Connect with us

News

The statue that moved — and the cousin I never knew

Published

on

The statue that moved — and the cousin I never knew

In July 1985, a number of Irish religious statues began to move. There were reports of apparitions at nearly 30 sites across the country — many of them Marian Year Grottos that had been built in small towns and villages throughout Ireland in 1954 to commemorate the centenary of the dogma proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

By far the most popular apparition was the life-size Virgin set into a grotto 10 metres above the road about a mile outside the village of Ballinspittle, County Cork. For six weeks or so that summer, crowds of 8,000-10,000 people gathered every night in the fields below the grotto to witness the statue bend, shake and rock from side to side; to see the face of Christ superimposed on the face of Mary, and sometimes the face of Padre Pio; to watch the Virgin move her hands in prayer; or to look out for the sacred heart hovering above her head. There were coach parties from Dublin and Galway and Limerick, minivans bringing the sick hoping for a miracle, crowds of the faithful alongside sightseers, reporters and television crews. Before the end of the summer, the village had new toilets beside the makeshift car parks, and two public phone boxes.

That July I was 22 years old. I had just finished university finals and was loafing about, wondering what to do next. Rather than going home to Croydon, I was spending the summer as I often did, with my aunt and uncle and cousins near Skibbereen, a small town in West Cork about 35 miles from Ballinspittle. One night, after watching yet another item about the statue on RTÉ news, we all piled into a couple of cars and drove across country to see for ourselves. My cousins joked that I was there as the control — if I (someone without any faith, practically a pagan) were to see the statue move, we would all know it was fake.

People gather below the statue of the Virgin Mary near the village of Ballinspittle, County Cork, in 1985 © Liam White/Alamy

It was nearing midnight when we arrived. We had to park a long way from the grotto and walk the last stretch, as the crowds were huge and the lanes were narrow. We passed chip and burger vans and hot drink stalls until we came to a large area filled with people craning their necks. A gathering of nuns stood near the front, leading the singing and the Hail Marys; there were the old-timers with their rosaries, a contingent disgorged from the pubs, and groups just like us, curious locals and their relatives home from England.

The chanting and the kneeling in the middle of a damp field at night seemed a bit ridiculous, especially given all the people munching chips. After a while, my cousin Caroline and I got the giggles until — at exactly the same moment — we saw the statue shake violently from the waist up, as though it was about to break in half. We both let out a Hammer-horror scream, to the great annoyance of the people around us, who were deep in a fervent rendition of “Hail Queen of Heaven”. After that, there was no chance of recovery. Everything set us off. We were doubled over, stuffing hankies into our mouths, snorting and crying with laughter.

Advertisement

What we saw that night seemed to us to have nothing to do with divine intervention. The movement of the statue appeared mechanical rather than lifelike, and we thought the most likely cause was an electrical surge, or short circuit, in the halo of bulbs around Mary’s head. But the real question is not what people saw but why, at that moment, did they want to see a miracle?

Over the years, the phenomenon of Irish Marian apparitions (from the Virgin’s appearance at Knock, in 1879, to a slew of more recent examples) has been explained as a response to social instability, an emotional release, or the result of a power struggle between the popular and the institutional church (though the nuns were certainly taking charge that night in Ballinspittle).

A statue of the Virgin Mary, her hands clasped in prayer, is set in a mossy wall
For six weeks that summer, crowds of 8,000-10,000 people gathered below the grotto hoping to see the statue shake and rock or the face of Christ superimposed on Mary © Alamy

But in the mid-1980s a number of events pointed to a particular crisis over the family, and women’s sexual lives in particular. In September 1983, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, acknowledging the right to life of the unborn, was approved by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. Abortion was already illegal in Ireland but the campaign for a constitutional ban was a pre-emptive move by the religious right, concerned that Ireland might go the way of the UK (in 1967), the US (1973) and France (1975) in allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

In January the following year, 15-year-old Ann Lovett died, along with her baby, after giving birth alone at the Marian Grotto in Granard, County Longford. And later that year Joanne Hayes was wrongfully accused of having given birth to, and then murdered a newborn found washed up on the coast near Caherciveen with 28 stab wounds and a broken neck. The “Kerry babies” tribunal stretched through the early months of 1985. It was set up as an inquiry into the police, focusing on how Hayes and her entire family could have been brought to confess to a crime they could not possibly have committed (the baby’s blood type was A, but both Hayes and her lover were O). It quickly degenerated into a public forum shaming Hayes for her lifestyle and sexual history.  

If a Marian statue was ever going to move, this was surely the moment. In this scenario, the apparitions were a kind of last hurrah of the church, in retreat in the face of secular modernising forces, questioning the laws and customs governing illegitimacy, marriage, birth control and divorce. But I’m not convinced by this neat story of liberal Ireland sweeping away the religious deference of the past. The reality is much messier than that, particularly when it comes to women’s bodies, the histories they tell and how they are policed.

On March 8, Ireland will hold a referendum on deleting Article 41.2 from the constitution — the one that states that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. The fact that this gender-based domesticity clause has outlasted the banning of homosexuality (decriminalised in 1993, following a ruling by the European Convention on Human Rights), divorce (legal since 1996), same-sex marriage (since 2015) and even abortion (since 2018) is one sign of what women have been up against.

Advertisement
A man in a street, one arm raised, holds a placard that reads ‘Choose Life! Vote No’
An anti-abortion protester holds up a banner in Dublin ahead of the referendum on May 25 2018 © AP
A young man in bow tie carries a placard that reads ‘Time moves on, why haven’t we?’
A man in period costume on the annual March For Choice in Dublin by the Abortion Rights Campaign, May 2018 © Deirdre Brennan/eyevine

Apologies over the treatment of women by church and state have issued thick and fast from the Irish government in recent years. In 2014, Taoiseach Enda Kenny apologised to former residents of the Magdalene Laundries, and argued that “in naming and addressing the wrong . . . we are trying to make sure we quarantine such abject behaviour in our past and eradicate it from Ireland’s present and Ireland’s future”.

But the past keeps returning. In 2021, Taoiseach Micheál Martin issued a similar apology for the “profound, generational wrong” done to former residents of Mother and Baby homes, the religious-run, state-funded institutions where unmarried pregnant women and girls went to have their babies in secret. He acknowledged that, for much of the 20th century, “women as a group and regardless of age or class were systematically discriminated against in relation to employment, family law, and social welfare, solely because of their gender”.

Yet despite the promises of legal and financial redress, women and children are still having to petition the courts on a range of issues, including forced separation of mothers and children and illegal adoption from church-state institutions.


I’d like to be able to claim that, back in 1985, my cousin and I were laughing at the absurd contradiction of a group of people praying to the sinless (indeed immaculate) unmarried Mother of God while punishing the girls and women who were unfortunate enough to get pregnant without being married in Ireland — sending them to Mother and Baby homes, or to England, or leaving them to give birth alone. We knew something about this — or at least Caroline did. In 1980, when she was 19, she had come to live with us in Croydon for six months, while she waited for her baby to be born.

All that spring and summer, Caroline slept in the spare bed in my bedroom, and as we talked night after night I tracked the arc of her belly rising under the covers. We watched a lot of films on television, including Rosemary’s Baby, which was definitely a mistake. We lay about for hours on the lawn, sunbathing. We cooked experimental puddings with semolina and spices, and ate at odd times of the day and night. I accompanied her to some of the hospital appointments. The receptionist called her “Mrs” but in such a tone that I thought it must be obvious to everyone it wasn’t true. I don’t remember any talk about whether she would keep the baby, or what her options were — though it must have been discussed. What I remember is waiting. A kind of fatalist, resigned waiting. 

Why did my cousin come to live with us? The answer seems simple — extramarital sex and pregnancy were still sources of shame in Ireland. Contraception was legalised in 1979, but for “bona fide” married couples only. By 1980, the numbers of women travelling from Ireland to England for an abortion were averaging about nine a day (and the numbers steadily increased over the next 20 years). But for many people faced with a crisis pregnancy, even in the 1980s, the alternative was a relative in England or one of Ireland’s Mother and Baby homes.

Advertisement

Between Irish independence in 1922 and 1998, when the last home, Bessborough Mother and Baby home in Cork, finally closed, these institutions would host (at the lowest estimate) 56,000 unmarried mothers, ranging from 12-year-old girls to women in their forties, and at least 57,000 babies and small children. Many of the babies were adopted — often after extreme pressure on mothers, and increasingly, in the 1950s and 1960s, to the US.

There were similar institutions in the US, Britain and many European countries, but nowhere else were they still in use as late as the 1990s. The proportion of Irish unmarried mothers who were admitted to these institutions was probably the highest in the world — and this is not the only Irish anomaly. Irish women also stayed longer in these homes than their European counterparts, with the longest stays in the 1940s and 1950s, when they averaged more than a year.

Children’s and babies’ clothes on a washing line against a grey sky
Infants’ clothes hung on a line in a vigil for the children buried in unmarked graves at the Tuam Mother and Baby home, August 2019 © Getty Images

Since the discovery of the bodies of nearly 800 infants buried in sewer chambers on the grounds of a former Mother and Baby home in Tuam, County Galway, the scandal over the institutions has featured persistently in Irish public debate. A government Commission of Investigation reported in 2020 on the dire conditions in the homes, the mistreatment and neglect of mothers and their children, the extraordinarily high death rates and careless disposal of bodies. Former residents have told of being punished for their sins by nuns who withheld pain relief, and of the long-term harms caused by coerced and illegal adoption. But the violence wasn’t secret down the years. The homes were a warning to girls of what would happen to them if they weren’t good, or at least careful. The writer Eiléan ní Chuilleanáin was at school and college in Cork in the early 1960s and she remembers the gallows humour of girls joking about boys they fancied: “I’d do Bessboro’ for him.” Everyone knew what it meant.

My bedroom in Croydon was a nicer place to hide a pregnancy than Bessborough, but the pregnancy was hidden all the same. Still, it wasn’t until 1989 or 1990, after I had given birth to my own first baby — who I also had on my own — that I discovered there was a further reason why my cousin had come to Croydon to have her son, rather than stay at home in Ireland.

I learnt from my aunt about another first cousin, Mary, whom I had never met. Mary was born in 1955 in Bessborough, the daughter of my uncle Jackie and his 19-year-old neighbour Lily. There was a crisis when the pregnancy was discovered and neither Lily’s family nor my own was prepared to support her; Lily went into Bessborough and my uncle disappeared to England. Mary was brought up first in the Mother and Baby home, and then later in an orphanage (or what was still known then as an Industrial School for girls) not far from the farm where I spent my summers with my cousins. She was the eldest of the group of us cousins by two years, but she was kept a secret from us. We thought there were 12 of us, but really we were 13.

The bit my aunt didn’t tell me until later was that in January 1980 Mary, who was then 24 and living in London, had discovered she was pregnant, and killed herself. A couple of months later, Caroline came to stay.

Advertisement
Two black and white photographs show, on the left, Peggy, Nolly and Philly, and on the right a family group standing in front of a house, grandmother Molly holding a baby
Left, Clair’s aunt Peggy; Clair’s grandmother Molly; and her mother Philly in the 1940s. Right, a 1966 picture taken in front of the farmhouse. From left to right are Philly, Molly holding Oona, Clair, Siobhan, Stephen and Bridget

It has taken me 30 years to come to terms with what I learnt in those conversations with my aunt and my mother in the early 1990s. I searched through public records and histories of the institutions, and I spoke to nuns who had known Mary, trying to piece things together. In the process I uncovered a whole series of extramarital pregnancies, hidden babies and dead babies, stretching back in each generation of my family from the 1980s through the 1950s to the 1920s and the 1890s. A timeline of women, heavy with child, finding solutions in the cracks and fissures of respectability.

But the story of generations succeeding one another in a neat and orderly line is not the whole story. I am sure that my aunt told my cousins and me about the circumstances of Mary’s birth, and death, because she wanted to bring the cycle of violence to an end. She wanted to believe in a different — kinder — future, in which sin and punishment didn’t feature.

By the 1980s that seemed to be the future at least some of us were living in. But it is also the case that my aunt would not, or could not, have told us about Mary until her story was at an end — because one of the things she was telling us was that everyone had been complicit. Everyone kept the secret of Mary’s life in the orphanage from the 12 of us. My grandmother and my uncle and all the grown-ups on both sides of the family had consented to and even defended a system in which one child was not allowed to belong, because she was illegitimate, and the rest of us were made welcome.

It was, and is, a story of unaccountable injustice. An anachronistic tale more fitted to the 1890s or the 1920s than the ’70s and ’80s, when I was seeing Elvis Costello at the Roundhouse and doing Mansfield Park and the Reformation for A-level. And the fact that it was happening in similar ways and at the same time in countless other families does not make it easier to bear.

Our laughter at the foot of the statue in Ballinspittle was the laughter of young women who knew our lives wouldn’t be irrevocably ruined by our sexual choices. Our parents were no longer prepared to consent to structures of power that once seemed immutable. By the beginning of this century, it really did look as though the EU, same-sex marriage and (eventually) the reversal of the 1983 abortion referendum through Repeal the 8th would save us. But the past wasn’t really over — it still isn’t. The complicity, the secret-keeping and the denial of the reality of women’s sexual lives have knitted loops and kinks of damage into that story of progress. We were laughing with the confidence of a liberal future in front of us, and the cruelty to our unknown cousin Mary haunts me still.

Clair Wills’ ‘Missing Persons, Or My Grandmother’s Secrets’ is published by Allen Lane on January 25

Advertisement

Copyright © 2024, Clair Wills. All rights reserved

The main image for this piece, ‘Bridget’s Story’, is a 2019 glass artwork by Alison Lowry currently on display at the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin. It depicts Bridget Dolan, the mother of Anna Corrigan, a campaigner who found out after her mother’s death that she had given birth to two boys in the former Mother and Baby home in Tuam, County Galway. Photograph by Glenn Norwood

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FTWeekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life and Art wherever you listen

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  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 or 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.

Advertisement

(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.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending