Category: Transport

  • MIL-OSI: Glacier Bancorp Receives Final Regulatory Approvals for Its Acquisition of Bank of Idaho Holding Co.

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    KALISPELL, Mont., April 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Glacier Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: GBCI) today announced that all regulatory approvals required in connection with its previously announced acquisition of Bank of Idaho Holding Co. (“BOID”) (OTCQX: BOID), and its bank subsidiary, Bank of Idaho, have been received. The transaction is scheduled to be completed April 30, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of remaining conditions to closing set forth in the merger agreement, including approval by BOID shareholders at a special meeting of shareholders now scheduled for April 21, 2025.

    About Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
    Glacier Bancorp, Inc. is the parent company for Glacier Bank and its bank divisions: Altabank (American Fork, UT), Bank of the San Juans (Durango, CO), Citizens Community Bank (Pocatello, ID), Collegiate Peaks Bank (Buena Vista, CO), First Bank of Montana (Lewistown, MT), First Bank of Wyoming (Powell, WY), First Community Bank Utah (Layton, UT), First Security Bank (Bozeman, MT), First Security Bank of Missoula (Missoula, MT), First State Bank (Wheatland, WY), Glacier Bank (Kalispell, MT), Heritage Bank of Nevada (Reno, NV), Mountain West Bank (Coeur d’Alene, ID), The Foothills Bank (Yuma, AZ), Valley Bank (Helena, MT), Western Security Bank (Billings, MT), and Wheatland Bank (Spokane, WA).

    Visit Glacier’s website at www.glacierbancorp.com.

    Important Information and Where You Can Find It
    This communication relates to the proposed merger transaction involving Glacier and BOID. This communication does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities.

    In connection with the proposed merger transaction, Glacier filed with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the “Registration Statement”) that included a Proxy Statement of BOID and a Prospectus of Glacier, as well as other relevant documents concerning the proposed transaction. Shareholders of BOID are urged to read carefully the Registration Statement and the Proxy Statement/Prospectus included therein regarding the proposed merger transaction and any other relevant documents filed with the SEC, as well as any amendments or supplements to those documents, because they will contain important information. A free copy of the Proxy Statement/Prospectus included in the Registration Statement, as well as other filings containing information about Glacier, may be obtained at the SEC’s Internet site (http://www.sec.gov). You will also be able to obtain these documents, free of charge, from Glacier at www.glacierbancorp.com under the tab “SEC Filings” or by requesting them in writing or by telephone from Glacier at: Glacier Bancorp, Inc., 49 Commons Loop, Kalispell, Montana 59901, ATTN: Corporate Secretary; Telephone (406) 751-7706.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as “estimate,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “will,” and similar references to future periods. Such forward-looking statements include but are not limited to statements regarding the expected closing of the transaction and its timing and the potential benefits of the business combination transaction involving Glacier and BOID, including future financial and operating results, the combined company’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, and other statements that are not historical facts regarding either company or the proposed combination of the companies. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside of our control, that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those projected, including but not limited to the following: risks that the merger transaction will not close when expected or at all because shareholder approval or other conditions to closing are delayed or not received or satisfied on a timely basis or at all; risks that the benefits from the transaction may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected, including as a result of changes in general economic and market conditions, interest and exchange rates, monetary policy, laws and regulations and their enforcement, and the degree of competition in the geographic and business areas in which Glacier and BOID operate; uncertainties regarding the ability of Glacier Bank and Bank of Idaho to promptly and effectively integrate their businesses, including into Glacier Bank’s existing division structure; changes in business and operational strategies that may occur between signing and closing; uncertainties regarding the reaction to the transaction of the companies’ respective customers, employees, and contractual counterparties; and risks relating to the diversion of management time on merger-related issues. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made and reflect management’s current estimates, projections, expectations and beliefs. Glacier undertakes no obligation to publicly revise or update the forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date of this report. For more information, see the risk factors described in Glacier’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and other filings with the SEC.

    CONTACT: Randall M. Chesler
    (406) 751-4722

    Ron J. Copher
    (406) 751-7706

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Binah Capital Group’s David Shane Recognized Among Top 5 Wealth Management CFOs by Wealth Solutions Report

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, April 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Binah Capital Group, Inc. (“Binah” or “the Company”) (NASDAQ: BCG; BCGWW), a leading financial services enterprise that owns and operates a network of industry-leading firms empowering independent financial advisors, proudly announces that its Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), David Shane, has been named one of the Top 5 Wealth Management CFOs by Wealth Solutions Report in their annual “CFO 5” list. This prestigious recognition highlights CFOs who have demonstrated exceptional leadership and strategic vision in the financial services industry.

    The recognition highlighted Mr. Shane’s impressive three-decade career in financial services across both senior advisory and operational roles, including his comprehensive experience with broker-dealers, RIA firms and asset managers. Throughout his career as a CFO, Mr. Shane has spearheaded financial strategy, complex transaction structuring and capital raising within both public and private markets for major financial services enterprises. Most recently, Mr. Shane has been instrumental in overseeing Binah’s financial operations and driving the Company’s growth and early success through its first year as a public company.

    “David’s extensive and multi-faceted experience and strategic insight have been invaluable to Binah’s evolution,” said Craig Gould, CEO of Binah Capital Group. “His ability to balance rigorous financial management with forward-thinking leadership leaves us well-positioned to create significant value for our shareholders as we continue to execute on our long-term growth strategy.”

    Mr. Shane expressed his gratitude for the recognition, stating, “I’m honored to be included among such distinguished peers. This acknowledgment reflects the collective efforts of our dedicated team at Binah. Looking ahead, we remain laser focused in executing our long-term growth strategies and strengthening our position as a leader in the wealth management industry.”

    The full article detailing the “CFO 5” list is available on the Wealth Solutions Report website here.

    About Binah Capital Group

    Binah Capital Group is a financial services enterprise that owns and operates a network of industry-leading firms that empower independent financial advisors. As a national broker-dealer aggregator, Binah specializes in delivering value through its innovative hybrid-friendly model, making it an optimal platform for RIAs navigating today’s complex financial landscape. Binah’s portfolio companies are built to help advisors run, manage, and execute commission-based business seamlessly while providing best in class resources to support their advisory practice. We don’t just offer tools—we cultivate partnerships. Binah Capital Group stands alongside RIAs as a trusted ally, delivering the structure, flexibility, and cutting-edge solutions they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive marketplace. For more, please visit: www.binahcap.com

    Contact:

    Binah Capital Investor Relations
    ir@binahcap.com
    Binah Capital Public Relations
    media@binahcap.com

    The MIL Network

  • 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 AnalysisEveningReport.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: Jayapal, Khanna, Hoyle Demand Answers Over Unauthorized Military Strikes in Yemen by Trump Administration

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

    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ro Khanna (CA-17), and Val Hoyle (OR-04) are expressing major concerns over the lack of Congressional approval for U.S. military strikes in Yemen. 

    “The U.S. Constitution is clear: Congress holds the sole power to authorize offensive military action,” wrote the Members. “While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea, we call on your

    Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war.”

    Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President can only introduce U.S. forces into hostilities after a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization from Congress, or in a national emergency when the U.S. is under attack. Presently, no congressional authorization of military force exists for the recent hostilities carried out in Yemen, nor is there a declared national emergency. Senior Trump Administration officials even commented, in a non-secure Signal chat, that these strikes could have waited “a few weeks or a month,” making clear there was ample time to consult with Congress and obtain the necessary authorization before initiating these attacks.

    “Congress must have the opportunity to engage in a robust debate on the rationale for offensive force and vote on its merits before U.S. servicemembers are placed in harm’s way and additional taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another Middle East war,” continued the Members. “No president has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”

    The Administration should be aware of its lack of authority in this matter, as the War Powers Resolution was used in 2019 to compel them to suspend midair refueling for Saudi airstrikes over Yemen. 

    “President Trump’s reckless strikes in Yemen are illegal, counterproductive and dangerous,” said Cavan Kharrazian, Senior Policy Advisor for Demand Progress. “We’re grateful to Representatives Jayapal, Khanna and Hoyle for once again leading the charge to reassert Congress’s war powers—just as they did during the Biden administration. What is clear: Trump must come to Congress for a debate and vote before engaging in further hostilities. This unauthorized military action is killing civilians, costing nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money, emboldening the Houthis and is threatening to create a ground war in a country already shattered by conflict and humanitarian crisis. Upholding congressional authority over matters of war is not a partisan issue; it’s a constitutional imperative and one of the most critical checks on executive power.”

    “Presidents have spent decades undermining Congress’s constitutional authority to declare or otherwise authorize wars, but with President Trump’s authoritarian approach to governance, the stakes are higher than ever,” said Jon Rainwater, Executive Director of Peace Action. “We applaud the members of Congress who signed this critical letter. Their leadership is essential in reining in this open-ended military adventure in Yemen, which is exacerbating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Congress must step up and reassert its oversight over the use of U.S. military before the president engages in even more reckless military adventurism abroad — or potentially even repression at home.”

    “The U.S. airstrikes on Yemen are making a humanitarian crisis worse,” said Isaac Evans-Frantz, Director of Action Corps. “Congress never authorized these attacks, and members of Congress should use their power to stop them.”

    “The U.S. bombing of Yemen contributes to the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of innocent lives, and the deepening of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises—all without congressional authorization,” said Aisha Jumaan, President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation. “I urge Congress to support the War Powers Resolution to end any unauthorized U.S. military involvement in Yemen. It is time for the United States to support accountability, prioritize diplomacy, and play a constructive role in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people.”

    The full text of the letter can be read here. 

    The letter has been signed by Becca Balint (VT-AL), Donald S. Beyer (VA-08), Greg Casar (TX-35), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Jonathan L. Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04), Summer L. Lee (PA-12), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Jennifer L. McClellan (VA-04), James P. McGovern (MA-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Linda T. Sánchez (CA-38), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), Maxine Waters (CA-43), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

    It is also endorsed by Action Corps, American Friends Service Committee, Antiwar.com, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, Brooklyn For Peace, Center for International Policy Advocacy, DAWN, Demand Progress, Emgage Action, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Health Advocacy International, Historians for Peace and Democracy, Just Foreign Policy, L.I. Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, Massachusetts Peace Action, MPower Change Action Fund, National Iranian American Council, NorCal Sabeel, North Country Peace Group, Peace Action, Peace Action New York State, Peace, Justice, Sustainability, NOW!, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, The Libertarian Institute, United for Peace and Justice, WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Western New York Peace Center, Win Without War, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, and Yemeni Alliance Committee.

    Issues: Foreign Affairs & National Security

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pressley, Velázquez, and Brown Call on Trump Admin to Finalize Formaldehyde Ban in Hair Products

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Formaldehyde Ban in Hair Relaxing Products Delayed Three Times Since Initial Action Following Pressley-Brown Inquiry

    In a Hearing Today, Pressley Underscored Urgent Need for Formaldehyde Ban to Protect Public Health, Advance Racial Justice

    Text of Letter (PDF) | Hearing Video (YouTube)

    WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), and Shontel Brown (OH-11) sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting answers on the continued delay in implementing a ban on formaldehyde in hair products.

    The FDA issued the proposed rule in October 2023 following a March letter from Reps. Pressley and Brown calling for an investigation into the health risks posed by chemical hair straighteners. The agency set an April 2024 implementation timeline but missed its own deadline. Although the proposed rule was added to the OMB Unified Agenda last fall, the target action date of March 2025 has passed with no further progress.

    “Since Fall 2024, there has been no further movement or concrete next steps regarding the implementation of the ban” wrote the lawmakers.

    Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen found in hair relaxers, keratin treatments, and other chemical straighteners. Its use has been linked to cancer, respiratory illness, and adverse reproductive outcomes. The letter notes that women of color are disproportionately at risk.

    “Of particular concern is the heightened health risk to Black women, who are more likely to receive or provide formaldehyde-based hair treatments, which has a disparate impact on both workers and their customers,” the lawmakers continued.

    The letter follows previous outreach from Reps. Pressley, Velázquez, and Brown in August 2024, when they again urged the FDA to finalize the proposed rule.

    In the letter, the lawmakers call on the FDA to finalize the proposed rule and ask for answers to the following questions:

    • Given the delay, what steps have been taken since our last inquiry to advance the formaldehyde ban?
    • Are there any current or upcoming changes to federal regulations that would impact the finalization of the proposed rule?
    • How is the FDA prioritizing this issue relative to other regulatory efforts? Are there specific challenges delaying the finalization of the rule?
    • Beyond formaldehyde, does the FDA plan to examine other hazardous chemicals commonly found in personal care products, particularly those disproportionately affecting women and communities of color? If so, what substances are under consideration?

    “It is essential to continue to highlight the gravity of formaldehyde exposure, as evidenced by both epidemiological data and laboratory research,” the letter concludes. “Ensuring that regulatory actions align with the best interests of public health remains the goal and we encourage promptly finalizing a proposed rule.”

    A copy of the letter is available here.

    Congresswoman Pressley has been steadfast in her advocacy for Black women’s health, ending race-based hair discrimination, and introducing policies that affirm the right of Black women to show up in the world as their full, authentic selves.

    • Rep. Pressley is a lead co-sponsor of the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act, legislation with Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Barbara Lee (CA-13) and Ilhan Omar (MN-05) that would ban discrimination based on hair textures and hairstyles that are commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.
    • In August 2024, Reps. Pressley, Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Shontel Brown (D-OH) sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting an update on delays in implementation of a rule to ban formaldehyde and other formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair products.
    • In June 2024, Rep. Pressley and Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-02) led their colleagues in re-introducing the Wigs as Durable Medical Equipment Act, legislation to help individuals affected by Alopecia Areata and patients with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy by allowing medical wigs and other head coverings to be covered under the Medicare program.
    • In May 2024, Rep. Pressley, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), and Rep. Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) introduced the Recognition of Traction Alopecia in Service Women Act of 2023 to support servicemembers with traction alopecia.
    • In April 2024, Rep. Pressley reintroduced the Anti-Racism in Public Health Act, a bicameral bill to declare structural racism a public health crisis and confront its public health impacts through two bold new programs within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Rep. Pressley originally introduced the bill in September 2020.
    • In 2020, the House passed an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Pressley to provide $5 million dollars for the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to fund research on the causes, impacts, and possible treatments of Alopecia areata.
    • In December 2019, Rep. Pressley and her colleagues sent a letter to Johnson & Johnson Chairman and CEO Alex Gorsky seeking information on the targeted marketing and sale of the company’s talc-based baby powder and its potential to cause harm, particularly to women, teenage girls, and people of color, due to asbestos contamination. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: New York Stands With Survivors

    Source: US State of New York

    uring National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, and Child Abuse Prevention Month, Governor Kathy Hochul today announced 14 State landmarks will be lit blue tonight to raise awareness of the state’s prevention efforts to protect children and families. Governor Hochul previously issued a proclamation recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New York State.

    “My top priority is ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all New Yorkers – especially our children,” Governor Hochul said. “By working together, we can ensure every child has the opportunity to thrive in a safe and nurturing environment. I am committed to elevating the voices of survivors, and supporting families and advocates, as well as law enforcement, as we work to advance bold initiatives to prevent child abuse in New York State.”

    This year’s theme for the month is “Supporting Child and Family Well-Being” to highlight key prevention tools that can help assist and strengthen families, ultimately preventing child abuse and neglect. Among those tools are Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers located throughout New York State, and the OCFS HEARS helpline.

    Office of Children and Family Services Commissioner Dr. DaMia Harris-Madden said, “OCFS is dedicated to supporting evidence-based and innovative initiatives to prevent child abuse through prevention services and supports that fortify families and foster healthy environments for children. We are fortunate to live in a state where our Governor proactively leads from the heart and mind, unequivocally supporting the protection of all New Yorkers, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. Governor Hochul’s many commitments include investments in the Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers, located throughout the state. These centers are intended to empower families and improve protective factors such as parental resilience, social connections, and access to resources.”

    In addition to issuing the proclamation, Governor Hochul directed that 14 State landmarks and buildings be illuminated in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month.

    The landmarks and buildings illuminated tonight, April 9, include:

    • One World Trade Center
    • Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge
    • Kosciuszko Bridge
    • The H. Carl McCall SUNY Building
    • State Education Building
    • Alfred E. Smith State Office Building
    • Empire State Plaza
    • State Fairgrounds – Main Gate & Expo Center
    • Niagara Falls
    • The “Franklin D. Roosevelt” Mid-Hudson Bridge
    • Albany International Airport Gateway
    • MTA LIRR – East End Gateway at Penn Station
    • Fairport Lift Bridge over the Erie Canal
    • Moynihan Train Hall

    Governor Hochul continues to support family and childhood initiatives designed to increase protective factors that reduce the risk of child abuse or maltreatment. In her 2025-2026 Executive Budget, Governor Hochul proposed a $9.2 million increase in funding for the New York State Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) – more than double the previous annual funding. Child Advocacy Centers provide a child-friendly, safe, supportive environment for child victims of abuse/neglect and their non-offending caretakers.

    Additionally, New York State has continued to support Family Opportunity Centers and Family Resource Centers, which are located at nonprofit social services organizations and public schools and aim to improve family well-being by enhancing social connections, knowledge of parenting and child development, and parental resilience, and by providing concrete supports such as food assistance, housing support and connections to quality physical and mental health care. The Family Opportunity Centers launched through a collaboration between OCFS and the New York State Education Department (NYSED).

    In addition, another key prevention and family strengthening tool is the OCFS HEARS line (Help, Empower, Advocate, Reassure and Support), which is designed to connect families to community resources offering help with housing, food, health care and more. Anyone can call 1-888-55HEARS (1-888-554-3277) Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m.– 4:30 p.m.

    About the New York State Office of Children and Family Services
    The Office of Children and Family Services serves New York’s public by promoting the safety, permanency and well-being of children, families and communities. The agency provides a system of family support, juvenile justice, youth development, child care and child welfare services and is responsible for programs and services involving foster care, adoption and adoption assistance, child protective services, preventive services for children and families, and protective programs for vulnerable adults.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Sand Beach — RCMP charges one person after responding to barricaded man

    Source: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

    Yarmouth Rural RCMP Detachment has charged a man who was in possession of a firearm while barricaded in a home in Sand Beach.

    On April 7 at approximately 11:20 pm, RCMP responded to a report of a man in possession of a firearm who had assaulted a woman. The two were inside a home on Wyman Rd.

    The woman, along with another male occupant, were able to exit the home safely. When police arrived, the man was the only person in the house. He had barricaded himself inside a room and refused to exit.

    The Nova Scotia RCMP Emergency Response Team and RCMP Police Dog Services (PDS) attended in addition to general duty officers.

    At approximately 3:45 a.m. on April 8, the man exited the home but refused to comply with officers’ directions. An officer deployed their conductive energy weapon, and the man was arrested with the assistance of PDS. He was transported to hospital by EHS for assessment of non-life-threatening injuries.

    Colin Outhouse, 50, of Sand Beach, is charged with Assault and Possession of a Weapon for Dangerous Purpose. He had a first court appearance on April 8 and was remanded into custody pending future court appearances.

    Also on April 8, investigators executed a search warrant at the home and seized a firearm.

    MIL Security OSI

  • 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: 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 peopleand 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 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: ‘Glorified press release:’ Governor Newsom responds to latest Trump order turning back the clock on climate

    Source: US State of California 2

    Apr 9, 2025

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement responding to President Trump’s executive order targeting state-level climate and clean energy efforts.

    This is the world the Trump Administration wants your kids to live in. California’s efforts to cut harmful pollution won’t be derailed by a glorified press release masquerading as an executive order. 

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    California’s climate leadership

    The state continues to set clean energy records. Last year, California ran on 100% clean electricity for the equivalent of 45 days. Since the beginning of the Newsom Administration, battery storage is up to over 13,000 megawatts – a 1,600%+ increase.

    Pollution is down and the economy is up. Greenhouse gas emissions in California are down 20% since 2000 – even as the state’s GDP increased 78% in that same time period.

    Press Releases, Recent News

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: A state grant of $14 million has secured safe drinking water for the severely disadvantaged community of Needles. NEEDLES – After years of struggling with poor water quality and aging facilities, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the…

    News Sacramento, California – Acting Governor Eleni Kounalakis today issued a proclamation declaring April 6 to April 12, 2025 as California Library Week. The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATION During National Library Week, we…

    News What you need to know: CAL FIRE is launching a new campaign supporting Californians to take steps now – including home hardening and defensible space – to prepare for peak fire season. SACRAMENTO – “Prepare your home and property! Start at the house and work your…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Recidivist drug trafficker from Portsmouth sentenced to 10 years in prison for fentanyl distribution

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    NORFOLK, Va. – A Portsmouth man was sentenced today to 10 years in prison for trafficking fentanyl.

    According to court documents, from Feb. 24, 2023, to May 22, 2023, Chesapeake Police (CPD) conducted five controlled purchases of cocaine and fentanyl from Karleak Ali, 53. On May 25, 2023, CPD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) searched Ali’s residence and vehicle and recovered 33 grams of fentanyl, 87 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, packaging material, a sifter, two firearms, ammunition, and approximately $6,000.

    Ali has previous felony drug convictions in Norfolk Circuit Court, including distribution of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In July 2007, Ali was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

    Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Anthony A. Spotswood, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen. The Chesapeake Police Department assisted in the investigation of this case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin M. Comstock prosecuted the case.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

    A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 2:24-cr-4.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: South Bend Man Sentenced to 60 Months in Prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    SOUTH BEND – Earl Mines, 37 years old, of South Bend, Indiana, was sentenced by United States District Court Judge Damon R. Leichty after pleading guilty to distribution of fentanyl, announced Acting United States Attorney Tina L. Nommay.

    Mines was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by 4 years of supervised release.

    According to documents in the case, in July 2024, Mines sold nearly 100 grams of a substance containing fentanyl. This occurred while Mines was on federal supervised release following his conviction for possessing with intent to distribute heroin, possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, and for possessing a stolen firearm.

    This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, including the DEA North Central Laboratory, with assistance from the Indiana State Police.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Joseph P. Falvey.

    This case was part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

    MIL Security OSI

  • 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 Economics: Score the new Pixel 9a and Google One AI Premium perk at Verizon and save big!

    Source: Verizon

    Headline: Score the new Pixel 9a and Google One AI Premium perk at Verizon and save big!

    [TL;DR]

    • Pixel 9a now at Verizon: Available in Obsidian and Iris for $13.88/month or “on us” with any myPlan for new lines.
    • Google AI Premium Perk: Verizon customers can get Google One AI Premium for $10 a month ($9.99 a month in savings), unlocking Gemini Advanced and 2TB of storage.
    • Price lock guarantee: Verizon is the first and only carrier in the industry offering new and existing customers a three-year price lock guarantee on all myPlan and myHome network plans. Price guarantee excludes taxes and fees.

    [The big news]

    The Google Pixel 9a is coming to Verizon, featuring everything you love about Pixel, including AI-power with Gemini, an amazing camera, a durable design, robust security features, Pixel Drops and seven years of Pixel updates from Google.

    Pixel 9a will be available on April 10 in Obsidian and Iris colors for $13.88 a month for 36 months (0% APR, $499.99 retail). Verizon mobile and home subscribers can also take full advantage of the Pixel 9a when they add the Google One AI Premium perk to their account. This complements the various savings Verizon offers on entertainment and productivity services. Whether it’s YouTube Premium, Travelpass or many more, you know we are giving you the best value.

    [Why Verizon is the best place to get your Google Pixel 9a]

    Three years. Free phone. Zero price hikes on network plans. It’s control, value and simplicity for all. Get the new Google Pixel 9a, on us, with a new line on any myPlan plan — no trade-in required. Also, switch to Verizon and get plans as low as $30 a line per month with four lines on Unlimited Welcome and Auto Pay (plus taxes and fees). Verizon continues to provide value for its customers with an industry-leading guarantee — a 3-year price lock on all myPlan and myHome network plans and free satellite texting. Price guarantee applies to base monthly rate only.

    Business offers. Now every business can get the new Google Pixel 9a on us, with select data plan and device payment purchase agreement..

    Epic Gemini AI perk. Verizon customers can choose Google One AI Premium as a perk on their myPlan (mobile) or myHome (internet) plan for just $10 a month — that’s half the price of the usual $19.99. This new perk unlocks access to Gemini Advanced, 2 TB of storage, and more benefits across Google — all in one incredible package, making everyday tasks easier.

    Try Verizon for free. Want a new Pixel 9a, but not yet a Verizon customer? Sign up for the Verizon Free Trial and enjoy unlimited premium data on 5G Ultra Wideband, our fastest 5G network, free for 30 days without disrupting your current service. Download the My Verizon app on your unlocked iOS or Android phone and start your free trial today.

    [How to get your Google Pixel 9a]

    The Google Pixel 9a will be available on April 10 at Verizon stores and at Verizon.com. Verizon Business customers can visit Verizon Business online for business-specific pricing and promos. Upgrade to the new Google Pixel 9a, Google’s affordable AI-powered smartphone, and take advantage of the special deals and offers from Verizon.


    Pixel 9a on us offer: $499.99 (128 GB only) purchase w/new smartphone line on Unlimited Ultimate, postpaid Unlimited Plus, or Unlimited Welcome plan for 36 mos. req’d. Less $499.99 promo credit applied over 36 mos.; promo credit ends if eligibility req’s are no longer met; 0% APR. Offer may not be combined with other offers.

    Business offer: (New / Upgrades): Taxes & fees apply. New line or device upgrade w/device payment purchase agmt, Business Unlimited Plus or Unlimited Pro plan req’d. New line offer is also available with Business Unlimited Start plan. $499.99 credit applied to acct. over the term of your agmt (up to 36 mos, 0% APR); promo credit ends when eligibility requirements are no longer met. Credits begin in 2-3 bills & will include appropriate credit amounts from order date. Cannot be combined with other device offers. Pixel 9a monthly fee after credit: $0. Offer available 4.10 through 6.30.2025.

    3-yr price guarantee: myPlan: Applies to the then-current base monthly rate for your talk, text, and data. Excludes taxes, fees, surcharges, additional plan discounts or promotions, and third-party services. Void if any of the lines are canceled or moved to an ineligible plan. Plan perks, taxes, fees, and surcharges are subject to change. myHome: Price guarantee for 3-5 years, depending on internet plan, for new and existing myHome customers. Applies only to the then-current base monthly rate exclusive of any other setup and additional equipment charges, discounts or promotions, plan perk and any other third-party services.

    Google One AI Premium perk requires line subscribed to myPlan. Must be 18 yrs or older. Cancel anytime. One offer per eligible Verizon line; add’l terms apply.

    Pixel updates for 7 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US. See g.co/pixel/updates for details.

    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 Video: Secretary Rubio meets with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud

    Source: United States of America – Department of State (video statements)

    Secretary of State Marco A. Rubio meets with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud at the Department of State, on April 9, 2025.

    ———-
    Under the leadership of the President and Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity. On behalf of the American people we promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.

    The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.

    Get updates from the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov and on social media!
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/statedept
    X: https://x.com/StateDept
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/statedept
    Flickr: https://flickr.com/photos/statephotos/

    Subscribe to the State Department Blog: https://www.state.gov/blogs
    Watch on-demand State Department videos: https://video.state.gov/
    Subscribe to The Week at State e-newsletter: http://ow.ly/diiN30ro7Cw

    State Department website: https://www.state.gov/
    Careers website: https://careers.state.gov/
    White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    Terms of Use: https://state.gov/tou

    #StateDepartment #DepartmentofState #Diplomacy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2L0sQfAwUo

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI USA: Peters Reintroduces Bipartisan Legislation to Make Higher Education More Affordable & Accessible

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) reintroduced bipartisan legislation to help more high school students earn college credit while making higher education more affordable and accessible. The Making Education Affordable and Accessible Act (MEAA) – which Peters reintroduced with U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) – would expand the use of existing federal grants to support dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment, and early college high school programs.

    “To meet our current workforce needs, we must expand access to the higher education and skills training opportunities that help prepare our young people to land good, in-demand jobs,” said Senator Peters. “This bipartisan bill would give high school students the chance to get a head start working towards a four-year college or associate’s degree to begin building their future without the financial burden of taking on student loans.”

    The MEAA would expand the allowable uses of funding from the Higher Education Act Title VII Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to help colleges and universities strengthen early college access programs. Under this bill, institutions of higher education could use FIPSE funding to:

    • Carry out dual or concurrent enrollment programs as well as early college high school programming;
    • Provide educators, principals, counselors and other school leaders in these programs with professional development;
    • Assist students in the program in covering education-related costs such as tuition and fees, books, and transportation; and
    • Support activities such as course design, course approval processes, community outreach, student counseling, and support services.

    These programs give high school students a valuable head start on obtaining a college education. Concurrent enrollment allows students to take college-credit courses taught by qualified high school teachers approved by partner colleges. Dual enrollment programs enable students to be enrolled in and earn credit from both their high school and a college institution. Early college high schools, which are typically located on or near college campuses or embedded within high schools, allow students to work toward an associate’s degree while completing their high school diploma—often extending into a 13th year to ensure degree completion.

    By supporting these proven models, Peters’ MEAA aims to reduce barriers to higher education, lower student debt, and create stronger academic pathways from high school to college and beyond.

    “Dual enrollment opportunities for high school students have proven to significantly improve student success and degree completion. Investing to expand these programs makes college more accessible and affordable while providing clear, achievable pathways to careers,” said James O. Sawyer IV, President, Macomb Community College.

    “Creating seamless pathways from high school to college is a priority at Mott Community College. The Making Education Affordable and Accessible Act will ensure that more students can gain valuable college credits early, reducing the financial burden of higher education and increasing their chances of completing a degree,” said Shaunda Richardson-Snell, Interim President, Mott Community College.

    “School leaders recognize that college accessibility does more than just create opportunities for students—it strengthens our entire education workforce,” said Ronn Nozoe, CEO of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). “This critical legislation tackles the financial obstacles confronting future teachers, making certification attainable during an era when higher education costs dramatically exceed educator compensation.”

    “The Making Education Affordable and Accessible Act (MEAA) would expand opportunities for dual and concurrent enrollment and early college high schools—both key to the success and connections between our secondary education, postsecondary education and workforce systems,” said Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) Executive Director LeAnn Curry. “ACTE is proud to endorse the bill, and we are grateful to Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and John Boozman (R-AR) for introducing the legislation. Their bipartisan commitment provides Congress with an opportunity to expand access to early postsecondary credit and increase opportunities for CTE students pursuing these pathways into successful careers.”

    Peters has long supported efforts to increase access to affordable higher education and skills training opportunities. In 2018, Peters authored bipartisan provisions signed into law as part of larger legislation to close workforce skills gaps by strengthening career and technical education (CTE). Peters’ provisions helped expand school counselor training and awareness of CTE to help them inform students of post-high school education opportunities outside of the traditional four-year college degree. Peters also authored bipartisan legislation into law to allow more veterans to use their GI bill benefits toward securing a registered apprenticeship.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • 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 USA: Kaine, Cassidy, Heinrich, and Curtis Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced the Protecting Global Fisheries Act, bipartisan legislation to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Predatory IUU fishing, particularly by China, disrupts international trade and undermines maritime security, marine ecosystems and biodiversity, and food and economic security. It often involves forced labor, human trafficking, unsafe working conditions, and other human rights abuses. IUU fishing directly harms the United States—a major harvester, importer, and consumer of seafood—by creating unfair competition for fishermen who abide by international fishing laws.

    “Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is rife with human rights abuses and is bad for maritime security, the global economy, and Virginia’s seafood industry,” said Kaine, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee covering transnational criminal activity. “I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation with my colleagues to deter IUU fishing by China and other bad actors, and bolster the U.S. and international response to these illegal activities.”

    “Louisiana produces the best seafood in the world. Competitors abroad outprice us with illegal practices. It hurts our jobs, economy, and national security. Let’s protect our way of life,” said Dr. Cassidy. 

    “China’s illegal fishing practices not only devastate marine ecosystems, but they also threaten the security of the United States and our partners while undercutting the hardworking men and women who fish legally and sustainably,” said Curtis, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee covering transnational criminal activity. “This bipartisan bill is about restoring fairness and protecting the integrity of global fisheries.”

    IUU fishing includes a range of activities that violate national and international fishing laws, including fishing without a license for certain species, failing to report catches or making false reports, using prohibited fishing gear, or conducting unauthorized transfers of fish to cargo vessels.

    IUU fishing has become a particular challenge in the Western Hemisphere. IUU fishing in the region costs nearly $2.7 billion in lost revenue annually. It makes up more than 20 percent of all catches in Latin America. The increasing presence of illegal Chinese fishing vessels has significantly contributed to the rise in IUU fishing in the hemisphere and around the world.

    Specifically, the bipartisan Protecting Global Fisheries Act would:

    • Authorize the President to impose visa, asset, and financial sanctions on foreign persons or foreign vessels found responsible or complicit in IUU fishing and the sale, supply, purchase, or transfer of endangered species.
    • Require the Departments of State and Defense to regularly provide briefings to Congress on efforts and strategies to combat IUU fishing.
    • Assert that the United States will prioritize countering IUU fishing in collaboration with friendly countries and via international forums.

    Full text of the bill is available here.     

    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: Michigan Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Filing False Tax Return and Employment Tax Crime

    Source: US State of North Dakota

    A Michigan man pleaded guilty today to filing a false tax return for his international vehicle shipping business along with not paying taxes on cash wages he paid to his employees.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, Ali Kassem Kain owned and operated a business called Specialized Overseas Shipping that arranged for vehicles to be shipped to West Africa and other destinations for third parties. For tax years 2017 through 2020, Kain underreported the company’s gross receipts by $6.4 million on the business’ tax returns. Kain also did not collect and pay over to the IRS taxes on $249,000 in cash wages he paid to his employees.

    Kain faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for the employment tax offense and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for filing a false tax return. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman for the Eastern District of Michigan scheduled sentencing for Aug. 14.

    Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division made the announcement.

    IRS Criminal Investigation and the FBI Detroit Field Office are investigating the case.

    Trial Attorneys Richard J. Kelley and Jeffrey A. McLellan of the Tax Division are prosecuting the case.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Request for financial transparency and a simulation incorporating off-budget appropriations into the 2025 EU budget – E-003011/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    As indicated in the Commission’s reply to ‘Recommendation 2 — Compile and publish information on the EU’s overall financial landscape’[1] which was partially accepted by the Commission, the Commission provides comprehensive information, in accordance with the Financial Regulation[2], on the implementation of the budget and instruments for which the Commission is accountable in a number of reports, such as: the EU consolidated Annual Accounts, the Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR), working documents attached to the draft budget in accordance with Article 41 of the Financial Regulation and the report prepared based on Article 256 of the Financial Regulation on financial instruments, budgetary guarantees, financial assistance and contingent liabilities.

    In addition, the Commission compiles, in line with Article 16 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020[3], an annual report, covering some instruments which are outside the Commission’s remit of reporting, and based on publicly available information[4].

    Instruments which are outside the scope of the EU budget, or which do not enter in the accounts of the EU, or, for some, are outside the Treaties, or for which there is no publicly available document, do not fall within the remit of the Commission’s powers to implement the EU budget and are therefore of a very different nature.

    Due to the different logic of such instruments which are outside of the budget, the Commission has not carried out a simulation as referred to by the Honourable Member.

    • [1] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAReplies/COM-Replies-SR-23-05/COM-Replies-SR-23-05_EN.pdf
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1046
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020Q1222(01)
    • [4] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2023-budgetary-transparency-report_en
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – The online promotion of crypto-assets by Elon Musk in relation to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) – E-000057/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA)[1] Regulation on the prevention and prohibition of market abuse involving crypto-assets, applies to acts carried out by any person concerning crypto-assets that are admitted to trading or in respect of which an admission to trading on a crypto-asset platform has been made, in the EU (Article 86).

    Provided Mr Musk’s actions refer to crypto-assets admitted to trading or a request for admission has been made in the EU, Article 91(2)(c) which prescribes that no person shall engage in or attempt to engage in market manipulation, including the dissemination of information through the media would apply.

    The supervision and enforcement of the MiCA Regulation is the competence of the national competent authorities. The national competent authorities have the power to investigate and impose any appropriate sanction for actions that are found to be in violation of the provisions of the MiCA Regulation, including the provisions for the prevention of market abuse.

    The Commission is scheduled to review the MiCA Regulation at regular intervals. Article 140 lists all the areas that the review will cover, including the functioning of markets in crypto-assets in the EU and any market developments and trends, therefore possibly covering indirectly international developments that may affect crypto-asset markets.

    • [1] OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 40-205.
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Small regional airports across the European Union – E-000738/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission is currently reviewing the 2014 guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines (Aviation Guidelines)[1]. It has carried out stakeholder consultations[2] and launched an external support study to be finalised in 2025.

    The objective is to adopt the new rules before April 2027 and stakeholders will have the chance to comment on the draft guidelines before that date.

    The revision of the Aviation Guidelines will consider connectivity needs of Member States as well as the need to decarbonise the aviation sector.

    At this moment, it appears too early to anticipate about the content of the new rules. In that regard, while the Commission acknowledges that regional airports may contribute to connectivity (and thus social and territorial cohesion of the Union), it notes at the same time that operating aid is one of the most distortive forms of public support, which is why the current Aviation Guidelines foresee the phase-out of operating aid to regional airports by 3 April 2027.

    Considering the sectorial developments since 2014, the Commission will assess whether and under which conditions start-up aid to airlines and operating aid to regional airports (including those with up to one million passengers per year) could be maintained.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=planjo:20140328-018
    • [2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13915-State-aid-in-the-aviation-sector-Commission-guidelines-on-airports-and-airlines-revision-_en
    Last updated: 9 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News