NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: New Trump administration executive order targeting state climate laws is a quid pro quo

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    A bold “Make Polluters Pay” projection lit up Houston during CERAWeek—the fossil fuel industry’s so-called “Super Bowl”—calling out Big Oil for its central role in driving the climate crisis. The campaign demands that the industry not only be held accountable for past damage, but also be forced to fund the costs of preparing our communities for the escalating impacts of climate change. © Greenpeace

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 9, 2025)– In response to the Trump administration’s executive order directing the Department of Justice to take aim at state climate laws and lawsuits, John Noël, Greenpeace USA Deputy Climate Program Director, said: “This is a pathetic and dangerous attempt by a desperate industry to cling to power while communities suffer. From the Gulf Coast to the Los Angeles area, people are being slammed by floods, wildfires, and record heat. But instead of helping Americans, Trump is launching a political attack on states that are trying to create a livable future for their people.

    “This order isn’t about ‘freedom’ or ‘energy independence’ — it’s about Big Oil CEOs using the federal government to crush states’ rights when it aligns with their fossil fuel agenda. It’s also a convenient distraction from the economic sabotage of working families and the fossil fuel industry’s covert push for blanket immunity in Congress from all climate accountability.

    “Fossil fuel companies have profited off the backs of everyday people for far too long and we have the chance to make them pay to clean up their mess. Right now, states should be leaning into climate superfund legislation, not away from it. Nothing in this order prevents states from doing so. And the many states that are already considering these types of bills, like California, should be passing them expeditiously.”

    Contact: Katie Nelson, Greenpeace USA Senior Communications Specialist, [email protected], +1 (678) 644-1681

    Greenpeace USA is part of a global network of independent campaigning organizations that use peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace USA is committed to transforming the country’s unjust social, environmental, and economic systems from the ground up to address the climate crisis, advance racial justice, and build an economy that puts people first. Learn more at www.greenpeace.org/usa.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How the small autonomous region of Puntland found success in battling Islamic State in Somalia

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ido Levy, PhD Candidate, School of International Service, American University

    Soldiers with the Puntland Defense Forces. Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    On Feb. 24, 2025, members of the Puntland Defense Forces posed next to a sign in Arabic that proclaimed the mountain town of Sheebaab as a “province” of the Islamic State group. The town, located in Somalia’s autonomous northeastern region of Puntland, was one of numerous areas that soldiers from the regional government have taken back during Operation Hilaac, an ongoing campaign against fighters from the Islamic State in Somalia – the local branch of the terrorist network – which began in late November 2024.

    Puntland’s success in combating a growing Islamic State group presence in the northeastern region is particularly notable given the relative lack of success of the central Somali government’s confrontation with the al-Qaida-affiliated group Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahidin – more commonly known as al-Shabab – which for about two decades has waged war against federal forces.

    In contrast, security forces in the self-declared autonomous region of Puntland have, with some key support from international partners, united to repel the Islamic State group’s advance.

    The Islamic State group’s rise in Somalia

    Islamist groups have been part of Somalia’s fractured political landscape since the country’s descent into civil war in the 1980s.

    They tapped into profound local dissatisfaction with warlordism, tribalism and corruption, as well as a reaction to foreign intervention by Ethiopia, the United States and other international actors.

    Al-Shabab and later the Islamic State in Somalia are the most extreme manifestations of this trend.

    Islamic State in Somalia emerged in 2015 when a small group of al-Shabab members led by Abdulqadir Mumin – an extremist Somali preacher who previously lived in Sweden and the United Kingdom, where he acquired citizenship – pledged allegiance to then-Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Having formed as a local branch – or “province” in the group’s self conception as a global entity intent on expanding territory – Islamic State in Somalia launched its first major operation in October 2016, briefly seizing the port town of Qandala in Puntland.

    Thereafter, the group retreated to its strongholds in the mountain regions inside Puntland amid pressure from both the regional government and al-Shabab, which has cracked down on Islamic State supporters in its ranks.

    Yet from the Puntland mountains, Islamic State in Somalia grew into a key node of the terrorist group’s global network. It is now a hub for transferring funds and drawing recruits from across Africa and elsewhere via the regional coordination office it operates known as al-Karrar.

    One notable Sudan-born operative killed in a 2023 U.S. raid in Puntland, Bilal al-Sudani, was known as a key foreign fighter, facilitator and financier who developed Islamic State funding networks in South Africa and helped fund the group’s branch in Afghanistan.

    An NBC News report from mid-2024 cited U.S. officials who believed Mumin, head of Islamic State in Somalia, was acting as the network’s overall leader, or caliph, though other analysts have suggested he holds a top role close to caliph.

    In any case, Islamic State in Somalia’s ranks have increased steadily, from an estimated 200-300 fighters in 2016 to about 1,000 as of February 2025, according to reports.

    Puntland pushes back

    Puntland declared itself an autonomous region of Somalia in 1998 amid the ongoing Somali civil war and has since achieved relative stability compared with the other parts of the country, which have generally been marked by decades of sectarian division and weak central governance.

    Puntland is no stranger to divisions in a country that often hinges on clan loyalties, but it has achieved a greater degree of unity and has regularly raised security forces to defeat external threats, often with considerable foreign support.

    The dominance of a single clan, the Majeerteen, has in part likely helped facilitate this unity. In the current operations against Islamic State in Somalia, the autonomous Puntland government under President Said Abdullahi Deni has gathered several disparate regional forces under the “Puntland Defense Forces” banner, including clan militias, the Puntland Darawish – a regional paramilitary unit – and the Puntland Maritime Police Force.

    Soldiers with the Puntland Defense Forces stand at a base formerly held by the Islamic State group’s Somali affiliate in January 2025 in Puntland, Somalia.
    Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The Puntland Maritime Police Force in particular has evolved into a well-trained and experienced counterterrorism unit. Founded with United Arab Emirates money and mentored by private South African military contractors to address growing piracy, it has turned to fighting al-Shabab and Islamic State in Somalia in the mountain regions. Indeed, it played a leading role in taking Qandala from Islamic State control in 2016. It also cooperated effectively with other forces to defeat a 2016 al-Shabab attempt to attack Puntland from the sea.

    The U.S. and UAE have supported the Puntland government’s campaign. In February 2025, the U.S. launched two airstrikes on Islamic State fighters, with one on Feb. 1, 2025, killing Omani-born Ahmed Maeleninine, a key recruiter, financier and facilitator. The United States claimed another airstrike on March 25.

    The UAE has conducted airstrikes too, likely from the large UAE-funded Puntland Maritime Police Force headquarters base in the major port city of Bosaso.

    The Puntland government has claimed that through its latest operation it has advanced through 315 kilometers, clearing numerous villages and outposts in the mountains.

    On Feb. 11, 2025, The Washington Post reported that regional security forces had killed more than 150 Islamic State members, mostly foreign fighters from countries including Morocco, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, illustrating the group’s significance as a global hub for the network. In fact, one analyst counted 118 dead fighters from a single encounter in early February, indicating a possibly higher death toll. In any case, it represents heavy losses for Islamic State in Somalia, though it is not defeated yet and still numbers fighters in the hundreds.

    The risk of outside interference

    All in all, Puntland has leveraged past success fighting jihadist groups in making remarkable progress in its fight against Islamic State in Somalia.

    It shows how local and substate forces can be more effective at fighting armed nonstate groups than the federal authorities, despite limited resources.

    No doubt, support from the United States and UAE has aided Puntland’s anti-Islamic State push. But reliance on outside sources risks creating dependence on them when local forces must ultimately take ownership of the fight themselves.

    And less patient foreign supporters have been known to spoil the elite units they build. This occurred with the Puntland Security Force, a U.S.-created special forces unit that splintered during a brief withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia in 2021 and 2022.

    There are also risks that partner forces will behave badly. While the Emirati mission in Puntland – as well as in Afghanistan and Yemen – has proven effective in fighting jihadists, in Sudan it has been arguably disastrous. There, the UAE-backed Rapid Support Forces paramilitary unit helped to ignite an ongoing civil war in 2023 during which its members perpetrated alleged atrocities.

    Ultimately, it will be up to Puntlanders themselves to keep fighting. Indeed, foreign support would have little impact without effective local forces on the ground with the political will to sustain the campaign. Just as Puntland has done before, so too is it now demonstrating that it is determined to fight the threat posed by jihadist groups like Islamic State in Somalia.

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

    – ref. How the small autonomous region of Puntland found success in battling Islamic State in Somalia – https://theconversation.com/how-the-small-autonomous-region-of-puntland-found-success-in-battling-islamic-state-in-somalia-251775

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Magaziner’s Bill to Combat Transnational Repression Passes Homeland Security Committee

    Source: US Representative Seth Magaziner (RI-02)

    WASHINGTON, DC — The House Homeland Security Committee today passed U.S. Representative Seth Magaziner’s (RI-02) Strengthening State and Local Efforts to Combat Transnational Repression Act, bipartisan legislation to crack down on coercive tactics used by repressive foreign governments to silence political dissidents, activists, and journalists within the United States. 

    Rep. Magaziner, who serves as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence, sponsored the bill to train state and local law enforcement to identify and counter transnational repression by authoritarian regimes. This bill will be sent to Speaker Johnson for consideration on the House floor. 

    “Free speech is a fundamental American value, and people who come to the United States to escape repression should be able to speak out without fear,” said Rep. Seth Magaziner. “But too often, dissidents and journalists are harassed or threatened by foreign governments—even after they’ve found safety on our shores. That’s why I introduced this bipartisan bill, which just passed the full Homeland Security Committee, to ensure local law enforcement has the tools to identify and investigate transnational repression in communities across the country.”

    Rep. Magaziner’s legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a transnational repression threat training program for state, local, tribal, campus, and territorial law enforcement, including Fusion Center personnel. The specialized training will help these law enforcement officers, who are the first line of defense in our communities, counter the threat of transnational repression and protect those seeking refuge from authoritarian regimes.

    The bill advanced out of the House Homeland Security Committee as part of a bipartisan package aimed at combating transnational repression. The package includes the Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025, sponsored by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. Pfluger’s bill will establish a dedicated transnational repression working group within the Department of Homeland Security. It also includes the Law Enforcement Support and Counter Transnational Repression Act, sponsored by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colorado, which will establish a public service announcement campaign to address this threat.

    BACKGROUND

    A quarter of the world’s governments (48 states) around the world have reached beyond their borders to forcibly silence political dissidents – including on U.S. soil – according to data by Freedom House.The top ten perpetrators over the past ten years were the governments of Russia, Cambodia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkey, and China. And in 2023, Freedom House reported 125 incidents of physical transnational impression that included assassinations, abductions, assaults, detentions, and unlawful deportations. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Bergman, Slotkin, Peters To Governor Whitmer: We’re Ready to Support a State Request for Federal Assistance

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jack Bergman (MI-1)

    Today, Rep. Jack Bergman along with Senators Peters and Slotkin sent a letter to Governor Whitmer outlining their readiness to support any requests for federal aid or support that the state may request.

    Last week, a historic ice storm hit Northern Michigan and the Eastern Upper Peninsula, resulting in over 100,000 power outages and prompting Governor Whitmer to issue a State of Emergency in 12 counties.

    As of today, there are still over 35,000 people without power in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.

    In part, the legislators wrote:

    “Dear Governor Whitmer,

    “We write to offer our full support for recovery efforts following the unprecedented ice storm that recently impacted Northern Michigan and the eastern Upper Peninsula. We commend the dedication of first responders, utility crews, volunteers, and State and local officials who have been working tirelessly to restore power and ensure public safety during this difficult time.

    “We understand that the State of Michigan and local governments are actively assessing the widespread damage caused by the storm, including downed power lines, hazardous road conditions, and prolonged power outages that have left many communities vulnerable.

    You can read the full letter here.

    Background on how the process works:

    Disaster response typically follows a tiered approach. Initially, state and local agencies are responsible for mobilizing their resources to address the immediate needs of the affected areas.

    Michigan has state-level agencies such as emergency management systems and National Guard resources that are first in line to provide support to local communities – these have all been activated.

    Once state resources are exhausted or deemed insufficient and an initial damage assessment is completed, the state can then formally request federal assistance which can include financial aid, personnel, and equipment.

    This process ensures that federal resources are deployed efficiently and that the state takes the lead in addressing its own disasters first.

    In some cases, the state may not yet have reached the threshold for federal intervention, as they may still be able to manage the response with state and local resources.

    The system in its current form allows the federal response to complement state efforts and provide the necessary aid when local and state resources are overwhelmed or unable to meet the task at hand.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: IAM Union: Workers Ready to Have Voice During Tariff Pause

    Source: US GOIAM Union

    WASHINGTON, April 9, 2025 – Brian Bryant, International President of the 600,000-member IAM Union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), and David Chartrand, IAM Canadian General Vice President, issued the following statement following President Trump’s announcement on pausing most tariffs for 90 days:  

    “As the largest aerospace and defense labor union in the United States and Canada, the IAM Union believes that we should take the next 90 days to help chart a path forward that will benefit workers. We must put an end to the constant anxiety of job losses due to tariff threats between allies. We continue to offer a space for all stakeholders – government, business and labor – to come together to forge a real, comprehensive strategy to protect and grow critical manufacturing here in the United States and Canada while punishing the bad actors across the globe. Workers deserve the right to drive policy conversations about their livelihoods. Working people should be at the table, not on the menu.”   

    The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) is one of North America’s largest and most diverse industrial trade unions, representing approximately 600,000 active and retired members in the aerospace, defense, airlines, railroad, transit, healthcare, automotive, and other industries across the United States and Canada.

    goIAM.org | @IAM_Union

    Le syndicat de l’IAM : Les travailleurs et travailleuses sont prêts à se faire entendre pendant la pause tarifaire

    WASHINGTON, le 9 avril 2025 – Brian Bryant, président international du syndicat de l’IAM, qui compte 600 000 membres, et David Chartrand, vice-président général de l’IAM au Canada, ont publié la déclaration suivante à la suite de l’annonce du président Trump concernant la pause de la plupart des tarifs douaniers pendant 90 jours : 

    “En tant que plus grand syndicat de l’aérospatiale et de la défense aux États-Unis et au Canada, le syndicat de l’IAM estime que nous devrions profiter des 90 prochains jours pour aider à tracer une voie à suivre qui profitera aux travailleurs et travailleuses. Nous devons mettre fin à l’angoisse constante des pertes d’emploi dues aux menaces tarifaires entre alliés. Nous continuons à offrir un espace à toutes les parties prenantes – gouvernement, entreprises et syndicats – pour qu’elles se réunissent afin de forger une stratégie réelle et globale visant à protéger et à développer l’industrie manufacturière essentielle ici aux États-Unis et au Canada, tout en punissant les mauvais acteurs à travers le monde. Les travailleurs et travailleuses méritent d’avoir le droit de mener des discussions politiques sur leurs moyens de subsistance. Les travailleurs et travailleuses doivent être présents à la table, pas au menu”.  

    L’IAM est l’un des syndicats industriels les plus importants et les plus diversifiés d’Amérique du Nord, représentant environ 600 000 membres actifs et retraités dans les secteurs de l’aérospatiale, de la défense, des compagnies aériennes, des chemins de fer, des transports en commun, de la santé, de l’automobile et d’autres industries aux États-Unis et au Canada.

    Share and Follow:

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tripped at the first hurdle: fees-free changes could put some students off tertiary study altogether

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Ann Alabaster, PhD candidate, University of Canterbury

    skynesher/Getty Images

    The door to tertiary education will likely close for some students now changes have kicked in for the fees-free policy.

    In 2017, the Labour government introduced a fee holiday for students’ first year of academic study, or two years of training in a work-based setting. This was meant to help those who had been put off tertiary study because of the cost. It was also intended to boost the number of people going into higher education.

    But students who started university or other tertiary training in 2025 will instead have to wait until their final year for the fees holiday under a policy change by the current coalition government.

    According to Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds, the goal was to incentivise “hard working learners, businesses and tertiary providers” and help those “most in need of support to access tertiary education and training”.

    However, my research suggests the change will likely compound existing inequalities in access to tertiary education for students from low-income backgrounds.

    Through repeated in-depth interviews with students throughout their first year of study, I examined the impact of the fees free policy on their attitudes and behaviours. What I found is for students from low-income backgrounds, the policy is going to make entering study harder.

    Fees free as an entry point

    My study focused on ten students from low-income backgrounds or who were first in their family to undertake tertiary study. They were interviewed three times: on enrolment, mid-year and at the end of their first year.

    Five of the ten students said they could not have imagined beginning their studies without the first year fees-free support. One student said,

    If it had cost, I wouldn’t have gone.

    Another said,

    I don’t think I would have [studied], to be honest.

    And a third said,

    I’m definitely not one to have debt. No, I don’t think I would have [studied].

    The students in my study were also worried about the debt associated with a student loan. As of December 2024, the total student loan debt in New Zealand was around NZ$15.6 billion, with the median loan balance being $17,949.

    One student said she did not want the debt from a student loan. Another commented,

    It was always the thought that, oh, uni, there’s a massive student loan that you’re going to end up with later down the line. I don’t want to end up stuck in debt and then, you know, never be able to pay off things like that.

    A third said,

    It’s daunting because it was only recently that my mum’s paid off her student loan or her debt.

    Throughout the interviews, the students suggested other changes that could help how low-income students approached tertiary study.

    These included improving access to career education advice, assistance and mentoring in navigating the tertiary environment (including application processes), and increased health and wellbeing support.

    Despite Labour’s fees-free policy, there has been a persistent decline in the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds entering tertiary study.
    Phil Walter/Getty Images

    The participants in this study found it difficult to access help with scholarship and enrolment applications. One student commented,

    [High school staff] were very passionate about people to go to uni so it looked good on their reports, but not like helping people apply or anything like that. So it was quite one sided.

    Another student was frustrated with trying to navigate Studylink, the student loan and assistance provider. She said,

    I don’t know why [Studylink] make it so hard for everybody.

    It was difficult for low-income and first-in-family students to communicate with their families about their struggles. One student said,

    Coming from a low-income family meant I was the first in my family to attend tertiary study. It was hard to communicate to my family the struggles of tertiary education and I found it difficult to connect with them and feel like they understood my experience.

    Ongoing unequal access

    Despite the fees free policy, there has been a persistent disparity in the background of students who go on to study at university or other tertiary institutions.

    In 2021, the proportion of students undertaking tertiary study from decile one schools (those with the highest number of students from low-income backgrounds) was under 4%. The proportion from decile 10 schools was closer to 16%. (The decile system has since been replaced by the Schooling Equity Index).

    Regardless of the fees free programme’s original goals, the percentage of students accessing tertiary education from the schools with the lowest five deciles has decreased from 38% in 2017 to 28% in 2021. At the same time, the number of students from the highest five decile schools has increased from 62% to 72%.

    Improving access for students

    Research in 2019 and 2020 revealed that students who were more influenced by the fees-free policy may need extra support to complete qualifications and have a successful tertiary experience.

    The students who were more influenced by the fees-free policy were approximately 1.67 times more likely to struggle during the transition to university and show an interest in early departure within the first few weeks of study.

    My study suggests free fees in the first year allowed students from low-income families to feel they had a right to study.

    Rather than being a reward for students at the end of their study, it is more likely the shift of the fees-free year will discourage low-income students from taking the risk to commit to study at the tertiary level.

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

    – ref. Tripped at the first hurdle: fees-free changes could put some students off tertiary study altogether – https://theconversation.com/tripped-at-the-first-hurdle-fees-free-changes-could-put-some-students-off-tertiary-study-altogether-253613

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER SOUNDS ALARM ON ‘DOGE’ PLANS TO SLASH UPSTATE NY’S MANUFACTURERING FEDERAL SUPPORT PROGRAM, CUTTING MILLIONS FOR UPSTATE’S SMALL BIZ & WORKFORCE TRAINING, DEMANDS TRUMP ADMIN REVERSE CUTS AND…

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer

    NY’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers – Including NextCorps in Rochester, Center For Economic Growth & FuzeHub In Capital Region, Insyte In Western NY, And More – Rely On Fed Investment To Support Small Businesses And Create New Jobs

    Senator Says These Centers Are One Of The Best Tools To Grow Upstate’s Economy – And Is Especially Needed As We Make Major Investments Thanks To His CHIPS & Science Law- And Cutting Support Now Would Be Double Whammy For Businesses Already Reeling From Trump’s Trade War

    Schumer: Cutting Off Support For Upstate NY Businesses Is Not How You Rebuild American Manufacturing

    After the Trump administration canceled funding for Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers across America and those in Upstate NY are fearing they are next, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer today sounded the alarm to protect MEP centers that have helped hundreds of small manufacturers grow and create thousands of good-paying jobs in every region of New York. The senator said cutting off federal investment for Upstate NY manufacturing would hinder the growth the region is seeing thanks to his CHIPS & Science Law and threaten the next generation of American manufacturing and jobs across New York. Schumer called on the Trump administration to immediately reverse these cuts and keep MEP investments flowing for Upstate NY.

    “Trump and ‘DOGE’ are threatening to defund a main federal support program for growing Upstate NY manufacturing. We cannot cut off this mainstay program for helping small businesses, attracting new supply chains, and creating new jobs just as we are seeing tremendous manufacturing growth across Upstate NY thanks to my CHIPS & Science Law,” said Senator Schumer. “From Buffalo to Albany, MEP Centers have proven to be one of the best bangs for your buck investments the federal government can make helping create thousands of new good-paying jobs and billions in new investment throughout New York. These centers are how we attract new supply chains, get workers the hands-on training they need, and bring back jobs from overseas. Trump can’t be ushering in the Golden Age of American manufacturing while simultaneously decimating the program that helps American manufacturers thrive. Trump’s haphazard trade war against allies like Canada is already wreaking havoc on New York’s economy and small manufacturers. These Trump cuts to manufacturing centers will only add to that chaos. These cuts are wrong, illegal, and should be immediately reversed.”

    The Manufacturing Extension Program is authorized and appropriated by Congress, and Schumer said cutting these contracts without Congressional approval is most likely illegal. The MEP has a long track record of successfully boosting small American manufacturers in New York and across the country.

    The New York Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NY MEP) is a network of 11 independent nonprofit organizations that help smaller manufacturers grow and create jobs. As a result of the federally-funded NY MEP network, over 32,000 manufacturing jobs in New York have been created or saved between 2019 and 2023. More than 4,400 projects have been completed between NY MEP and manufacturers in every region of the state to help those companies succeed and grow, increasing their sales by $1 billion, helping reduce costs by nearly $40 million, and increasing new investments by nearly $190 million, all in FY2024 alone.

    Schumer explained the rising cost of foreign goods due to Trump’s tariffs is hurting small manufacturers that often already operate on razor-thin margins and ripping away this vital federal MEP assistance is just further insult to injury and threatens the jobs and growth of manufacturers across the state and country. According to WIRED, the U.S. Department of Commerce said they would not pay out nearly $13 million across ten MEP agreements because they were “no longer aligned with the priorities of the department,” and no clarity or certainty has been provided that the contract cuts won’t continue to happen across the country, including in New York, as the deadlines approach for contracts to be renewed.

    A breakdown of contracts in New York State can be found below:

    Recipient 

    Region

    MEP Federal Investment Per Year

    Alliance for Manufacturing and Technology

    Southern Tier

    $380,000

    Center for Economic Growth

    Capital Region

    $380,000

     CITEC

    North Country

    $380,000

    Central New York Technology Development Organization

    Central New York

    $380,000

    Insyte

    Western NY

    $560,000

    NextCorps

    Rochester-Finger Lakes

    $560,000

    Manufacturing & Technology Enterprise Center

    Hudson Valley

    $560,000

    Industrial & Technology Assistance Corporation

    New York City

    $635,000

    Stony Brook

    Long Island

    $635,000

    Mohawk Valley Community College

    Mohawk Valley

    $380,000

    FuzeHub

    Statewide

    $1,135,194

    Empire State Development

    Statewide

    $892,766
       

    $6,877,960

    Every year, the Department spends nearly $200 million annually on MEP nationally. Though states also contribute to MEP programs, it will be difficult for them to compensate for the loss of federal funding. Schumer said cutting these contracts will prevent the United States from establishing manufacturing leadership and could lead to nationwide job losses. In a letter to U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Schumer highlighted the importance of MEP in supporting the growth of small manufacturers and demanded certainty that funding for New York’s MEP centers would not be cut.

    “Saying that these critical investments are not aligned with the Department of Commerce’s priorities just doesn’t add up. Trump claims to care a lot about maintaining American manufacturing leadership, but his actions are doing the opposite. The MEP has delivered manufacturing growth in New York and America for years. We need to double down on investment in proven programs like this, not eliminate it,” Schumer added.

    Elena Garuc, Executive Director of FuzeHub, the statewide NY MEP center, said, “The New York MEP serves as an economic engine for communities across our state. Local manufacturers rely on us as a vital resource to become more competitive, adopt new technologies, and create jobs. Occasionally we even step in as a safety net to help manufacturers solve tough challenges and protect their operations. When manufacturing leaders don’t know where to turn, they turn to us. Looking out on the economic horizon, I believe the New York MEP is needed now more than ever.  We’re grateful to Senator Schumer for recognizing the economic impact we deliver and for his determined advocacy for this essential program that strengthens American manufacturing and creates good-paying local jobs.”

    “Small manufacturers are vital to the economy, driving innovation, creating high-quality jobs, and strengthening local and regional supply chains. In New York City, rising operational costs present added challenges. The success of the MEP program, both locally and nationally, lies in its ability to produce tangible results—whether by helping manufacturers adopt technologies tailored to their unique needs and resources, or by implementing strategies that enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and boost profitability,” said Kinda Younes, Executive Director of ITAC, New York City’s NY-MEP Center.

    “LIMEP, operating out of Stony Brook University,  works with the many small and medium-sized manufacturers on Long Island supplying key Department of Defense programs.  By leveraging the NIST MEP resources in cyber security, technical resources and hands-on manufacturing engineering support with Stony Brook University’s vast research capabilities, manufacturers on Long Island are able to accelerate the development and adoption of advanced technologies that support DoD programs.  Our Long Island region helps to sustain the DoD supply chain that is so vital to our nation.  LIMEP is actively working with our regional manufacturers and the Bell Flight & Textron team to make the LI Supply Chain an important spoke in the national defense industrial base and the V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Program,” said Amy Erickson, Executive Director of the Long Island Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

    “If you look at our mission statement “To grow and strengthen manufacturing in the Capital Region”, that is why we exist and have taken great pride in it for over 20 years. Many manufacturing CEO’s have to come to rely on the MEP network for assistance with finding domestic supply chain partners, workforce challenges, Industry 4.0 adoption, operational excellence… and the list goes on. Bipartisan support including that from Congressman Schumer has been a hallmark of the MEP program because by any measure we have delivered results,” said Don Weisenforth, President of Center for Economic Growth, the Capital Region’s NY-MEP center.

    “Small manufacturers have been in the forefront of Buffalo’s and Western New York’s renaissance, with NYMEP providing critical support ranging from advanced technology and cybersecurity to workforce and supply chain.  We couldn’t provide these vital services without the MEP Program funding and bipartisan support provided by our Congressional Delegation, led by Senator Schumer,” said Ben Rand, President of Insyte Consulting, Western New York’s NY-MEP center.

    “The NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is a cornerstone of American manufacturing, empowering small and mid-sized manufacturers with the tools, expertise, and resources they need to compete, grow, and innovate. These companies are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities. We are grateful for Senator Schumer’s leadership in urging the administration to restore full funding to this critical program—because investing in MEP is investing in jobs, resilience, and the future of U.S. manufacturing,” said James Senall, President of NextCorps, the Rochester/Finger Lakes Region’s NY-MEP center.

    “The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is a critical resource for small and medium-sized manufacturers, especially in Central New York. No other program has MEP’s track record, documented history of success, or independently verified impacts. CNYTDO wouldn’t be able to provide these vital services without the MEP Program funding and bipartisan support provided by our Congressional Delegation, led by Senator Schumer,” said James A. D’Agostino, Center Director of CNYTDO, Central New York’s NY-MEP center.

    “The MEP National Network is a critical driver of America’s manufacturing resurgence, directly supporting the administration’s efforts to rebuild our industrial base. The Alliance for Manufacturing & Technology, part of the NY MEP, delivers that impact in the Southern Tier of NY – helping small and mid-sized manufacturers increase productivity, adopt advanced technologies, and address workforce and supply chain challenges head-on. Cutting the MEP program would have immediate consequences, including job losses and hindered growth at a time when these businesses are critical to America’s future in manufacturing. We deeply appreciate Senator Schumer’s leadership in championing this vital program and his unwavering commitment to strengthening American manufacturing,” said Carol Miller, Executive Director of the Alliance for Manufacturing and Technology, the Southern Tier’s NY-MEP center.

    “We must continue supporting Hudson Valley manufacturers with the tools they need to compete globally—not just nationally. After more than 30 years working alongside global manufacturers, I’ve seen firsthand how aggressive and integrated their supply chains can be. If we’re serious about reshoring, we must invest in the smaller manufacturers that form the backbone of those supply chains—while also strengthening workforce, cybersecurity, and technology readiness. The MEP program is critical to this work and deserves continued bipartisan support,” said David Carter, Executive Director of MTEC, the Hudson Valley’s NY-MEP center.

    “The NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is critical to the success of Mohawk Valley Regional manufacturers. This investment and parentship has allowed for MVCC’s Advanced Institute for Manufacturing to assist more than 200 manufacturers and create and retain more than 2,900 Mohawk Valley advanced manufacturing jobs. We extend our deepest gratitude to Senator Schumer for advocating for this essential investment. This initiative underscores our dedication to innovation and community collaboration, promising a transformative influence on our workforce and students in the entire six-county region,” said Cory Albrecht, Director of Advanced Institute for Manufacturing, the Mohawk Valleys NY-MEP Center.

    “On behalf of CITEC and North Country Manufacturing I would like to thank Senator Schumer in his efforts to save the MEP system. As part of the NY MEP, CITEC can leverage the strength and resources of the entire national network to bring world class expertise to small and medium manufacturers in our remote rural region. CITEC raises the level of our expertise, of our talent, of our skills,” said Jay Ward, President and CEO of Ward Lumber in Jay, NY. “I would highly recommend CITEC for gaining skills and expertise and improving the overall operation of most any company I can think of, certainly ours.”

    Schumer and colleagues wrote a letter urging Commerce Secretary Lutnick not to cancel funding for ten MEP Centers across the country, which is creating uncertainty for all MEP centers. The Trump administration’s action cutting MEP came on April 1, one day before Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports, which tanked the stock market and raised warnings from experts of a recession.  

    Schumer led to passage of the bipartisan CHIPS & Science Law, which included $2.23 billion for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program over five years. The CHIPS & Science Law also established a pilot program of expansion awards for MEP Centers to provide services for workforce development, resiliency of domestic supply chains, and expanded support for adopting advanced technology upgrades at small and medium manufacturers. The Law also established a voluntary national supply chain database under MEP.

    Schumer’s letter to Commerce Secretary Lutnick can be found below:

    Dear Secretary Lutnick,

    We write to express our deep concern regarding the Department of Commerce’s recent decision to cancel future funding for ten National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers in Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming. This decision has raised widespread concern across the entire national network of MEP Centers, prompting fears about whether these initial cancellations are the first step in a broader effort to dismantle the program and eliminate federal funding for all 51 centers, with centers in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin expected to be notified about their status shortly. Given the MEP program’s long-standing, bipartisan support in strengthening small and medium-sized American manufacturers, we share these concerns and urge you to provide clarity and certainty on your plans for the future of the MEP program.

    According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 93% of manufacturers have fewer than 100 employees, while 75% have fewer than 20 employees. Small manufacturers rely on MEP Centers for essential support in adopting the latest advanced technologies, updating their cybersecurity, navigating supply chain challenges, and accessing workforce training—resources that are often out of reach for small businesses without this dedicated assistance. These centers drive innovation, boost productivity, and create high-quality jobs, strengthening both local economies and America’s global competitiveness. Without this critical federal support, MEP Centers—especially those with the fewest resources, and those serving rural and underserved communities—will be at the greatest risk of closure.

    Dismantling this program would not only disrupt benefits for small businesses but also undermine decades of federal investment in domestic manufacturing resilience, which Congress prioritized in the MEP program in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Congress also reauthorized the MEP program in the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. NIST was provided $175 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to fund the MEP Centers. In FY2024 alone, the MEP National Network resulted in $2.6 billion in cost savings, $15 billion in new and retained sales, $5 billion in new client investments, and over 108,000 jobs created or retained. Additionally, a report by Summit Consulting and the Upjohn Institute found that the MEP program generated a substantial economic and financial return ratio of more than 17:1 for the $175 million funding invested by the federal government in FY2023. The study also determined that MEP Center projects contributed to an overall increase of nearly 309,000 jobs across the United States.

    Given these benefits and the funding in the FY 2025 Continuing Resolution, we request a full explanation of the rationale behind this funding decision and ask that you promptly reconsider. Additionally, we urge the Department of Commerce to provide Congress with an impact assessment detailing how this decision will affect manufacturers in the affected states and regions. This action has caused tremendous uncertainty for all MEP Centers and the thousands of American manufacturing companies and their workers.  Therefore, to better understand your plans for renewals across other states in the future, we request a briefing on the way ahead for the overall MEP program prior to making any final non-renewal decisions by April 30, 2025. 

    Eliminating federal support for MEP Centers would hamper American small and medium-sized manufacturers. We urge you to take immediate action to protect the MEP program and the manufacturers that rely on it. We look forward to your response no later than April 30, 2025, and are ready to work with you to find solutions that maintain and enhance the MEP program’s ability to serve America’s manufacturing sector.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal, Deluzio, Ryan, Craig Launch Monopoly Busters Caucus

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Pat Ryan (NY-18), and Angie Craig (MN-02) are today launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus, a new caucus with nine Founding Members to fight corporate greed and promote a pro-worker, pro-consumer, and pro-small business economic agenda. 

    “Something is wrong in this country when families go to the grocery store and can’t afford milk or eggs or cereal. As people struggle under the weight of inflation, corporate profits are higher than ever,” said Jayapal. “From rent to groceries, to health care — life in America has become unaffordable. The answer to why is simple: corporate monopolies. When we take on corporate power, we can make a meaningful difference in the everyday lives of working people across the country – and we must, the American people are counting on us.”

    “Monopolies have been rigging the system, crushing competition and small businesses, and ripping off the American people for decades. And for too long, politicians in Congress have let it happen,” said Congressman Deluzio. “We’re launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus today because we think that it’s long overdue for Congress to step up to take on consolidated corporate power and to reinvigorate American capitalism with competition. It’s our duty to help take the squeeze off of America’s workers, small businesses, and consumers and pave a path back to the American Dream. It’s time to get real, patriotic competition back in our economy.” 

    “When I talk with folks in the Hudson Valley, the number one thing I hear is frustration. Frustration that even though they’re working hard and doing everything that’s asked of them, they can’t afford to provide for their family – housing, health care, gas, groceries, utilities. It’s inherently un-American that only a select few are able to live out the American dream,” said Congressman Pat Ryan. “The reason for this is clear – in every one of those industries, we’ve let monopolies drive up costs and drive down quality, all while making record breaking profits. We’re gonna fight back against these big and powerful corporations, hold the bad actors accountable, and ultimately put power back where it belongs: with the American people.”

    “As the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, I have seen firsthand how consolidation in the ag industry is squeezing our family farmers and producers – and driving up costs for consumers too,” said Rep. Craig. “At a time when the Administration is launching our country headfirst into a global trade war, it’s more important than ever that we uplift small and local businesses right here at home. I’m proud to be joining Representatives Jayapal, Ryan and Deluzio to fight consolidation, strengthen the middle class and lower costs for producers and consumers.”  

    Throughout the pandemic and the inflation that followed, there was consistent reporting of large corporations price-gouging consumers, something they could do thanks to near-monopoly consolidation in many industries. For instance, in the cases of beef, baby food, pasta, and soda, more than 80 percent of the market is controlled by four companies. Rigorous enforcement of our antitrust laws can fix this consolidation and ensure that our markets work for all people. 

    The Caucus’s founding Members represent a large swath of the ideological makeup of the Democratic Party, highlighting the unity around a strong economic prosperity message. Joining the co-chairs in founding the Caucus are Becca Balint (VT-AL), Greg Casar (TX-35), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Kristen MacDonald Rivet (MI-08), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07).

    The full livestreamed launch event can be watched here.

    Issues: Science, Technology, & Antitrust

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Main Street Matters: Governor Shapiro Visits Downtown Lancaster Businesses to Highlight His Administration’s Historic Investments in Main Streets and Small Businesses All Across Pennsylvania

    Source: US State of Pennsylvania

    April 09, 2025 – Lancaster, PA

    Main Street Matters: Governor Shapiro Visits Downtown Lancaster Businesses to Highlight His Administration’s Historic Investments in Main Streets and Small Businesses All Across Pennsylvania

    Governor Josh Shapiro visited small businesses in downtown Lancaster to highlight his Administration’s historic investments in 81 Main Street Matters projects across the Commonwealth – including more than $1.2 million for Lancaster County – to revitalize downtowns, grow local economies, and create jobs. The Governor created the Main Street Mattersprogram and secured $20 million for it in the 2024-25 bipartisan budget, fulfilling a key promise to support small businesses and strengthen communities in Pennsylvania.

    Governor Shapiro’s visit underscores his Administration’s commitment to building vibrant communities and supporting small businesses, especially as new federal tariffs threaten to raise costs for Pennsylvania families and employers.

    “Every community in our Commonwealth rural, urban, or suburban has a Main Street, and I’ve seen firsthand how critical they are to local economies. Our Main Streets are the beating hearts of towns and cities, and their success is directly tied to the small businesses that line them. That’s why my Administration has made investing in our Main Streets a priority, and we’re delivering a historic amount of support for projects across Pennsylvania,” said Governor Shapiro. “Every Main Street matters and I’ll continue bringing people together to invest in and improve our communities. While the federal government is raising taxes and costs through harmful tariffs, my Administration is cutting costs and investing in places like downtown Lancaster to ensure every business has the support it needs to thrive.”

    Speaker list:
    Lancaster Mayor Danene Sorace
    Governor Josh Shapiro
    Marshall Snively,President, Lancaster City Alliance
    Laura Haiges, Owner, BellaBoo
    Representative Ismail Smith-Wade-El

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union thought giving in to government demands would save their independence

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iveta Silova, Professor of Comparative and International Education, Arizona State University

    Columbia University has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
     Rudi Von Briel/Photodisc via Getty Images

    Many American universities, widely seen globally as beacons of academic integrity and free speech, are giving in to demands from the Trump administration, which has been targeting academia since it took office.

    In one of his first acts, President Donald Trump branded diversity, equity and inclusion programs as discriminatory. His administration also launched federal investigations into more than 50 universities, from smaller regional schools such as Grand Valley State University in Michigan and the New England College of Optometry in Massachusetts to elite private universities such as Harvard and Yale.

    Trump ramped up the pressure by threatening university research funding and targeting specific schools. In one example, the Trump administration revoked US$400 million in grants to Columbia University over its alleged failures to curb antisemitic harassment on campus. The school later agreed to most of Trump’s demands, from tightening student protest policies to placing an entire academic department under administrative oversight – though the funding remains frozen.

    Cornell, Northwestern, Princeton, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania have also recently had grants frozen. Harvard was sent a list of demands in order to keep $9 billion in federal funding.

    Now, across the United States, many universities are trying to avoid being Trump’s next target. Administrators are dismantling DEI initiatives – closing and rebranding offices, eliminating positions, revising training programs and sanitizing diversity statements – while professors are preemptively self-censoring.

    Not all institutions are complying. Some schools, such as Wesleyan, have refused to abandon their diversity principles. And organizations including the American Association of University Professors have filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive orders, arguing they violate academic freedom and the First Amendment.

    But these remain exceptions, as the broader trend leans toward institutional caution and retreat.

    As a scholar of comparative and international education, I study how academic institutions respond to authoritarian pressure – across political systems, cultural contexts and historical moments. While some universities may believe that compliance with the administration will protect their funding and independence, a few historical parallels suggest otherwise.

    Students and other Nazi supporters gather at Humboldt University in Berlin in 1933.
    AP Photo

    German universities: A lesson

    In the 1975 book “The Abuse of Learning: The Failure of German Universities,” historian Frederic Lilge chronicles how German universities, which entered the 20th century in a golden age of global intellectual influence, did not resist the Nazi regime but instead adapted to it.

    Even before seizing national power in 1933, the Nazi Party was closely monitoring German universities through nationalist student groups and sympathetic faculty, flagging professors deemed politically unreliable – particularly Jews, Marxists, liberals and pacifists.

    After Hitler took office in 1933, his regime moved swiftly to purge academic institutions of Jews and political opponents. The 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service mandated the firing of Jewish and other “non-Aryan” professors and members of the faculty deemed politically suspect.

    Soon after, professors were required to swear loyalty to Hitler, curricula were overhauled to emphasize “national defense” and “racial science” – a pseudoscientific framework used to justify antisemitism and Aryan supremacy – and entire departments were restructured to serve Nazi ideology.

    Some institutions, such as the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart, even rushed to honor Hitler with an honorary doctorate within weeks of his rise to power. He declined the offer, though the gesture signaled the university’s eagerness to align with the regime. Professional associations, such as the Association of German Universities, stayed silent, ignoring key opportunities to resist before universities lost their autonomy and became subservient to the Nazi state.

    As linguist Max Weinreich wrote in his 1999 book “Hitler’s Professors,” many academics didn’t just comply, they enabled the regime by reshaping their research. This legitimized state doctrine, helping build the intellectual framework of the regime.

    A few academics resisted and were dismissed, exiled or executed. Most did not.

    The transformation of German academia was not a slow drift but a swift and systemic overhaul. But what made Hitler’s orders stick was the eagerness of many academic leaders to comply, justify and normalize the new order. Each decision – each erased name, each revised syllabus, each closed program and department – was framed as necessary, even patriotic. Within a few years, German universities no longer served knowledge – they served power.

    It would take more than a decade after the war, through denazification, reinvestment and international reintegration, for West German universities to begin regaining their intellectual standing and academic credibility.

    Under Stalin, dissenting scholars were purged and history rewritten to glorify the Communist Party. Moscow State University opened in 1953 with murals such as this one depicting Soviet symbols.
    AP Photo/Zander Hollander

    USSR and fascist Italy suffer similar fate

    Other countries that have fallen under authoritarian regimes followed similar trajectories.

    In fascist Italy, the shift began not with violence but with a signature. In 1931, the Mussolini regime required all university professors to swear an oath of loyalty to the state. Out of more than 1,200, only 12 refused.

    Many justified their compliance by insisting the oath had no bearing on their teaching or research. But by publicly affirming loyalty and offering no organized resistance, the academic community signaled its willingness to accommodate the regime. This lack of opposition allowed the fascist government to tighten control over universities and use them to advance its ideological agenda.

    In the Soviet Union, this control was not limited to symbolic gestures – it reshaped the entire academic system.

    After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks oscillated between wanting to abolish universities as “feudal relics” and repurposing them to serve a socialist state, as historians John Connelly and Michael Grüttner explain in their book “Universities Under Dictatorship.” Ultimately, they chose the latter, remaking universities as instruments of ideological education and technical training, tightly aligned with Marxist-Leninist goals.

    Under Josef Stalin, academic survival depended less on scholarly merit than on conformity to official doctrine. Dissenting scholars were purged or exiled, history was rewritten to glorify the Communist Party, and entire disciplines such as genetics were reshaped to fit political orthodoxy.

    This model was exported across Eastern and Central Europe during the Cold War. In East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, ministries dictated curricula, Marxism-Leninism became mandatory across disciplines, and admissions were reengineered to favor students from loyalist backgrounds. In some contexts, adherents to older intellectual traditions pushed back, especially in Poland, where resistance slowed though could not prevent the imposition of ideological control.

    By the early 1950s, universities across the region had become what Connelly calls “captive institutions,” stripped of independence and recast to serve the state.

    A more recent example is Turkey, where, following the failed 2016 coup, more than 6,000 academics were dismissed, universities were shuttered and research deemed “subversive” was banned.

    History’s warning

    The Trump administration’s early and direct intervention into higher education governance echoes historical attempts to bring universities under state influence or control.

    The administration says it is doing so to eradicate “discrimatory” DEI policies and fight what it sees as antisemitism on college campuses. But by withholding federal funding, the administration is also trying to force universities into ideological conformity – by dictating whose knowledge counts but also whose presence and perspectives are permissible on campus.

    Columbia’s reaction to Trump’s demands sent a clear message: Resistance is risky, but compliance may be rewarded – though the $400 million has yet to be restored. The speed and scope of its concessions set a precedent, signaling to other universities that avoiding political fallout now may mean rewriting policies, reshaping departments and retreating from controversy, perhaps before anyone even asks.

    The Trump administration has already moved on to other universities, including the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender policies, Princeton for its climate programs and Harvard over alleged antisemitism. The question is which school is next.

    The Department of Education has launched investigations into over 50 institutions, accusing them of using “racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.” How these institutions choose to respond may determine whether higher education remains a space for open inquiry.

    The pressure to conform is not just financial – it is also cultural. Faculty at some institutions are being advised not to use “DEI” in emails and public communication, with warnings to not be a target. Academics are removing pronouns from their email signatures and asking their students to comply, too. I’ve been on the receiving end of those warnings, and so have my counterparts at other institutions. And students on visas are being warned not to travel outside the U.S. after several were deported or denied reentry due to alleged involvement in protests.

    Meanwhile, people inside and outside academia are combing websites, syllabi, presentations and public writing in search of what they consider ideological infractions. This type of peer surveillance can reward silence, incentivize erasure and turn institutions against their own.

    When universities start regulating not just what they say but what they teach, support and stand for – driven by fear rather than principle – they are no longer just reacting to political threats, they are internalizing them. And as history has shown, that may mark the beginning of the end of their academic independence.

    This article does not represent the views of Arizona State University.

    – ref. Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union thought giving in to government demands would save their independence – https://theconversation.com/universities-in-nazi-germany-and-the-soviet-union-thought-giving-in-to-government-demands-would-save-their-independence-252888

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court’s decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rebecca Hamlin, Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

    A prison officer guards a gate at the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, where hundreds of migrants from the United States were deported by the Trump administration. Alex Pena/Anadolu via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump has claimed victory at the Supreme Court in his campaign to deport Venezuelan migrants accused by the government of being part of a foreign terrorist organization.

    “The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump posted on April 7, 2025, calling it, “A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”

    A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court had just overruled a lower court that had temporarily barred the deportations, deciding the U.S. could move ahead with its plans to send those Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

    Eight minutes after Trump’s post, the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, three advocacy groups that represented the Venezuelan nationals in the case, also claimed the decision was a win.

    In a press release, lawyers from these organizations said that the case was “an important victory” in which the court determined that the “Trump administration acted unlawfully when it removed people from this nation with no process.”

    Can both sides legitimately say they won a Supreme Court victory?

    As professors of legal studies, we study the Supreme Court, including how the court approaches cases involving immigration law and presidential power.

    Here’s why both sides are claiming a win in the case known as Trump v. J.G.G., what the court’s opinion actually said, and what you can take away from it.

    The Supreme Court decision lifted the temporary restraining order blocking the deportations imposed by James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
    Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

    Why both sides are claiming victory

    The complexity of the court’s per curiam opinion – an unsigned opinion of a majority of the court – allows the Trump administration and the ACLU to view the ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. from different perspectives.

    This has led them both to claim victory.

    Trump sees the case as a win because the justices vacated a lower court decision that had temporarily barred the deportation of the Venezuelans. This means that the federal government was victorious in the case: His administration does not have to immediately stop deporting Venezuelan nationals.

    At the same time, the ACLU claims the case is a victory for them because the Supreme Court’s opinion said that the government must give people the opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act – which the government had not done. The Venezuelans’ right to due process was one of the key arguments advanced by the ACLU and its partners.

    On April 9, judges in New York and Texas agreed, just two days after the Supreme Court’s decision, temporarily halting the deportation of five Venezuelans until the government can clarify what type of notice it will be giving to people it intends to deport.

    Eventually, the Supreme Court will need to speak definitively about whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport those it alleges to be part of a foreign terrorist organization. The court has not yet addressed that issue.

    This means the court will have to deal with some tricky questions down the road. These include whether a drug cartel can be said to be engaging in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” into the United States, which the Alien Enemies Act requires if it is to be invoked. Another issue is the extent to which the Alien Enemies Act can be used when Congress hasn’t declared war.

    And a big unanswered question is whether the Supreme Court, or any court, should even answer these questions at all. The political questions doctrine, which dates to 1803, is a principle saying that courts should avoid tackling thorny political questions that are best left to Congress or the president.

    Venezuelans deported from the U.S. sit aboard the plane as they arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on March 28, 2025.
    Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images

    What the court decided and what it means for noncitizens’ rights

    The court’s brief opinion, to which five members signed on, repeats the very basic constitutional premise that noncitizens are entitled to due process of law, even as they are being removed from the United States. Most significantly, due process includes the ability to protest their deportations before a court of law.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasized the idea that the disagreement between the majority and the dissents is not about whether the noncitizens should have the opportunity to challenge their removal; all nine justices agree they have that right. Rather, Kavanaugh said, the justices disagreed on the question of venue, meaning the location in which these challenges should occur.

    Kavanaugh’s focus on venue obscures the fact that what the justices granted to potential deportees is a significantly less robust type of judicial review than the one they were asking for.

    The Venezuelans were challenging their removal as a class, because Trump had declared in a presidential proclamation that all Venezuelans over the age of 14 who were believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua cartel “are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal.”

    The Supreme Court majority made a group-based approach much more difficult in its April 7 ruling. It allowed for only individual, case-by-case appeals in which each potential deportee must retain legal counsel, file what’s known as a habeas corpus petition challenging their detention, and then try to convince a judge in the district where they are being held that they are not a member of Tren de Aragua in order to prevent their removal.

    For most detainees, that would mean filing a petition in the Southern District of Texas, in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the most conservative federal circuit in the country.

    Unless more courts step in to prevent it, the impact of the decision will be more removals to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, perhaps of people who are not actually gang members, or even Venezuelan. This has already happened in the previous round of removals under this program.

    Further, at least 200 people have already been flown out of the U.S. to CECOT. Because they’ve been accused of no crime in El Salvador, they have no right to due process or legal counsel there, and no trial date set where they might prove their innocence. A recent CBS exposé also found that three-quarters of them had no criminal record in the United States either.

    In the meantime, there is a separate but related case of a man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador, despite having legal protection in the U.S. preventing his removal to his home country of El Salvador. The Trump administration is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that when it makes an error in the process of carrying out these removals, it does not have to correct it.

    Not all due process is created equal. The court’s April 7 decision allowing the bare minimum process protecting people being removed makes errors more likely and thus raises the stakes for the outcome of the Abrego Garcia case tremendously.

    Many parties have claimed victory in the Trump v. J.G.G. decision, but one thing is clear: It was a defeat for the rights of noncitizens in the United States.

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

    – ref. Supreme Court’s decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-decision-on-deportations-gave-both-the-trump-administration-and-aclu-reasons-to-claim-a-victory-but-noncitizens-clearly-lost-254153

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Merkley Slam OPM for Failing to Provide Health Care Benefits to Reinstated Federal Workers

    US Senate News:

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

    April 09, 2025

    Senators: “This situation is not only unjust but represents a fundamental failure to uphold the obligations owed to the dedicated public servants who serve their country with integrity.”

    Washington D.C.—U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley today demanded the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) address its ongoing failure to provide federal health benefits to reinstated federal employees, despite continued paycheck deductions toward insurance premiums.  

    In a letter to OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell, the senators wrote, “This issue has directly impacted Oregonians working at government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the VA Health System – individuals who committed their careers to public service. We have heard from constituents who, during this lapse in coverage, required life-saving surgeries for serious illnesses such as cancer but were left without the health insurance necessary to afford those procedures.”

    “Many of these employees, after being wrongfully terminated, have now returned to their positions only to find that they cannot access the health coverage they have paid for,” the lawmakers continued. “To reinstate these employees without providing access to the health care they’ve earned is misleading, and detrimental to the health of these employees and their families. Some have already incurred significant out-of-pocket medical expenses—amounting to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars—due to a lapse in coverage that should never have occurred. This undue financial and emotional strain is entirely preventable and must be rectified without delay.”

    The full letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sens. Johnson, Grassley Release Additional Arctic Frost Records Detailing Sweeping Anti-Trump Investigation

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson

    WASHINGTON – On Monday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed up on their oversight of the FBI’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, which formed the basis of Jack Smith’s elector case against President Donald Trump.

    Newly-disclosed FBI emails provided by legally protected whistleblowers show:

    1. Officials in the Biden White House, including then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su, personally assisted the FBI in securing the government cell phones of President Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence. The cell phones were acquired before Trump was formally added as a subject of the investigation. 
    2. Prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. – including U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom, who later joined Jack Smith’s team as a main attorney – coordinated extensively with FBI agents in the Washington Field Office to plan, approve and execute Arctic Frost.
    3. Further evidence anti-Trump FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Timothy Thibault played a central role in opening and advancing the Arctic Frost investigation, despite other agents’ concerns that the evidence only supported a limited preliminary investigation.

    In addition to publicizing these records, the chairmen are reiterating their request for Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel to produce all DOJ and FBI records regarding the Arctic Frost investigation, with emphasis on communications between and among the FBI and Biden White House officials. 

    The full text of the letter and exhibits can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Senate Democratic Caucus Send Letter Demanding Trump Rescind Illegal Executive Order Threatening Federal Employee Collective Bargaining Agreements

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Alsobrooks, Schumer, Kaine, and Warner and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus this week in urging President Trump to rescind his March 27 executive order to end collective bargaining agreements between public employee unions and dozens of federal agencies and bureaus. In their letter, the senators blasted the move as a “gross overreach” of presidential authority, asserting that the executive order is a clear attempt to gut the federal merit-based civil service and implement a system of political cronyism. They stressed that the order poses a grave threat to the ability of over 1 million federal workers to carry out their missions and deliver important services for the American people—and should be rescinded immediately.

    “We write today in outrage over your recent executive order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs… This order is an insult to the hardworking public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people,” the senators began.

    “The executive order effectively classifies two thirds of the federal workforce as having national security missions, a blatant misuse of a limited authority intended to provide operational flexibility to address legitimate security needs,” they continued. “There is no evidence that the long-standing collective bargaining agreements at these agencies have jeopardized our nation’s security in any way; to the contrary, the protection collective bargaining has provided for employees allows them to conduct their work on behalf of the American people—including blowing the whistle on fraud or abuse—without political interference.”

    “This Administration clearly does not have even a basic understanding of the legally binding nature of federal collective bargaining agreements and is actively trying to bend the law to undermine protections for federal civil servants. We urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order so that our dedicated public servants can continue to work on behalf of the American public without fear for their job or political retribution,” the senators concluded.

    The senators’ letter is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

    A copy of the letter is available here and below.

    Dear President Trump: 

    We write today in outrage over your recent executive order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, a gross overreach of the authority granted in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). 

    This order is an insult to the hardworking public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people. They care for our veterans, deliver disaster assistance, prevent wildfires, help farmers improve crop yields, manage health benefits for 9/11 first responders, research treatments and cures for diseases, keep air travel safe, process tax returns, staff our national parks and much, much more. Nearly one third of these dedicated civil servants are veterans seeking to continue their service to our country out of uniform.  

    The executive order effectively classifies two thirds of the federal workforce as having national security missions, a blatant misuse of a limited authority intended to provide operational flexibility to address legitimate security needs. The national security exemption has existed for nearly 50 years and has been used only sparingly by Republican and Democratic Administrations—including during your first term—to exclude federal offices with an unquestionable core function in intelligence, counterintelligence, or national security. There is no evidence that the long-standing collective bargaining agreements at these agencies have jeopardized our nation’s security in any way; to the contrary, the protection collective bargaining has provided for employees allows them to conduct their work on behalf of the American people—including blowing the whistle on fraud or abuse—without political interference. 

    Federal employees’ collective bargaining agreements are critical to ensuring they continue to serve the American people with the peace of mind that comes with being protected from unfair labor practices. Unlike in the private sector, federal employee unions in most cases cannot negotiate pay or benefits, which are set by Congress, and they are legally prohibited from striking. The federal collective bargaining agreements do, however, protect federal employees from illegal firings, retaliation, and discrimination. They also promote resources for whistleblowers and veterans. These federal union contracts give employees in the civil service protections from retaliation so they can serve the American people fairly and effectively without partisan political interference.  

    This executive order, which ruthlessly strips collective bargaining agreements for over one million federal workers, is the most recent attack your Administration has levied against our merit-based civil service in the effort to cut the workforce and replace them with political cronies. While the CSRA does give the president the authority to limit collective bargaining agreements due to national security concerns, the executive order’s direction to terminate mass swaths of federal employee collective bargaining agreements is clearly intended to broadly dismantle the CSRA, which is specifically designed to grant federal employees the right to collective bargaining as a means to resolve workplace issues while maintaining the smooth functioning of government operations.  

    When the Secretary of Labor testified in February in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Members of Congress asked her both in-person and through questions for the record whether she and the Administration would commit to honoring all legally binding collective bargaining agreements signed by federal agencies and labor unions, and whether federal employees have the right to organize and collectively bargain without fear of retaliation. The Secretary answered, “if confirmed, I will follow the law and work with the experts at the Department to understand the collective bargaining process at the Department and the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreements in place.” This Administration clearly does not have even a basic understanding of the legally binding nature of federal collective bargaining agreements and is actively trying to bend the law to undermine protections for federal civil servants.  

    We urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order so that our dedicated public servants can continue to work on behalf of the American public without fear for their job or political retribution.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: B.C. makes heat pumps more affordable for people with low incomes

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    The Province is making electric heat pumps more affordable for low- and moderate-income households, including renters and those who live in multi-unit residential buildings.

    “Every British Columbian deserves reliable, affordable, and clean heating and cooling. Since our government started providing incentives for people to make the switch to heat pumps, we’ve seen a huge uptake across the province, but cost is still a barrier for many,” said Adrian Dix, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. “That’s why we’re prioritizing funding to make clean-energy solutions and year-round comfort accessible to British Columbians who need them most, including for owners and renters who live in multi-unit buildings.”

    The CleanBC Energy Savings Program, launched in June 2024, is funded through the Province and leverages contributions from BC Hydro and the federal government to support greater access to home energy retrofits for low- to moderate-income households, including renters. The successful program, which supports the installation of affordable heat pumps for income-qualified, single-family homes, will expand to include individual suites in multi-unit residential buildings starting mid-2025.

    With $50 million in each of the next two fiscal years – 2025-26 and 2026-27 – the Province plans to deliver as many as 8,300 new heat pump rebates to British Columbians. Households in individual suites in multi-unit residential buildings could be eligible for up to $5,500 for a ductless mini-split heat pump. In addition, the Province will partner with BC Hydro and FortisBC to expand their Energy Conservation Assistance Program to offer heat-pump installations to the lowest-income households in single-family homes and individual suites.

    “Heat pumps provide year-round comfort with efficient cooling in the summer and heat in the winter, and they can be up to 300% more efficient than electric baseboard heating,” said Chris O’Riley, president and CEO, BC Hydro. “We are pleased the Province will partner with BC Hydro and FortisBC to expand their Energy Conservation Assistance Program as we work to ensure more British Columbians have access to heat pump technology.”

    In September 2024, the Province launched a Multi-Unit Residential Building Retrofit Program to support rental, strata and equity co-op buildings to make the switch to more energy-efficient and cleaner technologies. A key feature of the new actions being announced by the Province is the expansion of heat pump rebates into individual suites, rather than the entire building.

    This action supports the 2024 Cooperation and Responsible Government Accord with the BC Green caucus, which commits the government to contribute $50 million annually toward electric heat pumps for the next two fiscal years, ensuring they are accessible to low- and moderate-income households.

    Quotes:

    Roger Dall’Antonia, president and CEO, FortisBC –

    “The Energy Conservation Assistance Program, a long-standing collaboration with BC Hydro, is one of the ways we are supporting our customers across the province. We’re proud to work together to deliver conservation and energy-efficiency programs to income-qualified customers to help them lower their energy use and associated costs.”

    Jeremy Valeriote, interim leader, BC Greens and MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky –

    “Climate action should be seen as an affordable solution. And through our agreement with the government, we’ve ensured that clean-energy solutions like heat pumps are more accessible to everyone in this province, regardless of their living situation. Addressing climate change must also be affordable, and we’re pleased to see government initiatives moving in that direction.”

    Mike Nowotniak, principal, Method Air –

    “With equipment and labour costs rising, government rebates have become essential in helping families afford the comfort, energy savings and climate resilience of heat pumps. These programs empower us to deliver cleaner technology to more homes, especially those who need it most.”

    Quick Facts:

    • Since Better Homes and Better Buildings launched in 2018, the program has delivered 26,700 rebates for B.C. households, including 12,900 incentives to income-qualified households.
    • From 2019 to 2023, average heat pump sales were nearly double the average of the previous five years, and in 2022 began to exceed furnace sales.
    • Today, 13% of all B.C. households use heat pumps for heating, up from 5% in 2008.
    • Government programs have supported the establishment of strong supply chains and industry capacity, establishing a network of more than 700 heating, ventilation and air-conditioning companies throughout B.C.

    Learn More:

    To learn about programs to help with costs, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/home/benefits

    For help claiming cash benefits when filing taxes, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/filing-your-taxes-has-its-benefits

    More information about rebates and how to apply will be posted when available here: https://www.betterhomesbc.ca

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Relief to Texas Small Businesses and Private Nonprofits Affected by Winter Drought

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in Texas who sustained economic losses due to the drought beginning Jan. 28.

    The declaration includes the counties of Aransas, Austin, Bee, Brooks, Calhoun, Colorado, Concho, DeWitt, Dimmit, Duval, Fayette, Goliad, Gonzales, Hidalgo, Jackson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kimble, Kleberg, La Salle, Lavaca, Live Oak, Mason, Matagorda, Maverick, McCulloch, McMullen, Menard, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Schleicher, Starr, Sutton, Tom Green, Victoria, Webb, Wharton and Zapata.

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

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

    “Through a declaration by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, SBA provides critical financial assistance to help communities recover,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “We’re pleased to offer loans to small businesses and private nonprofits impacted by these disasters.”

    The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for small businesses and 3.625% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months after the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

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

    Submit completed loan applications to SBA no later than Dec. 1.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Relief to New Mexico Small Businesses and Private Nonprofits Affected by Winter Drought

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in New Mexico who sustained economic losses due to drought occurring Jan. 28.

    In New Mexico the declaration includes the counties of Catron, Cibola, Lincoln, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, Santa Fe, Sierra, Socorro, Taos, Torrance and Valencia, in Arizona, Apache County, in Colorado the declaration includes Archuleta, Conejos, La Plata and Montezuma counties, and in Utah, San Juan County.

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

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

    “Through a declaration by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, SBA provides critical financial assistance to help communities recover,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “We’re pleased to offer loans to small businesses and private nonprofits impacted by these disasters.”

    The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for small businesses and 3.625% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months after the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

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

    Submit completed loan applications to SBA no later than Dec. 1.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Mike Drury: A 40-Year Legacy of Precision

    Source: NASA

    Deputy Integration and Testing Manager – Goddard Space Flight Center
    Mike Drury began at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, as a temporary technician — a contractor hired for six weeks to set up High Capacity Centrifuge tests. Six weeks then turned into three months and, eventually, over 40 years.

    Now, Mike is the deputy integration and testing manager for NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. In this role, Mike oversees both Roman’s assembly and the many verification processes that ensure it is ready for launch.
    “It’s a privilege to work here. There’s really no regrets,” Mike says. “This is a big place, and it is what you make it. You can really spread your wings and go into a lot of different areas and do different things.”
    When Mike first began at Goddard, only government-employed technicians could work on space flight hardware. However, times were changing. The “old-timers,” as Mike affectionately calls them, soon began training a small group of contractors, including Mike, for flight hardware work. Mike credits these “old-timers” for the mindset he still carries decades later.
    “They taught me how to approach things and execute, and that helped me through my entire career,” Mike says. “It’s that approach — making sure things are done right, without cutting any corners — that I always liked about working here.”
    Not everyone can say that they worked on space missions while in college, but Mike can. Mike took advantage of a program through his contract that paid for classes. For 10 years, Mike studied at Anne Arundel Community College while continuing full-time work at Goddard, eventually earning an associate’s degree in mathematics. 
    While in community college, Mike also stocked up on several physics and calculus credits which helped prepare him to study thermal engineering at Johns Hopkins University. After seven more years of night classes, Mike completed a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. 
    “Night school was really difficult between full-time work and traveling because I was working on several missions,” Mike says. “You needed that perseverance to just keep going and working away at it. So I just hung in there.”

    In his 17 years of night school, Mike worked on seven missions, expanding his skill set from test set-up, to clean room tech work, to training astronauts. While working on the Hubble Space Telescope, Mike helped to train astronauts for their in-orbit tech work to install various instruments. 
    “Every mission I’ve worked on I’ve learned something,” Mike says. “Every test you learn more and more about other disciplines.”
    After graduating from Johns Hopkins, Mike worked for a short time as an engineer before becoming an integration supervisor. In 2006, Mike took on the position of James Webb Space Telescope ISIM (Integrated Science Instrument Module) integration and test manager. After Webb’s ISIM was integrated with the Optical Telescope Element, Mike became the OTIS (Optical Telescope Element and Integrated Science Instrument Module) integration and testing manager.
    “It was a tough eight to 10 years of work,” Mike says. “Loading the OTIS into the shipping container to be sent to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston for further testing was a great accomplishment.” 
    To ensure that Webb’s ISIM would thrive in space, Mike was involved in more than three months of round-the-clock thermal vacuum testing. During this time, a blizzard stranded Mike and others on-site at Goddard for three days. Mike spent his nights overseeing thermal vacuum tests and his days driving test directors and operators to their nearby hotel rooms with his four-wheel-drive truck — a winter storm savior in short supply.

    For Mike, the hard work behind space missions is well worth it.
    “As humans, we want to discover new things and see things. That’s what keeps me coming back — the thought of discovery and space flight,” Mike says. “I get excited talking to some of the Hubble or Webb scientists about the discoveries they’ve made. They answer questions but they also find themselves asking new ones.”
    Some of these new questions opened by Hubble and Webb will be addressed by Mike’s current project — Roman.
    “This team I would say is the best I’ve ever worked with. I say that because it’s the Goddard family. Everyone here on Roman has the same agenda, and that’s a successful, on-time launch,” Mike says. “My ultimate goal is to be staying on the beach in Florida after watching Roman blast off. That would be all the icing on the cake.”
    Mike is also focusing on laying the groundwork for the next era at Goddard. He works hard to instill a sense of import, intention, and precision in his successors, just as the “old-timers” instilled in him 40 years ago.
    “I talk to a lot of my colleagues that I’ve worked with for years, and we’re all excited to hand it off to the next generation,” Mike says. “It’s so exciting to see. I’m the old guy now.”
    By Laine HavensNASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Virginia

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Virginia

    President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Virginia

    WASHINGTON — FEMA announced that federal disaster assistance has been made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe winter storms and flooding from Feb

    10-18, 2025

    Public Assistance federal funding is available to the state, tribal and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities in Bland, Buchanan, Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Franklin, Grayson, Lee, Pulaski, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington and Wise counties and the independent city of Bristol

    Jeffrey L

    Jones has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area

    Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further assessments

     
    amy

    ashbridge
    Wed, 04/09/2025 – 14:58

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Statement by the Director-General on escalating trade tensions

    Source: World Trade Organization

    “The escalating trade tensions between the United States and China pose a significant risk of a sharp contraction in bilateral trade. Our preliminary projections suggest that merchandise trade between these two economies could decrease by as much as 80%.

    This tit-for-tat approach between the world’s two largest economies, which together account for roughly 3% of global trade, carries wider implications that could severely damage the global economic outlook. Our assessments, informed by the latest developments, highlight the substantial risks associated with further escalation.

    The negative macroeconomic effects will not be confined to the United States and China but will extend to other economies, especially the least developed nations. Of particular concern is the potential fragmentation of global trade along geopolitical lines. A division of the global economy into two blocs could lead to a long-term reduction in global real GDP by nearly 7%.

    Moreover, trade diversion remains an immediate and pressing threat, one that requires a coordinated global response. We urge all WTO members to address this challenge through cooperation and dialogue.

    It is critical for the global community to work together to preserve the openness of the international trading system. WTO members have agency to protect the open, rules-based trading system. The WTO serves as a vital platform for dialogue. Resolving these issues within a cooperative framework is essential.”

    Share

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Honduras: The presidential candidates have a unique opportunity to commit to human rights

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Amnesty International encourages the presidential candidates to ensure that their political agendas in the lead-up to the general election on 30 November include a focus on human rights.

    This year, the electoral process in Honduras coincides with the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Honduras, in which UN member states will analyse, in November, Honduras’ performance in the field of human rights.

    The election campaign is, therefore, a unique opportunity for the candidates, recently confirmed by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal on April 8th, to take a stance on the country’s main and historic human rights shortcomings, and incorporate them into their respective agendas.

    “Progress on human rights in Honduras over the past four years has been very timid. In fact, the Honduran Government has broken many of its commitments to the country’s population in terms of human rights. Examples include failings in the fight against impunity, guaranteeing security, protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and sexual and reproductive rights. Honduras’ fourth UPR cycle can be a crucial moment to initiate a change in the direction of the country, if the presidential candidates take advantage of it as an opportunity”, said Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International.

    Progress on human rights in Honduras over the past four years has been very timid. In fact, the Honduran Government has broken many of its commitments to the country’s population in terms of human rights. Examples include failings in the fight against impunity, guaranteeing security, protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and sexual and reproductive rights. Honduras’ fourth UPR cycle can be a crucial moment to initiate a change in the direction of the country, if the presidential candidates take advantage of it as an opportunity”

    Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International

    Amnesty International has submitted a report to the UN ahead of the UPR. The document evaluates the implementation to date of the recommendations made by other States to Honduras in its previous UPR, in 2021, and raises concerns about the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and other human rights issues related to the environment, women’s rights, discrimination and health. It also sets out proposals for recommendations. Below, we highlight some of them.

    Use of force

    In 2022, the Honduran Government declared a state of emergency, which has remained in force ever since, justifying it as necessary to combat insecurity and organized crime. This measure has, for example, enabled the National Police and the Military Police to carry out searches and detentions without judicial authorizations in 226 of the country’s 298 municipalities.

    Amnesty International shares the concern of local organizations and the media that have documented multiple human rights violations in the context of implementation of the state of emergency, allegedly perpetrated by the National Police, the Anti-Gang Police (DIPAMPCO) and the Military Police, such as arbitrary detentions, excessive use of force, torture, enforced disappearances and violations of the right to a fair trial. By October 2024, the National Human Rights Commissioner had received more than 700 complaints against the police and security forces since the beginning of the state of emergency and has since called for an end to that measure.

    We urge the presidential candidates to commit to ending the prolonged state of emergency, devising a comprehensive and sustainable security policy, and ensuring prompt, impartial, independent and effective investigations into all cases of unnecessary and excessive use of force, to be conducted by independent bodies different from those of the alleged perpetrators.

    Human rights defenders and journalists

    Honduras is the country with the highest number of land and environmental defenders killed per capita in the world, according to the latest Global Witness report. The vast majority of attacks, which mainly occur in the context of legal disputes related to mining projects, insecurity of land tenure and violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, go unpunished. There are also concerns about the high level of criminalization of human rights defenders, for example, based on the crime of usurpation, as a result of Decree 93-2021, which amended the criminal code.

    This situation is exacerbated by the weakness and ineffectiveness of the national mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders and journalists, which international and national organizations have repeatedly warned about.

    Therefore, we ask the candidates to make a serious commitment to effectively protect human rights defenders and journalists, who play an essential role in defending the rule of law. To that end, we urge them to ensure that sufficient resources are assigned to the effective protection of human rights defenders and journalists, and to guarantee thorough, prompt, impartial and independent investigations into all attacks against them. We also call on them to refrain from misusing the justice system to intimidate, harass and discredit human rights defenders, and to promote Honduras’ accession to the Escazú Regional Agreement, the first Latin American and Caribbean treaty to include provisions on the protection of environmental defenders.

    Sexual and reproductive rights

    Abortion is still prohibited in Honduras under all circumstances. In 2023, the government legalized the use and sale of the emergency contraceptive pill. However, access to the pill is hampered due to limited availability at public health facilities. Moreover, despite high levels of childhood and adolescent pregnancies, in 2023 the president vetoed the Pregnancy Prevention Act, aimed at providing comprehensive sex education.

    We urge the candidates to commit to decriminalizing abortion in all circumstances and ensuring access to abortion in law and in practice for women, girls and all persons who can become pregnant.

    “Amnesty International calls on the presidential candidates in Honduras’ upcoming general elections to demonstrate their express, clear and firm commitment to defending human rights. We also ask them to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights violations are not committed during the electoral process”, added Ana Piquer.

    Amnesty International calls on the presidential candidates in Honduras’ upcoming general elections to demonstrate their express, clear and firm commitment to defending human rights. We also ask them to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights violations are not committed during the electoral process”

    Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Reverend Warnock Demands Answers from Admin Trade Official on Reckless Tariffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia

    Senator Reverend Warnock Demands Answers from Admin Trade Official on Reckless Tariffs

    During a Tuesday Senate Finance hearing, Senator Reverend Warnock grilled United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the economic fallout less than a week after President Trump issued sweeping tariffs

    The Senator specifically spotlighted how small businesses and families will be backed into a corner and forced to pay an increased price for goods

    Senator Reverend Warnock uplifted the story of a Georgia small business that may have to close as a result of the tariffs

    Senators Reverend Warnock during the hearing: “This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families”

    Watch video of Senator Reverend Warnock’s questioning HERE

    Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, grilled United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the fallout following President Trump’s announcement of a sweeping array of tariffs last week.

    “This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families,” said Senator Warnock.

    During the hearing, Senator Warnock specifically highlighted how the broad and indiscriminate tariffs provide no avenue for relief for ordinary American families and small business owners, backing them into a corner and forcing them to accept higher prices. Senator Warnock uplifted the story of Georgia constituent Angela Hawkins, who is the founder of Bamblu, a small business in Atlanta that sells bamboo-based sleepwear and sheets for people with severe and sensitive skin allergies. Hawkins, who imports many of her products from overseas, is now at risk of going out of business due to the price hikes caused by the tariffs.

    “Angela’s products are made overseas because you can’t find bamboo fabric made in the United States. What should Angela do? Pay the new tax? Raise her prices and risk losing customers? Or is there a process for her to apply for an exclusion from the Trump White House?” asked Senator Warnock.

    “The President has said that in connection with this action, he is not going to have exclusions or exemptions beyond what is in the program already for certain products,” responded Jamieson Greer.

    “She might even go out of business,” said Senator Warnock.

    Last week, Senator Warnock issued a statement following President Trump’s rollout of a sweeping new set of tariffs that raise the prices of everyday goods, everything from groceries to cars. In the statement opposing the tariff announcement, Senator Warnock highlighted the potential of the cost of living to go up as a result.

    Watch the Senator’s full remarks and line of questioning HERE.

    See below a transcript of Senator Warnock’s remarks:

    Senator Reverend Warnock (SRW): “Since President Trump announced his tariffs last week, the stock market has dropped more than 10%, we’ve talked about that. I’m more concerned about the impact on ordinary people. This is a regressive tax. It’s a tax on families, who are already dealing with increasing costs and trying to figure out how to make their lives work. I heard you say that you don’t think we’re in a trade war. I respect your expertise on trade. But tomorrow, the Trump Administration will implement its reciprocal tariffs, which means businesses and families have had less than one week to plan for the largest tax increase in more than 50 years.”

    “We are escalating. We can go back and forth about whether we think it is a trade war. I’m focused on how this is impacting families. Normally, when tariffs are being discussed, businesses and industries have time to plan. The government often provides an orderly and clear process for American companies to apply for exclusions from tariffs when it is not possible for them to sell a product without importing parts or all of it because no one manufactures it here. We all know uncertainty is the worst thing for business. I’m hearing this from farmers, from folks in the manufacturing sector. I hope we can provide some certainty.”

    “What should a multinational retailer do about their products made only overseas, or that contain parts only made overseas? We are seeing this in our automotive sector in Georgia. Should they just raise their prices on families to account for the new tax, or is there a process for that company to reach out to the White House for an exclusion?” 

    United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer (JG): “Senator Warnock, the section 232 on autos is a Commerce Department action. One thing they have done is they have said that they would be willing to give some kind of credit for U.S. Content in parts and components and they can approach the Commerce Department about this. It’s not a decision I’m making, but I know this is one alternative.”

    “I am mindful, when I hear this, obviously, we are sensitive to these dynamics. It reminds me that we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs over the last 20 years. That’s part of the reason why we are in the situation now. We just have to bring those back. It’s important to bring those back now before the situation gets worse.”

    SRW: “The question is: what do they do? Do they pass that price onto consumers?” 

    JG: “What we’ve seen Ford and GM, for example, have announced that they are giving discounts. That was the big news last week, last Thursday. They would be giving discounts going forward. These companies often are going figure out how they locate costs among themselves and it rarely gets down to consumers.” 

    SRW: “The company might figure it out.” 

    JG: “They can approach the Commerce Department.” 

    SRW: “Let me go smaller, last week, my office met with Angela Hawkins, she’s the founder of Bamblu, a small business in Atlanta that sells bamboo-based sleepwear and sheets particularly for people with severe and sensitive skin allergies like her husband. Angela’s products are made overseas because you can’t find bamboo fabric made in the United States. What should Angela do? Pay the new tax? Raise her prices and risk losing customers? Or is there a process for her to apply for an exclusion from the Trump White House?” 

    JG: “The President has said that in connection with this action, he is not going to have exclusions or exemptions beyond what is in the program already for certain products.”

    SRW: “So she will just have to figure it out.” 

    JG: “She will have to work with her business partners and figure out outsourcing…”

    SRW: “She’ll have to either raise prices and risk customers [is] basically the answer, right? Because she can’t get bamboo here.”

    JG: “It will depend on the tariff rate. Every country has a different rate. Some are lower than others.”

    SRW: “So she might even go out of business.”

    “Let’s go even smaller. Early estimates show that President Trump’s tariffs will increase the costs of goods by $3,800 for the average American household. Many critical baby [gates] are produced abroad or have foreign-made components. I went through this not long ago as a parent of young children. For an expecting family in Augusta, Georgia, who may see a 50% price increase for that stroller or car seat, what is the process for that family to apply for a White House exclusion? I guess if the business owner can’t get one, they can’t get one either, correct?”

    JG: “There’s not an exclusion process, that’s right.” 

    SRW: “So they would just bear the cost?” 

    JG: “I think the studies you’re talking about, the economists got it wrong in Trump one [first Trump Administration], they said that there would be inflation because of tariffs, and it when down.  When I hear them saying the same thing, I don’t trust what they are saying. The fact of history shows that it’s not a one-to-one.” 

    “The highest inflation we ever saw was under [President] Biden for housing and education and health care, and all of these things. I don’t know where everybody was then, when that was skyrocketing.” 

    SRW: “What if their child is potassium deficient? And now bananas are more expensive. Last I checked, we don’t have the climate to grow bananas in the United States. Who should that family reach out to the White House for an exclusion for that price hike on those bananas?”

    JG: “There’s not an exclusion process. I think we have waited too long with the status quo. I know people want the status quo…” 

    SRW: “Here, you and I agree. Nobody wants the status quo. This economy is not working for working families, for ordinary people. And I would submit that what the President did last week in such a reckless and sudden way is adding even more pressure on these families.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Monaco’s Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, Ask about Efforts to Revise Torture Laws and the Transfer of Prisoners to France

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Monaco under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with Committee Experts praising Monaco’s ratification of United Nations and European human rights treaties, while raising questions about efforts to bring legislation on torture in line with the Convention and the transfer of prisoners to France.

    Abderrazak Rouwane, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of United Nations and Council of Europe human rights instruments. Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture?

    Mr. Rouwane asked about measures the State party had taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention.  The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.

    Erdogan Iscan, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said some inmates in Monaco continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State 

    party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France.  Would a formal legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent to transfers be created?  Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners?

    Introducing the report, Samuel Vuelta Simon, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, said Monaco ensured that its legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment.

    Mr. Vuelta Simon said the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment.  Also, a legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible and would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it.

    The delegation said the Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance.  It took precedence over domestic legislation. The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.

    The delegation said an impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention had been carried out, and the State party was not closing the door on ratification.  However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments.  There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms.

    The delegation also said that Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres.  Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance in managing prisoners.  Transfer requests to French prisons were made by detainees who were French citizens. The State party would consider formalising this procedure.  French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights. There was no transfer of citizens of Monaco to foreign prisons.

    In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank.  The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention.

    In his concluding remarks, Mr. Vuelta Simon said that Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries.  Some issues had been raised in the dialogue that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees.  Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.

    The delegation of Monaco consisted of representatives from the Directorate of Public Safety; Department of External Relations and Cooperation; Directorate of Legal Affairs; Directorate of Judicial Services; and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Monaco at the end of its eighty-second session on 2 May.  Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 10 April at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of the fifth periodic report of Mauritius (CAT/C/MUS/5).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/MCO/7).

    Presentation of Report

    SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice, Director of Judicial Services of Mexico and head of the delegation, said human dignity was an absolute value that the Principality of Monaco was committed to protecting with determination. Monaco was committed to constantly improving its mechanisms for preventing and protecting against torture and inhuman treatment.  Since the submission of its first report in 1994, Monaco had continued its efforts to strengthen its legal and institutional framework, which had led to significant progress, both in terms of legislation and the implementation of concrete measures to guarantee ever more effective protection against all forms of violence.

    Monaco ensured that the legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment.  The Constitution explicitly guaranteed respect for human dignity and prohibited any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  This absolute prohibition was reinforced by several provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment. 

    The Principality had begun an in-depth study to incorporate into its domestic law a definition of torture that was fully in line with article one of the Convention. A legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible.  It would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it, and the absolute inadmissibility of evidence obtained under duress.  These measures would complement an already strict legal arsenal which severely punished acts of violence, especially when committed by a public official.

    Monaco also attached particular importance to supporting and providing reparation to victims. In 2023, it adopted an unprecedented compensation scheme for victims of serious crimes, including domestic violence and misdemeanours and crimes against minors, guaranteeing rapid and effective compensation to victims when the perpetrators were insolvent.  Courts had an obligation to inform victims of this possibility.

    In recent years, significant improvements had been made to Monaco’s prison to provide a more suitable living environment for inmates.  The renovation of the cells had made it possible to bring in more natural light, while a new exercise yard and an activity room had been set up.  A body scanner had recently been introduced to limit the use of body searches.  The visiting regime had been significantly improved, allowing inmates to benefit from three 90-minute visits per week, in addition to two daily 45-minute visits.

    The incarceration of minors remained an exceptional measure in Monaco.  Recent reforms had strengthened the juvenile justice system to promote the reintegration and well-being of young people in conflict with the law.  Anyone in police custody had the immediate right to information and the assistance of a lawyer, permanent judicial supervision, and audio-visual recording of interrogations, thus ensuring the transparency of proceedings.  Since 2022, the right to the assistance of a lawyer had been strengthened in the event of an extension of police custody. 

    The Monegasque Institute for the Training of the Judicial Professions, in collaboration with other specialised institutions, provided regular training to public security forces on international standards for the respect of fundamental rights. The public security forces were thus regularly made aware of good practices, particularly regarding the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

    Monaco ensured that respect for fundamental rights within its prison system was monitored. The Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation played a key role in this system by providing detainees with direct access to report any allegations of ill-treatment.  Since the last review, a new right had been introduced allowing detainees to call the Office of the High Commissioner directly once a day, including when they were in a disciplinary cell.

    Monaco reaffirmed its total commitment to the fight against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.  While there was still room for improvement, the legislative, judicial and institutional advances put in place in recent years had made it possible to considerably strengthen the prevention, control and punishment of abuses.  Monaco would continue its efforts with determination to ensure that respect for human dignity was never compromised.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, expressed regret regarding the absence of civil society participants in the dialogue.  Why were they absent?  What measures had the State party taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention?  The Committee had called on the State party to do so in each of its last six reviews. Could the delegation give some examples of court cases that had referenced the Convention or other United Nations human rights treaties?  The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.

    What measures had been taken to ensure that detainees enjoyed all basic legal rights from the outset of deprivation of liberty?  The Committee had called on the State party to amend legislation that allowed police officers to prevent detainees from contacting a family member if such communication was considered detrimental to investigations.  Had this been done?  Did victims benefit from legal aid in cases involving allegations of torture or ill-treatment?

    What steps had been taken to promote the accreditation of the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation under the Paris Principles?  The Office did not have a specific mandate to protect against human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, and it did not have the competence to conduct investigations, publish studies or formulate opinions on draft legislation on its own initiative.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol and set up a national preventive mechanism against torture?

    The Committee congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of human rights instruments within the framework of the United Nations system and the Council of Europe.  Would it ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Convention for the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families?

    The Committee noted positive amendments to the law on the status of the judiciary to strengthen the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which had enabled the Council to take up disciplinary matters on its own.  However, the Council’s role in appointing judges had not been increased and its activity report was not made public.  The Director of Judicial Services, part of the executive, chaired the High Council and could appoint and suspend judges and magistrates directly.  The Prosecutor General and the magistrates of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were also under the direct authority of the Director. Was this not interference by the executive in the affairs of justice?  How would the State party ensure the full independence of the judiciary, including in matters related to appointment and disciplinary measures?

    Could the State party provide updated data on extraditions, asylum applications, and the number of appeals against asylum decisions?  The Committee noted that refugees enjoyed the rights provided for in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.  However, there was a lack of clarity regarding the asylum process and safeguards offered, and uncertainty surrounding the procedure for cooperation between the State party and the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons.  Would the State party implement a mechanism to follow up on asylum seekers’ cases with the Office?  What measures were in place to domesticate an asylum assessment procedure?  Could the State party provide information on extradition cases and requests made for mutual legal assistance related to international cases involving torture?

    A large number of foreigners living in neighbouring countries were working informally in Monaco and were at risk of trafficking.  How was the State party combatting trafficking in persons, raising awareness of the issue, and training the judiciary on it?  What measures were in place to strengthen the identification of trafficking victims?  What tools were available to public officials to guide the identification of child victims of trafficking?

    The Committee had previously called for the strengthening of training for the judiciary and prison officials on the Convention and the revised Istanbul Protocol of 2022.  What measures would the State party take to train officials who were in contact with persons deprived of liberty on the absolute prohibition of torture?  Were there any monitoring mechanisms in places of deprivation of liberty?

    ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended the recent progress by the State presented in the opening statement.  The Committee noted that the remand prison of Monaco had recently been extended, its facilities upgraded, and the visit regime improved.  However, there were limits to the extent to which the prison could be expanded due to its location, and the prison reportedly remained unsuitable for prolonged detention due to its limited natural light and lack of space for activities.  What further steps would be taken to improve prison conditions?

    Some inmates continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France.  There was no formalised legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent and requests regarding transfers.  Would one be created?  How many Monegasque prisoners were currently serving sentences in French prisons? Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners?  Did they have access to lawyers and could they maintain social connections in Monaco?  How would the State party ensure this right?  Which State conducted investigations in cases of complaints by these prisoners?  Had the State party considered expanding the capacity of its prison system to allow inmates to remain in Monaco?

    Did current legislation prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including homes and educational institutions? Were awareness raising campaigns or training programmes on corporal punishment for parents and childcare professionals planned?  Minors under age 13 could not be detained but could be held in police custody for up to 24 hours in criminal cases.  Could the delegation provide data on minors in police custody?  Would the State party consider revising legislation to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years of age?

    Had the State party made progress in adopting legislation that provided full redress to victims of torture? Would it consider scaling up its support to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and had it updated legislation to ensure that statements obtained through torture were made null and void?

    The Committee noted with satisfaction measures taken by the State party to prevent and combat violence against women, including revision of the Criminal Code and awareness raising campaigns. What protection measures were in place for foreign women who were victims of violence, and what resources were devoted to programmes and measures to combat violence against women?

    Reportedly, conditions in closed psychiatric units in the Princess Grace Hospital were good, but improvements were needed regarding prolonged hospitalisation and treatment of minors and detainees requiring psychiatric care.  Was the State party addressing this?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether the Convention was directly applicable in Monaco.  How were potential conflicts between the Convention and domestic legislation resolved?

    One Committee Expert asked how many prisoners were serving in Monaco.  What happened to prisoners who did not consent to being transferred to French prisons?  Could the delegation clarify whether consent was needed to conduct transfers?

    A Committee Expert said domestic law on trafficking was sound, but the State party needed to strengthen the training of law enforcement officials, social workers, medical staff and the public on identifying victims of trafficking.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the Director of Judicial Services was also the Secretary of State for Justice, which, as a member of the judiciary, was not part of the executive branch of Government but fell under the authority of the Prince.  The judiciary was guaranteed security of tenure and independence.  The Secretary of State for Justice gave generalised guidance to the judiciary that was consistent with State policies, but prosecutors were free to speak independently in carrying out their work.

    Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres.  Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance for managing prisoners. There were only six prosecutors and 22 jurists who worked with legislators to develop legal texts.  Some 39,000 people lived in Monaco but only 9,000 had citizenship.

    The Supreme Council of the Judiciary was made up of two elected judges and five judges appointed by the Council itself.  Both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Supreme Council could take up cases of discipline of judges.  The Supreme Council selected candidates for judicial posts and had a special budget guaranteeing its independence.  Training was provided to newly appointed judges and prosecutors through French institutions; approximately two-thirds of judges had been seconded from France.  A draft law had been developed that would create a reserve pool of judges to strengthen the domestic availability of judges.

    Monaco had a dualist system.  The Prince signed and ratified international treaties, with authorisation by the National Council.  Sovereign ordinances were used to allow for international treaties to be directly invoked before national courts.  There were cases in which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights had been invoked. The Constitution had the highest status in the domestic legal order, followed by international treaties, which took precedence over domestic legislation.

    The Constitution expressly prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  Acts of torture committed in offences of sexual aggression, terrorism and abduction were considered to be aggravated crimes. Monaco’s judicial services had limited capacity, but aimed to establish a stand-alone offence of torture in line with article one of the Convention through a draft law that was currently before the legislature.  Serious crimes committed against minors had a statute of limitations of 30 years, which started when the victim reached the age of majority.  Monaco’s law imposed an absolute prohibition of torture; it was impossible to justify acts of torture in any circumstances.  Hierarchical superiors were held accountable for illegal orders to carry out acts of torture, as were agents who carried out such orders.  Subordinates who refused to obey illegal orders were not disciplined or considered to have committed a crime.

    There was one case of trafficking against a minor in which the court had referenced the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in its ruling.  The scope of the criminalisation of trafficking had been broadened to address domestic trafficking cases that did not involve organised crime.  Trafficking that endangered victims’ lives, trafficking of minors, and trafficking by public officials or members of organised criminal groups were considered aggravating circumstances.

    Police custody was always recorded and was subject to court oversight; examining magistrates could end police custody at any point.  All persons in police custody were informed of the reasons of their detention and their rights, including the right to access a lawyer from the beginning of custody. All persons who earned less than 20,000 euros per year were entitled to free legal aid.  Detainees could request a medical examination at any point.  The State party intended to regulate the grounds under which the Prosecutor General could restrict detainees’ right to contact a relative.  Hearings were filmed and could be conducted in the presence of a legal counsel. Criminal investigative officers needed to record the time of detention and other details relating to the detention, including reasons for refusals of detainees’ rights.

    Minors under 13 could not be placed in police custody unless they committed an offence that carried a five-year prison sentence.  Hearings of minors needed to be conducted with a lawyer present.  Police custody of minors was typically 12 hours but could be extended to 24 hours in criminal cases with the permission of a judge.

    Legislation on the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights and Mediation had been revised to bring the institution in line with the Paris Principles.  The law allowed the High Commissioner to carry out surveys and provide recommendations related to combatting discrimination, protecting human rights, and implementing international conventions.  It also strengthened the High Commissioner’s investigative powers and gave the body powers to defend the rights of the child. Steps had been taken to promote registration of the institution by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.  Since 2022, detainees were able to contact the High Commissioner directly by telephone, in addition to through written communications.  Monaco had installed a body scanning machine in its prison after detainees’ complaints to the High Commissioner regarding body searches.

    Civil society in Monaco was very active. As there had been no demonstrated cases of torture in the State for almost a century, there were no non-governmental organizations working on the issue.  The High Commissioner’s mandate had recently been expanded and it was now recruiting staff to address its new functions.  In future, the High Commissioner could be able to participate in reviews by the Committee.

    Ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was not a priority for the State.  The State party tried to align its legislation with international instruments before ratifying them, which caused delays in ratification.  There were no cases of enforced disappearance in Monaco. 

    An impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had been carried out.  There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms. There had been no complaints regarding ill-treatment or poor conditions.  Ratifying the Optional Protocol was not a top priority for the Government but could be done in future.  Monaco made voluntary contributions to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, but did not envisage providing contributions to the Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

    Refugees fell under ordinary law for entry and stay in Monaco.  They received 10-year residence permits.  The State currently hosted 23 refugees.  Monaco respected the principle of non-refoulement.  Asylum seekers whose claims were rejected were not immediately removed, unless they posed a threat to public safety.  The Government called on the relevant French authority to assess asylum claims.  Refusals of asylum claims were always explained and could be appealed before the relevant court.  The overseas diplomatic presence of Monaco in countries of origin for asylum seekers was limited.

    When the Ukraine conflict began in 2022, Monaco established a system providing temporary protection for Ukrainian citizens who had lived in Monaco prior to the establishment of the system. Currently, around 50 Ukrainians held the temporary protection permit, which allowed them to access health, education and other social services.  Many holders of this permit had since gained residency permits.

    The State party had not received any requests for mutual legal assistance or handled any international cases involving torture.  It had received one extradition request, which Monaco’s court of appeal rejected due to concerns about human rights protections.

    In 2020, two people were transferred to French prisons, while one person was transferred in 2023 and another in 2024; there were two requests in 2025 that were being assessed.  Transfer requests to France were typically made by French citizens.  All requests for prison transfers were made in writing by the detainees themselves. The State party would consider formalising this procedure.  There were no difficulties in transfers to France; French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights.  Requests for transfers to other countries were considered based on respect for detainees’ rights.

    The national human rights institution received and investigated written complaints from detainees.  There was also an internal oversight body within the police force that could be called on by the judiciary to investigate police officers accused of human rights violations.  Complaints made to the Prosecutor-General triggered judicial proceedings.  Legal assistance was available for persons who filed for civil damages.  A compensation mechanism had been set up for victims of serious offences who could not be compensated by the perpetrator. Compensation covered damages and court costs.  State compensation could also be provided to persons who were placed in pre-trial detention before being released or acquitted.

    The State party had adopted a law on school bullying and harassment, and the Criminal Code prohibited and punished corporal punishment, including in school and family settings.  Teaching staff and other school staff underwent annual training on identifying and addressing harassment of children. Schools needed to implement awareness raising initiatives to combat harassment and bullying.

    Incarceration and pre-trial detention of children were last resort measures.  Judges could determine alternatives to prosecution of minor offenders, including provisional releases, reparation for victims, community service, and training within social health institutions.  Judges could also order minors to be placed in the Foyer d’Enfance, from which they were free to come and go.  In 2020, five minors were charged, of whom none were detained; in 2021, seven minors were charged and only one was placed in pre-trial detention for one month and 20 days; and in 2022, out of the 15 minors who were charged, only two were placed in pre-trial detention.

    The age of criminal responsibility in Monaco was 13 years.  None of the 15 minor offenders in 2022 were aged 13.  The State party would consider raising the age threshold and revising the legal status of minors in the country.

    Considerable progress had been made since 2020 in improving the detention facility.  The State had installed cells with better access to natural light, a games room, a new exercise yard, and air conditioning and heating facilities within cells.  Exercise and folding laundry were no longer mandatory, televisions did not need to be switched off at certain times, and the State no longer imposed solitary confinement on detainees.

    Women and child victims of violence were supported by the Directorate for Social Assistance.  A protocol for care of victims of domestic violence had been established.  Health care professionals were trained in caring for victims and managing perpetrators when they accompanied them.  Victims were provided with shelter in emergencies when they could not stay with friends or family.  They were entitled to medical care, psychological assistance, and legal advice.

    The employment service verified working conditions for migrant workers and the labour inspectorate carried out numerous checks to ensure that workers’ rights were being respected.  Officials held interviews with applicants for residence and work permits to detect risks of trafficking.  To date, 96 public officials had received training on identifying and treating victims of trafficking.

    Members of the judiciary were obliged to attend at least five days of training per year either locally or in France, which addressed human rights and international and European norms.  The State sought to ensure that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were incorporated in domestic legislation as soon as possible.

    Training of police officers lasted 10 months.  It stressed the rights of apprehended persons, including the right to be protected from violence, inhumane and degrading treatment.  All police officers had to abide by the code of professional ethnics and respect the dignity of persons.  They were trained on ethical means of restraint, bodily searches, the use of reasonable force, and the prohibition of torture.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed that there were no cases of torture in Monaco, but this could not be used as an excuse for not ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.  Crimes needed to be legislated for regardless of their prevalence. A national preventive mechanism would be mandated to investigate all places of deprivation of liberty, including the psychiatric hospital and airports.  It would be fantastic if a European country could ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.  Many of the 63,000 workers in Monaco were migrant workers who needed legal protection.

    Could detainees from Monaco be transferred to French prisons?  When there were criminal prosecutions of perpetrators, were alleged victims entitled to legal assistance?  Did the State party intend to provide the Supreme Council of the Judiciary with further independence?

    ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the dialogue had been constructive. Even if there was limited scope for implementing the Optional Protocol, ratification would set a positive example for other States.  Some 42 of the 46 members of the Council of Europe had ratified the Optional Protocol. Did the State party plan to remove its reservation to article 30 of the Convention.  Member States needed to continue to support the treaty body system in a sustainable manner.  What was Monaco’s position on this?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether Monaco had adopted measures addressing trade in equipment used to inflict pain and suffering.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the State party was not closing the door on ratifying the Optional Protocol; it was still considering the option.  However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments.  Impact assessment studies on these instruments took time due to the State’s limited resources.

    There were around 60,000 cross-border workers travelling from France or Italy to Monaco every day.  They were entitled to the rights embodied by Monaco’s labour laws.

    The Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance.  It took precedence over domestic legislation.  The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.

    Legal aid lasted from the beginning to the end of legal proceedings.

    There was no transfer of Monaco citizens to foreign prisons.  Transfers were only for foreign detainees who had requested a transfer back to their country of origin; such transfers were essentially humanitarian.

    The Supreme Council of the Judiciary promoted the independence of the judiciary.  It drew mostly on the French model.  The Secretary of State for Justice was responsible for appointing and promoting judges, but the Supreme Council approved appointments and promotions and could take up disciplinary cases on its own initiative.

    Concluding Remarks

    CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank.  The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention. The Committee did not judge States based on their size; it treated them all equally.

    SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue.  Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries, though staff numbers made this difficult.  The State tried to respond as best it could to its realities.  Monaco welcomed the Committee’s advice and relevant questions. Some issues had been raised that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees.  Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CAT25.002E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: In Dialogue with Niger, Experts of the Committee on Migrant Workers Commend the State on Legislation Protecting Migrants, Raise Issues Concerning Bilateral Agreements and the Migration Centre in Agadez

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on Migrant Workers today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Niger under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s legislation focused on the protection of migrants, while raising issues concerning bilateral agreements with other countries and the migration centre in Agadez. 

    Khaled Cheikhna Babacar, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur,

    welcomed that the Niger had ratified the 10 key International Labour Organization Conventions, 2018 legislation that included principles of social protection for migrants, and bilateral agreements that had been reached with neighbouring countries on migrant workers.

    Myriam Poussi, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said most of the bilateral agreements the Niger had reportedly formed with countries in the region were seemingly not applied.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Were the agreements with Türkiye and Morocco referred to in the report in effect?  The State party had yet to set up a committee to follow-up on the implementation of the agreement with Algeria.  What benefits were migrant workers provided with through the agreement with Tunisia?

    A Committee Expert said the reform of the law on illegal smuggling of migrants addressed the outsourcing of processing of migrants by the European Union to the migration centre in Agadez, which had led to increased trafficking in the region.  How was the State party addressing this situation?  Did the withdrawal of the Niger from the Economic Community of West African States impact the organization’s agreement on freedom of movement?

    Alio Daouda, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, said the legislation of the Niger guaranteed migrant workers access to social protection, including health and education.  Migrant workers had access to the competent administrative and judicial bodies in the event of violations of their rights and had access to free legal assistance and redress mechanisms.  The major obstacle to the realisation of human rights of migrant workers in the Niger remained terrorism, which had a profound negative impact on the realisation of human rights.   

    The delegation said the Niger had suspended bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, as these countries had violated these agreements, repatriating many migrants from the Niger. Every time the Niger formed a labour agreement, it set up a body to monitor the implementation of the agreement and protect workers’ rights.  The State party had conducted activities to ensure that private recruitment agencies were aware of their responsibilities to protect migrant workers.  Portions of migrant workers’ salaries could not be withheld by these agencies.

    The delegation said the humanitarian centre at Agadez hosted asylum seekers and refugees.  The State party was assessing asylum requests.  Transit centres managed by the International Organization for Migration were also in place that hosted migrants and processed their repatriation. Algeria expatriated about 500 foreign migrants to Agadez every month, forcing them to walk about 15 kilometres through the desert to reach the transit centres.  The Niger was calling on Algeria to change the way it expelled people, which violated the rights of these migrants. 

    In concluding remarks, Sabrina Gahar, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Niger’s report showed that the State was committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and their families.  However, there was still a lot to do to guarantee that the rights of migrant workers and members of their families were fully respected and protected.

    In his closing remarks, Mr. Daouda expressed gratitude for the attention given to the report and the efforts of the Niger to guarantee the basic rights of migrants and their families.  The State acknowledged the remaining challenges, but would tackle them with conviction and would step up efforts to meet the provisions under the Convention. 

    The delegation of Niger was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights; Department of Political, Administrative, Legal and Diplomatic Affairs; National Agency for the Fight against Trafficking in Persons; Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Employment; Ministry of the Interior, Public Security and Territorial Administration; and the Permanent Mission of Niger to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee on Migrant Workers’ fortieth session is being held from 7 to 17 April.  All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon, Wednesday, 9 April, to consider the combined initial and second periodic report of Jamaica (CMW/C/JAM/1-2).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the second periodic report of the Niger (CMW/C/NER/2).

    Presentation of the Report

    ALIO DAOUDA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, expressed sincere regret that the Convention currently had only 60 States parties, 34 of which were from the African continent.  No country among the main destinations of migrants had ratified it.  By acting together, in a spirit of universal solidarity, States could ensure a future for migrant workers based on the values of dignity, fairness and mutual respect.

    The events of 26 July 2023 had led to the coming to power of the Defence and Security Forces of the Niger.  This seizure of power, which immediately received popular support, was motivated by the rejection of security models and bad governance.  Following this change of regime, the State experienced unprecedented, illegal sanctions, decided by the Economic Community of West African States and the West African Economic and Monetary Union, materialised by the closure of borders, the cessation of the supply of foodstuffs and medicines, and the blocking of access to savings in banks. 

    These sanctions were guided by Western powers using regional and international organizations as tools for geopolitical domination.  They had deprived millions of innocent inhabitants, nationals and foreigners alike, of food, healthcare, medicine, education, freedom of movement, access to their savings, access to electricity, dignity and well-being, in the face of the deafening, complicit silence of international organizations.  The world needed to denounce this situation and work for an international order based on dignity and mutual respect.

    The National Council for the Safeguarding of the Homeland, upon its accession to power in July 2023, reaffirmed its commitment to respect human rights as defined by the treaties and conventions to which the country had freely subscribed.  The Niger, well-known for its hospitality as a country of transit and origin of migratory flows, attached particular importance to the protection of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families.

    In the context of the security situation, which had been marked by the recurrence of attacks by armed terrorist groups supported by foreign powers, the Niger had adopted ordinance no. 2023-02 of 28 July 2023 on the organization of public authorities during the transition period, and the 2025 Constitution, which guaranteed human rights as enshrined in international instruments.  The revised Labour Code had been developed to better protect migrant workers’ rights, while the revised Penal Code, which was in the process of being adopted, prohibited all forms of discrimination and harassment, including discrimination based on national origin.

    The legislation of the Niger guaranteed migrant workers access to social protection, including health and education. Migrant workers had access to the competent administrative and judicial bodies in the event of violations of their rights and had access to free legal assistance and redress mechanisms.  In addition, institutions had been set up to combat trafficking in persons and to manage migratory flows, particularly in transit regions such as Agadez.  The Niger was working closely with the International Organization for Migration to provide humanitarian assistance and build local capacity.  It was working to develop initiatives to provide accurate information to migrants, facilitating their access to legal identity documents and promoting ethical recruitment practices.

    Despite measures taken to combat migrant smuggling, criminal networks continued to exploit vulnerable migrants, especially women and children.  This situation was worsened by neighbouring countries that pushed back hundreds of migrants from the Niger and other countries to the territory of the Niger, despite the signing of several bilateral and regional agreements.  In 2022, 18,728 migrants were pushed back to the Niger.  In addition, conflicts in neighbouring countries and humanitarian crises were increasing the migratory pressure on the Niger, further complicating the implementation of migration policies.  In this context, revisions to the national employment and migration policies were being developed.  All these challenges required national, regional and international efforts to ensure that the rights of migrant workers were protected in an effective and sustainable manner.

    The major obstacle to the realisation of human rights of migrant workers in the Niger remained terrorism, which had a profound negative impact on the realisation of human rights.  Attacks in the border regions had led to massive displacement of populations, creating a humanitarian crisis that affected all rights.  These barbaric acts, which intended to sow fear and divide, would never succeed in shaking the State’s unity and resilience.

    The Niger was committed to honouring its international obligations and to working actively with the Committee to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the Niger had a border of over 7,000 kilometres and was affected by violence from Burkina Faso, Mali and Nigeria.  There were numerous migrants travelling through the Niger to Europe; many refugees were stranded in the desert and internally displaced persons were exploited by gangs and needed support.

    Mr. Babacar welcomed that the Niger had ratified the 10 key International Labour Organization Conventions.  Would it ratify conventions addressing migrant workers, domestic workers, workplace harassment and labour inspection?  Were there complaint mechanisms in place that workers in the informal sector, including domestic workers, could access? The Expert welcomed that the Labour Code was being revised; this was a good opportunity to address its shortcomings. Would the State party develop specific legislation to protect domestic workers?  Would the national action plan on migration be revised to include measures to promote the registration of the children of migrants?

    Mr. Babacar welcomed 2018 legislation that included principles of social protection for migrants, and bilateral agreements that had been reached with neighbouring countries on migrant workers.  What measures were included in these agreements that protected migrant workers’ rights, including the right to join trade unions?  The Niger permitted the activities of private recruitment agencies, which had abusive recruitment practices such as charging workers 20 per cent of their salaries. What would the Niger do to combat these practices?

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the State party’s report did not sufficiently describe the situation of migrant workers and provided incomplete information on activities being undertaken by the State.  Could the delegation provide more information about progress in reforming the Labour Code? What provisions of the Convention would be addressed in the Code?  How would the State party promote its implementation?  What had been achieved by the national action plan on migration? What activities had been organised in the last five years to promote and protect the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families?

    Could the delegation provide more information on the practice of wahaya? Were there plans to prosecute the perpetrators of this practice, which could be tantamount to a form of sexual slavery?  Female migrant workers could be victims of this practice.

    Most of the bilateral agreements the Niger had reportedly formed with countries in the region were seemingly not applied.  Could the delegation comment on this?  Were the agreements with Türkiye and Morocco referred to in the report in effect?  The State party had yet to set up a committee to follow-up on the implementation of the agreement with Algeria.  What benefits were migrant workers provided with through the agreement with Tunisia?

    What services did the Office for Returned Migrants provide and how many people had it helped?  What information was provided to the Niger diaspora and in what form?  How did the State register and support returnees to reintegrate into society, and promote the repatriation of funds by migrant workers to the Niger?  Had the State party established a joint committee on illegal smuggling and trafficking? What was the committee’s composition and mandate?

    Another Committee Expert asked whether returning Niger migrant workers were able to receive pensions.  Were civil servants informed about their obligations under the Convention?  What civil society organizations in the State party were dealing with the rights of migrant workers?  What dispute mechanisms were available for migrant workers?  Did the State party have information on detained migrant workers?  What legal support did the State party provide for migrant workers abroad?

    One Committee Expert asked how civil society organizations had contributed to the State party’s report.  Why had the State party not yet accepted articles 76 and 77 of the Convention, despite having expressed a desire to do so in 2022?

    A Committee Expert said the reform of the law on illegal smuggling of migrants addressed the outsourcing of processing of migrants by the European Union to the migration centre in Agadez, which had led to increased trafficking in the region.  How was the State party addressing this situation?  Did the withdrawal of the Niger from the Economic Community of West African States impact the organization’s agreement on freedom of movement?

    Another Committee Expert said migrants in the region were victims of deportation, incommunicado detention and other human rights violations, and many perished in the Sahara Desert.  How did the State party address these issues and protect migrants from refoulement? Why was there a comparatively low rate of migration from the Niger to Europe and the Americas?

    A Committee Expert asked whether the national mechanism for following up on treaty body recommendations cooperated with civil society organizations on issues related to migration.  What support did the Labour Ministry provide to migrants?  Why was the National Human Rights Commission dissolved in 2023?  Did the Commission deal with cases or issue recommendations related to migrant workers? When would a new national human rights institution be set up, what would its mandate be, and what resources would it have?  Many migrants being held in migration centres in the Niger were struggling to return to their countries of origin.  How was the State party supporting them?  Had courts referred to the provisions of the Convention, and had this had an impact on law or public policy on migration in the State party?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the Niger provided advice to migrants abroad so they were aware of their rights.  However, it had limited resources and could not devote additional resources to supporting this policy.

    The 2015 law on illegal smuggling included a provision criminalising the illegal crossing of borders that ran counter to the Palermo Protocol.  The Niger had thus repealed the law to bring it in line with the Protocol.  Migrants were made more vulnerable to traffickers under the law.  The State remained a member of the Economic Community of West African States and its agreement on freedom of movement.  Some countries and terrorist groups attacked territory of the Niger; the State party had implemented legal and policy measures to repel these attacks.

    The Niger had an inter-ministerial committee for developing State party reports that included members of civil society in the process.  The Niger continued to support civil society.

    Foreign workers in the Niger could join trade unions but needed to live in the country for three years to hold management positions in trade unions. Domestic workers and workers in the informal sector could submit complaints to trade unions.  The Labour Code included provisions enshrining the principle of non-discrimination and access to education and trade unions for migrant workers.

    The Niger had suspended bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, as these countries had violated these agreements, repatriating many migrants from the Niger.  Every time the Niger formed a labour agreement, it set up a body to monitor the implementation of the agreement and protect workers’ rights.  The State party had conducted activities to ensure that private recruitment agencies were aware of their responsibilities to protect migrant workers.  Portions of migrant workers’ salaries could not be withheld by these agencies.

    The Niger had ratified 41 International Labour Organization Conventions and two protocols.  It had implemented activities to protect domestic workers and disseminate the International Labour Organization Convention on domestic workers, with support from United Nations agencies.  The Niger had not yet ratified International Labour Organization Convention 190 on violence in the workplace but was working to do so, and conducting training on preventing such violence.

    The State party had ratified conventions on labour inspection and administration.  There were 10 labour inspectorates established in major towns.  Labour inspections were conducted regularly in the formal and informal sectors.  The Government had bolstered the capacities of inspectors through training, which stressed the importance of protecting migrant workers.  The revised Labour Code was still a draft.  The State party had identified deficiencies in the Code that it sought to review to align the Code with the Convention.

    The national migration policy included numerous measures to protect and support migrants and refugees and manage migration flows.  There was a law on the status of migrant workers that allowed migrants to be registered in the civil registry.  The births of the children of migrants were recorded.  A 2023 review on the implementation of the policy found progress had been made in police officers’ and civil society’s knowledge of migrants’ rights, thanks to training on this subject from the State. This training was being revised to address the impact of climate change on migrants.

    The humanitarian centre at Agadez hosted asylum seekers and refugees.  The State party was assessing asylum requests. Transit centres managed by the International Organization for Migration were also in place that hosted migrants and processed their repatriation.  Algeria expatriated about 500 foreign migrants to Agadez every month, forcing them to walk about 15 kilometres through the desert to reach the transit centres.  The Niger was calling on Algeria to change the way it expelled people, which violated the rights of these migrants.  There were some migrants who were forced to stay at transit centres for one year due to difficulties in identifying their countries of origin and repatriating them. The Niger could not afford to pay for repatriation flights for migrants.

    An inter-ministerial committee and a technical committee on repatriation of Niger nationals abroad were set up in 2024.  The former committee was tasked with managing returns and taking people to their towns of origin, while the latter conducted studies on repatriation and assisted reintegration activities.  Officials went to host countries to organise repatriation operations, which were paid for by the Niger.

    Questions by Committee Experts 

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked if the labour inspectors held a specific status, ensuring they had enough resources to perform their tasks impartially?  The Niger had a national action plan to combat child labour, with support from the International Labour Organization.  Had an assessment of the plan taken place? What actions had been taken in terms of planning after 2018?  The Niger had rolled out awareness raising campaigns for the labour market, which concluded in 2022; what actions had been undertaken since then?  Were there any possibilities for remedies or appeals against expulsions or deportations? 

    A Committee Expert commended the Niger for taking an inclusive approach to drafting the report; what was the consultation process followed during the preparation of the report?  Had external partners been consulted?  What was the role of civil society in the preparation of the report? Regarding multilateral agreements with several countries, what measures had been taken for children and women on the move from the Niger?  Had the Niger been able to pinpoint barriers in integrating the migration policy?  Could information be provided about the protection of the statistical data of migrants? 

    Could more details be provided about the specific causes of insecurity which had caused children to be displaced in the five regions? What measures had been taken to protect the rights of displaced children?  Was there a response plan to support internally displaced persons, including children?  What initiatives had been taken to ensure displaced children could have access to education?  What psycho-social support was available to these children?  Was there a mechanism to follow up on the number of children who were displaced? 

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the delegation had mentioned a tripartite memorandum between the Niger, the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which had provided assistance to hundreds of unaccompanied children.  How many children had received this assistance?  Could details of the beneficiaries of assistance be provided? Had the resettlement of these children in third countries taken place?  Which countries did this occur in?  How many children were affected by this settlement? 

    What had been the outcome of the strategy to strengthen systems along the migration route?  What was the timeline to ensure that the new protection strategy was finalised?  What was the hosting capacity of the six holistic centres, created to deal with gender-based violence?  How did they operate?  Did they fall under the management of a specific State body? What was the training provided to the individuals running these centres?  What assistance was provided to those living in these centres? 

    Another Committee Expert said the Niger faced security threats, including terrorism which could impact the services provided to migrant workers.  What measures had been taken in terms of training the military, border guards, the judiciary and other officials implementing the rights of migrant workers to respond to terrorism situations which involved migrants, in line with international best practices? 

    A Committee Expert said the Niger faced issues due to sanctions from European countries.  Did these countries take steps to support migrant workers from the Niger to improve their rights?  What types of consular services could the Niger provide for these workers? 

    Another Expert asked if the diaspora still had five of the 100 seats in the National Assembly reserved?  This was a very high figure.  Was the migration rate still 3.8 per cent?  What instruments governed the Niger now that the Constitution was suspended? Could the State elaborate on the situation of the national human rights body?  What was the true situation of statelessness in the country?  Was there legislation and data collection? 

    A Committee Expert asked if refugee children were actually refugees, or if there were migrants amongst them?  There were 237 unaccompanied children who were refugees and over 1,000 had been separated from their families in 2024.  What support was provided to these children?  Were they housed in the same camps as other migrants? What steps were taken to avoid situations of statelessness?  What was the State party doing to assist migrants returning to the Niger?  How was their reintegration being assisted and what support was being given?   

    The report from the High Commissioner found that there were migrants who were not from the Economic Community of West African States area, who had been subject to refoulment from Algeria, Syria, Egypt and Yemen.  These migrants were often denied access to the Niger, which was discriminatory and ran counter to international law.  The report stated these people were returned 500 kilometres northeast of the capital and could not submit a request for asylum.  Could the delegation comment on this?  What was the fate of these migrants?  What was being done to provide them with the international protection they were entitled to? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    Regarding people received from Syria and Yemen, the delegation said the State had its own problems when it came to managing domestic security and needed to allocate resources to its own people.  The situation in the Niger was complicated. The report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to one spontaneous refoulment relating to a specific population.  There were a number of resettlement programmes dedicated to these individuals. The Niger had never claimed that the fight against terrorism was a grounds to human rights not being respected. Why did the Committee not question those who financed terrorism, like the French, who wanted to steal the Niger’s resources?  These questions were disturbing.  Soldiers of the Niger did not violate the laws; they were trained on human rights issues. There were specific units within the army who dealt with criminal proceedings. 

    There were no financial resources provided to civil society to prepare and submit reports in the Niger.  Civil society was involved in the design of the reports; they participated on the same footing as all partners and made proposals.  Mobilising resources to civil society was a challenge, but they were involved in discussions.  In many countries of the subregion, the wahaya, or “fifth wives” practice existed, but the Niger had addressed this issue and sanctioned its practice. 

    The Niger had had security agencies run by foreigners who wanted to take part in the destabilisation of the regime.  Weapons of war had been found in the warehouses, under the control of France, to attack the Niger.  Therefore, there was no choice but to prohibit this profession to foreigners.  The State would not hesitate to take additional measures to protect its national security.
    Displaced children were sometimes displaced due to terrorism from Nigeria.  The Niger faced a problem in this regard.  There were a few countries whose populations had been refouled to the Niger. The Niger needed to focus on the resettlement of its own people in its own borders and could not always assist those returned to other countries.

    The term wahaya did not actually refer to a “fifth wife”; there was no marriage involved.  This referred to a woman who had been bought, given or exchanged.  It was defined as a form of slavery.  Civil society organizations were fully involved in all stages of the report, including data collection.  The 2023 ordinance superseded the Constitution and equated to the new Constitution.  This ordinance was for Government powers during the transition.  The ordinance was repealed last month after the new Charter was adopted.  The same rights in the Constitution were enshrined in this new State Charter, meaning there was no Constitutional vacuum. 

    The Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants had spent eight days in the Niger, during which he found that the 2015 ordinance ran counter to the Convention.  Banning migration meant migrants had to change their itineraries and take more dangerous roads, resulting in hundreds of deaths.  There were modules held throughout schools for training, as well as throughout the police, gendarmerie and judiciary.  The State went to remote areas to organise training workshops on the Convention and all other instruments entered into by the State. 

    The Niger was party to the two Conventions on Statelessness. Children who faced statelessness in the Niger who were in the country and met the necessary conditions could acquire citizenship.  Children whose parents were unknown could also apply for citizenship.  There were no stateless individuals in the country. 

    The diaspora document had been drafted by the private sector, civil society and the Government.  This was a guide for returnees who wished to contribute to the socio-economic development of the country.  The Niger had five seats in the National Assembly dedicated to the diaspora before the Constitution.  There were large communities of Niger nationals in Benin, Sudan and Burkina Faso, among others, which was the reason for this choice. 

    All the texts for the Human Rights Observatory were ready and it should be established soon.  It would have the same competencies as the Human Rights Commission.  In addition to the technical services in charge of migration, migrants also received training to ensure they could stay in the Niger. 

    Refugees could not be refouled to countries where their lives could be at risk, but migrants could go to courts with an expedited procedure. The Niger as a member country of the International Labour Organization was aware that the ratification of international labour standards would make it possible to guarantee the protection of migrant workers.  The resources available to the labour inspectors were lacking and while they had a specific status, they encountered difficulties in carrying out their everyday work.  To date, the Niger did not have a national action plan to combat child labour, but it was in the process of drafting this plan. 

    The bilateral agreements the Niger had signed with countries of destination each had their own specific features and focused on social security.  The Niger had made significant progress with Qatar and was in the process of drawing up a memorandum of understanding. 

    Refugee children from the Niger were not held together with adults, but were placed in foster families, who were supported to care for these children.  Children who had been placed in foster families benefitted from State support, free of charge health care, and access to school.  Their parents could have access to the justice system without any restrictions.  Despite meagre resources, the Niger had been able to welcome Africans from other nationalities and provide them with the necessary care. 

    Questions by Committee Experts 

    SABRINA GAHAR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked for more information about cooperation with non-governmental organizations?  How did the Government collaborate and cooperate to meet the specific needs of vulnerable groups?  The Committee commended the Niger on the strategy to combat gender-based violence.  Had an assessment of the strategy been conducted?  What were the success indicators?  Did the strategy concern harmful practices against migrant girls? 

    What measures were taken by the State to combat sexual violence against women and girls in certain regions?  It was reported that some women were trapped and forced into prostitution to survive.  They were forced into certain sexual practices with security agents at border posts, with some falling pregnant and contracting sexually transmitted diseases at an early age.  It was also reported that smugglers sold these women.  How did the State protect these women against smugglers and those involved in human trafficking?  What measures and strategies had been implemented to protect children from practices, such as begging? 

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what sanctions were handed down if the provisions of the Labour Code were violated?  What efforts had the State party made to guarantee better assistance to unaccompanied and separated children? 

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what was being done to ensure that the right of migrant workers to transfer social security benefits could be made effective?  What measures had Niger taken to fill the protection gaps for the rights of migrant workers who came from the Economic Commission of West African States? Was it planned to sign bilateral agreements to bridge the protection gap?  Could more information be provided about the joint teamwork made up of French, Spanish and Niger police to combat smugglers networks; was this work still ongoing?  How did the team work in combatting these networks? 

    An Expert asked what specific measures had been taken to assist migrants impacted by climate change?  Were there migrants in the various mining areas?  What kind of support was provided to them? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the Niger had established a human rights institution which had an A status, in line with the Paris Principles.  The State tried to find foster families for unaccompanied children in local communities, and supported them.  It could not be proven that women were forced into prostitution and to have sex with the defence forces.  In 2023, measures were taken to sanction security forces and efforts were taken to prosecute any officer committing offences. In Niger, the Labour Code was clear; those working fell under the protection of the Labour Code regardless of nationality.  Foreigners were protected by the Labour Code and if their rights were violated, there were remedies.  There were labour inspectorates for anyone whose rights were violated, and the inspectors were swamped by complaints.  All workers were aware of the inspectorate and did not hesitate to consult its members in the event of a violation of rights.  There were also labour courts which workers could access, whether they were nationals or foreigners. 

    Closing Remarks

    KHALED CHEIKHNA BABACAR, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation of Niger for the dialogue and for attempting to reply to the Committee’s questions.  The candidacy of the delegation was appreciated.

    MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the presence of the delegation made it clear that the Niger had the clear intention of advancing the rights of migrants.  The State should continue to improve the situation for migrant workers in the country. 

    SABRINA GAHAR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for all the information provided and the interesting discussions had. The State’s report showed that Niger was committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and their families. The initiatives showed best practices and strategies aimed at improving migrants’ situations. However, there was still a lot to do to guarantee that the rights of migrant workers and the members of their families were fully respected and protected. 

    ALIO DAOUDA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Niger, Keeper of the Seals and head of the delegation, expressed gratitude for the attention given to the report and the efforts of the Niger to guarantee the basic rights of migrants and their families.  The interactive dialogue was vital to building a society where human rights and equity were accessible to all, including migrant workers.  The State acknowledged the remaining challenges, but would tackle them with conviction and would step up efforts to meet the provisions under the Convention.  The Niger looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations.  Mr. Daouda thanked all those who had made the dialogue possible. 

    ___________

     

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CMW25.003E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Weber Introduces Bill to Keep the SPR Strategic

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Randy Weber (14th District of Texas)

    Washington, D.C. -Today, U.S. Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14) introduced the Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act to prohibit the sale and export of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to China, or any entity that is under the ownership, control, or influence of China. 

    “The federal government should NEVER sell a single drop of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Communist China—our greatest geopolitical threat. Period. It is outrageous—and downright dangerous—that anyone in the White House would approve such a move, putting our national security at risk and sticking hardworking American taxpayers with the bill to refill it,” said Rep. Weber. “It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible, and it hits home—especially for us in Southeast Texas, where over 60% of the SPR is stored. We must pass this bill to ensure that no future president—certainly not another Joe Biden—can ever again willfully sell off our emergency reserves to the Chinese Communist Party.”

    Read the bill text here.

    The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives: Reps. Troy Balderson (OH-12), Andy Ogles (TN-5), Ryan Zinke (MT-1), Ben Cline (VA-6), Scott Franklin (FL-15), Daniel Webster (FL-11), Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Brian Babin (TX-36), Celeste Maloy (UT-2), Jefferson Shreve (IN-6), Dave Taylor (OH-2), Lauren Boebert (CO-4), and Stephanie Bice (OK-5), and Chris Smith (NJ-4). 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Higgins Introduces Legislation to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Stop Payments to Deceased Individuals

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C – Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) introduced the bicameral Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act, which would save taxpayer dollars by stopping unlawful payments to scammers who utilize deceased individuals’ information to defraud the federal government. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.

    The legislation reins in government spending by permanently amending the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 to allow the Social Security Administration to share the records of deceased individuals, known as the Death Master File, with the Treasury Department’s ‘Do Not Pay’ system.

    “The national debt is a significant threat. The American people support efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of their tax dollars, which certainly includes ensuring payments are not being delivered to dead people. Our legislation addresses this gap in the bureaucracy and cuts wasteful spending,” said Congressman Higgins.

    “In 2023 alone, the federal government sent $1.3 billion to dead people. The Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act would permanently correct bureaucratic errors so that Americans’ tax dollars don’t get wasted or stolen,” said Senator Kennedy.

    Read the legislation here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – US AI chip export restrictions: a challenge to EU unity and technological sovereignty – E-000483/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The decision by the United-States (US) to impose export restrictions on advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) chips and the categorisation of Member States into different tiers goes against the core principles of the EU’s single market and technological sovereignty.

    While a detailed assessment of the impact of those measures on the EU is ongoing, the Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy and the Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security already voiced their concerns to the US administration in a Joint Statement[1].

    Europe aims to be among the global leaders in AI and is taking concrete steps in this direction. The Chips Joint Undertaking[2] has launched research and innovation calls on AI chips. The EU’s AI factories initiative and the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking[3] play a key role in this respect.

    To accelerate the development of the EU’s domestic AI capabilities, the Commission has recently announced the new InvestAI initiative, which aims to mobilise EUR 200 billion for AI investments. In parallel, it is crucial to ensure the access of EU operators to the leading AI chips and models.  

    The Commission has also pointed, in its White Paper on Export Controls[4], to ‘the lack of common EU voice [which] exposes individual Member States to strong geopolitical pressures’.

    The Commission also suggested concrete responses aimed at ensuring uniform EU export controls. To this end, the Commission will soon publish a recommendation to enhance the coordination of national control lists and has also proposed to make the update of the EU list of dual-use controls more flexible and reactive to technological and geopolitical developments.

    The upcoming evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2021/821[5] will further allow the EU to assess this framework in the evolving international context.

    • [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_255
    • [2] https://www.chips-ju.europa.eu/
    • [3] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/high-performance-computing-joint-undertaking
    • [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52024DC0025
    • [5] Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (recast),
      OJ L 206, 11.6.2021, p. 1; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/821/oj/eng
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Threats to democracy, threats to Europe? – E-000058/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Following on a call by the European Council, the Spanish Government, the Belgian government, and the Commission have asked Mr Enrico Letta to write an independent High-Level Report on the future of the Single Market in 2023[1].

    The Commission did not conclude a contract with Mr Letta and did not pay him any allowances or remuneration. The Commission did not award grants to institutes or experts specifically for this report.

    The Senior Expert in the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, was seconded from November 2023 to June 2024 at the request of the Belgian government, to support the work on the independent High-Level Report on the future of the Single Market.

    The Belgian presidency of the Council selected him on the basis of his academic and professional experience on Single Market policies and Better Regulation.

    • [1] See also the Commission’s press release of 15 September 2023, IP/23/4495.
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – The first General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) Code of Practice: Appointment of Chairs and Vice-Chairs – E-002787/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Code of Practice on general-purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) models will set out commitments to which providers of such models may voluntarily adhere to ensure their compliance with the relevant provisions under the AI Act[1]. Article 56(9) of the AI Act provides that the Code must be completed no later than 2 May 2025.

    The AI Office has facilitated the drawing-up of the Code. It published an expression of interest inviting academics and other independent experts to apply for the role of Chairs by August 2024 and it selected and appointed 13 such Chairs and Vice-Chairs in September 2024 based on their expertise, ability to effectively fulfil the role and the tasks, and independence, while aiming to ensure geographical diversity and gender balance.

    Internationally recognised expertise played an important role in the selection procedure and was taken into account through inter alia the applicants’ professional experience, publications, academic qualifications, faculty appointments or research projects.

    The process of drawing-up the Code was designed by the AI Office to be as inclusive and transparent as possible. It is an iterative approach that includes four drafting rounds accompanied by working group meetings, mindful of the legal deadlines.

    For each draft, stakeholders have at least two weeks to submit their comments in writing. Chairs and Vice-Chairs are given sufficient time to synthesise feedback and to write the next iteration of the Code.

    The AI Office is supporting the Chairs and Vice-Chairs by ensuring compliance with the legal framework. If a Code cannot be finalised, or if the AI Office deems it is not adequate, the Commission may provide, by means of implementing acts, common rules for the implementation of the obligations.

    • [1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L, 2024/1689.
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Scrutinising the declarations of interests made by Commissioners-designate – E-002391/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission follows the current rules, processes, and requirements for the Declarations of Interests (DoI) of Commissioners-designate, as set out in the Code of Conduct for Members of the Commission. In accordance with Article 3(2) of the Code, candidates for President of the Commission and Commissioners-designate must submit their declarations to the European Parliament in due time to allow for parliamentary examination.

    These declarations, which are made public in an electronic format, ensure transparency and accountability throughout the appointment process.

    The Commission is dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and trust within the EU’s institutions. Another cornerstone of this effort is the establishment of the Interinstitutional EU Ethics Body, which will bring together representatives from currently eight participating EU institutions and bodies.

    This Body aims to establish common minimum standards, potentially also harmonising Members’ declarations of financial or non-financial interests across participating parties.

    Such a unified approach could further enhance the meaningfulness of these declarations, strengthen public confidence, and respect the diversity of the participating institutions and bodies.

    The Commission remains actively engaged in this initiative, working towards a robust and transparent framework that upholds the integrity of EU governance.

    Through its participation in the EU Ethics Body, the Commission will contribute to reviewing best practices and exploring opportunities for further alignment of standards across institutions.

    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –