NewzIntel.com

Category: Transport

  • MIL-OSI Security: Billings man sentenced to over 7 years in prison for distributing methamphetamine

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BILLINGS – A Billings man who possessed methamphetamine was sentenced today to 94 months in prison to be followed by 5 years of supervised release, U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme said.

    Brice Judsen Bailey, 33, pleaded guilty in December 2024 to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

    U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters presided.

    The government alleged in court documents that from September 2023 through January 2024, Bailey was one of approximately seven defendants in a drug distribution network in Billings.  The group received methamphetamine from a drug trafficking organization in Washington state and funneled pounds of methamphetamine into the Billings area. Bailey was a significant source of supply for the group, distributing between a quarter-pound and a half-pound of meth each day. He arranged two controlled purchases totaling over one pound of methamphetamine. Not only was Bailey a significant dealer of methamphetamine, but he also provided several firearms to one of his co-defendants in exchange for meth.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the case and the investigation was conducted by the DEA.

    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. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psn.

    XXX

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Federal grand jury indicts seven people for their roles in narcotics conspiracy

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BUFFALO, N.Y.-U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo announced today that a federal grand jury has returned an indictment charging seven defendants for their roles in a narcotics conspiracy. Named in the indictment and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and fentanyl are:

    • Winnie Taru Woods a/k/a Ru, 50, of Buffalo
    • Sharron McCullough a/k/a Black, 34, of Brooklyn, NY
    • Marlon Holt, Jr. a/k/a Scooter a/k/a Professor, 51, of Buffalo
    • Norman Patillo, 44, of Houston, Texas
    • Gary Sudesh Gosine, Sr., 50, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago
    • Ian Dyer, 25, of Austin, Texas
    • Shannell Gosine, 27, of Baytown, Texas

    In addition, defendants Woods, McCullough, and Holt are also charged with possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The defendants face a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years in prison, a maximum of life, and a $10,000,000 fine.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Adler, who is handling the case, stated that according to the indictment, between April 2023, and February 2025, the defendants conspired to sell cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. During the conspiracy, defendants Winnie Taru Woods and Sharron McCullough would purchase bulk quantities of narcotics from cartels in Mexico for later resale by others in Buffalo, New York City, and elsewhere. Gary Sudesh Gosine, Sr. was one of their sources of supply in Mexico. Defendants Holt, Patillo, Dyer, and Shannell Gosine, took numerous trips to and from Texas, New York, and other cities, transporting the narcotics and bulk currency. On May 7, 2024, Holt, while traveling back from Texas, was stopped by the Ontario County, NY, Sheriff’s Office and arrested after being found in possession of nine kilograms of cocaine and 3.5 kilograms of methamphetamine in his trunk. 

    The defendants have all been arraigned. Defendants Woods, McCullough, Gary Sudesh Gosine, Sr. and Patillo were detained. Defendants Holt, Dyer, and Shannell Gosine were released on conditions.

    “This case falls within the parameters of Operation Take Back America,” stated U.S. Attorney DiGiacomo. “The Operation Take Back America initiative focuses resources on the elimination of cartels, such as the ones allegedly involved in this case, in an effort to protect our communities from the members of these criminal organizations.”

    HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Erin Keegan stated, “As alleged, the defendants conspired with Mexican cartels to traffic deadly narcotics into the U.S., across the country and into our New York communities. The unified strength and versatility of the U.S. federal law enforcement system, together with our state partners, has once again stopped an allegedly dangerous drug trafficking organization in its tracks. Securing the homeland from dangers posed by foreign organizations and threats is among HSI’s top priorities. We are relentlessly prepared to confront bad actors seeking financial gain by whatever means necessary.”

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) and Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).

    The indictment is the result of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Erin Keegan, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Frank Tarantino, New York Field Division. Additional assistance was provided by the Ontario County, NY, Sheriff’s Office, the 23rd Judicial Taskforce, Tennessee, as well as Homeland Security Investigations in NY, and Houston and Austin, Texas.

    The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

    # # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Warrensburg Sex Offender Sentenced to 25 Years for Child Pornography

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Warrensburg, Mo., man was sentenced in federal court today for distributing and possessing child pornography.

    William Aloys Wameling, Jr., 39, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Greg Kays to a total sentence of 25 years in federal prison without parole. The court also sentenced Wameling to a lifetime term of supervised release following incarceration. Wameling was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $99,000 to the victims of his offenses.

    On Aug. 27, 2024, Wameling pleaded guilty to the charges. Wameling has a prior conviction for possession of child pornography.

    Wameling will be required to register as a sex offender upon his release from prison and will be subject to federal and state sex offender registration requirements, which may apply throughout his life.

    This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Dunning. It was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, and the Johnson Co. Missouri Sheriff’s Office.

    Project Safe Childhood

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

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Newington Man Admits Trafficking Narcotic Pills, Violating Supervised Release from Prior Conviction

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Marc. H. Silverman, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that KYLE PETERSEN, 39, of Newington, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley in Bridgeport to a narcotics trafficking offense and admitted that he violated the conditions of his supervised release that followed a prior federal conviction.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, in May 2023, members of the DEA New Haven Tactical Diversion Squad began investigating suspicious packages that were being delivered to Petersen’s Newington residence.  At the time, Petersen was on federal supervised release following a federal conviction in 2017 involving the trafficking of fentanyl and prescription pills.  During the investigation, a court-authorized search of a package mailed to Petersen contained more than 400 grams of pills containing Protonitazene, a synthetic opioid typically more potent than fentanyl.  The investigation revealed that Petersen had received approximately 34 similar packages mailed from the same source in Michigan, and also received approximately 46 packages from California and Oregon suspected to contain multiple pounds of marijuana.  Investigators also made controlled purchases of counterfeit Percocet pills containing fentanyl from Petersen’s brother, Erik Peterson.

    Kyle and Erik Petersen were arrested on federal criminal complaints on April 3, 2024.  On that date, a search of Kyle Petersen’s residence revealed more than a kilogram of counterfeit Adderall pills containing methamphetamine, counterfeit oxycodone pills containing fentanyl, counterfeit Xanax pills, a large quantity of Protonitazene, approximately 40 grams of cocaine, and $76,650 in cash.  Kyle Petersen has been detained since his arrest.

    Kyle Petersen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, and quantities of cocaine, fentanyl, and Protonitazine.  He also admitted he violated the conditions of his supervised release and agreed to the forfeiture of the cash seized from his residence, an additional $57,530 in cash seized from a bank account, and a 2014 Porsche Cayenne.

    Judge Dooley scheduled sentencing for July 3, at which time Kyle Peterson faces a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of life.

    Erik Petersen, of New Britain, pleaded guilty to a related charge and awaits sentencing.

    This matter is being investigated by the DEA New Haven Tactical Diversion Squad, with the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the New Britain and Newington Police Departments.  The Tactical Diversion Squad is composed of personnel from the DEA, the Connecticut State Police, and the Bristol, Hamden, West Haven, Fairfield, Seymour, and Glastonbury Police Departments.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan Keefe.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Join us at 9:30 a.m. PT on Friday, April 4, to learn about the latest Copilot news and innovations

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Join us at 9:30 a.m. PT on Friday, April 4, to learn about the latest Copilot news and innovations

    Cart 0 items in shopping cart

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Podcast: AI Is lowering the cost of expertise. What does that mean for business?

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Podcast: AI Is lowering the cost of expertise. What does that mean for business?

    MOLLY WOOD: Today I’m talking to Karim Lakhani, a Harvard business professor who also chairs several university programs dedicated to technology management, innovation, and AI transformation, including the university’s new research center called Digital Data Design Institute. In 2020, before a lot of business leaders had even heard of generative AI or large language models, Lakhani co-authored a book titled, Competing in the Age of AI: Strategy and Leadership When Algorithms and Networks Run the World. That’s kind of happening now. AI is revolutionizing every aspect of how we work. We thought he would be a great person to talk to about strategies and insights that can help leaders and organizations navigate the AI era. And now my conversation with Karim. Thanks so much for joining me.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Thanks, Molly. Great to be here with you.  

    MOLLY WOOD: So you’ve been writing about and teaching about digital transformation and the potential of AI for years now. I’d love to know what this relatively recent rise of generative AI looks like to you as somebody who’s been such a close observer for so long. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: The generative AI moment was sort of like, for me, feels like the 1992, 1993 browser moment. Like, we had 30 years of the internet, then Andreessen invents the browser and then, boom, the internet becomes democratized and becomes available. And so generative AI, for me, is that moment where all of a sudden AI, which was sort of the work of the pointy-headed nerds who knew math and computer science, where all of a sudden you could now use a generative AI yourself for your particular tasks. We anticipated democratization of this technology, but we didn’t anticipate the scale, the speed, and the scope of what generative AI has unleashed. 

    MOLLY WOOD: So what changes now? So, you know, there you are, as a Harvard business professor, what are you telling these baby MBAs, these aspiring MBAs? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah, I have 935 of them right now, so I’m actually, I just launched a brand new course I’ve co-developed with my colleagues, and it’s called Data Science and AI for Leaders. We’ve tried to make this an AI-native course. There are two bots. There’s a bot that sort of understands all the concepts, from statistics and machine learning to data architectures, all the way to transformation challenges inside of organizations. And then also we’re using a service which basically removes the constraint of programming R or Python to do machine learning, to do statistics. You could now basically do that in natural language. So all of a sudden our MBAs have this superpower available to them. The big thesis I have, and we have some data on this, if you sort of imagine this discussion we’re having right now on video and audio, 30 years ago, this would’ve cost us $10,000 per minute. Now, the marginal cost for us to do this conversation is effectively zero. And what the internet did is that it basically lowered the marginal cost of information transmission. Everything else flew from that. And so my view has been, and we now have evidence of this, that generative AI is lowering the cost of expertise. 

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. In fact, you recently co-wrote a piece about that for Harvard Business Review, and this seems really relevant to this conversation about AI transformation. It’s called Strategy in an Era of Abundant Expertise. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah, we had some great colleagues from Microsoft actually work with us on this. And so if you believe this world of abundant expertise, companies are just bundles of expertise, right? We have expertise in software, we have expertise in marketing, in customer, in supply chain, and so forth. And if effectively the cost of expertise is dropping, then that changes the very core of what the firm is. So we’re obsessed, you know, at our institute with various questions around this. One perspective we have at our institute is that generative AI is like a drug. We don’t know dose, we don’t know efficacy, we don’t know the right regimes, we don’t know side effects in the world of business. The only way we’ll actually be able to figure out what it’s good for, what it’s not good for, what all the issues are is to actually do these as randomized controlled trials, be experimental, be scientific about their effects, so we can both advise the companies that are adopting what to do, but also the creators of these tools to say like, here’s the good signs and here’s the bad signs.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. And then how should leaders be thinking about the way they introduce AI into their organization? If it’s controlled trials, is it, you know, phase one and phase two? We’ve had a lot of conversations on this show, in fact, about whether you should pilot or whether you need to give it to everybody, because bottom-up is the only way that you truly determine the value. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: So I see a lot of leaders here. You know, we have both an MBA program, but we also have exec ed. Today, the average leader is happy to talk about AI, be in meetings about AI, but they’re not themselves using AI. And I think that’s a problem.  

    MOLLY WOOD: That’s not gonna work.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: That’s not gonna work because you can’t outsource your browsing to somebody else. You can’t outsource your email to somebody else. You have to do it yourself. And similarly, because this is a cognitive effect, because it’s an expertise story, it’s a skill story, you actually have to use it yourself to understand its power, and then you can start to make decisions. So my complaint right now to them, and I’m very frank with them, it’s like, you actually have to use this stuff and do it for your own work. And then you’ll know what it means. And so the first thing is like, what I tell organizations, is that pilot or no pilot, you first need to get activated, and it’s activation at the highest levels of the organization and the C-suite, and for them to actually understand how this works. And so my colleague, Iavor Bojinov, who’s a faculty member here at HBS, he came up with this brilliant exercise that in 90 minutes, through a series of structured prompts, you can create a snack food company. You sort of do this—they’re very skeptical. You go, yeah, you only have 90 minutes, you work in teams, there’s a set of prompts. Start to use these prompts and get answers. At the end, they have a business plan, they have a jingle, they have a deck, go-to-market plan in 90 minutes, and all of a sudden they’re stunned. That’s the big light bulb moment that I gotta pay attention on. So the activation is important and the activation has to be across the board at the C-suite level and so forth. And the activation has to be, I think, tied to, like, what’s gonna be your bold stroke? Like, if you believe this conversation and we have evidence, we have data from companies about the cost of expertise going down, what’s gonna be your bold stroke around this? How do you think about this? What do you want people to do? And then there’s a question about, are you gonna democratize or are you gonna do this in pilots? I think it just depends on the organization and where they’re comfortable.  

    MOLLY WOOD: I wonder, as you interact with the next generation of leaders, what are they bringing to the table on this topic? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: If we get it right here with our MBAs, there’s gonna be a generation of leaders coming out now that will be AI native, and—   

    MOLLY WOOD: It’ll be like breathing to them.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Exactly.    

    MOLLY WOOD: You wouldn’t go anywhere without the phone, you wouldn’t run a business without AI, yeah. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: You know, we said if the last century was about MBAs with Excel spreadsheets, this century will be MBAs with AI. You’ve heard this in many ways. You know, we say, machines aren’t gonna replace humans, but humans with machines are gonna replace humans without machines. And so our view is that, you know, if we do it right here at HBS, that many of our graduates will be AI native. They’ll know how to use these tools. We’ll have a sense of some of the downsides, the sharp edges and know how to navigate that. But we’ll come in with a variety of interesting approaches to solve business problems. And I think there’ll be two things going on. I was just talking to some colleagues in our entrepreneur management unit, they have a founder’s class, about 30 students that are starting companies, and, typically in the MBA program there are people that have technical knowledge and business knowledge—and of course we give them all business knowledge. But if you’re founding a company, the folks that have a business orientation are looking for technical co-founders. Early indications are that they may not need them right away. That they could do the first MVP using the tools that, you know, Microsoft has in coding and website design. This is the expertise story. Like, all of a sudden some of our students will be feeling very empowered to go start these companies now with these AI bots, and then those that join incumbent companies, they’ll be coming with the tool set, and the question will become, how will their managers, how will their peers respond to them showing up with their AI tools and AI agents?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right. I want to relate this back to the idea of abundant expertise, and then what happens to the value of expertise, which is, I would venture to say, the question.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: We’re in the business. I mean, that’s what we do. We give degrees because we think you’re an expert in something.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Exactly. And so how do companies continue to be the best at expertise when expertise is so abundant?  

    KARIM LAKHANI: I think the, and this is part of the paper that we wrote, that for companies—and I think this is also for individuals—that you will have to be thinking about you with AI compared to AI itself. If the AI keeps improving, what value am I adding so that I’m better?  

    MOLLY WOOD: No pressure. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: No pressure, no pressure. And that, I think, is gonna be the key thing. At the moment, what this requires is—these large language models love to freelance, love to solve more problems than you’ve asked them to solve, right? And they come up with amazing answers. How do you know that these answers are correct? And if you don’t know what it’s talking about, but it sounds good, you better go back to your large language model, understand what it’s talking about, and then come up with an answer, if that makes sense. So in statistics, right, you’d run a regression, but it might do five different regressions, it might do additional tests. If you’re gonna go present to your management board results of some analysis you did and you don’t understand what the large language model did to give you the answer, and it gave you a task and it’s significant, that’s not good enough. You actually have to understand that, is this the right test? Is it appropriate or not? So I think it’s the combination of what you know, how well you know it, what the AI is unlocking for you, and then this ongoing conversation about, AI is getting better. How are you with AI going to be better?  

    MOLLY WOOD: So it sounds like, if I had to break it down, it sounds like what you’re saying to your students, but also even within the context of the Harvard Business Analytics program, to existing executives, it’s use it but don’t turn everything over to it, which is the message we’ve heard before, I think, on the show.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yeah. You know, my postdoc, Fabrizio Dell’Acqua, did this great study while he was at Columbia doing his PhD, and his thing was like falling asleep at the wheel.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yes. I liken this to the level three, level four self-drive. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Exactly. Like, with full self-driving cars, you know, right now they have sort of the various tools to alert you. There’s automatic braking, it’ll buzz you, if your eyes are darting it’ll intervene. The current versions of these models don’t do that in our knowledge work, they’ll just be happy to please you and so forth. And what Fabrizio found in his experiment is that good people with good AI often fell asleep at the wheel because they started just like, trust the output and didn’t pay attention. And so I think that paying attention and knowing your expertise, improving your expertise, and you with AI is gonna be a critical factor. 

    MOLLY WOOD: It takes a lot of discipline though, right? I mean, ultimately, that is a leadership skill. Like the ability to—because good leaders do the research behind the scenes, good leaders actually read the reports that they’re given. I mean, it’s very interesting because it sounds like what you’re describing is also still pretty basic leadership. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Leadership 101?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Leadership 101, turns out.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Like, come prepared to your meeting? Read the report?  

    MOLLY WOOD: [Laughter] Yeah. You’ve also written about the need to focus on the customer problems that you can directly solve. I think where people feel overwhelmed with AI is like, I have this tool, but I don’t know what it’s for. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Throughout this journey I’ve been on, and sort of looking at AI in its various forms, you would always see pilot hell—lots of pilots, no implementation. What would happen in most organizations is that people would not say that if the pilot works, I’m going to implement. I think now we’re at a stage where, you know, you can solve real customer problems with these tools. You can actually get voice of the customer. So, for example, and on the customer side where I sort of focus a lot of my research on, which is on the new product development side, you can start to explore and hypothesize way more. There’s always this limited bandwidth of, do I have access to customers? Can I run consumer tasks? Can I do all these things? Now you can do way more. From design to testing in virtual in silico and lead to better outcomes. So that’s one side. The second is the customer experience, right? Both from customer service to how the products are being used. Certainly we see low-hanging fruits on changing customer experiences by embedding generative AI in your user workflows. And in many ways, I think customers are now going to be sort of expecting that. You know, everybody wants one-click shopping, you know, and they get mad when they don’t have that. I think very soon, I think those standards will change around that. And then I think the pilots can be on like, what are some customer value problems that we can solve first? Let’s go build those pilots first and actually have an intention to scale. So, the scaling story is like, if it works, and in many cases they work, you should not then be in another yearlong process to think about scaling. The managerial, the leadership decision is, if it works, we’re gonna scale and we’re gonna change our process.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Right.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Not that we’re not gonna think about it. If you were a leader and you say, I’ve got my tech team, my IT department figuring it out, or my marketing group figuring it out, they will figure it out, but then they’ll face a ton of friction. It behooves leaders to be engaged. Now, you’re not gonna spend all day, every night on this, but it has to be your projects, sponsored by you, with a commitment to launch. And I think now there are low-hanging fruits on the customer side, customer service side, customer innovation side, on the marketing side, on the software side, software development side. Those are things that there’s no doubt those can be implemented and put into play. And the longer you wait, the harder the jump is gonna be. So what I say to many leaders is that these models, these capabilities, the performance capabilities of these models and what they can continue to do appears to be increasing quite radically or exponentially. And we don’t know what the ceiling is. Of course, everything has a ceiling. We’ll get to the ceiling when we get to it, but at least for the time being, we don’t see ceilings. And you add gentech workflows on top, it’s like, wow.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Well, so that actually, that’s my next question. You’ve got this leadership challenge, and you’re clearly saying, in the words of the new great American classic Twisters, if you feel it, chase it. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes, yes. Oh, I like that. [Laughter]  

    MOLLY WOOD: Thanks, Glen Powell for the new catchphrase for all of us. And then there is this question of agents rewriting team structures, potentially.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes. Yes.  

    MOLLY WOOD: So how do you, as a leader, think about incorporating AI agents on top of AI?   

    KARIM LAKHANI: Yes. Figure it out—that’s why you get paid the big bucks. [Laughter] Figure it out. No, I mean, so let me just add one more bit and then we’ll go to agents and you’ll see the connectivity. So, technology is improving quite radically, exponentially. Most companies are absorbing linearly. So that creates, over time, an increasing exponential gap between what you are able to do and what these models are able to do. But this question about adoption is not a simple technological adoption. Should we have Wi-Fi or not in our buildings? Remember, this was a question?  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yes, I do.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Twenty years ago. Big debates.  

    MOLLY WOOD: And should it be public Wi-Fi, and should it be locked Wi-Fi?  

    KARIM LAKHANI: And how many layers of authentication do we need? You know, this is not a Wi-Fi adoption question because Wi-Fi’s about communication and information transmission. If these tools are about expertise, then it’s back to the work. It’s about work. Your work has to change, and your workflow has to change, your work process has to change, and the longer you wait to adopt, the bigger the hurdle is gonna be for you to change your work processes. Your teams, your organizations, your people haven’t kept up with the speed of change that these models are undergoing. And so they will be doing old line processes, but all of a sudden you’re gonna have a totally transformed process because you need to build the fitness in your companies to be able to keep changing and keep adapting and get everybody ready for it. Which would then, by the way, argue this question about democratization. Like, you really need to make everybody available to this kind of stuff. So I think the answer is yes, people will get there one way or the other. But, you know, it’s already on your bloody phone, right? Come on. Like, you’re gonna say no, they’re gonna do it on their phone with other risks. But the problem is change and change management and change fitness. And we know from lived experiences by all of us, and also lots of research, lots of papers, lots of data, lots of blog posts. That change is damn hard in organizations. It’s really hard to change—  

    MOLLY WOOD: And risky.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: Risky, change is hard to do, people don’t like it. Given that, if your organization is gonna be averse to change, then this becomes an even harder task. So just think, you are living in this world where your people haven’t kept up, your processes haven’t kept up, and then agents pop in and then, boom, what are you gonna do? Versus, you have been in the journey, everybody is adapting, everybody’s figured out, oh, I can do this, I can do that. I can actually take advantage of these core capabilities and actually do something additional with that. Then you’ll be in better shape. To your question about agents, I think agents are team technology. It’s a work technology. And I, you know, I’m an HBS professor, so I’m always used to asking. I never give answers, I ask questions. So, Molly, let me ask you a question. What in your life today is, and I think most people listening will have experienced this, basically has some kind of an algorithm directing the work of humans, some kind of a proto agent. So, like, everybody takes Uber, right? Who’s the manager for the driver? It’s the AI algorithm at Uber. Amazon warehouses, AI algorithm. Instacart, you know, you name it. So, already, services we’re using every day are already, have this world where the agent is part of the workflow. It’s not a GenAI agent yet at Uber or at Lyft, but it tells you that already some work is already being transformed because we don’t have the dispatcher telling people where to go. We basically have an algorithm directing work. So when we now think about agents, what we imagine, and this is part of the work in our recent HBR paper, an expertise paper, is that people will come with their own agents. Or the companies will give them their agents. One of the conversations we’re having at Harvard and with HBS is like, should we have an agent companion for our students that learns with them and then it goes off and keeps learning? That feature is not that far off. It probably exists in some form already. So workers will come with their agents, workers will have teammates that are agents. And then workers may also have bosses that are agents.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yeah. And soon. 

    KARIM LAKHANI: And soon. And in many ways, a version of that exists at Uber, right, and various automated warehouses and that kind of stuff.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Yeah.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: So that’s already happening.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Is there anything that we have not discussed yet about AI and opportunities and challenges that you think we’re really overlooking? 

    KARIM LAKHANI: So let’s think about this at the three layers—at the company level, at the leader level, and at the individual level. At the company level, my biggest worry is strategic shifts are ahead. They might happen faster than we imagine, but the bigger story is if you sort of, again, you’ll remember this time, Molly, Amazon being invented, right, and you have e-commerce. So bookstores also—remember, Barnes and Noble had an e-commerce site, and Borders also had a website too. It’s not as if Barnes and Noble and Borders did not have websites, but they didn’t reimagine their business from top to bottom because the cost of communication had dropped to zero. They all invested. They, you know, they hired all the consultants. E-commerce, is it, we’re gonna have new business, we’re gonna do that. They did all that. But they did the old business. The operating model of a retailer had changed dramatically. And they didn’t realize it until much, much later, until it was too late. So the worry I have with companies is that they will do the Barnes and Noble-Borders strategy. Let’s add a chatbot, check the box, go to the board. We’re AI native. Instead of saying, if you believe what I’m saying, that the cost of expertise has dropped, then you should be really rethinking your business and reimagining it from the core up before somebody else does. So I think that’s the first thing at the company level. At the leader level, I think there are three big gaps. There’s a learning gap, right, like, they don’t know enough. They haven’t, you know, what I call the learning-doing gap. Everybody talks about AI. Nobody does AI. So I think there’s a learning gap. Then there’s an adoption gap, like, you are just not adopting fast enough, fierce enough, wide enough. And then a transformation gap. Like, you’ve thought of this as a technology play when this is a culture play, this is a work play, this is a team play. And your HR officer should be married to your data AI officer, and all adoption needs to be thought about in terms of technology and change and process change, not in terms of anything else. And for individuals what I would say is, you know, I sort of hark back to the bicycle of the mind analogy that allows you to go further and faster. Well, that’s what these things are showing, but we’re adults now trying to learn the bike, and if you remember trying to ride a bike when you were a kid, you know, you fell down, you scraped knees, you were embarrassed. It was hard to learn, but you had to keep practicing to learn to use this new instrument called the bike. And then once you got that, you had all this amazing freedom, you could sort of pretend to run away from your house very quickly when you were upset at your parents. That never happened to me. [Laughter]  

    MOLLY WOOD: I did that like 30 times. I’m just flashing back to my entire childhood, and it was always the bike. [Laughter] 

    KARIM LAKHANI: Right? So, but you had to invest, and you had, you know, maybe even a concussion to get there. So this is a practice thing. You’ve gotta practice this stuff to really understand. Like, don’t talk about—I got so mad at an exec class recently. I’m like, all of you guys are just talking about it. One was like, oh yeah, we’re thinking about AI and regulation. I go, does AI have a seat at the table with you? Are you asking it what it thinks? And they’re like, no. I’m like, then, what’s it gonna do? And so that, that’s where I see, I think, you know, at the company level, the leader level, and the individual level.  

    MOLLY WOOD: Thank you so much. Karim Lakhani is a Harvard professor and chair of the school’s Digital Data Design Institute. What an absolute treat. Thanks for the time.  

    KARIM LAKHANI: So much fun, Molly. 

    MOLLY WOOD: Thank you all for joining us, and keep checking your feeds. We have more fascinating guests on the way with actionable insights that can help leaders develop an AI-first mindset, and maximize the ROI of AI. If you’ve got a question or a comment, please drop us an email at worklab@microsoft.com. And check out Microsoft’s Work Trend Indexes and the WorkLab digital publication, where you’ll find all our episodes along with thoughtful stories that explore how business leaders are thriving in today’s new world of work. You can find all of that at microsoft.com/worklab. As for this podcast, please, if you don’t mind, rate us, review us, and follow us wherever you listen. It helps us out a ton. The WorkLab podcast is a place for experts to share their insights and opinions. As students of the future of work, Microsoft values inputs from a diverse set of voices. That said, the opinions and findings of our guests are their own, and they may not necessarily reflect Microsoft’s own research or positions. WorkLab is produced by Microsoft with Godfrey Dadich Partners and Reasonable Volume. I’m your host, Molly Wood. Sharon Kallander and Matthew Duncan produced this podcast. Jessica Voelker is the WorkLab editor.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Statement on Trump Tariffs that Will Hurt WA State Businesses, Agriculture & Economy, Raise Costs on Everyone

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ***TODAY: Senate to vote on a resolution to reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada—Trump’s trade war with Canada, which has resulted in severe, 25 percent retaliatory tariffs on nearly all goods, is already seriously hurting WA businesses and agriculture industry***
    Washington state is one of the most trade-dependent states in the U.S., with 40 percent of WA jobs tied to international commerce
    Senator Murray: “Trump’s refusal to accept basic economic realities or listen to the desperate pleas of American businesses, farmers, and families who can’t afford his costly tariffs is risking serious economic catastrophe and pushing our country toward a Republican recession.”
    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released the following statement on President Trump’s reckless and sweeping new tariffs, which are expected to go into effect later today and will raise costs, and severely harm Washington state businesses, agriculture, and our overall economy. A recent analysis found that Trump’s tariffs could raise costs on the average American household by $5,200 a year—and these price hikes on working families are coming at the very same time that Republicans are forcing through Congress massive new tax cuts for billionaires.
    The Senate will also vote today on a resolution from Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) that would reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada by nullifying the emergency declaration issued by President Trump that underpins them. The resolution requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate and would also need to be brought up and passed in the Republican-controlled House in order to go into effect.
    “Trump’s ham-fisted, utterly pointless tariffs are a tax that families in Washington state will pay on nearly everything they buy—whether at the grocery store, the car dealership, or your neighborhood coffee shop.
    “We have all the data in the world that tells us exactly how these tariffs will hurt American businesses and push up prices—that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Trump and his cabinet are choosing to ignore the mountains of evidence we have that tariffs do not work and push ahead because they simply don’t care. They don’t care if small businesses have to close their doors, if farmers lose access to markets, or if prices go up—because it won’t affect Trump and his cabinet full of billionaires.
    “Trump’s trade war is an especially deep cut to farmers, fishers, and producers in Washington state—I’ve talked to so many who are absolutely furious that Trump is putting their livelihoods at risk because he cannot seem to grasp the basic fact that they actually rely on international markets to sell their goods. Trump doesn’t have a clue—and businesses in Washington state are already paying the price for his ignorance.
    “Today I will vote for Senator Kaine’s resolution to reverse Trump’s disastrous tariffs on Washington state’s largest trading partner, Canada—Trump’s trade war has already forced businesses in Washington state who rely on imported materials and business from Canada to lay off employees and close their doors, and is upending supply chains across the Pacific Northwest.
    “Trump’s refusal to accept basic economic realities or listen to the desperate pleas of American businesses, farmers, and families who can’t afford his costly tariffs is risking serious economic catastrophe and pushing our country toward a Republican recession.”
    Washington state has one of the most trade-dependent economies of any state in the country, with 40 percent of jobs tied to international commerce and approximately $60 billion in annual exports. Washington is the top U.S. producer of apples, blueberries, hops, pears, spearmint oil, and sweet cherries—all of which risk losing vital export markets due to retaliatory tariffs from key trading partners including Canada. Additionally, more than 12,000 small and medium-sized companies in Washington state export goods and will struggle to absorb the impact of retaliatory tariffs. Trump’s tariffs during his first term were extremely costly for Washington state—as one example, India imposed a 20 percent retaliatory tariff on U.S. apples, causing Washington apple shipments to India to fall by 99 percent and growers to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in exports.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Heinrich Sound Alarm on Reports of DOGE “Hit List” of Key Energy Projects, Demand that Department of Energy Follow the Law

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    Murray, Heinrich, and colleagues: “Dissolving contracts, cancelling grants and loans, and reneging on loan guarantees without any intention to execute the laws is not only illegal, but is harmful to the public and energy consumers. Your indiscriminate cancellations of spending will increase energy prices, make our grid less secure, and stop energy innovation”
    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Vice Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, and U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, led 25 Democratic senators in sending a letter to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Christopher Wright demanding that he uphold his commitment to honor existing legal agreements and deliver funds passed into law by Congress.
    The letter comes on the heels of recent reports that the Department of Energy is creating a “hit list” of awards, projects, and contracts—many of which have already began construction—it is considering canceling, which would break existing agreements and  lead to job losses and reductions in the growth of new energy resources. 
    The senators detailed their serious concerns about the reports, telling Secretary Wright: “You assured us during your confirmation hearing that you believe that legal agreements should be honored (including managing the financial commitments you have inherited) and that you will follow the law.”
    The senators added: “Indiscriminately canceling program funding and executed contracts, and refusing to execute on the funding directives Congress enacted, neither honors existing agreements nor is consistent with the spending laws that have appropriated funding for specific purposes.”
    “Dissolving contracts, cancelling grants and loans, and reneging on loan guarantees without any intention to execute the laws is not only illegal, but is harmful to the public and energy consumers.  Your indiscriminate cancellations of spending will increase energy prices, make our grid less secure, and stop energy innovation,” the senators continued. “If the Department has a policy disagreement and does not want to spend money on programs Congress has funded, the lawful response is to ask Congress to rescind that funding. The decision ultimately rests with Congress, not with the President, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Government Efficiency.”
    The senators concluded the letter by demanding a detailed list and briefing that identifies which grants, loans, or loan guarantees Secretary Wright believes should be rescinded and why he thinks they should be rescinded.
    The full text of the letter can be found HERE and below.
    Dear Mr. Secretary:
    We are deeply troubled by recent news reports that the Department of Energy (Department) is creating a “hit list of clean energy projects” to “wipe out” for being inconsistent with the President’s priorities. This list reportedly includes hydrogen hubs and carbon capture, critical mineral, and battery storage projects that have already received grant and loan funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and annual appropriations bills. 
    You assured us during your confirmation hearing that you believe that legal agreements should be honored (including managing the financial commitments you have inherited) and that you will follow the law. Indiscriminately canceling program funding and executed contracts, and refusing to execute on the funding directives Congress enacted, neither honors existing agreements nor is consistent with the spending laws that have appropriated funding for specific purposes. 
    Our Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse and exclusive power to appropriate funds. Once a law is properly enacted, the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  The President cannot substitute his policy preferences for requirements in law, and that includes refusing to spend funds Congress requires the President to spend. 
    In this instance, where Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for programs that support clean energy projects, the Department must faithfully execute the law and expend the funds for the purposes provided.  For example, programs authorized that have received federal appropriations under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have requirements on timing of expended funds, purposes, and contractual expectations. An internal Office of Management and Budget guidance document cannot hide the Department’s obligation to follow the enacted law.
    Dissolving contracts, cancelling grants and loans, and reneging on loan guarantees without any intention to execute the laws is not only illegal, but is harmful to the public and energy consumers.  Your indiscriminate cancellations of spending will increase energy prices, make our grid less secure, and stop energy innovation.  If the Department has a policy disagreement and does not want to spend money on programs Congress has funded, the lawful response is to ask Congress to rescind that funding. The decision ultimately rests with Congress, not with the President, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Government Efficiency.  Please provide us a detailed list and briefing that identifies which grants, loans, or loan guarantees you believe should be rescinded and why you think they should be rescinded.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Joins RFD-TV to Discuss Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act and Liberation Day

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    Washington – U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) joined Market Day Report on RFD-TV today to discuss the Senate Agriculture Committee’s hearing yesterday on his legislation, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act – a bipartisan bill that would bring back whole and reduced milk to American schools.
    Senator Marshall also discussed President Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs and how the president is leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses while also fighting for long-term solutions for farmers and ranchers.

    [embedded content]

    Click HERE or on the image above to watch Senator Marshall’s interview.
    Highlights from the interview include: 
    On health benefits of consuming whole milk:
    “Growing up, my grandfather stopped by our house twice a week with whole milk from our farm… We had a generation of healthy kids. But today… 40% of our children are obese. We have a generation of children now that have not ever [drunk] much milk… They’re going to have osteoporosis, osteopenia, at a decade sooner than previous generations.
    “… Whole milk helps absorb vitamins A, D, E and K. It’s very important. There’s good fats in milk. It helps your brain health… Lots of good things about whole milk.”
    On whole milk being part of the solution to Make America Healthy Again:
    “The big movement with my MAHA moms is whole foods. I think whole milk is equally the same. Rather than breaking it down in its part, God made it whole. Let’s drink it that way. I think it’s much healthier for you, and the benefits outweigh any potential risk.
    “The problem with our diets today is about 70% of our calories come from opening a package one way or another. So that’s what we need to change as far as getting the obesity levels down in our nation. Whole milk is not the problem, whole milk is part of the solution.”
    On Liberation Day:
    “Today is liberation today, and I think about milk products. Right now, Canada has a 200% tariff on cheese and butter going into their country. I just want to remind all your listeners what happened in Trump 45 – that there was a tariff war, a trade war with China. He gave the farmers $28 billion from that tariff money. Just last week, President Trump released $10 billion of emergency economic aid for our farmers because of high input costs and low commodity prices. 
    “Our farmers trust President Trump, and just like again with Trump 45 he used those tariffs as levers to negotiate really good trade deals with Japan, with South Korea, USMCA, and China Phase One, and we’re still benefiting from those trade agreements. I think the bright spot in agriculture in Kansas anyways, of course, the cattle and beef industry, a lot of that beef is going overseas, to South Korea, to Japan, and China as well.
    “We have to give the president a little bit of leeway… This is a national security issue, we want to stop the fentanyl flowing into this country, and the president is using these tariffs as levers on Mexico, Canada, and China to say, stop making fentanyl, stop bringing it into our country.”
    On unfair trade practices harming American ranchers and farmers:
    “Every time I talk to the president, he asks me, ‘How are my farmers and ranchers doing?’ And I say, ‘Well… you know, we’re struggling.’ He says, well, ‘Tell them I love them, that I’ll take care of them.’ He realizes 90% of rural America voted for President Trump.
    “On the other hand, though, farmers and ranchers have been complaining to me since I was a boy, that there’s unfair trade practices. Again, [the] European Union [has] a 50% tariff on most agricultural products. India, 50% to 100% – they use non-tariff barriers as well. And those farmers and ranchers said, we want free and reciprocal trade agreements. We have a president now who’s out here fighting for long-term solutions for our farmers and ranchers, not just the short-term gain. So I understand, I have empathy. There’s going to be some short-term pain. We are the tip of the spear. The president knows that. He’s going to do everything he can to make it right with his farmers and ranchers. So we appreciate them hanging in there with us.
    “We’re the patriots. We are the modern-day patriots of our nation, our Republic. We are the backbone of this country. We give our country values and that agriculture is a way of life, so much more. So the president gets that. Give us a little bit of grace, and we’ll make it right.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gillibrand Slams Trump’s Massive Cuts To Food Bank Funding

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand

    Amid Sky-High Grocery Prices, Trump Is Denying Food To Hungry Families 

    New York Food Banks Receive Tens Of Millions Of Dollars’ Worth Of Food Through Now Slashed Federal Programs 

    Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand held a virtual press conference slamming the Trump administration’s massive cuts to funding for food banks.

    Last month, President Trump slashed $1 billion in federal funding used to purchase food for food banks and other organizations that provide meals, like schools and child care centers. Now, he is canceling another $500 million in already approved funding for food banks and other emergency food providers through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). New York receives roughly $30 million through TEFAP each year in regular funding; this supplemental money would have funded additional food purchases at New York’s regional food banks and their partner soup kitchens and food pantries.

    Senator Gillibrand was joined by CEO of Hunger Free America Joel Berg. 

    “Seventy-two days into Trump’s presidency, grocery prices are still sky-high, with no sign of improvement on the horizon,” said Senator Gillibrand. “And as hungry families turn to food banks and soup kitchens for help, Trump is now slashing the funding they rely on. It’s outrageous. Programs like TEFAP have overwhelming bipartisan support. They help serve every community – rural, urban, Democratic, Republican – in every state in times of need. They are not an extraneous expense; they are an investment in healthy kids, healthy families, and healthy futures. I am calling on the Trump administration to provide answers on what plans – if any – it has to keep Americans from going hungry after these cuts, and I will be doing everything in my power to reverse them.”

    The full text of Senator Gillibrand’s letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins on cuts to The Emergency Food Assistance Program is available here or below.

    Dear Secretary Rollins:

    We write regarding the reported cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in previously approved funding for food banks and other emergency food providers through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). A cancellation of these funds could result in $500 million in lost food provisions to feed millions of Americans at a time when the need for food shelves is extremely high due to costly groceries and an uncertain economy. If true, this major shift in a program utilized by emergency food providers in every state in the nation will have a significant and damaging impact upon millions of people who depend upon this program for critical food assistance.

    In addition, this program consists of purchases of U.S. commodities at a time when America’s growers and producers are struggling due to tariffs, proposed tariffs, animal disease and many other challenges.

    According to recent statistics, nearly one in every seven Americans have faced food insecurity. Many of these households turn to community and emergency relief organizations such as food banks and food pantries to help them obtain sufficient nutrition. In 2023 alone, 50 million Americans turned to emergency food providers, according to a report from Feeding America, America’s largest network of food banks. While food banks rely on a variety of sources (including private) to obtain food for distribution through their networks, federally purchased commodities are a key part of how they provide nutritious meals to Americans.

    Due to this reported change, a number of us have heard that trucks delivering American-grown foods may not arrive. These trucks represent hundreds of thousands of nutritious meals containing poultry, fruits, vegetables, and dairy. If confirmed, the cancellation of this previously announced funding also comes on top of the cancellation of Local Food for School Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program funding, which also helps farmers deliver nutritious foods to schools and food banks. These cuts will deprive Americans of food assistance, emergency food providers of necessary support to carry out their work, and American farmers of vital domestic markets.

    To help us understand USDA’s actions and their impact on communities around the country, we ask that you answer the following questions.

    1. Has USDA cancelled previously approved purchases of food provided through TEFAP? If so, what level of funding has been cancelled thus far and when will state agencies be notified of any cancelled TEFAP purchases?

    2. Does USDA plan to cancel additional purchases of food provided through TEFAP?

    3. Has USDA paused any TEFAP food orders or purchases? If so, what is the current status of those orders or purchases? Does USDA intend to un-pause these funds?

    4. Please provide information on what types of funding, by commodity, have been cancelled and the financial impact of those cancellations on producers such as pork, chicken, turkey and dairy farmers.

    5. Is the funding announced on October 1, 2024 and detailed in the implementation memo that the Food and Nutrition Service sent to state agencies on December 2 rescinded?

    6. Does USDA intend to use Commodity Credit Corporation funds in Fiscal Year 2025 for future purchases that will be distributed through TEFAP?

    We ask for a prompt response to these questions by the end of the week.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Police acknowledge IPCA findings into Auckland City incident

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Police acknowledge the IPCA’s findings into the events surrounding an arrest and use of force in Auckland City.

    On 25 September 2022, five Police officers responded to an incident on Hobson Street where a person was arrested, and an injured man was being taken to hospital.

    Two people, who were not involved in the incident, were walking past at the time and one began filming.

    Officer A and Officer B warned one of the men not to interfere before Officer A pushed the man and then arrested him for obstruction.

    The other man then started filming and Officer A arrested him for the same offence.

    During both arrests, force was used by the officers, however both men were later released without charge.

    In its conclusions the IPCA made several findings, including that Officers A and B were not justified in pushing the men, and that their arrests and the force used against them were unlawful.

    Relieving Auckland City District Commander, Acting Superintendent Sunny Patel, says Police also carried out an investigation which resulted in Officer A being charged with common assault. 

    “However, the charge was withdrawn when the man did not appear in court to give evidence.

    “We also undertook an employment investigation, which resulted in both Officer A and Officer B receiving an internal sanction.

    “Officers can always learn from situations like this one, and we will continue to do so.”

    ENDS.

    Holly McKay/NZ Police

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Rule of Two for faster access to medicines

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Associate Health Minister David Seymour is welcoming Cabinet’s decision to enable medicines to be approved in less than 30 days if the product has approval from two recognised overseas jurisdictions.   
    This change is included in the Medicines Amendment Bill (the Bill), which amends the Medicines Act 1981. The pathway will be in operation by early 2026.
    The policy will start with Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Singapore and Switzerland, as recognised countries. These are the main countries Medsafe currently recognises. 
    “Faster access to medicines has always been a priority of mine. For many New Zealanders, pharmaceuticals are life or death, or the difference between a life of pain and suffering or living freely,” Mr Seymour says. 
    “This change will increase access to medicines for Kiwis by introducing a streamlined verification pathway for medicines. People will access new treatments more quickly. This is committed to in the ACT-National and National-NZ First coalition agreements. 
    “Cabinet has agreed to give the responsible Minister powers to regulate the Rule of Two. That means I will be outlining the proposed regulatory pathway for industry and the public to feedback on via the Select Committee process. This system should be as straightforward as possible to allow New Zealanders the greatest level of access to innovative medicine possible. 
    “New cars are acceptable for the New Zealand market if they meet at least one of several foreign standards. We can apply the same principle to medicines, if other jurisdictions have already done the work and can ensure the products’ safety, we don’t need to delay patient’s access by doing the exact same tests,” Mr Seymour says. 
    “This is a common-sense efficiency that costs nothing. It helps Kiwis in need. It can shave months off the approval process. A perfect example of this was with a treatment for asthma which could have been approved by the end of 2022 under this pathway, but was not approved until 16 months later in May 2024. 
    “This Government is making medicines access a priority because it leads to better patient outcomes. So far, we have:

    Changed Pharmac’s process so it can assess a funding application at the same time as Medsafe is assessing the application for regulatory approval
    Allocated Pharmac its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, and a $604 million uplift to give Pharmac the financial support it needs to carry out its functions – negotiating the best deals for medicine for New Zealanders
    Made patient voice a crucial consideration in Pharmac’s funding decisions
    Put pseudoephedrine back on the shelves of pharmacies

    “We’re committed to ensuring that the regulatory system for pharmaceuticals is not unreasonably holding back access. It will lead to more Kiwis being able to access the medicines they need to live a fulfilling life.”
    Notes to editors: 
    Draft criteria for regulatory pathway rules will likely relate to ensuring that:

    manufacturing sites associated with product have evidence of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliance which is valid to Medsafe’s satisfaction,
    if a product is a generic or biosimilar prescription medicine, the innovator or reference product is identical to that approved for New Zealand.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján: President Trump’s Reckless Tariffs Will Make Life More Expensive for Families and Put New Mexico Jobs at Risk

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    Experts Say Trump Tariffs Could Throw U.S. Into a Recession, Increase Annual Costs By Thousands for New Mexico Families 

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, issued the following statement on President Trump’s announcement to impose additional tariffs on global trading partners:

    “President Trump’s sweeping tariffs are a tax on hardworking New Mexicans. From the cost of groceries, to the price at the pump, to buying a car or building a home, these new tariffs will make daily life more expensive for many New Mexico families and businesses.

    “While President Trump should be focused on lowering prices for Americans, he is instigating a trade war and making everyday Americans the casualties. President Trump – who has said that he doesn’t care if costs go up – is creating economic uncertainty, shrinking life savings, putting New Mexico jobs at risk, and driving up costs for working families.

    “These tariffs are new and drastic tax increases on New Mexicans and the American people. President Trump is recklessly threatening the American economy – all while working to give the wealthiest few another tax handout and blowing up the national debt.”

    What People Are Saying: 

    Chamber of Commerce: “[T]he imposition of tariffs … will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.”

    National Association of Manufacturers: “Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk.”

    United Steelworkers: “Our union calls on President Trump to reverse course on Canadian tariffs so that we can focus on trade solutions that will serve working families for the long-term.”

    International Association of Machinists: “The 25% tariffs on Canadian goods imported to the U.S., will result in job losses, increased prices, and a variety of other negative impacts.”

    National Association of Home Builders: “Tariffs on lumber and other building materials increase the cost of construction and discourage new development, and consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices.”

    American Farm Bureau: “farmers and rural communities will bear the brunt of retaliation. … Tariffs that increase fertilizer prices threaten to deliver another blow to the finances of farm families.”

    National Farmers Union: “We are already facing significant economic uncertainty, and these actions only add to the strain. … Without a clear plan, family farmers will once again be left to bear the burden of decisions beyond their control, and eventually, so will consumers.”

    Retail Industry Leaders Association: “Stacking tariffs on household goods will also raise costs on American families.”

    Food Industry Association: “New tariffs will also drive up the cost of doing business and food prices at a time consumers are extremely concerned about prices.”

    National Consumers League: “these tariffs could hurt everyday Americans. … Higher prices on basic goods would make life harder for families across the country, all as a result of these ill-conceived trade policies.”

    American Automakers: “Our American automakers, who invested billions in the U.S. to meet these requirements, should not have their competitiveness undermined by tariffs that will raise the cost of building vehicles in the United States and stymie investment in the American workforce.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Joins Schatz, Wicker, Warner, Hyde-Smith, and Barrasso to Lead Bipartisan Group Of 60 Senators In Introducing Legislation To Expand Telehealth Access, Make Permanent Telehealth Flexibilities

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

    CONNECT For Health Act Holds Broad Bipartisan Support, Most Comprehensive Legislation On Telehealth In Congress
    Current Flexibilities Set To Expire September 30 Without Congressional Action
    WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch joined U.S. Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) in leading a bipartisan group of 60 senators to reintroduce the Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies (CONNECT) for Health Act. The CONNECT for Health Act will expand coverage of telehealth services through Medicare, make COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities permanent, improve health outcomes, and make it easier for patients to connect with their doctors. Current flexibilities are set to expire on September 30 unless Congress extends them.
    “The COVID-19 pandemic proved that telehealth not only works, but is essential,” said Senator Welch. “Rural and underserved areas in Vermont and across the country desperately need solutions to address the widening gap in health care access, and increasing telehealth services must be part of the answer. This bipartisan bill takes commonsense steps to help bridge that gap and make sure that our policies adapt to the capabilities of our technology.”
    “While telehealth use has rapidly increased in recent years, our laws have not kept up,” said Senator Schatz. “Telehealth is helping people get the care they need, and it’s here to stay. Our comprehensive bill makes it easier for more people to see their doctors no matter where they live.”
    “We live in a digital world, and our health services should reflect that. In the past decade, telehealth has made medical care more accessible for patients across the state and country,” said Senator Wicker. “It is time to make telehealth coverage permanent for Medicare recipients so that more Americans, especially those in rural Mississippi, have access to health care.”
    “Telehealth services have proven to be a safe and effective form of medical care. Through the expansion of telehealth services in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more patients have received quality, affordable care. I’m glad to introduce legislation that will make permanent some of these services and ensure Virginians continue to access affordable health care when they need it, and where they need it,” said Senator Warner.
    “Even before the pandemic, Mississippi recognized the vital role of telehealth. Across America, rural communities, the elderly, and those with mobility challenges have long struggled to access traditional healthcare,” said Senator Hyde-Smith. “This legislation is essential to delivering affordable, accessible, and quality care that Americans deserve, and I’m proud to continue this years-long effort to expand telehealth services.”
    “Telehealth is a critical for rural states like Wyoming,” said Senator Barrasso. “It has given folks access to specialized care no matter where they live. This important bipartisan bill will make it easier for Medicare patients, especially those in remote areas, to continue to have access to the health care they need.”
    In addition to Welch, Schatz, Wicker, Warner, Hyde-Smith, and Barrasso, the bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Angus King (I-Maine.), Jim Justice (R-W.V.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.).
    Telehealth provides essential access to care with nearly a quarter of Americans accessing telehealth in a month, according to the most recent available data.
    The CONNECT for Health Act would:

    Permanently remove all geographic restrictions on telehealth services and expand originating sites to the location of the patient, including homes;
    Permanently allow health centers and rural health clinics to provide telehealth services;
    Allow more eligible health care professionals to utilize telehealth services;
    Remove unnecessary in-person visit requirement for telemental health services;
    Allow for the waiver of telehealth restrictions during public health emergencies; and
    Require more published data to learn more about how telehealth is being used, impacts of quality of care, and how it can be improved to support patients and health care providers.

    The CONNECT for Health Act was first introduced in 2016 and is considered the most comprehensive legislation on telehealth in Congress. Since 2016, several provisions of the bill have been enacted into law or adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including provisions to remove restrictions on telehealth services for mental health, stroke care, and home dialysis.
    Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Thompson (D- Calif.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), and Troy Balderson (R-Ohio).
    The CONNECT for Health Act has the support of more than 150 organizations including the American Medical Association, AARP, American Hospital Association, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Rural Health Clinics, and American Telemedicine Association.
    The full text of the bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

    Source: The White House

    PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.

    • Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; resulted in a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.
    • President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.
    • Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries.
      • This will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
    • President Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal higher tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits. All other countries will continue to be subject to the original 10% tariff baseline.
      • This will take effect April 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
    • These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.
    • Today’s IEEPA Order also contains modification authority, allowing President Trump to increase the tariff if trading partners retaliate or decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters.
    • Some goods will not be subject to the Reciprocal Tariff. These include: (1) articles subject to 50 USC 1702(b); (2) steel/aluminum articles and autos/auto parts already subject to Section 232 tariffs; (3) copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber articles; (4) all articles that may become subject to future Section 232 tariffs; (5) bullion; and (6) energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.
    • For Canada and Mexico, the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders remain in effect, and are unaffected by this order. This means USMCA compliant goods will continue to see a 0% tariff, non-USMCA compliant goods will see a 25% tariff, and non-USMCA compliant energy and potash will see a 10% tariff. In the event the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders are terminated, USMCA compliant goods would continue to receive preferential treatment, while non-USMCA compliant goods would be subject to a 12% reciprocal tariff.

     
    TAKING BACK OUR ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency.

    • He is the first President in modern history to stand strong for hardworking Americans by asking other countries to follow the golden rule on trade: Treat us like we treat you.
    • Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.
    • U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border, while European companies don’t pay tax to the United States on the income from their exports to the U.S.
    • The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion. Counterfeit products not only pose a significant risk to U.S. competitiveness, but also threaten the security, health, and safety of Americans, with the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals estimated at $4.4 billion and linked to the distribution of deadly fentanyl-laced drugs.
      • This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns. 
      • President Biden squandered the agricultural trade surplus inherited from President Trump’s first term, turning it into a projected all-time high deficit of $49 billion.
    • The current global trading order allows those using unfair trade practices to get ahead, while those playing by the rules get left behind.
    • In 2024, our trade deficit in goods exceeded $1.2 trillion—an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.
    • “Made in America” is not just a tagline—it’s an economic and national security priority of this Administration. The President’s reciprocal trade agenda means better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods.
    • These tariffs seek to address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people.
    • Reciprocal trade is America First trade because it increases our competitive edge, protects our sovereignty, and strengthens our national and economic security.
    • These tariffs adjust for the unfairness of ongoing international trade practices, balance our chronic goods trade deficit, provide an incentive for re-shoring production to the United States, and provide our foreign trading partners with an opportunity to rebalance their trade relationships with the United States.

     
    REPRIORITIZING U.S. MANUFACTURING: President Trump recognizes that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.

    • In 2023, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4%, down from 28.4% in 2001.
    • The decline in manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.
      • The need to maintain a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in advanced sectors like autos, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, where loss of capacity could permanently weaken U.S. competitiveness.
    • U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.
      • If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
      • This includes developing new manufacturing technologies in critical sectors like bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics to support defense needs.
    • Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods has left the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.
      • This vulnerability was exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later with Houthi attacks on Middle East shipping.
    • From 1997 to 2024, the U.S. lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.

     
    ADDRESSING TRADE IMBALANCES: President Trump is working to level the playing field for American businesses and workers by confronting the unfair tariff disparities and non-tariff barriers imposed by other countries.

    • For generations, countries have taken advantage of the United States, tariffing us at higher rates. For example:
      • The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product. 
      • For networking switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0% tariff, but India (10-20%) levies higher rates.
      • Brazil (18%) and Indonesia (30%) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5%). 
      • For rice in the husk, the U.S. imposes a tariff of 2.7%, while India (80%), Malaysia (40%), and Turkey (31%) impose higher rates. 
      • Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3%) and India (50%).
    • The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
    • Similarly, non-tariff barriers—meant to limit the quantity of imports/exports and protect domestic industries—also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. For example:
      • China’s non-market policies and practices have given China global dominance in key manufacturing industries, decimating U.S. industry. Between 2001 and 2018, these practices contributed to the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs due to the growth of the U.S.-China trade deficit, displacing workers and undermining American competitiveness while threatening U.S. economic and national security by increasing our reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains for critical industries as well as everyday goods.
      • India imposes their own uniquely burdensome and/or duplicative testing and certification requirements in sectors such as chemicals, telecom products, and medical devices that make it difficult or costly for American companies to sell their products in India. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $5.3 billion annually.
      • Countries including China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued policies that suppress the domestic consumption power of their own citizens to artificially boost the competitiveness of their export products. Such policies include regressive tax systems, low or unenforced penalties for environmental degradation, and policies intended to suppress worker wages relative to productivity.
      • Certain countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Vietnam, restrict or prohibit the importation of remanufactured goods, restricting market access for U.S. exporters while also stifling efforts to promote sustainability by discouraging trade in like-new and resource-efficient products. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $18 billion annually.
      • The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.
      • Indonesia maintains local content requirements across a broad range of sectors, complex import licensing regimes, and, starting this year, will require natural resource firms to onshore all export revenue for transactions worth $250,000 or more.
      • Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.  The United States has a $223 million trade deficit with Argentina in beef and beef products.
      • For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.
      • U.S. automakers face a variety of non-tariff barriers that impede access to the Japanese and Korean automotive markets, including non-acceptance of certain U.S. standards, duplicative testing and certification requirements, and transparency issues. Due to these non-reciprocal practices, the U.S. automotive industry loses out on an additional $13.5 billion in annual exports to Japan and access to a larger import market share in Korea—all while the U.S. trade deficit with Korea more than tripled from 2019 to 2024.
    • Monetary tariffs and non-monetary tariffs are two distinct types of trade barriers that governments use to regulate imports and exports. President Trump is countering both through reciprocal tariffs to protect American workers and industries from these unfair practices.

     
    THE GOLDEN RULE FOR OUR GOLDEN AGE: Today’s action simply asks other countries to treat us like we treat them. It’s the Golden Rule for Our Golden Age.

    • Access to the American market is a privilege, not a right.
    • The United States will no longer put itself last on matters of international trade in exchange for empty promises.
    • Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.
      • Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.
    • These tariffs are central to President Trump’s plan to reverse the economic damage left by President Biden and put America on a path to a new golden age.
      • This builds on his broader economic agenda of energy competitiveness, tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, and deregulation to boost American prosperity.

     
    TARIFFS WORK: Studies have repeatedly shown that tariffs can be an effective tool for reducing or eliminating threats that impair U.S. national security and achieving economic and strategic objectives.

    • A 2024 study on the effects of President Trump’s tariffs in his first term found that they “strengthened the U.S. economy” and “led to significant reshoring” in industries like manufacturing and steel production.
    • A 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission that analyzed the effects of Section 232 and 301 tariffs on more than $300 billion of U.S. imports found that the tariffs reduced imports from China and effectively stimulated more U.S. production of the tariffed goods, with very minor effects on prices.
    • According to the Economic Policy Institute, the tariffs implemented by President Trump during his first term “clearly show[ed] no correlation with inflation” and only had a temporary effect on overall price levels.
    • An analysis from the Atlantic Council found that “tariffs would create new incentives for US consumers to buy US-made products.”
    • Former Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed last year that tariffs do not raise prices: “I don’t believe that American consumers will see any meaningful increase in the prices that they face.”
    • A 2024 economic analysis found that a global tariff of 10% would grow the economy by $728 billion, create 2.8 million jobs, and increase real household incomes by 5.7%.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-left”>By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, 

    I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.  That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system.  I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.

    On January 20, 2025, I signed the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum directing my Administration to investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods, including the economic and national security implications and risks resulting from such deficits, and to undertake a review of, and identify, any unfair trade practices by other countries.  On February 13, 2025, I signed a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs,” that directed further review of our trading partners’ non-reciprocal trading practices, and noted the relationship between non-reciprocal practices and the trade deficit.  On April 1, 2025, I received the final results of those investigations, and I am taking action today based on those results.  

    Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.  Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits are caused in substantial part by a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships.  This situation is evidenced by disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers that make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to sell their products in foreign markets.  It is also evidenced by the economic policies of key U.S. trading partners insofar as they suppress domestic wages and consumption, and thereby demand for U.S. exports, while artificially increasing the competitiveness of their goods in global markets.  These conditions have given rise to the national emergency that this order is intended to abate and resolve.

    For decades starting in 1934, U.S. trade policy has been organized around the principle of reciprocity.  The Congress directed the President to secure reduced reciprocal tariff rates from key trading partners first through bilateral trade agreements and later under the auspices of the global trading system.  Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch negotiated and signed 32 bilateral reciprocal trade agreements designed to lower tariff rates on a reciprocal basis.  After 1947 through 1994, participating countries engaged in eight rounds of negotiation, which resulted in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and seven subsequent tariff reduction rounds. 

    However, despite a commitment to the principle of reciprocity, the trading relationship between the United States and its trading partners has become highly unbalanced, particularly in recent years.  The post-war international economic system was based upon three incorrect assumptions:  first, that if the United States led the world in liberalizing tariff and non-tariff barriers the rest of the world would follow; second, that such liberalization would ultimately result in more economic convergence and increased domestic consumption among U.S. trading partners converging towards the share in the United States; and third, that as a result, the United States would not accrue large and persistent goods trade deficits. 

    This framework set in motion events, agreements, and commitments that did not result in reciprocity or generally increase domestic consumption in foreign economies relative to domestic consumption in the United States.  Those events, in turn, created large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits as a feature of the global trading system. 

    Put simply, while World Trade Organization (WTO) Members agreed to bind their tariff rates on a most-favored-nation (MFN) basis, and thereby provide their best tariff rates to all WTO Members, they did not agree to bind their tariff rates at similarly low levels or to apply tariff rates on a reciprocal basis.  Consequently, according to the WTO, the United States has among the lowest simple average MFN tariff rates in the world at 3.3 percent, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2 percent), China (7.5 percent), the European Union (EU) (5 percent), India (17 percent), and Vietnam (9.4 percent) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.  

    Moreover, these average MFN tariff rates conceal much larger discrepancies across economies in tariff rates applied to particular products.  For example, the United States imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10 percent), India (70 percent), and China (15 percent) impose much higher duties on the same product.  For network switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0 percent tariff, but for similar products, India (10 percent) levies a higher rate.  Brazil (18 percent) and Indonesia (30 percent) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5 percent).  For rice in the husk, the U.S. MFN tariff is 2.7 percent (ad valorem equivalent), while India (80 percent), Malaysia (40 percent), and Turkey (an average of 31 percent) impose higher rates.  Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3 percent) and India (50 percent).

    Similarly, non-tariff barriers also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world.  The 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) details a great number of non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports around the world on a trading-partner by trading-partner basis.  These barriers include import barriers and licensing restrictions; customs barriers and shortcomings in trade facilitation; technical barriers to trade (e.g., unnecessarily trade restrictive standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations); sanitary and phytosanitary measures that unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives; inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights; discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards; barriers to cross-border data flows and discriminatory practices affecting trade in digital products; investment barriers; subsidies; anticompetitive practices; discrimination in favor of domestic state-owned enterprises, and failures by governments in protecting labor and environment standards; bribery; and corruption.

    Moreover, non-tariff barriers include the domestic economic policies and practices of our trading partners, including currency practices and value-added taxes, and their associated market distortions, that suppress domestic consumption and boost exports to the United States.  This lack of reciprocity is apparent in the fact that the share of consumption to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States is about 68 percent, but it is much lower in others like Ireland (27 percent), Singapore (31 percent), China (39 percent), South Korea (49 percent), and Germany (50 percent).

    At the same time, efforts by the United States to address these imbalances have stalled.  Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers.  At the same time, with the U.S. economy disproportionately open to imports, U.S. trading partners have had few incentives to provide reciprocal treatment to U.S. exports in the context of bilateral trade negotiations.

    These structural asymmetries have driven the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficit.  Even for countries with which the United States may enjoy an occasional bilateral trade surplus, the accumulation of tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports may make that surplus smaller than it would have been without such barriers.  Permitting these asymmetries to continue is not sustainable in today’s economic and geopolitical environment because of the effect they have on U.S. domestic production.  A nation’s ability to produce domestically is the bedrock of its national and economic security.

    Both my first Administration in 2017, and the Biden Administration in 2022, recognized that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.  According to 2023 United Nations data, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4 percent, down from a peak in 2001 of 28.4 percent. 

    Over time, the persistent decline in U.S. manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.  The need to maintain robust and resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in certain advanced industrial sectors like automobiles, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, because once competitors gain sufficient global market share in these sectors, U.S. production could be permanently weakened.  It is also critical to scale manufacturing capacity in the defense-industrial sector so that we can manufacture the defense materiel and equipment necessary to protect American interests at home and abroad.  

    In fact, because the United States has supplied so much military equipment to other countries, U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.  Furthermore, U.S. defense companies must develop new, advanced manufacturing technologies across a range of critical sectors including bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics.  If the United States wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as for its allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem to manufacture these products without undue reliance on imports for key inputs. 

    Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods also has compromised U.S. economic security by rendering U.S. supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.  In recent years, the vulnerability of the U.S. economy in this respect was exposed both during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Americans had difficulty accessing essential products, as well as when the Houthi rebels later began attacking cargo ships in the Middle East. 

    The decline of U.S. manufacturing capacity threatens the U.S. economy in other ways, including through the loss of manufacturing jobs.  From 1997 to 2024, the United States lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.  Furthermore, many manufacturing job losses were concentrated in specific geographical areas.  In these areas, the loss of manufacturing jobs contributed to the decline in rates of family formation and to the rise of other social trends, like the abuse of opioids, that have imposed profound costs on the U.S. economy.

    The future of American competitiveness depends on reversing these trends.  Today, manufacturing represents just 11 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, yet it accounts for 35 percent of American productivity growth and 60 percent of our exports.  Importantly, U.S. manufacturing is the main engine of innovation in the United States, responsible for 55 percent of all patents and 70 percent of all research and development (R&D) spending.  The fact that R&D expenditures by U.S. multinational enterprises in China grew at an average rate of 13.6 percent a year between 2003 and 2017, while their R&D expenditures in the United States grew by an average of just 5 percent per year during the same time period, is evidence of the strong link between manufacturing and innovation.  Furthermore, every manufacturing job spurs 7 to 12 new jobs in other related industries, helping to build and sustain our economy.

    Just as a nation that does not produce manufactured products cannot maintain the industrial base it needs for national security, neither can a nation long survive if it cannot produce its own food.  Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), designates food and agriculture as a “critical infrastructure sector” because it is one of the sectors considered “so vital to the United States that [its] incapacity or destruction . . . would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”  Furthermore, when I left office, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products, but today, that surplus has vanished.  Eviscerated by a slew of new non-tariff barriers imposed by our trading partners, it has been replaced by a projected $49 billion annual agricultural trade deficit. For these reasons, I hereby declare and order:

    Section 1.  National Emergency.  As President of the United States, my highest duty is ensuring the national and economic security of the country and its citizens.  

    I have declared a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, which have grown by over 40 percent in the past 5 years alone, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024.  This trade deficit reflects asymmetries in trade relationships that have contributed to the atrophy of domestic production capacity, especially that of the U.S. manufacturing and defense-industrial base.  These asymmetries also impact U.S. producers’ ability to export and, consequentially, their incentive to produce. 
    Specifically, such asymmetry includes not only non-reciprocal differences in tariff rates among foreign trading partners, but also extensive use of non-tariff barriers by foreign trading partners, which reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports while artificially enhancing the competitiveness of their own goods.  These non-tariff barriers include technical barriers to trade; non-scientific sanitary and phytosanitary rules; inadequate intellectual property protections; suppressed domestic consumption (e.g., wage suppression); weak labor, environmental, and other regulatory standards and protections; and corruption.  These non-tariff barriers give rise to significant imbalances even when the United States and a trading partner have comparable tariff rates. 

    The cumulative effect of these imbalances has been the transfer of resources from domestic producers to foreign firms, reducing opportunities for domestic manufacturers to expand and, in turn, leading to lost manufacturing jobs, diminished manufacturing capacity, and an atrophied industrial base, including in the defense-industrial sector.  At the same time, foreign firms are better positioned to scale production, reinvest in innovation, and compete in the global economy, to the detriment of U.S. economic and national security.  
    The absence of sufficient domestic manufacturing capacity in certain critical and advanced industrial sectors — another outcome of the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits — also compromises U.S. economic and national security by rendering the U.S. economy less resilient to supply chain disruption.  Finally, the large, persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, and the concomitant loss of industrial capacity, have compromised military readiness; this vulnerability can only be redressed through swift corrective action to rebalance the flow of imports into the United States.  Such impact upon military readiness and our national security posture is especially acute with the recent rise in armed conflicts abroad.  I call upon the public and private sector to make the efforts necessary to strengthen the international economic position of the United States.  

    Sec. 2.  Reciprocal Tariff Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to rebalance global trade flows by imposing an additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners except as otherwise provided herein.  The additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners shall start at 10 percent and shortly thereafter, the additional ad valorem duty shall increase for trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order at the rates set forth in Annex I to this order.  These additional ad valorem duties shall apply until such time as I determine that the underlying conditions described above are satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.   

    Sec. 3.  Implementation.  (a)  Except as otherwise provided in this order, all articles imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 10 percent.  Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, shall not be subject to such additional duty.  

    Furthermore, except as otherwise provided in this order, at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, all articles from trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to the country-specific ad valorem rates of duty specified in Annex I to this order.  Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, shall not be subject to these country-specific ad valorem rates of duty set forth in Annex I to this order.  These country-specific ad valorem rates of duty shall apply to all articles imported pursuant to the terms of all existing U.S. trade agreements, except as provided below. 

    (b)  The following goods as set forth in Annex II to this order, consistent with law, shall not be subject to the ad valorem rates of duty under this order:  (i) all articles that are encompassed by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b); (ii) all articles and derivatives of steel and aluminum subject to the duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended, and Proclamation 9980 of January 24, 2020 (Adjusting Imports of Derivative Aluminum Articles and Derivative Steel Articles Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 10895 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), and Proclamation 10896 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States); (iii) all automobiles and automotive parts subject to the additional duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, and proclaimed in Proclamation 10908 of March 26, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States); (iv) other products enumerated in Annex II to this order, including copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber articles, certain critical minerals, and energy and energy products; (v) all articles from a trading partner subject to the rates set forth in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); and (vi) all articles that may become subject to duties pursuant to future actions under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

    (c)  The rates of duty established by this order are in addition to any other duties, fees, taxes, exactions, or charges applicable to such imported articles, except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section below. 

    (d)  With respect to articles from Canada, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs across our northern border pursuant to Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14197 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Northern Border), and Executive Order 14231 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border).  With respect to articles from Mexico, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs and illegal migration across our southern border pursuant to Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14198 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Southern Border), and Executive Order 14227 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border).  As a result of these border emergency tariff actions, all goods of Canada or Mexico under the terms of general note 11 to the HTSUS, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as related to the Agreement between the United States of America, United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), continue to be eligible to enter the U.S. market under these preferential terms.  However, all goods of Canada or Mexico that do not qualify as originating under USMCA are presently subject to additional ad valorem duties of 25 percent, with energy or energy resources and potash imported from Canada and not qualifying as originating under USMCA presently subject to the lower additional ad valorem duty of 10 percent.  

    (e)  Any ad valorem rate of duty on articles imported from Canada or Mexico under the terms of this order shall not apply in addition to the ad valorem rate of duty specified by the existing orders described in subsection (d) of this section.  If such orders identified in subsection (d) of this section are terminated or suspended, all items of Canada and Mexico that qualify as originating under USMCA shall not be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty, while articles not qualifying as originating under USMCA shall be subject to an ad valorem rate of duty of 12 percent.  However, these ad valorem rates of duty on articles imported from Canada and Mexico shall not apply to energy or energy resources, to potash, or to an article eligible for duty-free treatment under USMCA that is a part or component of an article substantially finished in the United States. 

    (f)  More generally, the ad valorem rates of duty set forth in this order shall apply only to the non-U.S. content of a subject article, provided at least 20 percent of the value of the subject article is U.S. originating.  For the purposes of this subsection, “U.S. content” refers to the value of an article attributable to the components produced entirely, or substantially transformed in, the United States.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to the extent permitted by law, is authorized to require the collection of such information and documentation regarding an imported article, including with the entry filing, as is necessary to enable CBP to ascertain and verify the value of the U.S. content of the article, as well as to ascertain and verify whether an article is substantially finished in the United States. 

    (g)  Subject articles, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which are subject to the duty specified in section 2 of this order and are admitted into a foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, must be admitted as “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41. 

    (h)  Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A)-(B) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.  Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section until notification by the Secretary of Commerce to the President that adequate systems are in place to fully and expeditiously process and collect duty revenue applicable pursuant to this subsection for articles otherwise eligible for de minimis treatment.  After such notification, duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall not be available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.  

    (i)  The Executive Order of April 2, 2025 (Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports), regarding low-value imports from China is not affected by this order, and all duties and fees with respect to covered articles shall be collected as required and detailed therein.

    (j)  To reduce the risk of transshipment and evasion, all ad valorem rates of duty imposed by this order or any successor orders with respect to articles of China shall apply equally to articles of both the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region.

    (k)  In order to establish the duty rates described in this order, the HTSUS is modified as set forth in the Annexes to this order.  These modifications shall enter into effect on the dates set forth in the Annexes to this order.

    (l)  Unless specifically noted herein, any prior Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or other Presidential directive or guidance related to trade with foreign trading partners that is inconsistent with the direction in this order is hereby terminated, suspended, or modified to the extent necessary to give full effect to this order.

    Sec. 4.  Modification Authority.  (a)  The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall recommend to me additional action, if necessary, if this action is not effective in resolving the emergency conditions described above, including the increase in the overall trade deficit or the recent expansion of non-reciprocal trade arrangements by U.S. trading partners in a manner that threatens the economic and national security interests of the United States. 

    (b)  Should any trading partner retaliate against the United States in response to this action through import duties on U.S. exports or other measures, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase or expand in scope the duties imposed under this order to ensure the efficacy of this action. 

    (c)  Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further modify the HTSUS to decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under this order.

    (d)  Should U.S. manufacturing capacity and output continue to worsen, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase duties under this order.

    Sec. 5.  Implementation Authority.  The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Chair of the International Trade Commission are hereby authorized to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order.  Each executive department and agency shall take all appropriate measures within its authority to implement this order.

    Sec. 6.  Reporting Requirements.  The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

    Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
        April 2, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Closes De Minimis Exemptions to Combat China’s Role in America’s Synthetic Opioid Crisis

    Source: The White House

    CLOSING LOOPHOLES IN THE TARIFF SYSTEM: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order eliminating duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value imports from China, a critical step in countering the ongoing health emergency posed by the illicit flow of synthetic opioids into the U.S.

    • Following the Secretary of Commerce’s notification that adequate systems are in place to collect tariff revenue, President Trump is ending duty-free de minimis treatment for covered goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong starting May 2, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
      • Imported goods sent through means other than the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption will be subject to all applicable duties, which shall be paid in accordance with applicable entry and payment procedures.
      • All relevant postal items containing goods that are sent through the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption are subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item (increasing to $50 per item after June 1, 2025). This is in lieu of any other duties, including those imposed by prior Orders.
    • Carriers transporting these postal items must report shipment details to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), maintain an international carrier bond to ensure duty payment, and remit duties to CBP on a set schedule.
    • CBP may require formal entry for any postal package instead of the specified duties.
    • The Secretary of Commerce will submit a report within 90 days assessing the Order’s impact and considering whether to extend these rules to packages from Macau.

     
    COMBATING CHINA’S ROLE IN THE OPIOID CRISIS: President Trump is targeting deceptive shipping practices by Chinese-based shippers, many of whom hide illicit substances, including synthetic opioids, in low-value packages to exploit the de minimis exemption.

    • On average, CBP processes over 4 million de minimis shipments into the U.S. each day.
    • The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which exerts ultimate control over the government and enterprises of the PRC, has subsidized and otherwise incentivized PRC chemical companies to export fentanyl and related precursor chemicals that are used to produce synthetic opioids sold illicitly in the United States.
    • Many PRC-based chemical companies hide illicit substances in the flow of legitimate commerce, including through false invoices, fraudulent postage, and deceptive packaging.
    • While the U.S. previously offered a generous de minimis exemption, China enforces strict import restrictions and tightly limits de minimis exemptions, showing no similar leniency toward U.S. shipments.
    • Last fiscal year, CBP apprehended more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at our borders, enough fentanyl to kill more than 4 billion people.
      • It is estimated that federal officials are only able to seize a fraction of the fentanyl smuggled across the southern border. 
    • These drugs kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, including 75,000 deaths per year attributed to fentanyl alone.
      • More Americans are dying from fentanyl overdoses each year than the number of American lives lost in the entirety of the Vietnam War.

     
    KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: When voters overwhelmingly elected Donald J. Trump as President, they gave him a mandate to seal the border and stop the influx of deadly drugs. That is exactly what he is doing.

    • On the campaign trail, President Trump promised “We will not rest until we have ended the drug addiction crisis.”
    • Upon returning to office, President Trump immediately took action to seal the border and crack down on drug trafficking.
    • President Trump implemented 20% tariffs on China to address the threat of the sustained influx of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, flowing from China into the United States.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Stuck in the past: Trump tariffs and other policies are dragging the U.S. back to the 19th century

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Strikwerda, Associate Professor, History, Athabasca University

    During Donald Trump’s first term as president, the United States lurched from the absurdity of his lies to the use of his office for personal financial gain, his schoolyard insults and his utter contempt for critics. His term ended with his irresponsible and dangerous incitement of the assault on the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.

    This time around, Trump is replying on outdated tools — tariffs, small government, territorial expansion and nationalism — to solve modern problems of globalization, wealth disparities, the decline of manufacturing jobs and exploitative capitalism.

    On April 2, he announced a baseline tariff of 10 per cent on all countries that import goods to the U.S., including Canada. Canada has also been hit with a 25 per cent levy on Canadian-made automobiles.

    The Trump administration’s current use of 19th-century tools to solve 20th-century problems that are wholly inappropriate for the 21st century threatens to take America back to the 19th century. This is an incredibly dangerous road for the U.S to take.

    The rise of the nation state

    The 19th century was marked by the rise of the nation-state — a single political entity united by geography, culture and language.

    This was, in many respects, the result of the rapidly industrializing world shifting away from monarchical rule and mercantile economics toward limited democratic rule and free-market capitalism.

    It was a time of tariffs, small government, territorial expansion and nationalism. It was also a time of mass migration from Europe to North America, where rampant nativism, colonialism and unchecked and exploitative capitalism shaped the landscape.

    The prevailing belief at the time was that nation-states should use tariffs, adopt isolationist policies to cut off the outside world and seize territory where possible. These measures, it was thought, would foster national unity and allow capitalism to thrive by letting the “invisible hand” of the marketplace work its magic.

    Protective tariffs promised to grow domestic industries, but the economic benefits were not evenly distributed. Wealth disparities grew wider as millions of immigrants arrived on North American shores, only to find deplorable living conditions in the cities and hardscrabble farmland out in the country.

    Some newcomers prospered, of course, but they tended to be those who arrived with money already in their pockets. And they fast learned how to exploit the lack of state-directed regulation, patches of corruption amid rapid western expansion and growing nativism and poverty to their own benefit.

    Many of the 20th century’s problems flowed from these 19th-century trends.

    The economic fallout of tariffs

    Following the financial Panic of 1873 and its ensuing economic depression in both Europe and North America, nation-states unleashed tariffs to protect their domestic economies. It was the wrong strategy to pursue, as it slowed trade even more by limiting the free flow of goods and capital. Money, as is now well-known, needs to move to grow.

    Working families chafed at the lack of labour protections like bargaining rights, health and safety measures, unemployment insurance and sick benefits. In response, they formed unions and initiated waves of strikes throughout the western industrialized world.

    Western North American farmers were furious that tariffs forced them to buy on protected markets while selling on unprotected ones subject to international market prices. They organized, too, by forming farmer co-operatives and backing movements like the Granger movement, populism and progressivism to protect their interests.

    Nation-states, warmed by rising nationalist fires, formed military-defence alliances across Europe and its colonial and former colonial holdings, including Canada. In 1914, these alliances led to the First World War, a global and industrial war the likes of which the world had never seen.

    The Great Depression

    By the 1930s, unrestricted and largely unregulated capitalism, together with astonishing wealth disparities and monopolistic tendencies, plunged the world into the decade-long Great Depression.

    Many governments’ initial response was to impose tariffs once again, and just as in 1873, they only made the problem worse. The simultaneous rise of fascism, which was largely nationalism run amok, brought the world to war again at the end of the decade, to devastating consequence.

    The post-war years saw a concerted international effort at using the nation-state to regulate domestic economies by investing in social services and programs and to rein in runaway capital when its excesses threatened stability.

    International bodies like the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice were created to promote peace and stability. This new approach wasn’t always successful in its goals, but so far the world hasn’t seen any global hot wars or massive economic depressions.

    The end of history

    In 1992, historian Frances Fukuyama infamously declared that the world had reached “the end of history.”

    He didn’t mean that time stopped, of course. Instead, he was arguing that the liberal nation-state represented “the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

    In his view, the western industrialized world had reached the pinnacle of successful governance and unlimited prosperity.

    Yet, even as western liberal democracy was congratulating itself on its own success, these same nation-states, in conjunction with large corporations, were seeking out lower labour costs and greater profit in the developing world.

    The result was a hollowing-out of North America’s industrial heartlands, along with rampant exploitation of vulnerable labour in places like Asia, South Asia and South Central America. Once mighty American cities declined. Wages failed to keep up with inflation. Farm debt soared.

    This is where the Trump administration re-enters the story — tapping into the frustration and disillusionment of frustrated Americans by promising to restore a “golden age” that never was.

    Trump’s 19th-century playbook

    Despite his promises, Trump’s tariffs are unlikely to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. As history has shown, tariffs do not revive industries that are already gone; instead, they will only make Americans pay more for the things they need.

    A return to small government won’t “make America great again,” either. Instead, it risks repeating the 19th-century pattern of making the rich richer and gutting the very social programs millions of people rely on. The Trump administration’s massive and ongoing cuts to the Social Security Administration are already well under way.

    Trump’s rhetoric about territorial expansion, including threats to annex Greenland and Canada, won’t make the U.S. more secure. It will just exacerbate the sort of international tensions the world saw in 1914 and 1939.

    And with limited resources left to exploit, it’s becoming harder for capital to sustain itself, even as it seeks to wrest whatever is left from our planet, the realities of environmental catastrophe be damned.

    Nationalism, meanwhile, won’t foster a sense of national unity. It will only deepen existing divisions based on race and class. And if history is any guide, the consequences could be even more dire this time around, even pushing the world toward a global conflict unlike anything seen before.

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

    – ref. Stuck in the past: Trump tariffs and other policies are dragging the U.S. back to the 19th century – https://theconversation.com/stuck-in-the-past-trump-tariffs-and-other-policies-are-dragging-the-u-s-back-to-the-19th-century-253106

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Capito Outlines Surface Transportation Principles at Hearing with DOT Secretary Duffy

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
    To watch Chairman Capito’s opening statement, click here or the image above.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, led a hearing beginning the development of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill with the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Sean Duffy.
    In her opening remarks, Chairman Capito detailed her vision for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill, and welcomed input and collaboration from the Trump administration and Secretary Duffy as the reauthorization effort begins. This hearing serves as the first of a two-part series of hearings on the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
    Below is the opening statement of Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) as delivered.
    “Thank you for joining us this morning as we begin our work to develop the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill. This hearing is the first of a two-part series that we are having to help us guide our work, and I really want to thank Secretary Duffy for being here with us today.
    “My vision for this legislation is simple, but important. We want to improve the movement of people and goods.
    “Our roads and bridges are what connect us to the people and places that matter most in our lives. They help American businesses, large and small, create jobs and economic opportunities, and enable that competitiveness in the global marketplace. They connect everything around us from Point A to Point B. Every state has transportation needs and stands to benefit from the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
    “My home state of West Virginia is pursuing important projects, like the Coalfields Expressway, I’m specifically mentioning these in front of the Secretary, because he will be hearing from me on these two, Corridor H also, to better link our communities to essential services and economic opportunity. This legislation provides the funding and establishes the policies and programs that enable the improvement of the surface transportation network that we all so rely on. 
    “Since the enactment of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the EPW Committee has reviewed and conducted oversight of the existing policies and programs. We’ve learned a lot about what is working and what isn’t. That effort has provided me with three key principles for the next bill. By focusing on these principles, I’m confident that we can work towards bipartisan legislation, as we have in the past, that will deliver results for the American people. 
    “Principle One: Improving the safety and reliability of America’s surface transportation network with impactful investments.
    “In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in the number and scope of federal transportation programs. These programs have often had duplicative purposes, and project availability and eligibility. This leads to an expensive and time-intensive process to get funding out the door that disrupts the focus of federal funding and lessens the impact that the legislation can make.
    “As we craft the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill we must make investments that instead, optimize the impact of federal funding and give state partners the confidence that they can invest over a longer period of time. We should focus on eliminating duplicative programs that invite regulatory overreach and increase funding for the highway formula programs that our states rely on and have a proven track record of success.
    “Principle Two: Reforming and modernizing federal programs and policies to increase efficiency.
    “We all know that as currently structured, federal requirements can add red-tape that increases costs and time, and slows down the completion of projects. We all want to deliver transportation benefits faster and save money for American taxpayers. 
    “To achieve this goal, we need to take a serious look at the federal requirements to determine how to make meaningful improvements to our planning and procurement procedures, our environmental review process for projects, and discretionary grants and loans requirements. By reforming and modernizing these requirements, we can create certainty for the partners who make these projects happen and ensure that the public receives the benefits of these needed investments quickly. 
    “Principle Three: Addressing the variety of surface transportation needs across all states.
    “Obviously, different states have different needs. I wouldn’t expect West Virginia, with our mountainous peaks and valleys, to prioritize the same transportation projects in other states in other parts of the country. By avoiding top-down mandates from Washington, and giving states flexibility to address the individual improvements, I think that is what we need to be looking at. The bill can support our common goals while ensuring that federal regulations, programs, and policies recognize the different needs in our states. 
    “It will take collaboration from my Senate colleagues, our stakeholders, and the Trump administration in order to complete the bill before the IIJA expires in September of 2026. We must be pragmatic, and work in a bipartisan way, as we have in the past, to develop a Senate bill that sets us up for a productive conversation on this reauthorization effort with our colleagues in the House.
    “I am grateful to Secretary Sean Duffy, who is here to share the Trump administration’s priorities for this legislation, and I look forward to learning more about those priorities. The Department of Transportation’s technical assistance and support will be critical parts of this process. 
    “This is an excellent opportunity ahead of us to make a pivotal impact in our surface transportation network. Each of us knows how important that network is and the role that it plays in keeping our country’s economy and people on the move. I am excited to get to work and continue the EPW Committee’s bipartisan tradition of developing this legislation.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Capito Asks Duffy About Bridges, Project Delays Ahead of Upcoming Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
    To watch Chairman Capito’s questions, click here or the image above.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, led ahearing beginning the development of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill with the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Sean Duffy.
    During the hearing, Chairman Capito asked Secretary Duffy about the importance of bridge funding, the backlog in grant agreements created by the previous Administration, and what hinders the development of transportation projects. 
    HIGHLIGHTS:
    IMPORTANCE OF BRIDGE FUNDING:
    CHAIRMAN CAPITO: 
    “In my state, obviously, we have a lot of rivers and mountains. We’ve got a ton of bridges, and we need your partnership to make sure that we’re going to have the ability to fix, and we’re on the process right now, some major projects, fixing some of our bridges or maintaining them. What can you say about bridges, in terms of what you’ve seen since you’ve been there, on improving our nation’s bridges? What more would we need to do to address the issues with bridge safety and bridge maintenance?”
    SECRETARY DUFFY:
    “We see that people lose their lives when our bridges aren’t safe, and so I know it’s a top priority for this committee and for the department as well. We will make sure that the grants that have been awarded, we’re expeditiously moving through those grants and making sure we have funding for that which was awarded. But you know, beyond that, I think we have to take a look at the list of priorities, and the oldest and maybe most dangerous bridges, have to be funded first and those projects have to get underway.”
    DEPLOYMENT OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS:
    CHAIRMAN CAPITO:
    “I have raised concerns about the implementation in the IIJA’s competitive grant programs, and the time it takes, we’re going to see this as a repeating theme, I think, the time that it takes to get that funding out the door. Can you please commit to a timely execution of project grant agreements? We know that there are numerous projects that are still – been promised and are not through the pipeline yet. Promised by the previous Administration, which is fine, but they still didn’t move them through the pipeline. Can you talk about that, and how you think that you can improve that process in your department?”
    SECRETARY DUFFY:
    “There are 3,200 announced projects at the department that don’t have signed grant agreements – 3,200. We are going to work through those projects. But if you say, ‘where is my project,’ I’m not looking at 10 projects for grant agreements – 3,200. Some of them date back to 2022, so there’s a lot of workload to do to get these projects complete, to get the grant agreements completed, and the money out the door to your states. I’ll just note that, Senator, usually, historically, there was 47 to 107 projects announced between Election Day and Inauguration Day. This last Administration announced around 950 projects in that time frame, almost 1,000% increase. And so everybody wants their projects, and I’m going to do my best to get those projects out the door, but it is a historic number that was announced.”
    CAUSE FOR DELAY:
    CHAIRMAN CAPITO:
    “I’m interested in the 3,200 projects that basically landed on your desk the day you got sworn in that were not completed. Could you just flesh out a little bit why they might not be? It might be that their environmental review, their financing, can you just kind of line out a little of those?”
    SECRETARY DUFFY:
    “That’s a good point. Some of them are the NEPA work had not been done yet. That’s true. There’s others that would expand capacity, and so if you’re going to expand capacity from, you know, two lanes to four lanes, it’s my understanding there was a set of ideas that they didn’t want to expand the capacity. They would re-do, you know, current capacity, but if it was an expanding capacity, those projects actually sat for a longer period of time. When the announcement goes, I’m going to work for all of you to get these projects out. But I’ve got a lot of complaints, it is a lot of projects that we have to get done to make sure we can meet the commitments that were made in the last Administration.”
    Click HERE to watch Chairman Capito’s questions.
    Click HERE to watch Chairman Capito’s opening statement.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pueblo and Southern Colorado Leaders Discuss Region’s Workforce and Broadband Needs

    Source: US State of Colorado

    PUEBLO – Today, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and Southern Colorado Economic Development District (SCEDD) hosted a Regional Talent Summit at the Pueblo Convention Center to convene industry and community leaders, discuss much needed career pathway solutions and begin developing tactical workforce plans to ensure that Colorado workers develop the skills employers need.

    “As Colorado’s economy grows, we’re making sure local workforces are ready to support the industries driving Colorado’s future. These important regional conversations are helping to ensure Coloradans are equipped to thrive in good-paying jobs and businesses have the skills needed to succeed in our state,” said Gov. Polis.

    Today’s summit focused on the advanced manufacturing, construction, and technology industries in Baca, Bent, Chaffee, Crowley, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, Kiowa, Lake, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers and Pueblo counties. The roundtable discussions and industry breakout sessions will inform the creation of tactical plans to develop industry-specific career pathways that connect Coloradans to good-paying jobs, meet the needs of the region’s employers and support broadband expansion within the region.

    “As a state, we are doubling down on workforce development to connect Coloradans to good-paying jobs while supporting regional economic development goals. Today’s Regional Talent Summit will result in a tactical action plan developed by community and business leaders from Pueblo and across Southern Colorado to meet the region’s unique goals and needs,” said Eve Lieberman, OEDIT Executive Director.

    “Economic development is a team sport. It takes everybody—public, private, and nonprofit sectors—working together to create opportunities for businesses, workers, and residents. A common refrain I’ve heard from all sectors is the need for a trained and dependable workforce throughout our region,” said Leslie Mastroianni, SCEDD Executive Director. “This need became apparent through the development of the region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and more recently since SCEDD was awarded over $28 million in broadband funds. Today’s conversations will contribute to local workforce solutions and provide valuable input as we work on a grant application to provide training and job placement for unemployed and underemployed people in our region.”

    Today’s event was the third of seven Regional Talent Summits taking place across the state. Established by HB24-1365, these summits build on the impact of the Opportunity Now grant program which has, to date, distributed nearly $90 million to 89 grant recipients to launch and expand innovative talent development programs across the state. Within the 13-county region represented at today’s Regional Talent Summit, notable grant recipients include:

    • Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) – $1.4 million to collaborate with Southern Colorado Partners Leading Advancement in Nursing Track (PLANT) to train nurses to work in local communities. Serving 15 counties in Southern Colorado, CSU-Pueblo’s goal is to reduce the infant mortality rate and improve the quality of care for Coloradans over the age of 65 who are most in-need of services.
    • Emergent Campus – Trinidad – $3.5 million to broaden economic opportunities in tech, with a special focus on rural Colorado. This funding is expected to support the growth of more than 155 tech jobs and over 50 paid internships in Fremont County, with an anticipated annual economic impact of more than $25 million. In collaboration with Trinidad State College, these on-the-job and work-based learning opportunities are intended to support business relocation and expansion.
    • Servicios de la Raza – Pueblo – $900,000 to work with education and industry partners to address talent shortages in transportation, infrastructure, warehousing, construction and skilled trades. Focusing on credentialing and skill development, Servicios de la Raza offers training and ongoing wraparound support to place hundreds of Coloradans into jobs.

    Grant recipients from CSU-Pueblo, Emergent Campus, Servicios de la Raza and Skill Distillery participated in today’s summit.

    “The Regional Talent Summit held today is an important milestone for workforce development in Pueblo and southern Colorado. We have an opportunity to help working Coloradans develop and maintain skill sets that are in demand through the entire duration of their careers, and I look forward to working alongside regional partners to implement the resulting action plan,” said Senate Majority Whip, Nick Hinrichsen.

    “Pueblo and southern Colorado are home to hardworking families ready to take on new jobs, contribute to a strong economy and maintain our tightknit communities. Today’s summit is just one way state and local leaders are working together to ensure more Coloradans in our region develop the skills to access today’s and tomorrow’s new jobs,” said Sen. Rod Pelton.

    “Access to quality education in southern Colorado is a necessity to ensure our residents have the skills they need for good paying jobs. When both business and community leaders collaborate to ensure our region has the education opportunities for individuals to support their families, this is what continues to make headway for work force development in House District 47,” said House Assistant Minority Leader, Ty Winter.

    “Today’s regional workforce summit and the resulting action plan will help ensure that hardworking Coloradans in Pueblo and the region have the skills to access good-paying jobs in advanced manufacturing, construction, and technology, while improving broadband. That’s a win for our regional economy and our communities,” said Rep. Tisha Mauro

    Four more summits will take place across the state between now and June 2025, and each region’s tactical workforce plans will be published in the 2025 Colorado Talent Pipeline report, with annual progress reports being published through 2030. The next summits will take place May 12 in Grand Junction, focusing on construction, early childhood education and healthcare; and May 16 in Durango, with a focus on construction, early childhood education and healthcare.  

    About the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade

    The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) works to empower all to thrive in Colorado’s economy. Under the leadership of the Governor and in collaboration with economic development partners across the state, we foster a thriving business environment through funding and financial programs, training, consulting and informational resources across industries and regions. We promote economic growth and long-term job creation by recruiting, retaining, and expanding Colorado businesses and providing programs that support entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes at every stage of growth. Our goal is to protect what makes our state a great place to live, work, start a business, raise a family, visit and retire—and make it accessible to everyone. Learn more about OEDIT.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Oregon State Agencies Mobilize in Coordinated Response to Harney County Flood Emergency

    Source: US State of Oregon

    n response to the ongoing flooding in Harney County, Governor Kotek has declared a State of Emergency and directed the Oregon Department of Emergency Management (OEM) to activate the State’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) to coordinate response efforts across state agencies.

    Since March 14, 2025, Harney County and surrounding areas have experienced historic levels of rainfall and snowmelt, overwhelming rivers, streams, and wastewater systems. Floodwaters have inundated roadways, damaged critical infrastructure, and introduced environmental and public health risks, including contamination of waterways and disruption to essential services.

    Governor’s Emergency Declaration (ORS 401.165) enables rapid mobilization of state resources to support Harney County’s local efforts.

    State Agency Actions Include:

    • Oregon Department of Emergency Management (OEM) is working closely with local, tribal, and federal partners to support life safety, protect critical infrastructure, and address emerging needs. Regional coordinators and liaisons have been deployed to assist on the ground, and OEM is actively managing resource requests to ensure communities have the support they need. OEM has also established a Joint Information System and is actively coordinating public information efforts to support the public receives accurate, timely, and consistent updates throughout the emergency.
    • Oregon Health Authority (OHA) The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has deployed emergency preparedness and tribal coordinators to support local and tribal partners with critical resources, information, and guidance. Medical volunteers from SERV-OR are assisting at medical shelters, with one deployed and at least 10 more available this week. OHA is also addressing drinking water concerns, immunization needs—such as tetanus prevention—and identifying individuals with medical conditions who may need extra support. Remote public health communication support is also being provided.
    • The Oregon Department of Human Services’ Office of Resilience and Emergency Management (ODHS OREM) has delivered essential supplies, including water, hygiene kits, portable toilets, and handwashing stations, to the Burns Paiute Tribe, the American Red Cross shelter in Harney County, and other affected areas. Two shower trailers are in place, with a third on the way. Nine ODHS OREM staff are on-site working with local teams. ODHS OREM recovery coordinators are helping survivors assess their needs and connect with services as they begin to recover.
    • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) DEQ staff has been in contact with the City Public Works team, providing technical support remotely. The operations staff has kept the sewer ponds intact, which are not in the immediate flood zone at this time. DEQ onsite program staff provided an EPA fact sheet to the county as well as an onsite disaster planning and response handbook.
    • Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) ODA has been actively supporting our partners at the Oregon Office of Emergency Management in response to the floods in Harney County. We’ve provided resources on federal programs that may assist impacted farmers and ranchers and shared guidance on animal care during flood conditions. Our focus remains on ensuring the agricultural community has the information and support needed to navigate this challenging time.
    • Oregon State Fire Marshall’s Office has deployed 25 personnel to support local response to sandbagging efforts to reinforce the levee. They are joined by Colton Fire, Merrill Fire, Klamath County Fire District 1, and Chiloquin Fire and Rescue Departments.

    It’s been incredibly inspiring to witness the swift coordination of federal, state, local, and Tribal resources coming together to support communities in need,” said Stephen Richardson, Emergency Coordination Center Manager. “A powerful example of that collaboration was the rapid repair of a compromised dike—an urgent fix that helped prevent further impacts and protect lives and property.”

    This coordinated effort reflects Oregon’s commitment to whole-of-government response under the CEMP. The State will continue to assess needs and respond dynamically as conditions evolve.

    Looking Ahead

    While Harney County is currently the most severely affected, state agencies remain vigilant in monitoring flood conditions statewide and are prepared to support other communities if necessary.

    For the latest updates visit OEM’s newsroom page at Home – Newsroom or follow @OregonOEM on social media. Visit our flood dashboard here: State of Oregon Flood Dashboard.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Amo, Fletcher, Quigley Lead Colleagues to Blast Health Secretary for Hiding from Public Input

    Source: US Congressman Gabe Amo (Rhode Island 1st District)

    The unilateral decision to bypass public notice and comment shreds transparency and accountability at Health and Human Services Department

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Representatives Gabe Amo (RI-01), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07), and Mike Quigley (IL-05) led a letter signed by 20 colleagues to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressing alarm at the decision to authorize agencies to bypass the public notice and comment period on “matters relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts.”

    “A significant departure from more than 50 years of precedent, foregoing notice and comment on rulemaking and other relevant HHS actions would eviscerate transparency and squander opportunities for patients, health care providers, and the public to voice concerns about policies that directly affect their lives and livelihoods,” said the lawmakers. “Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long modified proposed rules in response to issues and concerns exposed through public comment, often clarifying a rule’s intended meaning and correcting unforeseen errors.”

    “Adopted in 1971, the Richardson Waiver ensured that public notice and comment procedures for HHS would include rules related to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts,” continued the lawmakers. “Rescinding the Richardson Waiver contradicts your stated commitment to “radical transparency.” It is a declaration that unilateral decision-making by the executive branch is the best approach to meeting the needs of Americans who rely on the actions of HHS agencies for their health.”

    In addition to Representatives Amo, Fletcher, and Quigley, the letter was signed by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Betty McCollum (MN-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), LaMonica Mclver (NJ-10), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Robin L. Kelly (IL-02), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Seth Magaziner (RI-02), Donald S. Beyer (VA-08), Jennifer L. McClellan (VA-04), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), and Jesús G. “Chuy” García (IL-04).

     

    Read the full letter HERE

     

    BACKGROUND

    On February 28, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded the ‘Richardson Waiver’, a memo that previously committed the Department to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for certain rules and to use the APA’s good-cause exception “sparingly”. This change could have far-reaching effects, given HHS’s responsibility for overseeing critical public benefit programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

     

    READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER

    Dear Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,

    We write to express our alarm regarding your decision to authorize agencies to bypass public notice and comment on “matters relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A significant departure from more than 50 years of precedent, foregoing notice and comment on rulemaking and other relevant HHS actions would eviscerate transparency and squander opportunities for patients, health care providers, and the public to voice concerns about policies that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. As lawmakers, we are also concerned that this decision deviates from the standard operating protocol under which we and our predecessors have written laws for HHS for the last five decades.

    Public comment has long exposed—and allowed HHS to address—potential problems with even the most well-intentioned proposals. Comments received through the public notice and comment process improve the quality, accuracy, and effectiveness of agency policies by incorporating real-world insights from people that will be affected by the policy—and, in many cases, from the people and organizations that will be expected to implement the policy correctly. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long modified proposed rules in response to issues and concerns exposed through public comment, often clarifying a rule’s intended meaning and correcting unforeseen errors.

    Adopted in 1971, the Richardson Waiver ensured that public notice and comment procedures for HHS would include rules related to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. The 1971 directive built on legal requirements laid out by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) to allow the public greater input in agency matters. For over 50 years, the Richardson waiver has ensured transparency, public participation, and accountability in the rulemaking process at HHS— across Republican and Democratic administrations alike. The Richardson Waiver has ensured that HHS policies are shaped by the experiences of those they impact the most—including patients and providers—and acted as a safeguard against policies that may overlook or unintentionally harm those communities.

    Rescinding the Richardson Waiver contradicts your stated commitment to “radical transparency.” It is a declaration that unilateral decision-making by the executive branch is the best approach to meeting the needs of Americans who rely on the actions of HHS agencies for their health. The recission of the Richardson Waiver has the potential to reduce transparency and accountability in the HHS decision-making process and create uncertainty for health care providers, research institutions, and advocacy groups in grantmaking processes. Without the opportunity to publicly comment on HHS decisions, there would be greater uncertainty regarding the intended interpretation of regulations governing contracts and grants.

    Indeed, HHS’ recission of the Richardson Waiver has created uncertainty regarding when public notice and comment requirements apply, when HHS will adhere to long-standing public notice and comment processes, and what HHS will consider to be a “good cause” exception to statutory public notice and comment requirements in the future.4 In light of this, we seek clarification on the following questions.

    1. What specific concerns with the long-standing public notice and comment processes led to the decision to rescind the Richardson waiver? What benefits did HHS anticipate in reducing its obligations to receive public input on policies that impact HHS notice and comment rulemaking procedures?
    2. How does HHS anticipate modifying processes for rulemaking, grantmaking, and other agency activity that otherwise would have been subject to the Richardson Waiver? What agency actions does HHS intend for the rescission of the Richardson Waiver to apply to and which (if any) agency actions does HHS not intend for it to apply to? For example, will HHS commit to utilize longstanding notice-and-comment rulemaking for purposes of promulgating rulemaking with respect to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)?
    3. Does HHS plan to implement any measures to prevent unintended consequences stemming from reduced opportunities for public notice and comment?
    4. What steps does HHS plan to take to ensure there is public notice and comment on HHS agency rulemaking and other actions that were otherwise subject to the Richardson Waiver?

    Please respond to these questions by April 16, 2025. We also strongly urge you to reverse the decision to rescind the Richardson Waiver to ensure that public engagement in health care rulemaking remains a standard in the United States.

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Presses Boeing CEO Ortberg for Being Unwilling to Categorically Refuse Self-Inspection Authority from FAA Before Oversight Issues Are Fixed

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    April 02, 2025
    In her remarks, the Senator said prior efforts by FAA employees to delegate this safety authority back to Boeing is not just unacceptable, but a “total dereliction of duty”
    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)— a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST) and Ranking Member of the CST Aviation Subcommittee—pressed Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg four times whether he would commit to neither seeking nor accepting delegation of airworthiness inspection authority—an authority that would allow the company to self-inspect its own aircraft—from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) until FAA fixed its own oversight lapses. Again and again, Mr. Ortberg dodged the question and refused to make a firm commitment. During her questioning, Duckworth highlighted how inappropriate it would be for Boeing to accept this delegation authority as the FAA continues working to implement all 16 of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General’s recommendations from an October report that found FAA’s oversight of Boeing production was “not effective.” Duckworth’s full questioning can be found on the Senator’s YouTube.
    “In October, the DOT Inspector General found that the FAA’s oversight of Boeing was not only not effective, but so bad that it issued 16 separate recommendations for the FAA to fix its process,” said Duckworth. “I believe strongly that FAA must not delegate inspection authority back to Boeing until—at a minimum—FAA fixes its ineffective oversight of Boeing’s production. It’s extremely disappointing that Mr. Ortberg wouldn’t rule out accepting this delegated authority while FAA’s oversight of Boeing production is still so ineffective. Mr. Ortberg is trying to restore Boeing’s reputation, and has taken important actions to do so, but I don’t see how Boeing would improve its safety credibility by accepting authority to once again self-inspect its planes for federal compliance—while the FAA’s oversight is still broken.”
    One of the most shocking findings in the DOT Inspector General’s October report was that that shortly before the Boeing door plug blowout, individuals within FAA wanted to delegate airplane airworthiness inspection authority back to Boeing without any criteria by which to assess whether Boeing could be trusted to properly carry out these inspections. This is particularly concerning because, prior to the 737 MAX crashes and production problems with the 787, the FAA allowed Boeing to self-inspect their aircraft to ensure they conformed with their FAA-approved type design. However, in the wake of the MAX crashes, it was found that Boeing had a pattern of abusing this authority and producing 737 MAX aircraft with nonfunctioning Angle of Attack Disagree alerts.
    After Mr. Ortberg refused to commit that he would not accept the delegation of such an authority when Duckworth asked a fourth time, Duckworth replied: “You have a track record of abusing self-inspecting authority and you’ve already said that you and senior Board managers would make more money if you can put more aircraft out. It is not appropriate at this time for you to accept the delegation of that authority if it is offered to you by the FAA before the FAA has met all 16 of the IG recommendations on how to fix the inspection system.”
    Duckworth has long pushed for improved federal oversight of Boeing. Last year, she urged then-FAA Administrator Whitaker to make sure the FAA requires transparency and accountability as it oversees Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan. Duckworth also implored FAA to scrutinize Boeing’s bad behavior and use its civil enforcement authority more often, when appropriate, and also called on the agency to review Boeing’s disturbing pattern of failing to disclose critical safety information about 737 MAX planes to pilots.
    Last year, Duckworth also called on FAA to reject a petition by Boeing for a safety exemption to allow the 737 MAX 7 to be certified to fly despite having another known safety defect that has not yet been fixed. The Senator subsequently met with then-Boeing CEO David Calhoun and urged him to withdraw the company’s petition, which the company did just days later, crediting Duckworth’s reasoning for the decision.
    Duckworth last year helped author the landmark bipartisan FAA reauthorization that was signed into law to extend the FAA’s funding and authorities through Fiscal Year 2028. The reauthorization included several of her provisions to improve consumer safety, expand the aviation workforce and enhance protections for travelers with disabilities. Duckworth has noted that while it was a tremendous victory for the flying public, more needs to be done to address the recent issues that have come to light with Boeing since a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight mid-flight.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Louisiana Chiropractor Convicted of Health Care Fraud and Unemployment Insurance Fraud

    Source: US State of California

    A federal jury convicted a Louisiana chiropractor yesterday for his role in health care fraud and unemployment insurance fraud schemes totaling millions of dollars.

    According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Dr. Benjamin Tekippe, 40, of New Orleans, was a chiropractor and owner of Metairie Chiropractic & Rehab in New Orleans. Tekippe solicited patients with insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) at schools, public events, and on social media to receive chiropractic massages, which he misleadingly advertised as “free.” Tekippe would then routinely bill BCBSLA for chiropractic services he did not perform. In total, Tekippe fraudulently submitted over $2.3 million in claims to BCBSLA for services not performed and was reimbursed approximately $740,000 by the insurance provider. The fraudulent claims sought payment for thousands of chiropractic services purportedly provided by Tekippe during periods when he was out of the office, traveling on vacation, or incarcerated for past arrests. The evidence also showed that in response to a medical records request from a BCBSLA auditor, Tekippe fabricated patient records and instructed his staff to write them in their own handwriting to make it falsely appear that the services had been performed as billed. Evidence at trial showed that Tekippe spent the fraud proceeds on, among other things, luxury goods and gambling.  

    In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Tekippe submitted weekly certifications falsely claiming that he was unemployed when he was billing for chiropractic services purportedly performed during his claimed unemployment. Through this scheme, Tekippe received $12,952 in unemployment insurance benefits to which he was not entitled.

    Tekippe was convicted of six counts of health care fraud and one count of wire fraud. He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 17 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the wire fraud count and 10 years in prison on each health care fraud count. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Acting U.S. Attorney Michael M. Simpson for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Acting Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Tapp of the FBI New Orleans Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Jason Meadows of the Department of Health and Human Service Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) Dallas Region, Baton Rouge Field Office made the announcement.

    The FBI and HHS-OIG investigated the case.

    Trial Attorneys Kelly Z. Walters and Samantha Usher of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case.

    The Fraud Section leads the Criminal Division’s efforts to combat health care fraud through the Health Care Fraud Strike Force Program. Since March 2007, this program, currently comprised of 9 strike forces operating in 27 federal districts, has charged more than 5,800 defendants who collectively have billed federal health care programs and private insurers more than $30 billion. In addition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to hold providers accountable for their involvement in health care fraud schemes. More information can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/health-care-fraud-unit.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Kehoe Requests Federal Disaster Declaration in Response to March 14-15 Severe Storms and Tornadoes

    Source: US State of Missouri

    APRIL 2, 2025

    Jefferson City — Today, Governor Mike Kehoe requested that President Donald J. Trump approve a major disaster declaration to provide federal assistance in a total of 28 counties in response to the severe storms and tornadoes that devastated Missouri March 14-15, claiming 13 lives and causing significant damage to homes, businesses, and public infrastructure.

    “The State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) and local partners have been working in close coordination with FEMA to document damage in the areas impacted by these storms,” Governor Kehoe said. “Today, we are requesting a federal disaster declaration to support the affected communities and their recovery efforts. We are confident federal assistance will be forthcoming and greatly appreciate the critical work already being done by local response agencies and many volunteer partners to help Missourians in need.”

    Based on the documented damage, Governor Kehoe is requesting FEMA Individual Assistance for the following 25 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Camden, Carter, Dunklin, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Jefferson, Laclede, Madison, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Louis, Stoddard, Wayne, Webster, and Wright.

    Individual Assistance would allow eligible residents to seek federal assistance for temporary housing, housing repairs, replacement of damaged belongings, vehicles, and other qualifying expenses.  

    Based on the documented damage and emergency response costs, Governor Kehoe is also requesting FEMA Public Assistance for the following 20 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Callaway, Carter, Dunklin, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, and Wayne.

    If approved, Public Assistance would allow local governments and qualifying nonprofit agencies to seek federal assistance for reimbursement of emergency response and recovery costs, including repair and replacement of damaged roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure.

    Joint damage assessments conducted by FEMA, SEMA, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and local officials estimate more than $26.9 million in emergency response costs and damage to public infrastructure.

    Several Multi-Agency Resource Centers (MARCs), one-stop shops for recovery resources, were hosted March 25 – April 1 in Rolla, Hartville, West Plains, Van Buren, Popular Bluff, Doniphan, Piedmont, Perryville, Florissant, and Arnold. These MARCs served over 2,873 impacted individuals from 1,171 households. Due to the potential for severe weather, the MARC previously scheduled to take place at Eagles Hall in Pacific (707 W. Congress St.) has been rescheduled to Wednesday, April 9 from 1-7 p.m.

    Missourians with unmet needs are encouraged to contact United Way by dialing 2-1-1 or the American Red Cross at 1-800-733-2767. For additional resources and information about disaster recovery in Missouri, including general clean-up information, housing assistance, and mental health services, please visit recovery.mo.gov.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: First Degree Child Cruelty and Other Charges Filed in July 2023 Assault of Two-Year Old

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

                WASHINGTON – William Woodson, 26, of Southeast Washington, D.C. was indicted today by a D.C. Superior Court grand jury on three felony counts. Specifically, he is charged with one count of first degree child cruelty and one count of assault with significant bodily injury against a minor for his assault on a two-year-old victim, along with another felony charge from conduct directed at a separate adult the same day. The charges are in connection with an allegation that the defendant kicked a stranger’s two-year-old child down the escalator at the Mount Vernon Square metro station.  The charges were announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr. and Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department.

                Woodson is detained while the case remains pending.

                According to the government’s evidence, presented in police affidavits, on July 24, 2023 around 11:20 a.m., the victim’s mother was walking down the escalator at the Mount Vernon Square metro station when the defendant came up behind them.  He then (without any prior interaction or provocation) kicked the two-year-old child, causing him to fall down the escalator, hitting his head and face. Woodson exited the station and the victim’s mother followed him while carrying the now-injured child victim. The victim’s mother followed the defendant out of the metro station and called 911, providing law enforcement with information about the defendant.

                Responding MPD officers met the mother who gave them a lookout and, subsequently, officers stopped Woodson a short distance away. Medics arrived on scene and, noting that the two-year-old victim was bleeding from the head, advised the victim’s mother that he required transport to Children’s Hospital immediately. During transport, the victim lost consciousness. The victim remained hospitalized for approximately twelve hours and was diagnosed with a mild concussion before being sent home with his mother.

                This case is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department and the Metropolitan Transit Police Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Katherine Ballou of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

                An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Cedar Rapids Man Sentenced to Two Years in Federal Prison for Illegally Possessing a Firearm with an Extended Magazine

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Mycal Davis, age 40, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was sentenced on April 1, 2025, to two years in federal prison.  Davis received the prison term after a November 7, 2024, guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon.

    Information from the plea and sentencing hearings showed that law enforcement officers stopped a vehicle that Davis was a passenger in on December 21, 2023.  During the traffic stop, officers conducted a search of the vehicle and ordered the occupants out of the vehicle.  Davis exited the vehicle, and officers conducted a safety pat down for weapons and immediately noticed that Davis was armed with a firearm in his waistband.  Davis admitted what officers felt was a firearm and admitted he was a felon.  The firearm was equipped with a magazine containing 25 rounds of ammunition.  Officers continued to search Davis’s property and located various pills, some which tested positive as methamphetamine, and over 50 grams of marijuana.  

    Davis was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge C.J. Williams.  Davis was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.  He must also serve a three-year term of supervised release after the prison term.  There is no parole in the federal system.  Jones was released on bond conditions previously set and is to surrender to the United States Marshal on April 28, 2025. 

    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.

    The case was prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Michael Hudson and investigated by the Cedar Rapids Police Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  

    Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

    The case file number is 24-CR-61.

    Follow us on X @USAO_NDIA.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Department of Justice and United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa Honors Crime Victims and Survivors During 2025 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Cedar Rapids, Iowa — The United States Attorney from the Northern District of Iowa will commemorate National Crime Victims’ Rights Week (NCVRW) from April 6 through 12, 2025.

    This year’s NCVRW theme—Connecting Healing—recognizes that shared humanity drives vital connections to services, rights, and healing. KINSHIP is where victim advocacy begins.

    This annual observance challenges us to build a world where every connection built through KINSHIP — between survivors, advocates, and communities — holds the potential to heal. It asks us to ensure that resources are available to all survivors and that we show up for one another with empathy and intention.

    NCVRW 2025 will be commemorated in Iowa with many events across the state, including the following:

    • Friday April 4 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.: The 2025 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Commemoration, Polk County River Place, 2309 Euclid Ave., Des Moines, Iowa
      • Saturday April 5 at 9:00 a.m.: Go the Distance for Crime Victims 5K Run/Walk at Thomas Park in Marion, Iowa
      • Tuesday April 8 at 1:00 p.m and Thursday April 10 at 11:15 a.m.: From War to Wellness: A Journey of Resilience and Transformation on the Ankeny and Urban campuses of the Des Moines Area Community College.

    In the Northern District of Iowa, United States Attorney Timothy T. Duax announced winners for the following awards based on their service to victims in Iowa:

    • The Law Enforcement Victim Services Award is presented to Investigator Tracy Johnson from the Cedar Rapids Police Department. This award is presented to law enforcement officers in Iowa who go beyond the call of duty to help crime victims. It is the highest federal honor in Iowa for victim services by a law enforcement officer. Investigator Johnson is recognized for her excellent work investigating human trafficking and her work with a minor victim of trafficking.
    • The Law Enforcement Victim Services Award is also presented to Detective Chris Thomas of the Sioux City Police Department.  Detective Thomas was nominated for his outstanding investigative and advocacy work that led to the successful prosecution of Bobby Ray Rhoden.

    Investigator Johnson was the lead investigator in a human trafficking case involving a minor victim, two individuals who were eventually charged and convicted, and numerous other men who paid to participate in abusing the victim.  Investigator Johnson took a victim-centered approach to the investigation, developing a rapport with the minor victim and utilizing a trauma-informed interview style that gave the minor victim confidence that she was safe with Investigator Johnson.  Investigator Johnson’s outstanding and compassionate work with the victim was crucial to the case.  One of the charged defendants, Jarod Anderson, went to trial.  The victim testified during the trial and was able to tell the jury what had been done to her.  Investigator Johnson’s hard work during the investigation and prior to trial helped prepare the victim to face the difficult task of testifying in open court.  As a result of the victim’s brave testimony and Investigator Johnson’s outstanding work, Anderson was found guilty and is awaiting sentencing.  The second charged defendant, Tana Torres, pled guilty and was sentenced to up to eight years in prison.

    Rhoden victimized multiple individuals, including a former girlfriend.  Roden initially manipulated his victim into believing that she was responsible for the abuse he inflicted upon her, including torturing her, threatening her with a gun, and recording his abuse.  The victim eventually broke free, but Rhoden kidnapped her.  He used threats to get his victim into his car to help him recover a phone she had taken. Over the next 36 hours, he brutalized her and drove her to at least two locations in an effort to find his phone. The victim escaped Rhoden by running away from him to a neighbor’s house. As she ran, Rhoden fired his gun at or near her. A subsequent investigation of the kidnapping revealed live ammunition and a spent casing in the garage where Rhoden lived, and one of the locations where he held his victim.

    Detective Thomas demonstrated outstanding investigatory skills and compassion for the victim while he was investigating the kidnapping.  The victim was initially reluctant to trust or cooperate with law enforcement.  But Detective Thomas persisted in working with the victim until the victim came to trust him and the criminal justice system.  Thanks to Detective Thomas’s patience, the victim agreed to and was able to testify in very difficult circumstances during Rhoden’s trial.  Without her strength in doing so, Rhoden may have remained free to victimize others.  Detective Thomas’s compassion and care for the victim led directly to the victim having the strength to free herself from Rhoden’s hold and protect others from him by testifying.  As a result, Rhoden was found guilty and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 2, 2025.

    “These awards recognize the exceptional efforts of two law enforcement officers to provide assistance to federal and state victims in the Northern District of Iowa,” said United States Attorney Duax. “Ensuring victims feel safe while going through the difficult process of an investigation and trial is crucial to securing justice for the victims. The service of these officers, and other state and federal law enforcement officers and victim advocates, is a vital component of our criminal justice system.”

    NCVRW began in 1981 to honor victims and survivors of crime, raise awareness of victims’ rights and services and recognize the dedication of those who work with crime victims.

    For additional information about this year’s NCVRW activities and more ideas on supporting crime victims, visit OVC’s website at www.ovc.gov. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man Who Mailed Fentanyl from Arizona to Iowa Sentenced to Over Seven Years in Federal Prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    A man who mailed fentanyl powder, pills containing fentanyl, and “ice” methamphetamine from Arizona to Dubuque, Iowa, was sentenced today to 87 months in federal prison for his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.

    Shawn Javier Lopez-Johnson, age 29, from Phoenix, Arizona, received the prison term after a November 1, 2024 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.         

    From March 2023 through December 2023, Lopez-Johnson mailed re‑distribution quantities of controlled substances, including hundreds of fentanyl pills, from Arizona, to Dubuque, Iowa, to his co-conspirator, Alexander John Chapman who was previously sentenced for his role in the conspiracy.  During this time, Lopez-Johnson mailed Chapman approximately $5,400 worth of fentanyl powder, pills containing fentanyl, and methamphetamine.

    Lopez-Johnson was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge C.J. Williams.  Lopez-Johnson was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment.  He must also serve a three-year term of supervised release after the prison term.  There is no parole in the federal system.  Lopez-Johnson is being held in the United States Marshal’s custody until she can be transported to a federal prison.

    The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Nicole L. Nagin, and it was investigated by the Dubuque Drug Task Force and the United States Postal Inspection Service, at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.  The case file number is 24-CR-01003.

    Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

    MIL Security OSI –