, secure, affordable and reliable. Energy that comes from innovation and choice. 

    This is the road to economic growth, advancing the interests of our citizens and securing the economic and national security of our nations. A simple realization that energy’s true purpose is to better human lives. Full stop. 

    I testified in the British House of Lords more than a decade ago, urging the U.K. to choose our side of the fork. I failed. 

    The other side of the fork deprives citizens, consumers of choice. It is top-down imposition of mandates for the energy system. This top-down imposition of enforced “climate policies” is justified as necessary to save the world from climate change. 

    Might the causation actually run in the opposite direction? Could it be instead that a desire to grow centralization and re-establish top-down control is best served by climate alarmism? Is it the chicken or the egg? I don’t know.

    But I can say that climate alarmism has clearly reduced energy freedom, and, hence, prosperity and national security across Western Europe. Let me say that again. Climate alarmism has reduced freedom, prosperity, and national security. 

    On the other hand, top-down diktats have not been successful in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. They have indeed reduced local Western European greenhouse gas emissions. Europe, however, represents only 8% of global emissions and this impoverishing energy model is unlikely to spread globally because the emissions reductions are mainly due to two highly undesirable factors: 

    First, as Germany and the U.K. have both illustrated, an expensive and unreliable energy system drives industry and economic activity out of national borders and towards other nations with more rational energy policies. Moving industry from your nation and to another nation. Is that success? I suggest it is not. 

    Second, we have seen that more expensive energy imposes on citizens an economic necessity to reduce energy consumption and shrink families spending power, which limits a nation’s citizens’ pursuit of hopes and dreams. 

    Germany has more than doubled its electricity generation capacity over the last 15 years, yet German electricity production today is 20% below where it was 15 years ago. And each unit of electricity has tripled in cost. Is that success?

    Let me illustrate my point via a macroeconomic comparison of the EU and the U.S. over the last 15 years since the fork in the road. 

    In 2010, the U.S. and the EU each represented roughly 25% of global consumption. Today, U.S. consumption has risen to 28% of global consumption and EU consumption has declined to only 18% in dollar terms. This data is from 2023, but I have not seen any recent reversal of this trend. 

    Surely many things are responsible for this dramatic divergence. It is my belief that diverging energy pathways has been the largest driver of economic outcomes. Affordable, reliable, secure energy is essential to economic prosperity and national security.

    The previous U.S. administration worked hard to move the United States onto that same fork. The fork with mandated, top-down, expensive, unreliable energy that would drive de-industrialization of America. The American people rejected this pathway after seeing the ruinous toll that lay down that road. Instead, they re-elected President Trump to bring back freedom and prosperity. 

    Before I conclude let me say a few more words about climate change. I have been engaged in the climate discussion for over 20 years, mostly in the areas of physical science and economics.

    Unfortunately, most of the climate action we hear today in the media has been in the politics and social science areas of climate change. I urge a little more focus on the science and economics. I believe that might help drive a more balanced and beneficial approach. 

    While climate change is a real physical phenomenon, nothing in the data indicates that climate change is even close to the world’s most urgent problem. In fact, the clarion conclusion from economic studies of climate change is that Net Zero 2050 is absolutely the wrong goal. Not only is it unachievable, but the blind pursuit of it will cause, is causing, far more human damage than climate change itself. 

    Over two billion people today still lack access to basic energy services like clean cooking fuels. Millions annually die from indoor air pollution from burning wood and dung indoors. More than half of humanity is still living their lives in hand washed cloths still not utilizing the enormous time-saving and women-liberating benefits of washing machines.

    Today, folks struggling to pay their bills while aspiring to live highly energized lifestyles like you and I is a far bigger global challenge than climate change. Energy access is far too important to get wrong. 

    Only a billion people live the highly energized lifestyles of the people in this room traveling to conferences, having custom controls on our temperatures, turning off our cooking stoves when we want, driving around in motorized transport or riding in motorized transport. Seven billion people only aspire to what we have. Fulfilling their energy aspirations is the energy challenge of our time. 

    For my friends tightly focused on climate change, no nation has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than the United States. While the U.S. gets a little more than 80% of our energy from hydrocarbons, Germany still gets 74%. A little difference. Not a lot. Although the difference in human opportunity through energy cost and availability is a lot. 

    It turns out to be very hard to transform energy systems. Decarbonization will likely take generations. Only time and innovation will deliver the low-carbon affordable, reliable secure energy that will gain widespread adoption.

    The two biggest “climate solutions” in the coming decades are the same as they were in the last two decades, natural gas and nuclear, for the simple reason that they work. They supply affordable, reliable, secure energy. 

    Central Europe faces a time for choosing. You all have a long history of choosing freedom and sovereignty for your citizens. 

    We warmly welcome you to join us on Team Energy Freedom and prosperity for citizens. President Trump’s agenda of prosperity at home and peace abroad is a team sport! God bless you all.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater Delivers First Antitrust Address at University of Notre Dame Law School

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    Remarks as prepared for delivery, “The Conservative Roots of America First Antitrust Enforcement”

    Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me. It is an honor to be here at Notre Dame to give my first formal address as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. I’ve had many offers to speak since I began my tenure at the Department of Justice, but it seemed appropriate that I present the conservative case for vigorous antitrust enforcement here at Notre Dame Law School. Notre Dame has a storied role in the development of American conservatism’s first principles. I hold those principles dear and, as I will discuss today, our enforcement of the antitrust laws will reflect those principles. Indeed, we seek to bring these shared principles to our work every day: they include American patriotism; textualism and adherence to precedent; and a firm commitment to law enforcement.

    I also wanted to deliver an address here in Indiana because the state’s economic history underscores the importance of those conservative first principles to the work I’m now honored to lead at the Antitrust Division. Indiana also played a role in molding the young President Benjamin Harrison into the man he would become. Although many know President Harrison as the U.S. President with the most impressive beard in American history, he was also the President who signed the Sherman Act of 1890 into law.

    But more on that in a minute. Let’s begin with some words of thanks.

    First, I am deeply grateful to President Trump for entrusting me with the responsibility to lead the Antitrust Division. When he nominated me, President Trump assailed the use of “market power to crack down on the rights of so many Americans.” I am so honored to have the chance to defend the American people’s rights at this critical juncture in our history.

    I am similarly grateful to the 78 Senators, from both sides of the aisle, who voted to confirm me in an incredible show of broad bipartisan support for vigorous antitrust enforcement.

    And I am grateful to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and all the leadership of the Department for their support and for being so welcoming and for being such strong supporters of the Antitrust Division. And, of course, I’m grateful for the team of Deputies, including my Principal Deputy Roger Alford who is here today, for joining me in this endeavor.

    My earnest thanks also go to the men and women of the Antitrust Division. My first two months in the building have confirmed that the Antitrust Division employs some of the very best of the very best. Our cases consistently pit a small army of Davids against the Goliaths of Big Law defending Big Business. Yet, as we showed in the Google Ad Tech case, our teams more often than not win the battle on behalf of the American people.

    The stakes of that fight are so high. The American people are once again facing a generation of economic and industrial change. We are adapting trade policies to put America First and undertaking deregulation that will unleash innovation in AI and other technologies3 and reshape our economy.

    But we face a choice in who will order this realignment and how. Will the American people shape tomorrow’s economy, or will others decide what gets made, where it is made, and who makes it? Will our laws be written by Congress and enforced by politically accountable appointees in the Trump Administration, or by technocrats and lobbyists elsewhere?

    Indiana has seen firsthand the consequences of getting these choices wrong for millions of Americans. If recent decades have shown us anything, it is that we need an economy that works for the American people, not the other way around. We also need public policies that afford our fellow countrymen and women the dignity they deserve as American citizens. Of course, antitrust is not a cure-all, but it can surely play an important role in building a more resilient economy going forward.

    To better understand what this future might look like we first need to look to the past. As I like to say, the past is prologue. We all know the story of the decline in manufacturing in this state. Indiana was at the heart of the United States’ thriving manufacturing industry for much of the 20th century.

    But then in the 1960s and ’70s the factories started shutting down. The Studebaker factory closed here in South Bend in 1963, and other Indiana cities experienced similar population declines as manufacturing moved overseas. It took decades for cities such as South Bend to recover, and some have still not recovered.

    Of course, change is inevitable in a dynamic and innovative economy. Economists call this creative destruction and shrug it off as merely market forces at play. But neoliberal public policy also played a role in enabling this creative destruction, and not always for the better. Policymakers in Washington, D.C. voted for free trade agreements that shipped jobs overseas; they opened up our southern border to mass migration; and they underenforced our century-old antitrust laws for several decades. In D.C., these neoliberal policies are collectively referred to as the “Washington Consensus,” and they were the foundation of our economic policy for several decades. They were born out of the optimism that followed the end of the Cold War, sometimes referred to as “the end of history.” They promoted globalization and the financialization of the U.S. economy, and they initially spurred economic growth and prosperity. But that growth left many Americans behind, which brings us to today.

    Some say that free trade and open borders result in a larger pie. But it begs the question as to the size of the slice that each community in our society received. At the same time that global labor arbitrage traded American jobs for cheap manufacturing abroad, growing profit margins diverted the economic gains for many goods from American consumers and workers to our coastal elites. Too many communities hollowed out here in Indiana and across the nation. This hollowing out in turn created the conditions for a weakened middle class, fractured families, and in some cases deaths of despair. What was good for a few powerful global corporations, it turned out, was often bad for the dynamic businesses and innovators that made us the greatest nation on earth. It was also bad for the communities in which those businesses once thrived.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said something incredibly important about all this. “Access to cheap goods,” he said, “is not the essence of the American dream.” The American Dream “is not ‘let them eat flat screens.’” Instead, he said, and I agree with this, that “The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security.”

    Antitrust law enforcement plays an indispensable role in achieving the American Dream because competitive markets enable individuals to achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. That’s the premise of free market capitalism. In free markets, the American people shape the economy toward their own flourishing by starting and growing their own business, and through their choices in markets as buyers and sellers. Competitive markets enable the American people to build the lives they want, not just as consumers and producers, but as citizens.

    That’s the main thing I want you to take away from my remarks today. People ask me what my agenda will be. I get asked this question every week—how does antitrust fit in with the realignment underway in the Republican Party?

    I tell them it’s America First Antitrust.

    America First Antitrust empowers America’s forgotten men and women to shape their own economic destinies in the free market. We will stand for America’s forgotten consumers. We will stand for America’s forgotten workers. And we will stand for the small businesses and innovators, from Little Tech, to manufacturing, to family farms, that were forgotten by our economic policies for too long.

    How will we accomplish this and what are our guiding principles? I submit we need only look to the past and to our conservative roots to find these principles. America First Antitrust roots are grounded in the Sherman Antitrust Act, but they in fact date back to our nation’s founding. Let us not forget that the Boston Tea Party was a protest not only against the British government’s taxation without representation, but also against the monopoly granted to the British East India Company.

    The Granger Movement at the end of the 19th century planted the early seeds for antitrust enforcement. It was born and raised by conservative hillbillies in the heartland in defense of their fundamental values. Finally, America First Antitrust continues the legacy of the Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, the namesake of the Sherman Act, a true economic populist who never went to college, was a self-taught engineer, and became a lawyer under the apprenticeship of his brother.

    With the remainder of my time today, I’d like to talk about the conservative values that underpin America First Antitrust. This speech is not intended to be an LLM thesis, so I’ll address three that matter most immediately to the work of the Antitrust Division:

    • First, the protection of individual liberty from both government and corporate tyranny;
    • Second, a healthy respect for textualism, originalism, and precedent grounded in a commitment to robust and fair law enforcement; and
    • Third, a healthy fear of regulation that saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.

    Let me address each principle in turn.

    I have to begin with the value that defines both conservatism and America—freedom. We are a nation born from opposition to tyranny in defense of individual liberty. As a new American, I cherish the freedom that comes from being an American citizen. As I testified at my Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year, “In our Constitutional Republic, American citizens can speak their minds, earn a living, and invent new technologies free from unwarranted interference. These freedoms are not guaranteed in so many countries around the world, so they must be cherished and defended by us all.”

    How does this bedrock American value translate into antitrust?

    Antitrust respects the moral agency of individuals by protecting their individual liberty from the tyranny of monopoly.

    Here at Notre Dame, the principle of individual moral agency is second nature. And though few were Catholic themselves, the Founders believed philosopher Thomas Aquinas when he argued that humans are imago dei—beings made in the image of God whose exercise of individual moral agency defines us. We realize our goodness and define our own flourishing through our freedom of choice. And so the Founders penned the Declaration of Independence, reaffirming that it is “self-evident” that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with the “Rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    With that, they threw off the tyranny of King George. In so doing, they rejected his grants of monopolies in the colonies as inconsistent with their natural rights. That same year – 1776 – the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published his seminal book on economics The Wealth of Nations in which he wrote “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    Ill-gotten monopolies inherently restrain human liberty by depriving individuals of choices as both consumers and producers. That is why popular opposition to the East India Company monopoly led directly to the Boston Tea Party and played an important motivating role in the Founding.

    Of course, monopolies at that point in history required the grant of a king, protected by his law. With the success of the Revolution, they largely disappeared from American life for a time. As a result, innovation flourished over the ensuing century, and many new inventions—from the cotton gin to the lightbulb and telephone—launched technological revolutions that improved the lives of all Americans.

    But the 19th century also saw the emergence of a new kind of monopoly—a private empire of oil, railroad, and agricultural robber barons.

    These private monopolies threatened liberty just as King George once had. Although the identity of the tyrant changed, the threat posed by monopoly to the American people’s endowed natural rights to liberty had not.

    The Grangers were among the first to point this out. In the 1860s, midwestern farmers—known then as grangers—began to unite against railroad and grain elevator monopolies that deprived farmers of fair, competitive returns for their crops.

    In 1873, the Grangers echoed our founding principles in their “Farmer’s Declaration of Independence.” “The history of the present railway monopoly,” the Grangers declared, “is a history of repeated injuries and oppressions, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the people of these states unequalled in any monarchy of the old world….” And so they called for government action to constrain private tyranny. This was the perspective that, in 1890, drove an Ohio Republican from the foothills of the Appalachians to draft the nation’s first federal antitrust law constraining private monopolization. Senator Sherman saw his bill as an extension of the Founders’ rejection of the tyranny of monopoly in defense of liberty. “If we will not endure a King as a political power,” Sherman said, “we should not endure a King over the production, transportation, and sale of the necessaries of life.”

    To ensure care and precision in using government power against private monopolies, the Sherman Act preserves liberty by promoting economic competition that benefits consumers, workers, inventors, and other trading partners in the free markets.

    We are now in the midst of another fundamental change in the nature of monopoly. While the Grangers and Senator Sherman saw the first emergence of privately organized monopolies, we are experiencing the emergence of new durable forms of monopoly power altogether, the likes of which the Grangers and Senator Sherman could not even begin to fathom. These monopolies are driving a Republican realignment away from big business and—under President Trump’s leadership—toward the working class that is reconnecting the party with its roots, recognizing antitrust as a critical tool in protecting individual liberty.

    In Senator Sherman’s day, a monopoly could control prices and exclude competition. Today’s online platforms can do so much more. They control not just the prices of their services, but the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication. These platforms play a critical role in our digital public square. They are key not only to the ordinary citizen’s free expression, but also to how elections are won or lost, and how our news is disseminated or not.

    This point is being made again and again by members of the new right who are driving the realignment in antitrust policy. Sohrab Ahmari points out that just as conservatives fear Tyranny.gov, they should fear Tyranny.com. Oren Cass underscores how “[c]onservativism is hugely skeptical of power.” Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Mike Lee has explained that “concentrated economic power can be just as dangerous as concentrated political power,” and other influential Senators like Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley similarly support robust antitrust enforcement aimed at tackling unchecked market power. Vice President Vance has been similarly outspoken—he has decried the “weird idea that something can’t be tyrannical if it comes through the operation of a free market” amidst an environment where companies “control the flow of information” in our society.

    I echoed this growing sentiment on the right at my confirmation hearing earlier this year when I testified that “we have grown to appreciate that personal liberty and economic liberty are closely connected; that in many ways they are two sides of the same coin. And Americans have also come to see that economic liberty often hinges on competitive markets.”

    So that’s the first principle of America First Antitrust—antitrust enforcement serves the deep-rooted conservative goal of protecting individual liberty from the tyranny of coercive monopoly power. And it serves those goals where it matters most, to protect our liberty online and to ensure that we protect Americans on pocketbook issues such as housing, healthcare, groceries, transportation, insurance, entertainment, and similar markets that directly impact their lives.

    Antitrust law enforcement should adhere to the rule of law and respect binding precedent and the original meaning of the statutory text.

    The next core conservative value underpinning our antitrust enforcement begins with the important acknowledgement that government itself can be a coercive force that threatens our liberty. This is the so-called Tyranny.gov I just talked about. Conservatives have long been skeptical of government regulation that deprives businesses of their economic freedom and makes our economy less dynamic and prosperous. We must respect originalism and the rule of law and ensure that our enforcement derives from the will of the democratically elected Congress as interpreted by the courts.

    A truly conservative approach to antitrust law starts with first principles and text. This means that antitrust agencies should enforce the laws passed by Congress, not the laws they wish Congress had passed. Perhaps most importantly, antitrust in the United States is law enforcement. It is not regulation. Congress enacted the antitrust laws as a legal regime, declined to provide any authority to regulate the details of the Sherman or Clayton Acts, and instead gave the Attorney General the duty to pursue cases before the courts as she does any other action. To recognize federal antitrust law as law enforcement in the American tradition requires a strong commitment to our Constitutional separation of powers, including Executive enforcement prerogative, statutory meaning, and judicial precedent. A faithful humility to law’s limits is the cornerstone of much conservative legal theory. If we are true to our principles, antitrust cannot be an exception.

    In the play A Man for All Seasons, Saint Thomas More discusses an England “planted thick” with the common law and says he would “give the Devil benefit of law” before accepting the lawless reality of a society without them.

    The English common law tradition of Saint Thomas More has more to do with federal antitrust enforcement than many realize. Senator Sherman designed the Sherman Act to incorporate a general body of common law in the American states and England on restraints of trade and monopoly. That is why the Act used specific terms of art from the common law, including “restraint of trade” and “monopolize,” whose original public meaning must be understood with respect to the common law that they emerged from. In so doing, the Sherman Act incorporated prohibitions on price-fixing and concerns with restraints of trade harming both workers and end consumers, among many other foundational principles of the common law. The antitrust laws must be interpreted in light of their purpose and context to codify the common law and state antitrust laws.

    Respecting the rule of law critically requires giving meaning to the statutory text and applying the binding precedents interpreting it—both old and new. Innovations in economic theory and practice may shape more recent law, but they do not render older precedent a dead letter. That is the Supreme Court’s prerogative.

    As we move forward with merger enforcement, there will be important debates about the weight we should place on older versus newer precedent as we make enforcement decisions. Those are important debates to have, and I have an open mind. But at the end of those discussions, our merger enforcement will apply our prosecutorial discretion based on the best interpretations of the laws on the books, and analysis of economic facts and data, respecting the original public meaning of the statutory text and the binding nature of Supreme Court and other relevant precedent. This is a deeply conservative position and there is nothing radical about it. To the contrary, what is radical is the notion that we should as antitrust enforcers ignore the text of the law and divorce ourselves from binding precedent, old and new alike.

    Respecting the statutory text also helps us defend ordinary Americans who need competition for their work to raise wages and improve working conditions. When Congress prohibited restraints of trade, the term was understood to include restraints on working a trade, as Justice Story explained in his commentaries on the common law. Or as Justice Kavanaugh recently said in Alston, “price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor.”

    Our recent Las Vegas nursing case is a great example. A jury convicted a Nevada man of a three-year conspiracy to fix the wages of home healthcare nurses by capping their wages. Hundreds of hard working nurses were affected, and they deserved better. Nursing work is not only important and difficult, but it is a backbone of our middle class and our communities. I am so proud of our team for standing up for those nurses—that is what America First Antitrust is all about.

    We will also stand up for workers when dominant firms impose restraints of trade, whether directly on workers or on the businesses who employ workers for them. Because the antitrust laws protect labor market competition, any conduct that harms competition for workers can violate not only the spirit but the letter of the antitrust laws.

    Antitrust law enforcement should support deregulation by enabling free market competition that prevents the need for government regulation of consolidated power.

    The last conservative value I’d like to talk about today is a preference for litigation over regulation. Conservatives abhor anticompetitive government regulations that unnecessarily sap the free markets of dynamism. Aggressive antitrust enforcement supports a competitive process that enables markets to regulate themselves, providing a bulwark against market power that often leads to regulatory intervention.

    In recent decades, we have seen markets tilt toward regulation as they became more concentrated. The poster child here is the regulatory intervention that followed the 2008 financial collapse. You all were mostly kids when the 2008 financial collapse wreaked havoc on the economy, but those of us living in D.C. saw financial institutions that were considered “too big to fail” rapidly succumb to new regulation in the wake of the collapse.

    For many, an important question that arose was less about the merits or demerits of the regulations that followed in the wake of 2008, and more about how these financial institutions became “too big to fail” in the first place. Relatedly, many questioned whether these regulations could have been avoided had these markets not become so highly concentrated. Finally, they questioned the role antitrust played in allowing this state of affairs to exist.

    This view was at the heart of the enforcement philosophy of one of my most famous predecessors as AAG, Robert Jackson who earned public acclaim as the lead Nuremberg prosecutor after World War II and as a Supreme Court associate justice. In a 1937 speech, then-AAG Jackson noted that “[t]he antitrust laws represent an effort to avoid detailed government regulation of business by keeping competition in control of prices.” Through the antitrust laws, he said, “[i]t was hoped” that the government could “confine its responsibility to seeing that a true competitive economy functions.” As Robert Jackson noted then, enforcement of the antitrust laws “is the lowest degree of government control that business can expect.” This is a limited role I am happy to take on and defend today.

    As I have analogized, antitrust is a scalpel, and regulation is a sledgehammer. Free markets often fail, and one cannot wish away monopolies and cartels with false economic theories of self-correction. The scalpel is necessary to make targeted, incisive cuts to remove the cancer of collusion and monopoly abuse. That is America First conservatives’ preferred approach to cure market ills. It imposes government obligations only on parties that violate the law, and only for the limited time necessary to restore competition. In contrast, ex ante regulations cover all parties in an industry for time immemorial, permanently distorting the free market rather than merely curing diseases that were destroying the market.

    Worse still, a system of anti-competitive regulation can be co-opted by monopolies and their lobbyists, such that the state’s power actually amplifies, rather than diminishes, corporate power, and leads to the proliferation of government regulations that serve corporate interests rather than the people and drown out new innovations. Scholars like George Stigler have explored regulatory capture and how an industry can “use the state for its purposes,” seeking regulations that operate primarily for the industry’s benefit, for example to control entry or insulate prices. Corporate lobbyists using their power to undermine free markets is ubiquitous in our system, and small but powerful groups can dominate regulatory processes at the expense of the diffuse interests of individual citizens. The alliance of Big Business and Big Government must be broken.

    To combat against such laws and regulations that stifle rather than promote competition, we have launched the Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force. Consistent with the Trump Administration’s deregulatory efforts, the Antitrust Division’s Task Force will seek to identify and eliminate laws and regulations that undermine the operation of the free market and harm consumers, workers, and businesses. We look forward to working with the FTC and with partner agencies throughout the government on these efforts.

    Let me finish where I started, with an appreciation for the economic conditions here in the Midwest and a healthy dose of humility at the challenges we face re-centering the American people in the functioning of our economy. America First Antitrust cares deeply about the average American in the heartland, and our efforts will focus on those markets that most directly affect their lives. We are here to serve all Americans and wish to move away from the deeply technocratic and elitist mindset that has imbued antitrust law and enforcement for several decades.

    I humbly submit that if a farmer in Indiana or Iowa cannot make sense of our work, the fault lies with us, not with the farmer. I may not be invited to cocktail parties in Georgetown or speaking engagements at Stanford or Cornell Law School following my remarks here today, but I will gladly trade this for coffee with Senator Grassley at Cracker Barrel or his own beloved Dairy Queen whenever he can fit me in his schedule.

    We will not restore the vitality to our long-forgotten communities overnight. It will take complementary work across many domains—from trade to antitrust to deregulatory policy and so many others.

    But with President Trump’s clear commitment to fight in all those arenas for this country’s forgotten people, and with deep-rooted conservative principles to guide us, I believe we can build a truly great future for our children.

    I look forward to that work.

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: TeraWulf Schedules Conference Call for First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    EASTON, Md., April 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — TeraWulf Inc. (Nasdaq: WULF) (“TeraWulf” or the “Company”), a leading owner and operator of vertically integrated, next-generation digital infrastructure powered by predominantly zero-carbon energy, today announced that it will hold its earnings conference call and webcast for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025 on Friday, May 9, 2025 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

    A press release detailing these results will be issued prior to the call on the same day.

    Conference Call Information

    To participate in this event, please log on or dial in approximately 5 minutes before the beginning of the call.

    Date: May 9, 2025
    Time: 8:00 a.m. ET
    Access ID: 13753593
    Webcast: https://viavid.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1717868&tp_key=6213e12bff
    Dial in: 1-877-407-0789 or 1-201-689-8562 
    Call me™: https://callme.viavid.com/viavid/?callme=true&passcode=13748140&h=true&info=company&r=true&B=6

    Participants can use the dial-in numbers listed above or click the Call me™ link for instant telephone access to the event. The Call me™ link will be available 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time.

    Replay Information

    Dial-In: (844) 512-2921 or (412) 317-6671
    Replay Expiration: Friday, May 23, 2025 at 11:59 PM ET
    Access ID: 13753593

    About TeraWulf

    TeraWulf develops, owns, and operates environmentally sustainable, next-generation data center infrastructure in the United States, specifically designed for Bitcoin mining and high-performance computing. Led by a team of seasoned energy entrepreneurs, the Company owns and operates the Lake Mariner facility situated on the expansive site of a now retired coal plant in Western New York. Currently, TeraWulf generates revenue primarily through Bitcoin mining, leveraging predominantly zero-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and hydroelectric power. Committed to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles that align with its business objectives, TeraWulf aims to deliver industry-leading economics in mining and data center operations at an industrial scale.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. Such forward-looking statements include statements concerning anticipated future events and expectations that are not historical facts. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. In addition, forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as “plan,” “believe,” “goal,” “target,” “aim,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “outlook,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “project,” “continue,” “could,” “may,” “might,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “should,” “would” and other similar words and expressions, although the absence of these words or expressions does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements are based on the current expectations and beliefs of TeraWulf’s management and are inherently subject to a number of factors, risks, uncertainties and assumptions and their potential effects. There can be no assurance that future developments will be those that have been anticipated. Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements based on a number of factors, risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, among others: (1) conditions in the cryptocurrency mining industry, including fluctuation in the market pricing of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and the economics of cryptocurrency mining, including as to variables or factors affecting the cost, efficiency and profitability of cryptocurrency mining; (2) competition among the various providers of cryptocurrency mining services; (3) changes in applicable laws, regulations and/or permits affecting TeraWulf’s operations or the industries in which it operates, including regulation regarding power generation, cryptocurrency usage and/or cryptocurrency mining, and/or regulation regarding safety, health, environmental and other matters, which could require significant expenditures; (4) the ability to implement certain business objectives and to timely and cost-effectively execute integrated projects; (5) failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and/or on acceptable terms with regard to growth strategies or operations; (6) loss of public confidence in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies and the potential for cryptocurrency market manipulation; (7) adverse geopolitical or economic conditions, including a high inflationary environment; (8) the potential of cybercrime, money-laundering, malware infections and phishing and/or loss and interference as a result of equipment malfunction or break-down, physical disaster, data security breach, computer malfunction or sabotage (and the costs associated with any of the foregoing); (9) the availability, delivery schedule and cost of equipment necessary to maintain and grow the business and operations of TeraWulf, including mining equipment and infrastructure equipment meeting the technical or other specifications required to achieve its growth strategy; (10) employment workforce factors, including the loss of key employees; (11) litigation relating to TeraWulf and/or its business; and (12) other risks and uncertainties detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Potential investors, stockholders and other readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they were made. TeraWulf does not assume any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement after it was made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law or regulation. Investors are referred to the full discussion of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and the discussion of risk factors contained in the Company’s filings with the SEC, which are available at www.sec.gov.

    Investors:
    Investors@terawulf.com

    Media:
    media@terawulf.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Five ways to make cities more resilient to climate change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul O’Hare, Lecturer in Human Geography and Urban Development, Manchester Metropolitan University

    John_T/Shutterstock

    Climate breakdown poses immense threats to global economies, societies and ecosystems. Adapting to these impacts is urgent. But many cities and countries remain chronically unprepared in what the UN calls an “adaptation gap”.

    Building climate resilience is notoriously difficult. Economic barriers limit investment in infrastructure and technology. Social inequities undermine the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt. And inconsistent policies impede coordinated efforts across sectors and at scale.

    My research looks at how cities can better cope with climate change. I have identified five ways to catalyse more effective – and ultimately more progressive – climate adaptation and resilience.

    1. Don’t just ‘bounce back’ after a crisis

    When wildfires, storms or floods hit, all too often governments prioritise rebuilding as rapidly as possible.

    Though understandable, resilience doesn’t just entail coping with the effects of climate change. Instead of “bouncing back” to a pre-shock status, those in charge of responding need to encourage “bouncing forward”, creating places that are at less risk in the first place.

    After the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011, the New Zealand authorities “built back better”, improving building codes and regulations and relocating vulnerable communities. Critics suggested reconstruction provided too much uncertainty and failed to acknowledge private property rights. But the rebuild did encourage better integration of planning policies and land use practices.



    Read more:
    ‘Build back better’ sounds great in theory, but does the government really know what it means in practice?

    Swales and sustainable urban drainage in Gorton climate resilient park, Manchester, UK.
    Paul O’Hare, CC BY-NC-ND

    2. Informed by risk

    It can be difficult to predict what the consequences of a crisis might be. Cities are complex, interconnected places. Transboundary risks – the consequences that ripple across a place – must be taken into account.

    The best climate adaptation plans recognise that vulnerability varies across places, contexts and over time. The most effective are holistic: tailored to specific locations and every aspect of society.

    Assessments must also consider both climatic and non-climatic features of risk. In 2015, in the UK, a flood affected one of Lancaster’s electrical substations, causing a city-wide power failure that took several days to rectify. In this instance, as with so many others, people had to deal not just with the direct impacts of flooding, but the ‘cascading’ or knock-on impacts of infrastructure damage.



    Read more:
    Giving rivers room to move: how rethinking flood management can benefit people and nature

    Many existing assessments have limited scope. But others do acknowledge how ageing infrastructures and pressures to develop land to accommodate ever intensifying urban populations exacerbate urban flood risk. Others too, such as the recently published Cambridge climate risk plan, detail how climate risk intersects with the range of services provided by local government.

    Systems thinking – an approach to problem-solving that views problems as part of wider, interconnected systems – can be applied to identify interdependencies with other drivers of change.

    Good risk assessments will, for example, take note of demographics, age profiles and the socio-economic circumstances of neighbourhoods, enabling targeted support for particularly vulnerable communities. This can help ensure communities and systems adapt to evolving challenges as climate change intensifies, and as society evolves over time.

    Complex though this might be, city leaders can access advice about improving risk assessments, including from the C40 network, a global coalition of 100 mayors committed to addressing climate change.

    3. Transformative action

    There is no such thing as a natural disaster. The effects of disasters including floods and earthquakes are influenced by pre-existing, often chronic, social and economic conditions such as poverty or poor housing.

    Progressive climate resilience looks beyond the immediacy of shocks, attending to the underlying root causes of vulnerability and inequality. This ensures that society is not only better prepared to withstand adverse events in the future, but thrives in the face of uncertainty.

    Progressive climate resilience therefore demands tailored responses depending on the population and place. In Bangladesh, for instance, communities are building floating gardens to grow crops during floods. These enhance food security and provide a sustainable livelihood option in flood-prone areas.

    Floating vegetable gardens in Bangladesh.
    Mostafijur Rahman Nasim/Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Climate change isn’t fair but Tony Juniper’s new book explains how a green transition could be ‘just’

    4. Collective approaches

    Effective climate resilience demands collective action. Sometimes referred to as a “whole of society” response, this entails collaboration and shared responsibility to address the multifaceted challenges posed by a changing climate.

    The most effective initiatives avoid self-protection, of people, buildings and cities alike, and consider both broader and longer-term risks. For instance, developments not at significant risk should still incorporate adaptation measures including rainwater harvesting or enhanced greening to lower a city’s climate risk profile and benefit local communities, neighbouring authorities and surrounding regions.

    So, progressive resilience is connected, comprehensive and inclusive. Solidarity is key, leveraging resources to address common challenges and fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual support.

    Solar panels on the surface of a reservoir not only provide a source of renewable energy but also provide shade and therefore help conserve water.
    Tom Wang/Shutterstock

    5. Exploiting co-benefits

    The most effective resilience projects exploit co-benefits – what the UN calls “multiple resilience dividends” – to leverage additional benefits across sectors and policies, reducing vulnerability to shocks while addressing other social and environmental challenges.

    In northern Europe, for example, moorlands can be restored to retain water helping alleviate downstream flooding, but also to capture carbon and provide vital habitats for biodiversity.

    In south-East Asia solar panels installed on reservoirs generate renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while providing shade to reduce evaporation and conserve water resources during droughts.

    In short, adaptation is obviously crucial for tackling climate change across the globe. But the real challenge is to deal with the impacts of climate change while simultaneously creating communities that are fairer, healthier, and better equipped to face any manner of future risks.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.

    – ref. Five ways to make cities more resilient to climate change – https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-make-cities-more-resilient-to-climate-change-252853

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: The UK is working to tackle the root causes of displacement, including war, instability and repression: UK statement at the UN Security Council

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Speech

    The UK is working to tackle the root causes of displacement, including war, instability and repression: UK statement at the UN Security Council

    Statement by Ambassador James Kariuki, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council briefing by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

    I want to start by underlining our wholehearted support for UNHCR and High Commissioner Grandi’s passionate leadership. You have steered the organisation through a decade of global change. 

    A decade of increasing conflict, climate shocks and instability.

    All these factors continue to push people from their homes, driving displacement ever higher. 

    In the world today, over 123 million people are forcibly displaced.

    In the face of such challenges, we must focus on solutions. 

    I will highlight three that are priority areas for the UK.  

    First, we will continue to do all we can to tackle the root causes of displacement, including war, instability, and repression. 

    We will work at all levels, including through this Council to protect the rules-based international system and promote peace. 

    We will work with international partners to tackle people smuggling and human trafficking, which exploits vulnerable people for financial gain. 

    Just this month, the UK led a successful Border-Security Summit, where we secured agreements between participating countries, to drive efforts to disrupt organised immigration crime and save lives.

    Second, we will seek solutions to regional and country-specific crises. 

    Many of which, from Ukraine to the Middle East, are the focus of this Council.

    This month, the UK hosted a conference on Sudan with humanitarian and political objectives, including support for an end to the conflict and easing the impact on the region and we were grateful for the participation of Commissioner Grandi along with other parts of the UN leadership.

    In Cox’s Bazar, we have funded UNHCR to support refugees’ access to healthcare, clean water and hygiene. 

    We will continue to advocate for safe, dignified and sustainable solutions for refugees, including at the UN Rohingya Conference in September.

    And third, we continue to push for innovative approaches to addressing displacement. 

    We support the High Commissioner’s Sustainable Responses Initiative, which supports refugee inclusion and self-reliance, and ownership of solutions by host countries. 

    We look forward to the Global Compact for Refugees meeting in December – a key moment to review progress on pledges we made in 2023, to deliver better outcomes for displaced people and host communities. 

    And we encourage others to join and sustain our collective efforts to achieve the Compact’s goals.

    In conclusion, President, to reverse the growing trend of displacement, we need to focus on solutions to the causes we have all discussed today.

    The UK is committed to working with UNHCR and other international partners and institutions to achieve this.

    Updates to this page

    Published 28 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK Resilience Academy to help secure Britain’s future with “generational upgrade” in emergency training

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    UK Resilience Academy to help secure Britain’s future with “generational upgrade” in emergency training

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden has launched the UK Resilience Academy

    • Academy to train more than 4,000 public and private sector workers in crisis skills and expertise every year, strengthening resilience in communities across the UK.
    • Biggest upgrade to resilience workers’ occupational standards in a generation to help keep the public safe as part of the Plan for Change.
    • Pat McFadden unveils Risk Vulnerability Tool to help Ministers and civil servants support vulnerable groups during a crisis and learn lessons from the Covid pandemic.

    Communities up and down the country are set to be better protected in the face of national crises from today as the government opens the UK Resilience Academy – helping to secure Britain’s future as it delivers on the Plan for Change.

    The cutting-edge centre will transform crisis training for thousands of public and private sector workers, with at least 4,000 people set to be trained at the Academy’s North Yorkshire campus every year, on courses covering everything from business continuity planning, to crowd management and crisis communications.

    The UK Resilience Academy, which will train citizens, businesses, the emergency services, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, will sit at the heart of a newly formed network of public and private sector organisations – including the College for National Security and the Defence Academy – who have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work together to improve the quality and accessibility of resilience training. 

    Today’s announcement comes as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unveils new software that will allow decision makers to identify groups that are vulnerable to particular risks, by mapping real-time crisis data alongside demographic statistics.

    The Risk Vulnerability tool is now available to 10,000 ministers and civil servants across Whitehall and the Devolved Nations. It has been developed by the National Situation Centre and the Office for National Statistics, and will feed directly into government decision making during future crises. 

    Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: 

    Our first duty is to keep people safe – and through our Plan for Change, we are creating strong and resilient communities across the country. 

    Today, we’re making a generational upgrade to crisis training for thousands of workers, and helping decision makers identify vulnerable groups in a crisis. This is all part of our plan to secure Britain’s future.

    In extreme cold weather, the software would show demographic data, such as households that rely either on gas or electricity, or areas with elderly people who would need support with food supplies, alongside near real-time data such as live weather warnings and power outages, helping decision-makers target support to those most in need. When planning for potential flooding, ministers and officials can identify areas where people have less mobility, and target these if evacuation is needed.

    This capability will strengthen the government’s approach to crisis management and better protect vulnerable people – learning from past events such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Updates to this page

    Published 28 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Investing in American leadership in quantum technology: the next frontier in innovation

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Investing in American leadership in quantum technology: the next frontier in innovation

    Artificial intelligence has captured the public imagination—and with good reason. It’s transforming how we work, create, learn, and navigate the world. But as AI carries the headlines, we also are on the cusp of another technological frontier: quantum computing. Long the domain of theory, quantum technologies are edging closer to reality, with profound implications for the world and American national competitiveness and security. As basic research and private sector advancements accelerate, a new global race is picking up steam. Now is the time for the United States and its allies to double down and invest in their strengths to claim the quantum frontier.

    Quantum technologies harness the mysterious and powerful behaviors of particles at the atomic level, offering unprecedented capabilities in computing, communication, and sensing. A single quantum computer at scale could offer more computing power than collectively exists in all of today’s computers. And like AI, quantum computing not only has the potential to transform entire sectors of our economy, but tackle previous insurmountable problems, opening pathways in science, medicine, and technology. The possibilities for chemistry, drug discovery, materials, energy, and agriculture provide promise in solving some of the defining challenges of our time.

    Microsoft’s recent quantum breakthrough adds to the breadth and pace of quantum science innovation. The development of our Majorana quantum chip leverages the unique properties of so-called “Majorana quasiparticles,” creating qubits that are more stable and less prone to decoherence. This approach promises to overcome one of the biggest challenges in quantum computing, enabling the construction of scalable and more efficient quantum systems. We believe it’s the type of advancement that can help accelerate the timeline for practical quantum applications.

    Countries around the world understand the criticality of quantum technology to their own economic competitiveness and security. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Michael Kratsios, the White House Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), rightfully emphasized that the shape of the global order “will be defined by whomever leads across AI, quantum, nuclear, and other critical and emerging technologies.” It is no surprise that over the past decade, governments around the world have poured resources into the fiercely competitive global quantum race. China, in particular, seeks to challenge American leadership in quantum through significant investments in infrastructure, research, and workforce skilling.

    The Trump administration’s long-standing leadership in quantum science

    Since the earliest days of quantum sciences, the United States has led the research and development of this technology. While most believe that the United States still holds the lead position, we cannot afford to rule out the possibility of a strategic surprise or that China may already be at parity with the United States. Simply put, the United States cannot afford to fall behind, or worse, lose the race entirely.

    The Trump administration understands well the national imperative and the risks of falling behind. During his first term, President Trump set the foundation for sustained leadership in the quantum sciences. This included the passage of the National Quantum Initiative Act in December 2018 (currently up for reauthorization), which accelerated quantum research and development. The Trump administration inaugurated the National Quantum Coordination Office (NQCO) within the OSTP. This office was empowered to oversee interagency coordination, serve as a central point of contact for federal quantum activities, and promote public outreach and early application of quantum technologies. These initiatives underscored the administration’s commitment to maintaining the American leadership and fostering quantum innovation.

    Last month, President Trump emphasized that actions during his first term “established the foundation for national quantum supremacy” and tasked newly confirmed Director Kratsios to “blaze a trail to the next frontiers of science.” Meeting the moment demands another round of decisive action—one that must be rooted in the very principles that gave rise to the past century of American primacy in the sciences.

    Harnessing America’s heritage of scientific innovation

    For the last 80 years, the United States has led the world with its scientific and technological prowess, resulting in transformative products and capabilities. This federally funded science and technology ecosystem is essentially America’s golden goose. It generates immense wealth and benefits for society by supporting scientific progress that in turn drives economic growth, extends life expectancy, and boosts national power. In many respects, it is the envy of the world.

    The United States has not always prioritized federal funding in scientific research. In fact, before World War II, the United States played a minor role in supporting research at U.S. colleges and universities. Instead, research institutions relied on philanthropic endowments or funding from private companies, often with vested interests. “Curiosity-driven” science, a cornerstone of discovery and innovation, was stymied in the process.

    This limitation changed dramatically after World War II when the federal government recognized the strategic importance of scientific research. In November 1944, thinking ahead to the end of the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Vannevar Bush, asking how the successful application of scientific knowledge to wartime problems could be carried over into peacetime—and requesting recommendations on a national policy for science. This initiative led to the creation of many of the research institutions and funding mechanisms that have driven American innovation for decades.

    For 80 years, American innovation has been driven by two critical ingredients. The first is basic research. This is based on curiosity rather than a profit motive, supported by federal funding, and pursued mostly by scientists at our universities and national labs. The second is private sector investment in product development by companies of all sizes. The United States, more than any other country, has mastered the process of bringing these together.

    This combination has led to spectacular discoveries with profound implications for our health, safety, and quality of life. Innovative cancer treatments, the laser, MRI, touchscreens, GPS, the internet, and even artificial intelligence are just a few of the successes from federal investment in research. These innovations have not only advanced science and improved lives but have also created entirely new industries and millions of jobs.

    The United States will need this extraordinary combination of resources more than ever to sustain its quantum leadership, especially as China invests more in its own quantum work.

    China’s focus on gaining quantum supremacy

    Since at least 2000, China has made quantum technology a cornerstone of its national technological strategy and has invested heavily to assert dominance in the quantum sciences. Over this time, China’s public spending on overarching R&D has grown 16-fold, placing it second in the world behind the United States for total spending. It surpassed Japan in 2009 and the combined R&D expenditures of the European Union countries over a dozen years ago, in 2013.

    The scale and focus of China’s efforts continue to accelerate. Last year alone, China announced a 10 percent increase in R&D with public reports indicating that China has increased government spending in quantum research to approximately $15 billion. This represents more than double what the European Union has pledged in quantum spending and eight times what the U.S. government previously planned to allocate. And earlier this year, China launched a government-backed venture fund worth 1 trillion yuan (approximately $138 billion) to support high-risk, long-term projects across various sectors, including quantum computing.

    In addition to state-directed quantum R&D funding, China has prioritized quantum infrastructure and domestic capabilities. The creation of the National Laboratory for Quantum Information Sciences, backed by over $1 billion, alongside a separate $10 billion investment in key projects such as the Micius satellite[1], and the Beijing–Shanghai backbone, underscores China’s ambition to dominate quantum technology—with the Chinese government hoping this institutional infrastructure will provide it with a significant advantage in developing and deploying quantum technologies at scale.[2] Moreover, during the last five years, China has methodically nationalized quantum efforts to pursue strategic, government-coordinated efforts that transition scientific breakthroughs into practical applications.[3]

    The importance of the federal research triad

    Given these coordinated efforts in China, sustained American quantum leadership will require continuing support across the federal government. Coordinated in substantial part by OSTP, American strength rests in substantial part on three federal agencies that collectively serve as the driving force of this leadership. The Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) possess the legislative authority and institutional capability to advance quantum technology research and development under existing Congressional mandates. This “research triad” provides a resilient science and technology research infrastructure as a bulwark against threats to our technological superiority. Indeed, perhaps more than any military capability, this American research triad is largely responsible for the preeminence of the United States’ global leadership over the past century.

    Each prong of this triad uniquely and collectively contributes to ensuring American technological superiority.

    For example, DOD, through the military labs and defense industrial base, provides a strong and reliable foundation for military readiness and battlefield dominance. There are several notable examples of research efforts funded by DOD for military applications that eventually found enormous civilian uses—the internet, GPS, and voice recognition are among countless other breakthrough technologies.

    DOE, through the network of national laboratories and university partnerships, provides a vital link to state and local communities across a range of national security priorities, such as maintenance of our strategic weapons (e.g., our nuclear weapons arsenal), energy security and innovation, and high-performance computing.

    And the NSF is perhaps the most robust frontline agency that supports workforce development goals in addition to promoting hugely important translational research through federal grants. Specifically, the NSF provides critical incentives for U.S. students to enter STEM fields from early education through post-graduate schooling by way of subsidizing their apprenticeships in research laboratories in colleges and institutions so they can learn from leading scientists and engineers who otherwise would not have the funds or resources to take on students.

    Three strategic actions to ensure American quantum leadership

    Winning the quantum race will require us to deploy and reinvest in our greatest American strengths: our intellect, our curiosity, and our drive to innovate and build. All these qualities are carried forward by the three great and enduring federal agencies that comprise our research triad. We will need to activate all three to succeed in the race to develop next-generation quantum technologies. More specifically, to win this race, we must deploy our research triad in three key areas: driving innovation through robust government-funded quantum research and innovation; developing quantum talent and a skilled quantum workforce; and directing efforts to secure the quantum supply chain.

    These strategic actions—described more fully below—will require DOD, DOE, and the NSF to work together to ensure our competitive edge in the face of intense global competition.

    1. Increase funding for quantum research and development

    To ensure leadership in quantum research, the U.S. government should consider prioritizing federal funding in quantum technologies through a directed approach. A survey by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a Washington-based think tank, suggested that China’s centralized funding approach might offer comparative advantages over the fragmented approach in the United States, where competing priorities can hinder systemic progress.

    To start with, the United States cannot win the quantum race without significant and sustained federally funded quantum research. While federal funding in quantum sciences more than doubled between 2019 and 2022 (from $456M in FY 2019 to $1,041M in FY2022), this funding started to decline during the last three years of the Biden Administration (from $1,041M in FY2022 to $998M in President Biden’s requested budget authority for FY25).[4] This means that the United States is not keeping pace—either with itself or with our global competitors.

    The first and most important step this Administration must take is fully funding research and grant programs in the basic and fundamental sciences across DOD, DOE national labs, and the NSF. As noted above, this research triad has been largely responsible for the sustained period of American technological leadership. We cannot make strides in the quantum race without reinvesting and building on these critical capabilities.

    Specific to the quantum sciences, Congress can begin by reauthorizing the National Quantum Initiative Act and this administration should work to ensure that all its programs are fully funded. This must include the Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes funded through the NSF, as well as the important work being led by the DOE’s National Quantum Initiative Centers. These initiatives were established through the National Quantum Initiative Act and are already demonstrating results, with each dollar of federal funding typically leveraging additional private sector investment. Expanding these proven programs would spur innovation in every region of the country while advancing American leadership in critical technologies of strategic importance.

    But even as we expand federal funding for the basic sciences and quantum research, the administration must simultaneously increase funding for government evaluation and validation programs that are focused on identifying scientific breakthroughs and supporting their continued development. DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI) is the nation’s flagship program and must be expanded as public and private sector investments in quantum technology begin to bear fruit and achieve tangible results.

    2. Promote workforce and talent development

    Winning the quantum race requires the world’s best talent. While the United States and its institutions—both public and private—have thus far been able to leverage unique, highly skilled technical talent, the state of the domestic talent pipeline is alarming and requires immediate action. At a topline level, the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce is comprised of 36.8 million people of which foreign-born individuals make up 43 percent of doctorate-level scientists and engineers. That number is likely to increase given the wide gap between the United States and global competitors at the undergraduate level. In 2000, for example, the United States awarded 900,000 undergraduate degrees in STEM fields, compared to 2 million degrees in China and 2.5 million in India.[5]

    It is therefore no surprise that, when including all education levels, India and China were the leading birthplaces of foreign-born STEM workers in the United States, accounting for 29 percent and 12 percent respectively. The good news is that many international students have chosen to stay in the United States after completing their studies, contributing to the country’s technology innovation ecosystem. For example, according to the 2024 State of U.S. Science and Engineering Report, from 2018-2021, temporary visa holders—primarily from China or India—represented 37 percent of U.S. science and engineering research doctorate recipients. Over 70 percent of these doctorate recipients expressed an intention to reside in the United States following graduation. The same report indicated that when these doctorate recipients were surveyed in 2021 across all countries of citizenship and degree fields, the 5-year stay rate for those who were on temporary visas at graduation was 71 percent and the 10-year stay rate was 65 percent.

    In the quantum fields specifically, the number of quantum job postings globally outstrips qualified talent by as much as three to one. Currently, the European Union has the highest concentration of quantum talent, followed by India, China, and then the United States.[6] The United States faces a critical shortage of quantum-ready talent, particularly as other nations invest significant resources in their own national quantum programs and quantum research capabilities. Without concerted action by the federal government to address this skilling gap, even the most advanced quantum research programs will fail to translate into practical capabilities or economic benefits.

    The Trump administration can begin by launching a series of concerted efforts to expand the domestic pipeline. One historical analog is the National Defense Education Act of 1958, enacted in response to the Sputnik challenge. The NDEA provides a useful precedent for how targeted federal investment in technical education can rapidly address strategic workforce gaps.

    For starters, comprehensive STEM education programs must be introduced at all levels of education, from primary schools to universities, to develop a robust domestic pipeline of talent. Research has shown that elementary and secondary education in mathematics and science are the foundation for entry into postsecondary STEM majors and STEM-related occupations. To develop this pipeline, the Trump administration can leverage the existing strength and reach of the NSF. NSF programs, such as those specifically focused on the quantum sciences like the National Q-12 Education Partnership, are ready-made vehicles to promote awareness of STEM and quantum technology in K-12 institutions.

    Second, the United States can provide grants for quantum research and education to encourage students to pursue careers in this field, focusing not only on traditional four-year colleges but also community colleges and vocational programs that are often entry points for many Americans pursuing higher education. In 2021, the U.S. government supported 15 percent of full-time STEM graduate students (mostly doctoral degree students), a decline from the most recent high of 21 percent in 2004. Here, again, the administration should activate and expand NSF research initiatives, including the NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) and Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) programs,[7] as well as those focused specifically on the quantum sciences such as the Next Generation Quantum Leaders Pilot Program envisioned by the CHIPS and Science Act. The National Quantum Virtual Laboratory is another promising initiative that would create shared research infrastructure and make quantum education more accessible to students and researchers across the country. Collectively, these national incentives enable the best and brightest of the world to conduct their cutting-edge research in the labs of the United States as opposed to the labs of our adversaries.

    Beyond looking to the NDEA to attract and develop the unique talent to lead the world in quantum development, the Trump administration can focus on three additional priorities.

    First, building on the themes described above, the administration should address the current talent gap in the current STEM workforce. Although there is no substitute for graduate degree programs to drive innovation in the quantum sciences, the broader quantum ecosystem would benefit greatly from an increase in the STEM workforce. To this end, the administration can again utilize the reach of the NSF to promote adult education, retraining, and professional development programs to facilitate current workers’ transition into quantum-related roles.

    Second, research universities also play a pivotal role as powerful economic engines in their communities, often ranking among the largest employers in their congressional districts while generating high-tech spin-off companies that create well-paying jobs. The presence of federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) and university-affiliated research centers (UARCS)—which are not-for-profit organizations established to meet special long-term engineering, research, development, or other analytic needs—also attract private sector investment and create innovation clusters. But most importantly, these entities lead to organic skilling initiatives to up-level the existing labor market.

    Finally, with regard to foreign talent, it’s imperative that the United States continue to attract the world’s best and brightest. This requires developing fast-track immigration pathways for highly skilled individuals with unique technical expertise in the quantum sciences, and expanding the number of visas available to employ quantum STEM PhDs trained at American institutions. This also requires the United States to promote, coordinate, and potentially fund international research initiatives with strategic allies to facilitate cross-pollination of expertise and develop the talent pool within a sphere of select, like-minded countries.

    This includes deepening ties with strategic allies to advance our collective success in the quantum race. Denmark, for example, has continued the great legacy of Niels Bohr by creating a vibrant hub for quantum innovation—one that benefits not only Denmark, but the entire Nordic region and the United States. Through a steady, long-term strategy that has brought together the government, academic, private sector, and startup communities—including multilateral institutions, such as NATO’s Deep Tech Lab-Quantum hosted at the Niels Bohr Institute—Denmark has become a hotbed for quantum talent, as well as quantum research and early commercialization. For our part, Microsoft has benefited greatly from this rich ecosystem of talent and innovation through the Microsoft Quantum Lab on the outskirts of Copenhagen, where later this year we will expand our presence by opening a new state-of-the-art quantum research center.

    3. Ensure supply chain security for quantum technologies

    Securing our leadership in quantum technology requires a reliable supply chain and onshoring of key capabilities within the United States. This is a complex task that cannot be achieved without direct action by the federal government that tightly aligns to specific strategic objectives. To that end, the Trump administration could task the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee or another board of advisors to develop a detailed national strategy and execution plan aimed at de-risking the quantum supply chain. This strategy would focus on making the supply chain more independent, increasing the availability of quantum components, lowering prices, and introducing incentives to encourage the private sector to make the necessary investments in the United States for chip fabrication and assembly.

    More specifically, the U.S. strategy to secure the quantum supply chain must include at least three critical action items. First, the federal government can take a direct role through the Departments of Commerce and Energy to promote the diversification of essential quantum components and materials. This can be achieved through government-organized long-term purchase agreements and the deployment of strategic capital for widely needed components such as dilution refrigerators, superconducting cables, amplifiers, circulators, attenuators, lasers, and fiber at frequencies relevant for quantum technologies.

    Second, the administration should work to establish specialized facilities dedicated to the fabrication, packaging, prototyping, and manufacturing of quantum systems and their essential components, such as cryogenic systems, lasers, and advanced chips. By developing, testing, and ultimately producing essential components domestically, this initiative would reduce our dependence on foreign sources and work to mitigate the risk of supply chain disruptions.

    Finally, and most importantly, it is imperative to onshore domestic manufacturing of advanced technologies tailored for quantum devices and additional capabilities needed by American companies and research organizations. This includes design and fabrication of advanced lasers and optics, amplifiers, and advanced chip design and fabrication. It also includes critical capabilities for domestic cryogenic electronics fabrication and design, advanced metrology to characterize chips for quantum computing, and advanced packaging and 3D integration for quantum components.

    The way forward

    At the start of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order to advance American leadership in artificial intelligence. President Trump should now do the same with quantum by setting national priorities that support robust funding, promote a skilled workforce, and protect supply chain security through incentivized onshoring. Taken together, these strategic actions will not only bolster our nation’s security and competitive edge against competitors and adversaries, but it will also drive innovation and economic growth at home towards a new frontier of American prosperity.

    [1] Karen Kwon, “China Reaches New Milestone in Space-Based Quantum Communications,” Scientific American, June 29, 2020, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new-milestone-in-space-based-quantum-communications.

    [2] One likely goal of these massive projects is undoubtedly to signal that the People’s Republic of China backs these investments, thereby attracting and retaining skilled professionals. According to the 2024 State of U.S. Science and Engineering Report developed, a regular report mandated by Congress, China is the top overall producer of science and engineering publications and international patents. For decades, the United States was the unparalleled leader in science and engineering doctorate awards until 2019 when we were surpassed by China. That being said, the United States remains the destination of choice for internationally mobile students, hosting 15% of all international students worldwide in 2020. National Science Board, The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024, March 2024, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243/talent-u-s-and-global-stem-education-and-labor-force.

    [3] Hodan Omaar and Martin Makaryan, How Innovative is China, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, September 2024, https://www2.itif.org/2024-chinese-quantum-innovation.pdf.

    [4] National Science and Technology Council:  Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, National Supplement to the President’s FY 2025 Budget, April 24, 2025, https://nqi.gov/supplement-fy2025-budget.

    [5] National Science Board, “The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024,” March 2024, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243/talent-u-s-and-global-stem-education-and-labor-force.

    [6] McKinsey & Company, “Quantum Technology Monitor,”  April 2023,  https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business functions/mckinsey digital/our insights/quantum technology sees record investments progress on talent gap/quantum-technology-monitor-april-2023.pdf (defining quantum talent as “[g]raduates of master’s level or equivalent in 2019 in biochemistry, chemistry, electronics and chemical engineering, information and communications technology, mathematics and statistics, and physics.”).

    [7] National Science Foundation, “NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates,” accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/reu; National Science Foundation, “NSF 24-503: Research Experiences for Teachers in Engineering and Computer Science,” accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/research-experiences-teachers-engineering-computer-science/nsf24-503/solicitation.

    Tags: AI, quantum, STEM, Technology, United States

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: AG Alan Wilson requests SLED investigation into online political fundraising platforms like ActBlueRead More

    Source: US State of South Carolina

    (COLUMBIA, S.C.) — South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has requested that the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) open a preliminary inquiry into online political fundraising platforms, including ActBlue. 

    In a letter to SLED Chief Mark Keel, Wilson asked that agents be assigned to investigate allegations involving suspicious activity on platforms such as ActBlue. Agents will work in coordination with Wilson’s office and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Creighton Waters. 

    “Nonprofit and political entities must be fully transparent to reassure the public about the integrity of our electoral process,” Wilson said. 

    This action follows a previous letter Attorney General Wilson sent on August 22, 2024, raising serious concerns about potentially fraudulent activity involving ActBlue, ActBlue Civics, and ActBlue Charities. Wilson’s office was alerted to allegations of possible “smurfing,” a money laundering tactic where large donations are disguised as multiple smaller ones, and other questionable donation practices. 

    Wilson pointed to alarming reports of individuals listed as “unemployed” or with modest occupations making implausibly large and frequent contributions through ActBlue platforms. If true, these practices could violate South Carolina’s charitable, regulatory, criminal, and campaign finance laws, and potentially federal law as well. 

    Attorney General Wilson emphasized that South Carolinians deserve full transparency to protect the integrity of elections and demanded ActBlue provide a detailed explanation of its donor verification procedures. 

    You can read the letter here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: McClellan Statement on Connolly Announcement

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (Virginia 4th District)

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) issued the following statement after Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA-11) announced he will not seek reelection:

    “For over 40 years, Representative Gerry Connolly has served his country, first as a congressional staffer and the last 30 in elected office representing his beloved Fairfax County. A passionate and pragmatic leader with a heart of gold, Gerry’s work has made countless lives better. From my days as a state legislator to now serving as his colleague in Congress, I have learned much from him and am honored to be his friend.  

    “My prayers are with Gerry, Smitty and Caitlin in this next battle.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Mattermost Wins Two Global InfoSec Awards for Incident Response and Secure Communication at RSA Conference 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Palo Alto, Calif., April 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Mattermost, Inc., the trusted leader in secure, real-time collaboration and workflow solutions for defense, intelligence, security, and critical infrastructure, today announces it is named a “Trailblazer for Incident Response” and “Cutting Edge in Secure Communications” as part of the 13th annual Global InfoSec Awards presented by Cyber Defense Magazine during the 2025 RSA Conference.

    Selected by a distinguished panel of information security experts, these accolades reinforce Mattermost’s position as the definitive leader in secure, mission-critical collaboration. They highlight the company’s proven ability to deliver resilient, real-time communication and workflow solutions that meet the stringent requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, critical infrastructure operators, and Fortune 500 enterprises operating in the world’s most demanding environments.

    “Mattermost embodies three major features we judges look for to become winners: understanding tomorrow’s threats, today, providing a cost-effective solution and innovating in unexpected ways that can help mitigate cyber risk and get one step ahead of the next breach,” said Gary S. Miliefsky, Publisher of Cyber Defense Magazine.

    “We are proud to be recognized for our unwavering commitment to strengthening cybersecurity operations and advancing mission resilience,” said Leigh Dow, Chief Marketing Officer at Mattermost. “These awards affirm the critical role Mattermost plays in enabling organizations to secure their most vital communications, maintain operational continuity, and execute with confidence—even in the most complex, high-risk environments.”

    A cutting edge solution for secure communication, the Mattermost platform delivers scalable, encrypted collaboration in air-gapped and self-hosted environments. With deployment options designed to support stringent data sovereignty and compliance needs, Mattermost empowers organizations to maintain complete control of their communications. The platform’s integrated suite of capabilities—including messaging, file sharing, calls, automation, and AI-powered support—helps teams across defense, government, utilities, financial and other organizations streamline workflows and maintain operational continuity.

    The Mattermost secure collaboration platform is also highly effective for coordinating incident response efforts in the event of service outages and cyberattacks. Mattermost’s deep integrations with SIEM, SOAR, and ticketing systems centralize incident management efforts while preserving auditability and compliance. Leveraging AI-powered triage tools, the platform streamlines response workflows with customizable, automated digital playbooks, role-based communications, and real-time alerting. By ensuring fast, secure coordination across global teams, Mattermost redefines how cybersecurity teams coordinate and execute response efforts during high stakes events.

    For more information about how Mattermost can eliminate information silos, automate workflows, and streamline incident response, please visit: https://mattermost.com/solutions/use-cases/out-of-band-incident-response/.

    About Mattermost
    Mattermost is the leading collaboration and workflow platform for mission-critical work. We serve national security, government, and critical infrastructure enterprises, from the U.S. Department of Defense, to global tech giants, to utilities, banks, and other vital services. We accelerate out-of-band incident response, DevSecOps workflow, mission operations, and self-sovereign collaboration to bolster the focus, adaptability, and resilience of the world’s most important organizations.

    Our enterprise software and single-tenant SaaS platforms are built to meet the custom needs of rigorous and complex environments while offering a secure and unrivaled collaboration experience across web, desktop, and mobile with channel-based messaging, file sharing, audio calling and screen share, with integrated tooling, workflow automation and AI assistance.

    Mattermost is developed on an open core platform vetted by the world’s leading security organizations, and co-built with over 4,000 open source project contributors who’ve provided over 30,000 code improvements towards our shared vision of accelerating the world’s mission-critical work. For more information visit mattermost.com.

    About Cyber Defense Magazine
    Cyber Defense Magazine (CDM) is the premier source of cybersecurity news and information for infosec professionals. Founded in 2012, CDM delivers expert insights, threat intelligence, and best practices from leading minds in the field. As an independent publication with a strong editorial team and an advisory board of global cybersecurity thought leaders, CDM covers everything from next-gen cyber technologies to critical vulnerabilities affecting the digital world.

    With a readership spanning CISOs, security practitioners, and enterprise IT leaders, Cyber Defense Magazine is known for its annual Global InfoSec Awards, celebrating the most innovative and forward-thinking companies in the industry. CDM is also the official media partner of the RSA Conference, where it amplifies the voices of cybersecurity pioneers through exclusive coverage, interviews, and multimedia content.

    For more information, visit www.cyberdefensemagazine.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Optery Wins Best Service for Attack Surface Management in the 13th Annual Global InfoSec Awards at RSAC 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN FRANCISCO, April 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Optery has won the Best Service for Attack Surface Management award from Cyber Defense Magazine (CDM), the industry’s leading electronic information security magazine. Now in its thirteenth year, the Global InfoSec Awards recognize cybersecurity companies with innovative and compelling solutions that push the industry forward.

    “Data broker exposure, now officially part of the enterprise attack surface, is a huge security risk for organizations,” said Paul Mander, General Manager of Optery for Business. “The recent Black Basta leaks confirmed what we’ve long known—cybercriminals actively use data broker sites for reconnaissance and targeting. Optery delivers the most comprehensive and scalable solution for finding and eliminating employee PII exposure across these sites. In doing so, we help businesses dramatically reduce their attack surface for social engineering, credential compromise, and other PII-based threats. We’re honored to be recognized by Cyber Defense Magazine in this critical category.”

    “We scoured the globe looking for cybersecurity innovators that could make a huge difference and potentially help turn the tide against the exponential growth in cyber-crime. Optery is absolutely worthy of this coveted award and consideration for deployment in your environment,” said Yan Ross, Global Editor of Cyber Defense Magazine.

    We’re thrilled to be a member of this exceptional group of winners, located here: http://www.cyberdefenseawards.com/

    Optery will be at RSAC 2025 providing live demos on how Optery’s patented technology works at booth N-6467 in the North Moscone Convention Center.

    About Optery
    Optery is the first company to offer a free report with dozens of screenshots showing where your personal information is being posted by hundreds of data brokers online, and the first to offer IT teams a completely self-service platform for finding and removing employee personal information from the web. Optery subscription plans automatically remove customers from these sites, clearing your home address, phone number, email, and other personal information from the Internet at scale. The service provides users with a proactive defense against escalating PII-based threats such as phishing and other social engineering attacks, credential compromise, identity fraud, doxing, and harassment. Optery has completed its AICPA SOC 2, Type II security attestation, and distinguishes itself with unparalleled search technology, data removal automation, visual evidence-based before-and-after reporting, data broker coverage, and API integration options. Optery was awarded “Editors’ Choice” by PCMag.com as the most outstanding product in the personal data removal category in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, received Fast Company’s Next Big Things in Tech award for security and privacy in 2023, was named winner in the Employee Privacy Protection, Attack Surface Management, and Digital Footprint Management categories of the 2024 and 2025 Cybersecurity Excellence Awards, and received the Top InfoSec Innovator Award for Attack Surface Management by Cyber Defense Magazine in 2024. Hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of businesses use Optery to prevent attacks and keep their personal information off the Internet. Learn more at https://www.optery.com/.

    About the Global InfoSec Awards
    This is Cyber Defense Magazine’s thirteenth year of honoring InfoSec innovators from around the Globe. Our submission requirements are for any startup, early stage, later stage, or public companies in the INFORMATION SECURITY (INFOSEC) space who believe they have a unique and compelling value proposition for their product or service. Learn more at www.cyberdefenseawards.com

    About the Judging
    The judges are CISSP, FMDHS, CEH, certified security professionals who voted based on their independent review of the company submitted materials on the website of each submission including but not limited to data sheets, white papers, product literature and other market variables. CDM has a flexible philosophy to find more innovative players with new and unique technologies, than the one with the most customers or money in the bank. CDM is always asking “What’s Next?” so we are looking for best of breed, next generation InfoSec solutions.

    About Cyber Defense Magazine
    Cyber Defense Magazine is the premier source of cyber security news and information for InfoSec professions in business and government. We are managed and published by and for ethical, honest, passionate information security professionals. Our mission is to share cutting-edge knowledge, real-world stories and awards on the best ideas, products, and services in the information technology industry. We deliver electronic magazines every month online for free, and special editions exclusively for the RSA Conferences. CDM is a proud member of the Cyber Defense Media Group. Learn more about us at https://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com and visit https://www.cyberdefensetv.com and https://www.cyberdefenseradio.com to see and hear some of the most informative interviews of many of these winning company executives. Join a webinar at https://www.cyberdefensewebinars.com and realize that infosec knowledge is power.

    Optery Media Inquiries
    Sara Trammell
    sara@optery.com 

    CDM Media Inquiries:
    Contact: Irene Noser, Marketing Executive
    Email: marketing@cyberdefensemagazine.com
    Toll Free (USA): 1-833-844-9468
    International: 1-646-586-9545
    Website: www.cyberdefensemagazine.com

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/0c5138f0-3846-4d00-8e79-e7bfb8fea02b

    The MIL Network –