Island Military Veterans Hope For US Action
United States military veterans in the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau received increased attention during the Biden administration after years of neglect by the US Veterans Administration.
That progress came to a halt with the incoming Trump administration in Washington in January, when the new Veterans Administration put many programs on hold.
Marshall Islands Foreign Minister and US military veteran Kalani Kaneko said he is hopeful of resuming the momentum for veterans living in the freely associated states.
Two key actions during the Biden administration helped to elevate interest in veterans living in the freely associated states:
The administration's appointment of a Compact of Free Association (COFA) Committee that included the ambassadors to Washington from the three nations, including Marshall Islands Ambassador Charles Paul, and US Cabinet-level officials.
The US Congress passed legislation establishing an advisory committee for the Veterans Administration for Compact veterans.
Kalani Kaneko was appointed as chairman to a three-year term, which expires in September.
Kaneko said he submitted a report to the Veterans Administration recently on its activities and needs.
The Foreign Minister said it is now up to the current administration of the Veterans Administration to take next steps to reappoint members of the advisory committee or to name a new group.
Kaneko pointed out that in contrast to its virtually non-existent program in the Marshall Islands, FSM and Palau, the VA's program for veterans is "robust" in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.
Citizens of the three Compact nations enlist in the U.S. military at higher rates per capita than Americans.
But when they leave the service and return home to their islands, they have historically received none of the benefits accorded to US veterans living in the United States.
Kaneko and island leaders have been trying to change this by getting the Veterans Administration to provide on-island services and to pay for medical referrals of veterans when locally available medical services are not available.
Kaneko said the 134-page report submitted in June contained five major recommendations for improved services for veterans from the US-affiliated islands:
Establish a VA clinic in Majuro with an accredited doctor and nurse.
Authorise use of the Marshall Islands zip code for US pharmacies to mail medicines to veterans here (a practice that is currently prohibited).
If the level of healthcare in Marshall Islands cannot provide a service needed by a veteran, they should be able to be referred to hospitals in other countries.
Due to the delays in obtaining appointments at VA hospitals in the US, the report recommends allowing veterans to use the Marshall Islands referral system to the Philippines to access the US Veterans Administration clinic in Manila.
Support and prioritize the access of veterans to US Department of Agriculture Rural Development housing loans and grants.
Kaneko said he is hopeful of engagement by high-level Veterans Administration officials at an upcoming meeting to review the report and other reports related to services for Compact nation veterans.
But, he cautioned, because there is nothing about Compact veterans in President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passed recently by the US Congress, it means fiscal year 2027 - starting October 1, 2026 - would be the earliest to see any developments for veterans in the islands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting the costs of tariffs
What an arbitrary and unfair world. While New Zealand might not be stung as badly as many others, it is still being penalised by capricious and unjust tariffs. This nation has virtually no tariffs (about 0.8%) on goods from the United States, while US-owned giants like Meta, Microsoft and Google extract billions of dollars through tax avoidance. New Zealand, long a close friend internationally, has been forced to tread carefully around US President Donald Trump. It recently welcomed an FBI office in Wellington and has held back on pledging recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nonetheless, the baseline 10% tariff imposed by the US earlier this year rises to 15%. Why? New Zealand recorded a trade surplus with the United States last year. If food prices had not been high, or if New Zealand had imported a few US aircraft, the balance might have been reversed — and the 10% might have stayed, as it has for Singapore and Australia. However, the US might still have made dismantling Pharmac a condition of a better deal. It is, of course, futile to appease bullies. There are effectively no real negotiations. Mr Trump issues decrees, and only afterwards might there be limited room to move. The might of China may have muscle, especially because of the US debt it holds. Puny New Zealand is simply too small. If there were just a little fairness, New Zealand could also apply 15% to US imports. Nobody, however, is seriously proposing that. New Zealand has staked its reputation and its interests as a trading nation on free trade. It also dares not provoke the Trump tactic of responding with another ratchet of the rack. It says much about the state of play that wily Foreign Minister Winston Peters and others advocated keeping this country's head down. Mr Trump has so many big fish to fry — discussions are continuing with China and the European Union on the trade front alone — this seemed the wisest course. In a flurry of action, New Zealand's head trade official is now off the Washington, and Trade Minister Todd McLay will follow. Unsurprisingly, there is scepticism that this will do much good. Previously, such efforts failed to reduce steel and aluminium tariffs, and tiny New Zealand will struggle to receive much air or ear time at the highest levels. Politically, however, it makes the government look as though it is doing something. Despite Labour's criticism of poor tactics, it is doubtful whether proactive and public lobbying in Washington would have made any difference. The resulting 15% tariff matches that applied to US allies Japan and South Korea and is slightly lower than much of Southeast Asia. However, it is higher than the rate for fellow beef exporters Argentina and Uruguay. The US is also New Zealand's largest wine export market. Wine receipts are expected to suffer, and F&P Healthcare, one of New Zealand's largest companies with manufacturing in Auckland and Mexico, will be disadvantaged as it competes with a major US rival. Exporters were reconciling themselves to 10%, and 15% might not sound excessive. But it represents a 50% increase on the earlier amount and is far harder to absorb. The result will be lower returns for exporters and higher costs for consumers, while the US collects tariff revenue. Trade Minister Todd McLay estimates the tariff cost to exporters at an additional $500 million. Fortunately, this coincides with strong global food demand and prices. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when the New Zealand economy is struggling to recover from prolonged doldrums. Although not catastrophic, it dents confidence and removes another brick as the government tries to rebuild economic growth and salvage its electoral prospects. The US has overtaken Australia as New Zealand's second-largest export market, worth $9 billion last year, though still well behind China. New Zealand will bear the costs of President Trump's disruptive trade policies, both directly through tariffs and indirectly through their dampening effect on US and global growth.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Free Speech Union's bid to reshape InternetNZ: The results are in, with a late twist
A surge of people duly joined InternetNZ (annual dues: $21). As of February 1, the incorporated society had 383 members, a number its chairman Stephen Judd said had been stable for years. By the time of its board election and annual meeting last week there were 4462 eligible voting members. Things hung in the balance, with it not being clear how many of the newcomers had answered Ayling's call and how many were aiming to counter the FSU incursion. Auditor Grant Thornton says 62.4% of eligible members cast votes – up from 43% last year. FSU wins one of two open seats, none of 12 motions Two of eight board positions were up for grabs, with 13 candidates in contention. Ayling won one of the open seats with 929 votes. The other was picked up by Dylan Reeve (1372 votes), whose varied career includes being the creative partner to journalist David Farrier, who will never make the FSU's Christmas card list. Reeve, 45, who has researched and published articles on online fraud, abuse and conspiracy theories, has often questioned why companies like Facebook don't do more to enforce their rules – and why various authorities don't do more to clamp down on illegitimate or harmful content. A second FSU-affiliated candidate, Christchurch lawyer Douglas Brown (a member of the FSU's council), failed to get elected. In a twist, Ayling quit as FSU chief executive on Saturday. No reason was given for his departure after four years in the role and he could not be immediately reached for comment. All candidates stood as individuals, so his FSU resignation does not impact his new InternetNZ role. The FSU announced over the weekend its chief executive Jonathan Ayling had resigned, with no reason given. The ginger group's deputy chairwoman Jillaine Heather was named temporary CEO. The board election was followed by InternetNZ's annual general meeting, which was held online and attracted about 1000 people. FSU supporters David Farrar and retired District Court judge David Harvey put 12 motions, each seeking changes to InternetNZ's constitution. None were carried. InternetNZ board elections are only held once a year, meaning any FSU takeover was always going to be a long-term project. Critic turned insider Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how Reeve goes as an insider. Notwithstanding the FSU's rhetoric, InternetNZ has traditionally advocated for a 'free and open' internet and defaulted to a hands-off approach. The aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacres, when it took 'emergency measures' to make certain sites effectively inaccessible to New Zealanders, was an outlier. Stephen Judd is chairman of InternetNZ, which had income of $15.1 million last year, mostly through wholesaling .nz addresses. The funds go to technical admin to keep our internet running smoothly, plus education and community grants. Former domain name system (DNS) engineer Reeve, who has been notably methodical and even-handed in his various investigations of harmful content, has at times questioned why InternetNZ has taken so long to act against the likes of malicious .nz sites registered with fake details, including, 'parking fee' site recently imitating Auckland Transport and another pretending to be footwear maker Vans. InternetNZ's Domain Name Commission says it acts to review a site's registration if it receives a complaint. Reeve told the Herald the AGM included some ideas for more proactive measures against sites run by bad actors. But that was outside his motivation for seeking an InternetNZ seat. 'I stood for the board because I felt that a well-resourced reactionary group was trying to take control and it wasn't something I was comfortable with,' he said. 'I'm curious to see how things will progress now that most of their efforts to exercise their power have fallen through.' Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit
Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sowed uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the US. Members of his Administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the Government at least US$3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labour market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than US$2t in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the US abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasised about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the US away from taxing earnings and towards taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. US President Donald Trump. Photo / Tierney L. Cross, The New York Times Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the Government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden Administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Senator Josh Hawley, (Republican-Missouri), recently introduced legislation to send US$600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social programme, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogramme.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the US, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Andrew Duehren Photographs by: Alyssa Schukar, Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
