NewzIntel.com

Category: Americas

  • MIL-OSI USA: LANCASTER – Shapiro Administration, Partners to Celebrate Stream Restoration Investments to Little Conestoga Creek

    Source: US State of Pennsylvania

    April 23, 2025 – Lancaster, PA

    ADVISORY – LANCASTER – Shapiro Administration, Partners to Celebrate Stream Restoration Investments to Little Conestoga Creek

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Lancaster Clean Water Partners will host a site visit to the Little Conestoga Creek Blue Green Connector Project, celebrating stream restoration investments made possible through an innovative partnership led by the Little Conestoga Creek Foundation and the Steinman Foundation.

    The Blue Green Connector in Lancaster County is a prime example of how sustained investments, including Growing Greener funds, are restoring water habitats and recreation across Pennsylvania’s share of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

    Media are invited to attend and should RSVP to DEP Southcentral Regional Communications Manager John Repetz.

    WHO:
    Department of Environmental Protection Acting Secretary Jessica Shirley

    WHEN:
    Wednesday, April 23, 2025, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM

    WHERE:
    Caretaker’s Home at Conestoga House, 1604 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, PA

    WHAT:
    The event will begin with remarks by project partners and Acting Secretary Shirley, followed by photo opportunities and a short walk to tour the stream restoration site.

    For more information, visit the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s website, or follow DEP on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, or LinkedIn.

    MEDIA CONTACT: John Repetz, jrepetz@pa.gov, 717-705-4904

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Transmission of Monetary Policy

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Juan Pablo. I am delighted to be speaking at the University of Minnesota because, in many ways, this visit feels like a homecoming for me.1 I was born right here in Minneapolis, before I moved to Colombia as a young child. My parents told me so many wonderful stories about this area and the university. My father studied for his Ph.D. here at the economics department. He studied under accomplished economists, including Anne Krueger, Leo Hurwicz, John Buttrick, and Ed Foster, the latter of whom is still here as an emeritus professor. The University of Minnesota has made many contributions to the field of economics and has historically had a close relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So you really are part of the Fed’s extended family, and it is an honor to speak with you.
    Today, I would like to speak with you about the transmission of the Fed’s monetary policy. I will discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy, then touch on how I monitor its transmission, and, lastly, talk about two elements related to transmission that I evaluate when making monetary policy decisions. Those elements are the long and variable lags of monetary policy and whether its transmission is asymmetric and has changed over time. But before I delve into my primary topic, I would like to start by offering my views on the economic outlook.
    Economic OutlookThe U.S. economy has grown at a solid pace, with real gross domestic product (GDP) expanding 2.5 percent last year. Activity indicators in the first few months of this year show healthy numbers. Last week, the March retail sales release showed resilient consumption, with positive revisions for January and February numbers. However, measures of household sentiment, such as surveys from the University of Michigan, Conference Board, and Morning Consult, have shown signs of softness, albeit to varying degrees. Many survey respondents report that their views reflect trade policy concerns, though, as we have seen, the exact contours of those policies are still taking shape. Thus, GDP growth for the first quarter, which will be reported next week, may show some moderation relative to what we saw in 2024, although this moderation may be offset by increased purchases front-loading the implementation of tariffs. Financial markets have experienced increased volatility in recent weeks. If financial conditions were to tighten persistently, that could weigh on growth in the future.
    The labor market remains solid, but the pace of hiring has eased during this year. In the first quarter, U.S. employers added 152,000 jobs per month, on average, compared with a monthly pace of 168,000, on average, last year. The unemployment rate edged up last month to 4.2 percent, but it is still low and has remained near its current level since last summer. Moreover, initial jobless claims have remained stable at low levels. Those numbers are consistent with other measures indicating that the labor market is broadly in balance.
    With respect to inflation, progress has slowed since last summer, and inflation remains above the 2 percent goal. Based on the consumer price index (CPI) and producer price index (PPI) data, the 12-month change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index was estimated to have been 2.3 percent last month and 2.6 percent for the core categories, which exclude food and energy.
    I pay careful attention to two subcategories of inflation: first, core goods—which are goods outside of volatile food and energy products—and, second, nonhousing market-based services, which are based on transactions and not imputed prices, such as car maintenance and haircuts. Goods inflation was negative in most of 2024—as was the norm for several years before the pandemic—but it increased to 0.4 percent in January and February. In March, the CPI and PPI releases pointed to goods inflation decreasing to a still-positive 0.1 percent, which is better news. By contrast, nonhousing market services inflation stayed elevated through March, at an estimated 3.4 percent. That category often provides a good signal of inflationary pressures across all services. As we look ahead, while the long-run level of tariffs is still to be determined, tariffs have moved significantly higher this year. That will likely put upward pressure on prices. For instance, both survey- and market-based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up. Longer-term inflation expectations—those beyond the next few years—largely remain well anchored and consistent with our 2 percent inflation goal, and I hope they continue in that way.
    I am closely monitoring incoming data and the cumulative effects on both sides of our mandate from policies in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. I am also monitoring any risks to the outlook, especially upside risks on inflation or downside risks to employment. Still, I think our monetary policy is well positioned for changes in the macroeconomic environment. Thus, I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. I remain committed to achieving both of our dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices.
    Overview of Monetary Policy TransmissionNow turning to the primary topic of my speech, I will first discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy. In this section, I will give some examples from the recent past as a tool for explaining my arguments, but I am not intending to comment further on the latest developments in the economy.
    Understanding the transmission of monetary policy starts with understanding how the Federal Reserve uses its policy tools. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) adjusts the target range for the federal funds rate, or the rate that banks pay for overnight borrowing. Setting the federal funds rate is the primary means by which the Fed adjusts the stance of monetary policy, among its range of monetary policy tools. In addition to the FOMC directly adjusting the federal funds rate, Fed policymakers’ communications about the future path of monetary policy may also result in changes to longer-term interest rates because households’ and businesses’ expectations about future policy affect the level of interest rates.
    Adjustments to the federal funds rate affect a multitude of financial conditions faced by consumers and businesses. For example, changes to the federal funds rate filter through to the interest rates lenders charge for loans to businesses and households as well as to what financial institutions pay in interest on deposits. The current and expected future path of the federal funds rate also affects asset prices, as it changes the relative attractiveness of different investments, such as stocks and real estate. Fluctuations in both interest rates and asset prices affect a household’s wealth and a corporation’s balance sheet, which can, in turn, affect the terms under which they can borrow.2 I have discussed some of the most common ways in which policy is transmitted. There are, of course, other important channels, such as exchange rates and international spillovers, that I will not discuss today. Research suggests that the channels of transmission are extensive and ever evolving.3
    Consumers and businesses make decisions based on financial conditions.4 For illustrative purposes, let’s consider a period when FOMC policymakers view it as appropriate to ease the restrictiveness of monetary policy by reducing the target range for the federal funds rate over time. The resulting lower interest rates on consumer loans elicit greater spending on goods and services, particularly on durable goods that are often financed. Lower mortgage rates can encourage renters to buy a home by reducing the monthly payment borrowers face and can encourage existing homeowners to refinance their mortgages to free up cash for other purchases. Lower interest rates can make holding equities more attractive, which raises stock prices and adds to wealth. Higher wealth tends to spur more spending, as households tend to consume at least a portion of their increased wealth. Investment projects that businesses previously believed would be marginally unprofitable become attractive because of reduced financing costs, particularly if businesses expect their sales to rise. Expecting a better macroeconomic environment and lower delinquency rates down the road, banks may loosen their lending standards on approving loans for households and businesses. All these decisions support aggregate demand and may put upward pressure on inflation.
    Of course, there are periods when policymakers see it as appropriate to increase the level of restraint placed on the economy by raising the federal funds rate over time. That may occur when policymakers are seeking to lower inflation. Then, the monetary policy effects I just described would be reversed, putting downward pressure on aggregate demand and inflation.
    Developments in Monetary Policy and Financial ConditionsLet me now discuss how I view the transmission and the stance of monetary policy during the past few quarters. To be clear, I will not discuss the developments in financial markets over the past few weeks.
    In the second half of last year, I gained greater confidence that inflation was on a sustainable path toward the FOMC’s 2 percent objective. I also wanted to preserve the strength I saw in the labor market. As a result, I supported the FOMC’s decision to decrease the target range for the federal funds rate by a total of 1 percentage point during the meetings from September through December. However, even before the Committee began to ease policy, some financial conditions started to ease. This easing can be seen in the Financial Conditions Impulse on Growth index.5 That index, developed by Federal Reserve Board staff, showed easier financial conditions from March 2024. And through January, the demand for loans by households and businesses picked up.6 In the early months of the year, financial conditions, however, remained somewhat restrictive, as borrowing costs continued to be elevated and bank credit moderately tight. Through March, interest rates on short-term small business loans had only edged down since their post-pandemic peak.7 Banks stopped tightening lending standards after nine consecutive quarters, but they left standards unchanged in January.8 These financial conditions helped to moderate aggregate demand and aid in moving inflation sustainably toward our 2 percent target.
    Details of Monetary Policy TransmissionMonitoring the financial conditions I just described is one important way I evaluate how well the Fed’s monetary policy is being transmitted to the rest of the economy. But it is not the only way. I also consider two other elements that play important roles in the transmission of our monetary policy.
    Timing MattersThe first element to evaluate is the timing with which monetary policy affects the macroeconomy. The contemporary economics literature uses a variety of statistical models to estimate the effects of what are called monetary policy “shocks.” Those are movements in the policy rate that are not explained by estimates of how monetary policy systematically responds to incoming economic and financial data and are not anticipated by the public.9 Focusing on the estimated effects of these shocks helps isolate the consequences solely coming from monetary policy actions and communications. One lesson that emerges from this research is that, broadly speaking, it turns out that Milton Friedman’s “long and variable lags” concept still holds.10 A selection of key studies on the topic estimates that it takes about one to two years for the maximum effects of policy to be observed in economic activity and inflation.11 These long lags in monetary policy affecting the economy point to why it is important for policymakers to anticipate economic conditions as best as possible and try to be proactive about understanding the effects of different shocks to the economy, so they can act quickly when needed.
    Direction of TravelThe second element to consider when making decisions related to monetary policy is whether its transmission has been equally impactful during different points in time. For example, credible evidence indicates that contractionary monetary shocks may generally decrease economic activity more strongly than expansionary shocks increase it.12 To understand these asymmetric effects, consider the following illustrative metaphor used by Marriner Eccles, who led the Fed back in the 1930s.
    Imagine a string with monetary policy at one end and the economy at the other. Employing tight monetary policy when inflation is rising is like pulling on the string to keep the economy in check—it works fairly well. But attempting to stimulate the economy with loose policy during a downturn is like trying to push on the string to move the economy—a more difficult task.
    There is evidence of this asymmetry in consumer spending on long-lasting durable goods, such as vehicles and appliances. While an easier monetary policy may lower interest rates and thus stimulate spending on durable goods in the near term, the effects of that policy may be smaller over time, as households may have already purchased durable goods.13 If a family replaces their living room furniture when rates are low, they are unlikely to need a new set of furniture a few years later and thus would not consider how current rates would change their decisions. Thus, during an easing cycle, it is reasonable to suspect that the potency of monetary policy may be somewhat diminished.
    Another example of asymmetry can be seen in the transmission of monetary policy to private lending. Board staff research documented strong growth in the period between the Global Financial Crisis and the pandemic, fueled by structural factors, such as the attractiveness of the market to borrowers and investors due to its higher customization.14 One implication of this strong growth during this past policy tightening is that monetary policy transmission to private credit markets appeared more muted relative to financing through public credit markets or bank commercial and industrial lending.
    By contrast, other factors specific to the recent period likely decreased the potency of monetary policy during the tightening cycle but may increase it during the easing cycle. When the pandemic struck and social distancing was common, many households severely curtailed spending. In addition, a historic level of government transfers boosted household income. This combination led the personal savings rate to soar.15 Recent work by Board staff suggests that these excess savings accumulated during the pandemic may have reduced the effects of tighter monetary policy over recent years.16 If households are flush with excess cash, they are less likely to respond to elevated interest rates by curtailing demand. Instead, they may have funds to avoid financing or may feel they are able to afford higher monthly payments.
    Now, some five years after the pandemic began, these excess savings are exhausted.17 This creates an environment in which monetary policy could be having its average effects on the household sector, although we should consider that the financial health of borrowers with lower credit scores has deteriorated meaningfully in recent years and credit card and auto loan delinquencies are now above pre-pandemic levels. For these households, easing monetary policy may have larger effects.
    I am closely monitoring all these possible changes in monetary policy transmission across the economy. Also, I am humbly aware that it is difficult for economists to judge the overall effect of monetary policy actions on the U.S. economy in real time.
    ConclusionTo summarize, I see inflation still running above the 2 percent target while the labor market has remained stable. But the economy is facing heightened uncertainty, with upside risks to inflation and downside risks to employment. This month, we learned that the tariff increases are significantly larger than previously expected. As a result, the economic effects of tariffs and the associated uncertainty are also likely to be larger than anticipated. It is important for monetary policymakers to broadly examine all available information, including market-based measures, surveys, and anecdotal reports, to understand what is happening in the economy as early as possible because, as I discussed, it takes time for policy to have an impact. As the direction of the economy changes, it is critical to pay close attention to real-time data and to consider the lags and asymmetries of policy transmission to ensure we respond not only to the actual movements on both sides of the mandate, but also to the risks to the economic outlook.
    As I observe the economy and consider the appropriate path of monetary policy, I am closely studying how the decisions the FOMC makes are transmitted through the economy. We have learned much about how those transmission channels work and how they may have changed in recent years, and there is much more to learn. I am confident some of that research will be done right here at the University of Minnesota. Overall, of course, when setting policy, I am guided by how best to achieve the dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices given to us by Congress because that results in the best outcomes for all Americans.
    Thank you again for such a warm welcome back to the Twin Cities.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. Such broader changes in credit conditions are called the “credit channel” of monetary policy, discussed in Ben S. Bernanke and Mark Gertler (1995), “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9 (Autumn), pp. 27–48. Return to text
    3. For evidence on how U.S. monetary policy affects exchange rates, see Martin Eichenbaum and Charles L. Evans (1995), “Some Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Shocks to Monetary Policy on Exchange Rates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110 (November), pp. 975–1009. Additionally, U.S. monetary policy also affects global financial conditions, as analyzed by Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Hélène Rey (2020), “U.S. Monetary Policy and the Global Financial Cycle,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 87 (November), pp. 2754–76. Return to text
    4. For evidence that financial conditions are a crucial part of the transmission of monetary policy, see Mark Gertler and Peter Karadi (2015), “Monetary Policy Surprises, Credit Costs, and Economic Activity,”  American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 7 (January), pp. 44–76. Return to text
    5. See Andrea Ajello, Michele Cavallo, Giovanni Favara, William B. Peterman, John Schindler, and Nitish R. Sinha (2023), “A New Index to Measure U.S. Financial Conditions” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 30). Return to text
    6. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2025), “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices.” Return to text
    7. See survey data from the National Federation of Independent Business, available at William C. Dunkelberg and Holly Wade (2025), “Small Business Economic Trends,” March, https://www.nfib.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NFIB-SBET-Report-March-2025.pdf. Return to text
    8. See Board of Governors, “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey” (note 6). Return to text
    9. For a literature review on the different ways of identifying monetary policy shocks, see V.A. Ramey (2016), “Macroeconomic Shocks and Their Propagation,” in John B. Taylor and Harald Uhlig, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 71–162. Return to text
    10. See Edward Nelson (2020), Milton Friedman and Economic Debate in the United States, 1932–1972, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 141. Return to text
    11. See the following papers: Lawrence Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, and Charles L. Evans (1999), “Monetary Policy Shocks: What Have We Learned and to What End?” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 65–148; Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer (2004), “A New Measure of Monetary Shocks: Derivation and Implications,” American Economic Review, vol. 94 (September), pp. 1055–84; Harald Uhlig (2005), “What Are the Effects of Monetary Policy on Output? Results from an Agnostic Identification Procedure,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 52 (March), pp. 381–419; Jean Boivin, Michael T. Kiley, and Frederic S. Mishkin (2010), “How Has the Monetary Transmission Mechanism Evolved over Time?” in Benjamin M. Friedman and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Monetary Economics, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 369–422; Olivier Coibion (2012), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks Big or Small?” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 4 (April), pp. 1–32; Gertler and Karadi, “Monetary Policy Surprises” (see note 4); Pooyan Amir Ahmadi and Harald Uhlig (2015), “Sign Restrictions in Bayesian FAVARs with an Application to Monetary Policy Shocks (PDF),” NBER Working Papers Series 21738 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, November); Christiane Baumeister and James D. Hamilton (2018), “Inference in Structural Vector Autoregressions When the Identifying Assumptions Are Not Fully Believed: Re-evaluating the Role of Monetary Policy in Economic Fluctuations,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 100 (December), pp. 48–65; Marek Jarociński and Peter Karadi (2020), “Deconstructing Monetary Policy Surprises—The Role of Information Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 12 (April), pp. 1–43; Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Giovanni Ricco (2021), “The Transmission of Monetary Policy Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 13 (July), pp. 74–107; and Michael D. Bauer and Eric T. Swanson (2023), “A Reassessment of Monetary Policy Surprises and High-Frequency Identification,” in Martin Eichenbaum, Erik Hurst, and Jonathan A. Parker, eds., NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2022, vol. 37 (May), pp. 87–155. Return to text
    12. See, for instance, Silvana Tenreyro and Gregory Thwaites (2016), “Pushing on a String: US Monetary Policy Is Less Powerful in Recessions,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 8 (October), pp. 43–74; Joshua D. Angrist, Òscar Jordà, and Guido M. Kuersteiner (2018), “Semiparametric Estimates of Monetary Policy Effects: String Theory Revisited,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, vol. 36 (July), pp. 371–87; and Regis Barnichon, Christian Matthes, and Tim Sablik (2017), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Asymmetric? (PDF)” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Economic Brief, vol. 3 (March), pp. 1–4. Return to text
    13. See Alisdair McKay and Johannes F. Wieland (2021), “Lumpy Durable Consumption Demand and the Limited Ammunition of Monetary Policy,” Econometrica, vol. 89 (November), pp. 2717–49. Return to text
    14. See Ahmet Degerli and Phillip J. Monin (2024), “Private Credit Growth and Monetary Policy Transmission,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2). Return to text
    15. See, for instance, Aditya Aladangady, David Cho, Laura Feiveson, and Eugenio Pinto (2022), “Excess Savings during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 21); and Francois de Soyres, Dylan Moore, and Julio L. Ortiz (2023), “Accumulated Savings during the Pandemic: An International Comparison with Historical Perspective,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 23). Return to text
    16. See Thiago R.T. Ferreira, Nils Gornemann, and Julio L. Ortiz (forthcoming), “Household Excess Savings and the Transmission of Monetary Policy,” International Journal of Central Banking. Return to text
    17. See Hamza Abdelrahman and Luiz Edgard Oliveira (2024), “Pandemic Savings Are Gone: What’s Next for U.S. Consumers?” SF Fed Blog, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, May 3. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government

    Source: US State of California

    Today, Attorney General Pamela Bondi hosted members of the President’s Cabinet at the U.S. Department of Justice for the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the federal government. The Task Force, which was established by President Trump under Executive Order 14202, was joined by peaceful Christian Americans who were unfairly targeted by the Biden Administration for their religious beliefs.

    The witnesses included:

    Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College

    • Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations. Farris is an elder at the church, previously led Alliance Defending Freedom, and served as counsel on this case.

    Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University

    • Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.

    Phil Mendes: Navy Seal

    • Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.

    “As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

    Attorney General Pamela Bondi with members of the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Task Force at the U.S. Department of Justice

    Additionally, members of the Task Force highlighted specific cases within their own agencies where the Biden Administration unfairly and harshly punished Christian Americans for their religious beliefs.  

    FBI Director Kash Patel discussed the impact of the anti-Catholic memo issued by FBI Richmond and reiterated the FBI’s commitment to rooting out any anti-Christian bias that could be directing decisions or investigations.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised several concerning allegations of bias, including some against Christian Foreign Service Officers who preferred to homeschool their children. In one case, a family was threatened with an investigation for child abuse and curtailment if they insisted on homeschooling. In another case, a family was referred to the IRS, threatened with prosecution, and investigated by Biden’s Inspector General for insisting they homeschool their son.

    He shared how State Department employees were stigmatized for opposing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, including being called “murderers” and “troublemakers.” In one instance, an ambassador yelled at an employee, accusing the employee of wanting to kill the ambassador’s mother despite her being back in the States.

    Other reports alleged retaliation against employees for opposing DEI/LGBT ideology that violated their religious conscience. Employees recounted being required to push LGBT agendas while serving overseas, even in countries where such activity constituted a blatant violation of the acceptable religious beliefs and practices. He also detailed allegations that that religious freedom policy offices and programs were sidelined unless they were promoting DEI-related programs.

    He also highlighted how Christian holidays at American embassies under the Biden Administration were frequently stripped of any religious overtones, but non-Christian religious holidays like Losar, Eid, or Ramadan, used proper names and appropriate celebratory greetings.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed how the previous administration ordered St. Francis Health System in Oklahoma to extinguish its sanctuary candle or lose its ability to treat patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He also discussed progressive rules put in place under the Biden Administration that would make it harder for Christians to become foster parents.

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon discussed how Oregon educators Katie Medart and Rachel Sager were suspended and terminated for starting the movement, “I Resolve.” The movement spoke about gender identity education policy and offered solutions for how educators could teach without violating their conscience and also respect the rights of parents.

    Additionally, officials at the Skaneateles Central School District in New York began treating a middle-school girl as a boy without her mother’s knowledge or consent – violating their religious liberties as parents.

    Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender discussed financial surveillance under the Biden Administration, including the previous removal of certain tax classifications of Christian and pro-life organizations by the IRS, the lack of involvement within Treasury to protect organizations from the issue of debanking, and FinCEN’s identification of certain pro-Christian groups as “hate groups.”

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins discussed actions the VA took to stop the speech code that the previous administration used to punish Chaplain Trubey of the Coatesville VA Medical Center for fulfilling his duties and preaching a sermon from the Bible.

    Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Vince Haley, discussed how the previous DPC Director Neera Tanden helped lead and coordinate the Biden Administration’s efforts to push radical and anti-Christian gender ideology on kids in classrooms, foster care, sports, and healthcare.

    Additional attendees included:

    • Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General
    • Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General
    • Stanley Woodward, Nominee to be Associate Attorney General
    • Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General
    • Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense
    • Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
    • Andrew Hughes, Chief of Staff (Dep. Sec. Nom.) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    • Lori Chavez DeRemer, U.S. Secretary of Labor
    • Andrea Lucas, Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    • Cameron Hamilton, Acting Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    • Dan Bishop, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget
    • Kelly Loeffler, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration
    • Pastor Paula White-Cain, Senior Advisor, White House Faith Office
    • Jennifer Korn, Faith Director, White House Faith Office

    Read the Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias Executive Order HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Cartel cocaine conspirator sentenced to 10 years in federal prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAREDO, Texas – A Cartel del Noreste (CDN) operative has been ordered to federal prison for her role in a conspiracy to deliver over 10 kilograms of cocaine, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Rebeca Guzman-Rios, 39, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, pleaded guilty Aug. 30, 2024.

    U.S. District Judge Diana Saldana has now sentenced Guzman-Rios to 120 months in federal prison. Also sentenced was Rogelio Garcia-Ayala, 65, who illegally resided in Laredo, and received 60 months. Not U.S. citizens, both are expected to face removal proceedings after completing their sentences.

    In April 2024, a CDN sicario aka hitman dispatched Guzman-Rios to Laredo to facilitate the sale of 10 kilograms of cocaine. She crossed into Laredo at the Gateway to the Americas International Bridge from Mexico and proceeded to downtown Laredo where Ana Maria Escobedo picked her up and drove her to the location of the drug transaction.

    Meanwhile, Cesar Gerardo Rodriguez Salazar and Brenda Odet Nery Castro retrieved the cocaine from their residence, which was being used as a CDN stash house, and provided it to Francisco Herrera-Moresco. Garcia-Ayala drove Herrera-Moresco and the drugs to the parking lot where Guzman-Rios and Escobedo were waiting.

    Salazar and Castro followed to observe.

    Herrera-Moresco was supposed to deliver the cocaine to the buyer Guzman-Rios had arranged, but believed the transaction had fallen through and left the area instead with Escobedo and the cocaine.  

    Law enforcement attempted to conduct a traffic stop, but Escobedo began to evade and led them on a pursuit, during which time the cocaine was thrown from the vehicle. After hitting a fence, the pair finally came to a stop and tried to flee, but authorities took them into custody as well as Salazar and Castro. They also arrested Guzman-Rios, who remained at the location of the drug transaction. Law enforcement was also able to retrieve the cocaine.

    “If you work with, work for, or assist CDN, or any other cartel, you will be arrested and prosecuted to full extent of the law, without exception,” said Ganjei. “The cartels are not welcome in Texas.”

    Mexican citizens Salazar, 42, Herrera-Moresco, 42, and Castro 37, were all previously sentenced to 87, 50 and 30 months, respectively, while Escobedo, 33, Laredo, was ordered to serve a 65-month-term of imprisonment.  

    All remain in custody.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration conducted the investigation with the assistance of Customs and Border Protection and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant U.S. Attorney Manuel Cardenas is prosecuting the case. 

    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 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 and Project Safe Neighborhood.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Press Sec: 18 Trade Proposals From Foreign Countries So Far

    Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

    Press Secretary says the administration has received 18 trade proposals from foreign countries so far — and that officials have trade meetings with 34 countries this week alone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36bDhPRdeG0

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: New centre reduces barriers to mental-health, substance-use care

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    More people now have access to timely, streamlined care for urgent mental-health and substance-use concerns at the new Urgent Care Response Centre North at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster.

    “This centre is another step forward in our commitment to reducing barriers to mental-health and substance-use care,” said Josie Osborne, Minister of Health. “By providing people with timely access to assessment and care, all in one location, people experiencing mental-health and substance-use challenges will be able to get connected to the supports they need to put them on a path to healing faster.”

    The centre is located in the Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian Hospital and is a primary point of contact for people who need urgent care but do not require hospitalization. Assessments can be done in person or virtually, providing flexibility and increased accessibility. Patients will be provided with crisis support and connections to community-based services and substance-use treatment.

    “Our urgent care response centre team is helping people facing mental-health or substance-use challenges feel supported,” said Rana Yonadim, manager, clinical operations and program services, Urgent Care Response Centre North. “We’re making it easier for individuals in our community by being here to connect them with the timely, appropriate care they need.”

    This is the second centre of its kind in the Fraser Health region. The first, at Surrey Memorial Hospital, was opened in 2019. In the first nine months after opening, 1,550 emergency room visits and 329 hospital admissions were redirected to the Surrey centre, helping more people access the right care.

    In 2024, the centre in Surrey made 7,397 referrals to appropriate in-hospital and community-based services, such as psychiatric consultations, counselling, crisis stabilization and substance-use services, to support people’s ongoing health needs.

    The centre’s welcoming environment provides rapid access to care, often through same-day appointments, with a dedicated team of psychiatrists, counsellors, nurses and other care professionals, as well as additional services that support people’s health and well-being.

    People can access the centre through self-referral by calling 604 520-4253 or by walking in directly, seven days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m., including statutory holidays. Community doctors, police and other first responders can also refer clients. After an initial assessment, staff engage with clients to identify their needs and create a personalized care plan.

    The Urgent Care Response Centre North’s location in the Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre places it near substance-use services on the hospital campus, such as the Rapid Access to Addiction Care Clinic, opioid agonist treatment, Adult Day, Evening and Weekend Treatment Program, and the emergency department.

    Quotes:

    Jennifer Whiteside, MLA for New Westminster-Coquitlam –

    “The centre immediately addresses the critical need for barrier-free mental-health and substance-use support for people in North Fraser communities. This will increase the availability of treatment options to support people seeking immediate medical care and promote healthier communities for everyone.” 

    Amna Shah, parliamentary secretary for mental health and addictions –

    “We’re keeping our promise to strengthen mental-health and substance-use services throughout B.C. so people can access the care they need, when they need it. The new Urgent Care Response Centre North connects people in New Westminster and surrounding areas with medical professionals as well as vital community-based services.”

    Dr. Anson Koo, program director and regional department head for psychiatry and mental health, Fraser Health –

    “The centre connects individuals facing urgent mental-health and substance-use challenges to integrated, timely and compassionate care within the hospital and in the community. It builds on the success of the first mental health and substance use urgent care response centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital, which opened in 2019, and uses this model of care to help more people on their path to healing and recovery.”

    Learn More:

    For more information about mental-health and substance-use supports in B.C., visit: https://helpstartshere.gov.bc.ca/

    To learn how B.C. is building better mental-health and addictions care, visit: https://gov.bc.ca/BetterCare

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Minister of Finance to co-chair G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    April 22, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance Canada

    As part of Canada’s G7 presidency, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, will be in Washington, D.C. this week, to co-chair, with Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, a meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. This will be taking place on the margins of the 2025 Spring Meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund.

    The meeting is an opportunity to discuss the global economic outlook and Ukraine.  

    Minister Champagne will also attend other meetings, including the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting, and will take this opportunity to meet with his international counterparts.   

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell Holds Roundtable to Address Rising Cost of Child Care with Parents, Providers

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) toured Tutor Time in Canton, and held a roundtable with child care providers and parents to discuss the impact of the rising cost of care on Michigan families.

    “Caregiving is the foundation of our economy – it allows for all other work to be possible. No one can do their job if their children aren’t cared for. But quality, affordable child care remains an expense that many American families cannot afford,” Dingell said. “It’s time to make investing in our country’s care infrastructure and workforce a priority to bring down costs and expand access to care. Today, we spoke to both parents and providers about the challenges they face finding and providing care, and what Congress can do to solve these problems.”

    “We were honored to host U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell at our Tutor Time location in Canton, MI, to discuss our commitment to helping families access quality and affordable childcare,” said Joanna Cline, Learning Care Group Executive and Michigan District 6 Constituent. “Partnering with Government leaders who advocate for family-focused policies is an important part of the work we do to support our communities, and I was proud to speak with Rep. Dingell about this issue today.”

    According to Bridge Michigan, the child care crisis costs Michigan $2.9 billion annually in turnover and lost taxes. 

    The cost of childcare has risen more than 30% in the last six years. In more than half of the states in America, the average annual cost of full-time child care is more than the average annual cost of in-state college tuition.

    The Department of Health and Human Services reported that a $52.5 billion investment in child care during the COVID-19 pandemic:

    1. provided stabilization grants to 220,000 providers associated with up to 10 million children;
    2. lowered child care costs for more than 700,000 children;
    3. increased compensation for more than 650,000 child care workers; and
    4. created 300,000 new child care slots. 

    View photos from the event here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell Statement on the Passing of Pope Francis

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) today released the following statement on the news of the death of Pope Francis.

    “The world has lost a leader who gave so many of us hope. Pope Francis was widely respected for his compassion, realness, and inspiration, which made him a global figure of belief, faith, optimism, and social justice. He had a remarkable ability to connect with people on a personal level and advocate for the marginalized, inspiring action on issues like poverty, inequality, and environmental protection. His genuine humility and open-mindedness resonated with a broad audience, making him a symbol of faith and social change. 

    Pope Francis consistently demonstrated a deep empathy for the suffering of others, particularly the poor and marginalized. He has called for the Church to be a home of mercy and to go out to meet the needs of those on the margins. He taught all of us how important forgiveness and understanding is. He had an authentic and relatable demeanor, where he often spoke directly to the needs and concerns of ordinary people. He avoided excessive formality and embraced a more down-to-earth approach, making him accessible to a wider audience. I loved him for this. 

    Pope Francis’s leadership has inspired people across the globe to embrace a more just and compassionate world. His message of hope and his commitment to social change have encouraged individuals and communities to take action and make a difference in their own lives. 

    Meeting him in 2015 when he spoke to Congress is a memory that I hold in my heart. His words and teachings reinforce the responsibility I have to the people I represent. May he rest in peace.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Carbajal Hosts Post Office Dedication Ceremony in Honor of Mayor Larry Lavagnino

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Salud Carbajal (CA-24)

    Rep. Carbajal Hosts Post Office Dedication Ceremony in Honor of Mayor Larry Lavagnino

    Carbajal was joined by Lavagnino and local officials to celebrate the legacy of the longtime Santa Maria champion

    Santa Maria, April 22, 2025

    On April 21, Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) hosted a ceremony to formally rename the U.S. Post Office in Santa Maria for former Mayor and City Councilmember Larry Lavagnino. Download photos here.

    “Renaming the Santa Maria Post Office in honor of Larry Lavagnino is a fitting tribute to a man whose leadership and dedication left a lasting impact on the Santa Maria community,” said Rep. Carbajal. “His decades of service as Mayor and City Councilmember reflect a deep commitment to public service and to the people of Santa Maria. This renaming of the Santa Maria Post Office ensures his legacy will continue to inspire for generations to come.”

    Rep. Carbajal was joined by Lavagnino, Santa Barbara County Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, and current Santa Maria Mayor Alice Patino. Rep. Carbajal led the bill, which was signed into law earlier this year, to rename the post office.

    Larry Lavagnino is a longtime Santa Maria resident, a graduate of Santa Maria Union High School and Allan Hancock College, and a Navy veteran. He served six years on the Santa Maria City Council beginning in 1996, and as Mayor from 2002 to 2012.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Celebrating Earth Day: Governor Polis Signs Executive Order Protecting Colorado’s Environment and Fostering Sustainability and Efficiency in State Government

    Source: US State of Colorado

    AURORA – Today, Governor Polis signed an Executive Order creating a more sustainable future by advancing state sustainability goals and greening government practices in Colorado. 

    “In Colorado, we are proud of our national leadership on developing clean energy that saves Coloradans money and protects our environment. With this Executive Order, we’re making good on this commitment by raising the bar for state government to lead by example and contribute to this important work. This builds on our plans by setting goals for our state government to cut emissions by half, use energy and water more efficiently, increase the number of electric vehicles in the state fleet, and save taxpayer money by reducing energy costs to our state. Efficient government practices save taxpayers money and are one piece of the puzzle in protecting our state for future generations while cutting costs,” said Governor Polis. 

    The Polis Administration has led the charge in combating climate change by investing in clean energy technology, decreasing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels by harnessing the power of alternative energy sources, and protecting Colorado’s natural resources and public lands for future generations. 

    Today’s Executive Order, outlines the state’s priorities in fostering a greener, more efficient government by: 

    • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% in State Operations by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 32% in the State Fleet by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing energy use per square foot in State Facilities by at least 20% by FY 2034 over the FY 2019 baseline.
    • Reducing potable water consumption across Agencies by at least 20% by FY 2034 over the FY 2015 baseline. 

    This Executive Order also issues a number of directives to state agencies to take concrete steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions by assessing and improving energy and water usage in government facilities, and electrifying state fleet vehicles and lawn maintenance equipment. These actions will reduce waste, lower emissions, and use state resources more efficiently. This Executive Order builds upon previous Executive Orders signed by Governor Polis, focused on continuing efforts to reduce air pollutants, strengthening the Office of Sustainability and creating clear plans for water conservation strategies within the state. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: First Busey Corporation Announces 2025 First Quarter Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LEAWOOD, Kan., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) reports first quarter results.

    Busey completed the transformative acquisition of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. on March 1, 2025, significantly impacting first quarter results and resetting the baseline for financial performance for future quarters in a multitude of positive ways.

    Net Income (Loss) Diluted EPS Net Interest Margin1 ROAA1 ROATCE1
    $(30.0) million $(0.44) 3.16% (0.82)% (7.99)%
    $39.9 million (adj)2 $0.57 (adj)2 3.08% (adj)2 1.09% (adj)2 10.64% (adj)2
    MESSAGE FROM OUR CHAIRMAN & CEO

    The transformative partnership between Busey and CrossFirst takes our organization to new heights, combining our growing commercial bank with the power of Busey’s core deposit franchise, wealth management platform, and payment technology solutions at FirsTech, Inc. As we build upon Busey’s forward momentum, we are grateful for the opportunities to consistently earn the business of our customers, based on the contributions of our talented associates and the continued support of our loyal shareholders.
    Van A. Dukeman 
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 


    PARTNERSHIP WITH CROSSFIRST

    Effective March 1, 2025, First Busey Corporation (“Busey,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), the holding company for Busey Bank, completed its previously announced acquisition (the “Merger”) of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. (“CrossFirst”) (NASDAQ: CFB), the holding company for CrossFirst Bank, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 26, 2024, by and between Busey and CrossFirst (the “Merger Agreement”). This partnership creates a premier commercial bank in the Midwest, Southwest, and Florida, with 78 full-service locations across 10 states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The combined holding company will continue to operate under the First Busey Corporation name. Busey common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq under the “BUSE” stock ticker symbol.

    Upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst common stock converted to the right to receive 0.6675 of a share of Busey’s common stock, with the result that holders of Busey’s common stock owned approximately 63.5% of the combined company and holders of CrossFirst’s common stock owned approximately 36.5% of the combined company, on a fully-diluted basis. Further, upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst preferred stock converted to the right to receive one share of Busey preferred stock.

    CrossFirst Bank’s results of operations were included in Busey’s consolidated results of operations beginning March 1, 2025. Busey will operate CrossFirst Bank as a separate banking subsidiary until it is merged with and into Busey Bank, which is expected to occur on June 20, 2025. At the time of the bank merger, CrossFirst Bank locations will become banking centers of Busey Bank.

    The acquisition was accretive to tangible book value, exceeding initial projections of a six-month earn back period.

    Further details are included with Busey’s Current Report on Form 8‑K announcing completion of the acquisition, which was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 3, 2025.

    FINANCIAL RESULTS

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (unaudited)
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Provision for credit losses     42,452       1,273       5,038  
    Total noninterest income     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Total noninterest expense     115,171       78,167       70,769  
    Income (loss) before income taxes     (32,669 )     37,359       34,960  
    Income taxes     (2,679 )     9,254       8,735  
    Net income (loss)   $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
                 
    Basic earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.47  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
    Effective income tax rate     8.20 %     24.77 %     24.99 %
     

    Busey’s results of operations for the first quarter of 2025 was a net loss of $(30.0) million, or $(0.44) per diluted common share, compared to net income of $28.1 million, or $0.49 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $26.2 million, or $0.46 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized return on average assets and annualized return on average tangible common equity2 were (0.82)% and (7.99)%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Busey views certain non-operating items, including acquisition-related expenses, restructuring charges, and one-time strategic events, as adjustments to net income reported under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). We also adjust for net securities gains and losses to align with industry and research analyst reporting. The objective of our presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings metrics is to allow investors and analysts to more clearly identify quarterly trends in core earnings performance. Non-operating pre-tax adjustments for acquisition and restructuring expenses2 in the first quarter of 2025 were $26.0 million. Further, $3.1 million other noninterest expense was recorded to establish an initial allowance for Unfunded Commitments2 and $42.4 million provision expense was recorded to establish an initial Allowance for Credit Losses for loans purchased without credit deterioration (“non-PCD” loans) immediately following the close of the acquisition in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 326-20-30-15. Additionally, net securities losses were $15.8 million, primarily related to the execution of a strategic balance sheet repositioning. Lastly, $4.6 million in one-time deferred tax valuation expense2 was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, which is expected to lower our effective blended state tax rate in future periods but created a negative adjustment to the carrying value of our deferred tax asset in the current period. For more information and a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures (which are identified with the endnote labeled as 2) in tabular form, see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”

    Adjusted net income2, which excludes the impact of non-GAAP adjustments, was $39.9 million, or $0.57 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $30.9 million, or $0.53 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $25.7 million or $0.46 per diluted common share for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized adjusted return on average assets2 and annualized adjusted return on average tangible common equity2 were 1.09% and 10.64%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Pre-Provision Net Revenue2

    Pre-provision net revenue2 was $25.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $38.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $46.4 million for the first quarter of 2024. Pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 0.70% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.28% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 1.55% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue2 was $54.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $42.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $38.6 million for the first quarter of 2024. Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 1.50% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.38% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 1.29% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin2

    Net interest income was $103.7 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $81.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $75.9 million in the first quarter of 2024.

    Net interest margin2 was 3.16% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.95% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.79% for the first quarter of 2024. Excluding purchase accounting accretion, adjusted net interest margin2 was 3.08% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.92% in the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.78% in the first quarter of 2024.

    Components of the 21 basis point increase in net interest margin2 during the first quarter of 2025, which includes approximately +12 basis points contributed by CrossFirst Bank, are as follows:

    • Increased loan portfolio and held for sale loan yields contributed +36 basis points
    • Increased purchase accounting accretion contributed +5 basis points
    • Decreased borrowing expense contributed +3 basis points
    • Decreased expense on rate swaps contributed +2 basis points
    • Increased non-maturity deposit funding costs contributed -17 basis points
    • Decreased cash and securities portfolio yield contributed -8 basis points

    Based on our most recent Asset Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) model, a +100 basis point parallel rate shock is expected to increase net interest income by 1.8% over the subsequent twelve-month period. Busey continues to evaluate and execute off-balance sheet hedging and balance sheet repositioning strategies as well as embedding rate protection in our asset originations to provide stabilization to net interest income in lower rate environments. Time deposit and savings specials have provided funding flows, and we had excess earning cash during the first quarter of 2025. A portion of the acquired CrossFirst Bank securities portfolio was liquidated when the acquisition was finalized, providing additional excess cash that will allow us to unwind non-core funding. As brokered CDs mature, Busey will continue to deploy excess cash to reduce wholesale funding levels during subsequent quarters. Total deposit cost of funds increased from 1.75% during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 1.91% during the first quarter of 2025. Deposit betas increased with the higher mix of acquired indexed and wholesale deposits and a full quarter of the consolidated Company’s funding base is projected to increase total deposit cost of funds during the second quarter of 2025. With the expectation of Busey paying down non-core funding, the deposit beta will lessen during the year and is expected to normalize in the 45% to 50% beta range. Growth in higher yielding earning assets is expected to offset the increased cost of funds pressure and we project further net interest margin expansion during the second quarter of 2025.

    Noninterest Income

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST INCOME          
    Wealth management fees $ 17,364     $ 16,786     $ 15,549  
    Fees for customer services   8,128       7,911       7,056  
    Payment technology solutions   5,073       5,094       5,709  
    Mortgage revenue   329       496       746  
    Income on bank owned life insurance   1,446       1,080       1,419  
    Realized net gains (losses) on the sale of mortgage servicing rights   —       —       7,465  
    Net securities gains (losses)   (15,768 )     (196 )     (6,375 )
    Other noninterest income   4,651       4,050       3,344  
    Total noninterest income $ 21,223     $ 35,221     $ 34,913  
       

    Total noninterest income decreased by 39.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and decreased by 39.2% compared to the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to net securities losses that were recorded in connection with a strategic balance sheet repositioning.

    Excluding the impact of net securities gains and losses and the gains on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 4.4% to $37.0 million, or 26.3% of operating revenue2, during the first quarter of 2025, compared to $35.4 million, or 30.3% of operating revenue2, for the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 9.4% from $33.8 million, or 30.8% of operating revenue2.

    Our fee-based businesses continue to add revenue diversification. Wealth management fees, wealth management referral fees included in other noninterest income, and payment technology solutions contributed 61.1% of adjusted noninterest income2 for the first quarter of 2025.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest income are as follows:

    • Wealth management fees increased by 3.4% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024 wealth management fees increased by 11.7%. Busey’s Wealth Management division ended the first quarter of 2025 with $13.68 billion in assets under care, compared to $13.83 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 and $12.76 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2024. Our portfolio management team continues to focus on long-term returns and managing risk in the face of volatile markets and has outperformed its blended benchmark3 over the last three and five years. The Wealth Management segment reported another quarter of record high revenue for the first quarter of 2025.
    • Payment technology solutions revenue decreased slightly compared the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, payment technology solutions revenue decreased by 11.1% primarily due to decreases in income from electronic, online, and interactive voice response payments, partially offset by increases in lockbox and merchant services income.
    • Fees for customer services increased by 2.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 primarily due to increases in income from analysis charges and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, fees for customer services increased by 15.2% primarily due to increases in analysis charges, automated teller machine fees, and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Increases in fees for customer services are primarily attributable to the inclusion of one month of CrossFirst’s income in our first quarter results.
    • Other noninterest income increased by 14.8% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and by 39.1% compared to the first quarter of 2024. The increase for both periods was driven by increases in swap origination fee income, commercial loan sales gains, letter of credit fee income, and other real estate owned income, offset by decreases in venture capital income.

    Operating Efficiency

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST EXPENSE          
    Salaries, wages, and employee benefits $ 67,563   $ 45,458   $ 42,090
    Data processing expense   9,575     6,564     6,550
    Net occupancy expense of premises   5,799     4,794     4,720
    Furniture and equipment expense   1,744     1,650     1,813
    Professional fees   9,511     4,938     2,253
    Amortization of intangible assets   3,083     2,471     2,409
    Interchange expense   1,343     1,305     1,611
    FDIC insurance   2,167     1,330     1,400
    Other noninterest expense   14,386     9,657     7,923
    Total noninterest expense $ 115,171   $ 78,167   $ 70,769
     

    Total noninterest expense increased by 47.3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and increased by 62.7% compared to the first quarter of 2024. Growth in noninterest expense was primarily attributable to one-time acquisition expenses related to the CrossFirst acquisition as well as added costs for operating expenses for two banks during one month of the quarter. Annual pre-tax expense synergy estimates resulting from the CrossFirst acquisition remain on track at $25.0 million. Busey anticipates a 50% rate of synergy realization in 2025 and 100% in 2026.

    Adjusted noninterest expense2, which excludes acquisition and restructuring expenses, amortization of intangible assets, and the provision for unfunded commitments, was $82.9 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $72.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $68.6 million in the first quarter of 2024. As our business grows, Busey remains focused on prudently managing our expense base and operating efficiency.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest expense are as follows:

    • Salaries, wages, and employee benefits expenses increased by $22.1 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $25.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $15.6 million and $15.8 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses, with additional severance, retention, and stock-based compensation. Busey has added 501 full time equivalent associates (“FTEs”) over the past year, mostly as a result of acquisitions, including 437 CrossFirst Bank FTEs added in March 2025 and 46 Merchants & Manufacturers Bank FTEs added in April 2024.
    • Data processing expense increased by $3.0 million compared to both the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2024, of which $2.3 million and $2.2 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Busey has continued to make investments in technology enhancements and has also experienced inflation-driven price increases.
    • Professional fees increased by $4.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, of which $4.3 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, professional fees increased by $7.3 million, of which $7.2 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses.
    • Amortization of intangible assets increased by $0.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $0.7 million compared to the first quarter of 2024. The CrossFirst acquisition added an estimated $81.8 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which will be amortized using an accelerated amortization methodology.
    • Other noninterest expense increased by $4.7 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and increased by $6.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $0.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively, resulted from increases in non-operating expenses related to acquisition and restructuring expenses. Further, $3.1 million of non-operating expenses was recorded for the Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments. Multiple expense items contributed to the remaining fluctuations in this expense category, including marketing, business development, regulatory expenses, mortgage servicing rights valuation expenses, and other real estate owned.

    Busey’s efficiency ratio2 was 79.3% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 64.5% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 58.1% for the first quarter of 2024. Our adjusted efficiency2 ratio was 58.7% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 61.8% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 62.3% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Busey’s annualized ratio of adjusted noninterest expense to average assets was 2.27% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.39% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.30% for the first quarter of 2024.

    BALANCE SHEET STRENGTH

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,200,292     $ 697,659     $ 591,071  
    Debt securities available for sale   2,273,874       1,810,221       1,898,072  
    Debt securities held to maturity   815,402       826,630       862,218  
    Equity securities   10,828       15,862       9,790  
    Loans held for sale   7,270       3,657       6,827  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Allowance for credit losses   (195,210 )     (83,404 )     (91,562 )
    Restricted bank stock   53,518       49,930       6,000  
    Premises and equipment, net   182,003       118,820       121,506  
    Right of use assets   40,594       10,608       10,590  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net   496,118       365,975       351,455  
    Other assets   711,206       533,677       533,414  
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Liabilities          
    Total deposits $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   137,340       155,610       147,175  
    Short-term borrowings   11,209       —       —  
    Long-term debt   306,509       227,723       223,100  
    Junior subordinated debt owed to unconsolidated trusts   77,117       74,815       72,040  
    Lease liabilities   41,111       11,040       10,896  
    Other liabilities   251,890       211,775       191,405  
    Total liabilities   17,284,646       10,663,453       10,604,807  
               
    Stockholders’ equity          
    Retained earnings   249,484       294,054       248,412  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)   (172,810 )     (207,039 )     (222,190 )
    Other stockholders’ equity1   2,102,932       1,296,254       1,256,429  
    Total stockholders’ equity   2,179,606       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS          
    Book value per common share2 $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share2 $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  
    Ending number of common shares outstanding   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  

    ___________________________________________
    1. Net balance of preferred stock ($0.001 par value), common stock ($0.001 par value), additional paid-in capital, and treasury stock.
    2. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    AVERAGE BALANCES (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 861,021   $ 776,572   $ 594,193
    Investment securities   2,782,435     2,597,309     2,907,144
    Loans held for sale   3,443     6,306     4,833
    Portfolio loans   9,838,337     7,738,772     7,599,316
    Interest-earning assets   13,363,594     11,048,350     11,005,903
    Total assets   14,831,298     12,085,993     12,024,208
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   3,036,127     2,724,344     2,708,586
    Interest-bearing deposits   9,142,781     7,325,662     7,330,105
    Total deposits   12,178,908     10,050,006     10,038,691
    Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase   144,838     135,728     178,659
    Interest-bearing liabilities   9,627,841     7,763,729     7,831,655
    Total liabilities   12,896,222     10,689,054     10,748,484
    Stockholders’ equity – preferred   2,669     —     —
    Stockholders’ equity – common   1,932,407     1,396,939     1,275,724
    Tangible common equity1   1,521,387     1,029,539     922,710

    ___________________________________________
    1. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    Busey’s financial strength is built on a long-term conservative operating approach. That focus will not change now or in the future.

    Total assets were $19.46 billion as of March 31, 2025, compared to $12.05 billion as of December 31, 2024, and $11.89 billion as of March 31, 2024. Average interest-earning assets were $13.36 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $11.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $11.01 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Portfolio Loans

    We remain steadfast in our conservative approach to underwriting and our disciplined approach to pricing, particularly given our outlook for the economy in the coming quarters. Portfolio loans totaled $13.87 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $7.70 billion at December 31, 2024, and $7.59 billion at March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s portfolio loans grew by $133.6 million during the first quarter of 2025, with growth centered in the commercial category. In addition, as of March 31, 2024, CrossFirst Bank added $6.04 billion in loans to Busey’s loan portfolio.

    Average portfolio loans were $9.84 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $7.74 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $7.60 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Asset Quality

    Asset quality continues to be strong. Busey Bank maintains a well-diversified loan portfolio and, as a matter of policy and practice, limits concentration exposure in any particular loan segment. CrossFirst Bank’s policies are similar in nature to Busey Bank’s policies and Busey is in the process of migrating the legacy CrossFirst portfolio toward Busey Bank’s policies.

    ASSET QUALITY (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Loans 30 – 89 days past due   18,554       8,124       7,441  
    Non-performing loans:          
    Non-accrual loans   48,647       22,088       17,465  
    Loans 90+ days past due and still accruing   6,077       1,149       88  
    Non-performing loans   54,724       23,237       17,553  
    Other non-performing assets   4,757       63       65  
    Non-performing assets   59,481       23,300       17,618  
    Substandard (excludes 90+ days past due)   131,078       62,023       87,830  
    Classified assets $ 190,559     $ 85,323     $ 105,448  
               
    Allowance for credit losses $ 195,210     $ 83,404     $ 91,562  
               
    RATIOS          
    Non-performing loans to portfolio loans   0.39 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Non-performing assets to total assets   0.31 %     0.19 %     0.15 %
    Non-performing assets to portfolio loans and other non-performing assets   0.43 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Allowance for credit losses to portfolio loans   1.41 %     1.08 %     1.21 %
    Coverage ratio of the allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans 3.57 x   3.59 x   5.22 x
    Classified assets to Bank Tier 1 capital1and reserves   8.40 %     5.61 %     7.24 %

    ___________________________________________
    1. Capital amounts for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    Loans 30-89 days past due increased by $10.4 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $11.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $6.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $12.5 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Non-performing loans increased by $31.5 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $37.2 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing loans were $6.8 million, a decrease of $16.4 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing loans were $47.9 million as of March 31, 2025. Continued disciplined credit management resulted in non-performing loans as a percentage of portfolio loans of 0.39% as of March 31, 2025, a 9 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Non-performing assets increased by $36.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $41.9 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing assets were $7.1 million, a decrease of $16.2 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing assets were $52.4 million as of March 31, 2025. Non-performing assets represented 0.31% of total assets as of March 31, 2025, a 12 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Classified assets increased by $105.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $85.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s classified assets were $81.3 million, a decrease of $4.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s classified assets were $109.3 million as of March 31, 2025.

    The allowance for credit losses was $195.2 million as of March 31, 2025, representing 1.41% of total portfolio loans outstanding, and providing coverage of 3.57 times our non-performing loans balance. In connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, the Day 1 allowance recorded for loans that were purchased with credit deterioration (“PCD” loans) was $100.8 million. The Day 1 PCD allowance was recorded as an adjustment to the fair value of the PCD loans.

    NET CHARGE-OFFS (RECOVERIES) AND PROVISION EXPENSE (RELEASE) (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net charge-offs (recoveries) $ 31,429   $ 2,850   $ 5,216
    Provision expense (release)   42,452     1,273     5,038
                     

    Net charge-offs increased by $28.6 million when compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $26.2 million when compared with the first quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs include $29.6 million related to PCD loans acquired from CrossFirst Bank, which were fully reserved at acquisition and did not require recording additional provision expense.

    Busey’s results for the first quarter of 2025 include $42.5 million provision expense for credit losses, which includes $42.4 million that was recorded to establish an initial allowance for credit losses on non-PCD acquired loans.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $16.46 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $9.98 billion at December 31, 2024, and $9.96 billion at March 31, 2024. Average deposits were $12.18 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $10.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $10.04 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Core deposits2 accounted for 89.7% of total deposits as of March 31, 2025. The quality of our core deposit franchise is a critical value driver of our institution. We estimated that 32% of our deposits were uninsured and uncollateralized4 as of March 31, 2025, and we have sufficient on- and off-balance sheet liquidity to manage deposit fluctuations and the liquidity needs of our customers.

    We have executed various deposit campaigns to attract term funding and savings accounts at a lower rate than our marginal cost of funds. New certificate of deposit production in the first quarter of 2025 had a weighted average term of 7.8 months at a rate of 3.58%, which was 96 basis points below our average marginal wholesale equivalent-term funding cost during the quarter.

    Borrowings

    As of March 31, 2025, Busey Bank held $16.7 million of long-term Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) borrowings. In comparison, Busey Bank had no short-term or long-term FHLB borrowings as of December 31, 2024, or March 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, CrossFirst Bank held $11.2 million of short-term FHLB borrowings and $61.9 million of long-term FHLB borrowings.

    In addition, associated with the CrossFirst acquisition, Busey assumed trust preferred securities with a recorded balance of $2.2 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Liquidity

    As of March 31, 2025, our available sources of on- and off-balance sheet liquidity5 totaled $8.55 billion. Furthermore, our balance sheet liquidity profile continues to be aided by the cash flows we expect from our relatively short-duration securities portfolio. Those cash flows were approximately $119.7 million in the first quarter of 2025. Cash flows from maturing securities within our portfolio are expected to be approximately $302.3 million for the remainder of 2025, with a current book yield of 2.55%, and approximately $308.1 million for 2026, with a current book yield of 2.59%.

    Capital Strength

    The strength of our balance sheet is also reflected in our capital foundation. Although impacted by the strategic deployment of capital for the CrossFirst acquisition, our capital ratios remain strong, and as of March 31, 2025, our regulatory capital ratios continued to provide a buffer of more than $630 million above levels required to be designated well-capitalized. Busey’s Common Equity Tier 1 ratio is estimated6 to be 11.99% at March 31, 2025, compared to 14.10% at December 31, 2024, and 13.45% at March 31, 2024. Our Total Capital to Risk Weighted Assets ratio is estimated6 to be 14.87% at March 31, 2025, compared to 18.53% at December 31, 2024, and 17.95% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible common equity2 was $1.68 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $1.02 billion at December 31, 2024, and $931.2 million at March 31, 2024. Tangible common equity2 represented 8.83% of tangible assets at March 31, 2025, compared to 8.71% at December 31, 2024, and 8.07% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible book value per common share2 was $18.62 at March 31, 2025, compared to $17.88 at December 31, 2024, and $16.84 at March 31, 2024, reflecting a 10.6% year-over-year increase. The ratios of tangible common equity to tangible assets2 and tangible book value per common share have been impacted by the fair market valuation adjustment of Busey’s securities portfolio as a result of the current rate environment, which is reflected in the accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) component of shareholder’s equity.

    Busey’s strong capital levels, coupled with its earnings, have allowed the Company to provide a steady return to its stockholders through dividends. During the first quarter of 2025, we paid a dividend of $0.25 per share on Busey’s common stock, which represents a 4.2% increase from the previous quarterly dividend of $0.24 per share. Busey has consistently paid dividends to its common stockholders since the bank holding company was organized in 1980.

    During the first quarter of 2025, Busey resumed making stock repurchases under its stock repurchase plan, purchasing 220,000 shares of its common stock at a weighted average price of $21.98 per share for a total of $4.8 million. As of March 31, 2025, Busey had 1,699,275 shares remaining on its stock repurchase plan available for repurchase.

    FIRST QUARTER EARNINGS INVESTOR PRESENTATION

    For additional information on Busey’s financial condition and operating results, please refer to our Q1 2025 Earnings Investor Presentation furnished via Form 8‑K on April 22, 2025, in connection with this earnings release.

    CORPORATE PROFILE

    As of March 31, 2025, First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) was a $19.46 billion financial holding company headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.

    Busey Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Champaign, Illinois, had total assets of $11.98 billion as of March 31, 2025. Busey Bank currently has 62 banking centers, with 21 in Central Illinois markets, 17 in suburban Chicago markets, 20 in the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area, three in Southwest Florida, and one in Indianapolis. More information about Busey Bank can be found at busey.com.

    CrossFirst Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Leawood, Kansas, had total assets of $7.45 billion as of March 31, 2025. CrossFirst Bank currently has 16 banking centers located across Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. More information about CrossFirst Bank can be found at crossfirstbank.com. It is anticipated that CrossFirst Bank will be merged with and into Busey Bank on June 20, 2025.

    Through Busey’s Wealth Management division, the Company provides a full range of asset management, investment, brokerage, fiduciary, philanthropic advisory, tax preparation, and farm management services to individuals, businesses, and foundations. Assets under care totaled $13.68 billion as of March 31, 2025. More information about Busey’s Wealth Management services can be found at busey.com/wealth-management.

    Busey Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary, FirsTech, specializes in the evolving financial technology needs of small and medium-sized businesses, highly regulated enterprise industries, and financial institutions. FirsTech provides comprehensive and innovative payment technology solutions, including online, mobile, and voice-recognition bill payments; money and data movement; merchant services; direct debit services; lockbox remittance processing for payments made by mail; and walk-in payments at retail agents. Additionally, FirsTech simplifies client workflows through integrations enabling support with billing, reconciliation, bill reminders, and treasury services. More information about FirsTech can be found at firstechpayments.com.

    For the fourth consecutive year, Busey was named among 2025’s America’s Best Banks by Forbes. Ranked 88th overall, Busey was one of seven banks headquartered in Illinois included on this year’s list. Busey was also named among the 2024 Best Banks to Work For by American Banker, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Money Management by Pensions and Investments, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Illinois by Daily Herald Business Ledger, the 2025 Best Places to Work in Indiana by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and the 2024 Best Companies to Work For in Florida by Florida Trend magazine. We are honored to be consistently recognized globally, nationally and locally for our engaged culture of integrity and commitment to community development.

    NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION

    This earnings release contains certain financial information determined by methods other than GAAP. Management uses these non-GAAP measures, together with the related GAAP measures, in analysis of Busey’s performance and in making business decisions, as well as for comparison to Busey’s peers. Busey believes the adjusted measures are useful for investors and management to understand the effects of certain non-core and non-recurring items and provide additional perspective on Busey’s performance over time.

    The following tables present reconciliations between these non-GAAP measures and what management believes to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

    These non-GAAP disclosures have inherent limitations and are not audited. They should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for operating results reported in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies. Tax effected numbers included in these non-GAAP disclosures are based on estimated statutory rates, estimated federal income tax rates, or effective tax rates, as noted with the tables below.

    RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES (Unaudited)
     
    Pre-Provision Net Revenue and Related Measures
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses (GAAP)     15,768       196       6,375  
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)     (115,171 )     (78,167 )     (70,769 )
    Pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [a]   25,551       38,828       46,373  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     26,026       3,585       408  
    Provision for unfunded commitments1     3,141       (455 )     (678 )
    Realized (gain) loss on the sale of mortgage service rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 54,718     $ 41,958     $ 38,638  
                 
    Average total assets [c]   14,831,298       12,085,993       12,024,208  
                 
    Pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   0.70 %     1.28 %     1.55 %
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   1.50 %     1.38 %     1.29 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Net Income, Average Tangible Common Equity, and Related Ratios
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net income (loss) (GAAP) [a] $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
    Acquisition expenses     26,026       2,469       285  
    Restructuring expenses     —       1,116       123  
    Day 2 provision for credit losses1     42,433       —       —  
    Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments2     3,139       —       —  
    Net securities (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Related tax (benefit) expense3     (22,069 )     (1,014 )     170  
    One-time deferred tax valuation adjustment4     4,591       —       —  
    Adjusted net income (Non-GAAP)5 [b] $ 39,898     $ 30,872     $ 25,713  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (GAAP) [c]   68,517,647       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share (GAAP) [a÷c] $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (Non-GAAP)6 [d]   69,502,717       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (Non-GAAP)5,6 [b÷d] $ 0.57     $ 0.53     $ 0.46  
                 
    Average total assets [e] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Return on average assets (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷e] (0.82 )%     0.93 %     0.88 %
    Adjusted return on average assets (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷e]   1.09 %     1.02 %     0.86 %
                 
    Average common equity   $ 1,932,407     $ 1,396,939     $ 1,275,724  
    Average goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (411,020 )     (367,400 )     (353,014 )
    Average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP) [f] $ 1,521,387     $ 1,029,539     $ 922,710  
                 
    Return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷f] (7.99 )%     10.86 %     11.43 %
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷f]   10.64 %     11.93 %     11.21 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. The Day 2 allowance for credit losses was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition to establish an allowance on non-PCD loans and is reflected within the provision for credit losses line on the Statement of Income.
    2. The Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and is reflected within the other noninterest expense line, as a component of total noninterest expense, on the Statement of Income.
    3. Tax benefits were calculated using tax rates of 25.3%, 26.8%, and 24.9% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.
    4. The deferred tax valuation adjustment was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and relates to the expansion of Busey’s footprint into new states. The deferred tax valuation adjustment is reflected within the income taxes line on the Statement of Income.
    5. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted net income for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for net securities gains and losses, realized net gains and losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, and one-time deferred tax valuation adjustments. In 2024, these adjusting items were previously presented as further adjustments to adjusted net income.
    6. Dilution includes shares that would have been dilutive if there had been net income during the period.
    7. Annualized measure.
    Tax-Equivalent Net Interest Income, Adjusted Net Interest Income, Net Interest Margin, and Adjusted Net Interest Margin
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [a]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
    Purchase accounting accretion related to business combinations     (2,728 )     (812 )     (204 )
    Adjusted net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 101,540     $ 81,212     $ 76,099  
                 
    Average interest-earning assets (Non-GAAP) [c] $ 13,363,594     $ 11,048,350     $ 11,005,903  
                 
    Net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   3.16 %     2.95 %     2.79 %
    Adjusted net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   3.08 %     2.92 %     2.78 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Noninterest Income, Revenue Measures, Adjusted Noninterest Expense, Efficiency Ratios, and Adjusted Noninterest Expense to Average Assets
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP) [a] $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
                 
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Noninterest income excluding net securities gains and losses (Non-GAAP) [c]   36,991       35,417       41,288  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Adjusted noninterest income (Non-GAAP) [d] $ 36,991     $ 35,417     $ 33,823  
                 
    Tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [e = b+c] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 117,591  
    Adjusted tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [f = b+d] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 110,126  
    Operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [g = a+d] $ 140,722     $ 116,995     $ 109,677  
                 
    Adjusted noninterest income to operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [d÷g]   26.29 %     30.27 %     30.84 %
                 
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)   $ 115,171     $ 78,167     $ 70,769  
    Amortization of intangible assets     (3,083 )     (2,471 )     (2,409 )
    Noninterest expense excluding amortization of intangible assets (Non-GAAP) [h]   112,088       75,696       68,360  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     (26,026 )     (3,585 )     (408 )
    Provision for unfunded commitments2     (3,141 )     455       678  
    Adjusted noninterest expense (Non-GAAP)3 [i] $ 82,921     $ 72,566     $ 68,630  
                 
    Efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP) [h÷e]   79.35 %     64.45 %     58.13 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)3 [i÷f]   58.70 %     61.79 %     62.32 %
                 
    Average total assets [j] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Adjusted noninterest expense to average assets (Non-GAAP)4 [i÷j]   2.27 %     2.39 %     2.30 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    3. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted noninterest expense and the adjusted efficiency ratio for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for the provision for unfunded commitments. In 2024, these adjustments were previously presented as adjustments for adjusted core expense and the adjusted core efficiency ratio.
    4. Annualized measure.
    Tangible Assets, Tangible Common Equity, and Related Measures and Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total assets (GAAP)   $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [a] $ 18,968,134     $ 11,680,747     $ 11,536,003  
                 
    Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)   $ 2,179,606     $ 1,383,269     $ 1,282,651  
    Preferred stock and additional paid in capital on preferred stock     (7,750 )     —       —  
    Common equity [b]   2,171,856       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)1 [c] $ 1,675,738     $ 1,017,294     $ 931,196  
                 
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [c÷a]   8.83 %     8.71 %     8.07 %
                 
    Ending number of common shares outstanding (GAAP) [d]   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  
    Book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [b÷d] $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [c÷d] $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  

    ___________________________________________

    1. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of tangible assets and tangible common equity for all periods presented to exclude any tax adjustment.
    Core Deposits and Related Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total deposits (GAAP) [a] $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Brokered deposits, excluding brokered time deposits of $250,000 or more     (722,309 )     (13,090 )     (6,001 )
    Time deposits of $250,000 or more     (967,262 )     (334,503 )     (326,795 )
    Core deposits (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 14,769,899     $ 9,634,897     $ 9,627,395  
                 
    Core deposits to total deposits (Non-GAAP) [b÷a]   89.73 %     96.52 %     96.66 %
     

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to Busey’s financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of Busey’s management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “position,” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this document, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Busey undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events.

    A number of factors, many of which are beyond Busey’s ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in any forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (1) the strength of the local, state, national, and international economies and financial markets (including effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints); (2) changes in, and the interpretation and prioritization of, local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and governmental policies (including those concerning Busey’s general business); (3) the economic impact of any future terrorist threats or attacks, widespread disease or pandemics, or other adverse external events that could cause economic deterioration or instability in credit markets (including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East); (4) unexpected results of acquisitions, including the acquisition of CrossFirst, which may include the failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions and the possibility that the transaction and integration costs may be greater than anticipated; (5) the imposition of tariffs or other governmental policies impacting the value of products produced by Busey’s commercial borrowers; (6) new or revised accounting policies and practices as may be adopted by state and federal regulatory banking agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; (7) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of Busey’s assets (including the impact of sustained elevated interest rates); (8) increased competition in the financial services sector (including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and fintech companies) and the inability to attract new customers; (9) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (10) the loss of key executives or associates, talent shortages, and employee turnover; (11) unexpected outcomes and costs of existing or new litigation, investigations, or other legal proceedings, inquiries, and regulatory actions involving Busey (including with respect to Busey’s Illinois franchise taxes); (12) fluctuations in the value of securities held in Busey’s securities portfolio, including as a result of changes in interest rates; (13) credit risk and risk from concentrations (by type of borrower, geographic area, collateral, and industry), within Busey’s loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (14) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (15) the level of non-performing assets on Busey’s balance sheets; (16) interruptions involving information technology and communications systems or third-party servicers; (17) breaches or failures of information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents; (18) the economic impact on Busey and its customers of climate change, natural disasters, and exceptional weather occurrences such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and droughts; (19) the ability to successfully manage liquidity risk, which may increase dependence on non-core funding sources such as brokered deposits, and may negatively impact Busey’s cost of funds; (20) the ability to maintain an adequate level of allowance for credit losses on loans; (21) the effectiveness of Busey’s risk management framework; and (22) the ability of Busey to manage the risks associated with the foregoing. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements.

    Additional information concerning Busey and its business, including additional factors that could materially affect Busey’s financial results, is included in Busey’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    END NOTES

    1 Annualized measure.
    2 Represents a non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”
    3 The blended benchmark consists of 60% MSCI All Country World Index and 40% Bloomberg Intermediate US Government/Credit Total Return Index.
    4 Estimated uninsured and uncollateralized deposits consist of account balances in excess of the $250 thousand Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit, less intercompany accounts, fully collateralized accounts (including preferred deposits), and pass-through accounts where clients have deposit insurance at the correspondent financial institution.
    5 On- and off-balance sheet liquidity is comprised of cash and cash equivalents, debt securities excluding those pledged as collateral, brokered deposits, and Busey’s borrowing capacity through its revolving credit facility, the FHLB, the Federal Reserve Bank, and federal funds purchased lines.
    6 Capital amounts and ratios for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    INVESTOR CONTACT: Scott A. Phillips, Interim Chief Financial Officer | 239-689-7167

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Baker Hughes Company Announces First-Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    First-quarter highlights

    • Orders of $6.5 billion, including $3.2 billion of IET orders.
    • RPO of $33.2 billion, including record IET RPO of $30.4 billion.
    • Revenue of $6.4 billion, consistent year-over-year.
    • Attributable net income of $402 million.
    • GAAP diluted EPS of $0.40 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $0.51.
    • Adjusted EBITDA* of $1,037 million, up 10% year-over-year.
    • Cash flows from operating activities of $709 million and free cash flow* of $454 million.
    • Returns to shareholders of $417 million, including $188 million of share repurchases.

    HOUSTON and LONDON, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes Company (Nasdaq: BKR) (“Baker Hughes” or the “Company”) announced results today for the first quarter of 2025.

    “Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer.

    “In our IET segment, we booked $3.2 billion of orders, including our first data center awards, totaling more than 350 MW of power solutions for this rapidly evolving market. In addition to expanding opportunities for data centers, we have a strong pipeline of LNG, FPSO and gas infrastructure projects that support our order outlook for this year.”

    “In OFSE, EBITDA remained resilient as our margins saw noticeable improvement compared to last year even while segment revenue fell. This is a testament to the team’s hard work in changing the way the business operates.”

    “Although our outlook is tempered by broader macro and trade policy uncertainty, we remain confident in our strategy and the resilience of our portfolio. We believe Baker Hughes is well positioned to navigate near-term challenges and deliver sustainable growth in shareholder value.”

    “I want to thank our employees, whose hard work, dedication and focus have been instrumental to the continued success of Baker Hughes. As we continue to execute our strategy amidst an uncertain macro backdrop, we remain committed to our customers, shareholders and employees,” concluded Simonelli.

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

      Three Months Ended   Variance
    (in millions except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 6,459 $ 7,496 $ 6,542   (14 %) (1 %)
    Revenue   6,427   7,364   6,418   (13 %) — %
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes   402   1,179   455   (66 %) (12 %)
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes*   509   694   429   (27 %) 19 %
    Adjusted EBITDA*   1,037   1,310   943   (21 %) 10 %
    Diluted earnings per share (EPS)   0.40   1.18   0.45   (66 %) (11 %)
    Adjusted diluted EPS*   0.51   0.70   0.43   (27 %) 19 %
    Cash flow from operating activities   709   1,189   784   (40 %) (10 %)
    Free cash flow*   454   894   502   (49 %) (10 %)

    * Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Certain columns and rows in our tables and financial statements may not sum up due to the use of rounded numbers.

    Quarter Highlights

    Baker Hughes expanded its leadership position in liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) in the first quarter, including a liquefaction train award from Bechtel for a project in North America, where the Company will provide four main refrigerant compressors driven by LM6000+ gas turbines and four expander-compressors. This award builds on the previously announced December 2024 award and further demonstrates the strength of the Company’s collaboration with Bechtel to support North America LNG development.

    During the quarter, Industrial & Energy Technology (“IET”) signed key strategic framework agreements with LNG operators. The Company agreed to provide gas turbines and refrigerant compressor technology, along with maintenance services, for Trains 4 to 8 of NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG Facility. Baker Hughes also reached an agreement with Argent LNG to provide liquefaction and power solutions and related aftermarket services for its proposed 24 MTPA LNG export facility in Louisiana. The project will employ Baker Hughes’ NMBL™ modularized LNG solution, driven by the LM9000 gas turbine, while also utilizing the Company’s iCenter™ and Cordant™ digital solution, to enhance the plant’s operational efficiency.

    Baker Hughes also demonstrated its continuous commitment to critical gas infrastructure projects with a strategic win in the North America pipeline compression market. The award includes the provision of two gas compression stations for a total of 10 Frame 5/2E gas turbines and 10 centrifugal compressors, anti-surge valves and critical spare parts.

    In the first quarter, Baker Hughes made significant progress in reliable and sustainable power solutions deployment for data centers. In addition to being awarded over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines to power data centers with various other customers, the Company partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to accelerate the development of large-scale carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) and power solutions for data centers and industrial customers in the U.S. This partnership will leverage technologies and services across the Baker Hughes enterprise by providing CO₂ compression, NovaLT™ gas turbines, digital monitoring solutions, well construction and completion services.

    In continued demonstration of Gas Technology’s lifecycle offerings in IET, the Company received several aftermarket service awards during the quarter. In Algeria, the Gas Technology Services (“GTS”) team is partnering with SONATRACH to deliver an upgrade solution for the modernization of a key compressor station. In the Middle East, Gas Technology received multiple equipment and services awards to support one of the world’s largest gas processing plants. The scope includes rejuvenation of two existing gas turbines to drive new compressors and the supply of a third compression train to support production expansion.

    IET’s Industrial Solutions gained momentum with its Cordant™ Asset Performance Management (“APM”) solution, securing several contracts with customers across multiple regions. ADNOC Offshore will deploy the full APM suite to enhance production availability and efficiency. In the Americas, a large international oil company will conduct a proof of concept across multiple equipment trains, to support a shift from proactive to predictive maintenance. In Australia, the Company signed agreements to develop asset maintenance strategies for new mine sites supporting truck fleet maintenance.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment (“OFSE”) received a significant award from ExxonMobil Guyana to provide specialty chemicals and related services for its Uaru and Whiptail offshore greenfield developments in the country’s prolific Stabroek Block, highlighting the differentiated capabilities of our Production Solutions offering. For this multi-year contract, the scope will cover topsides, subsea, water injection and utility chemicals to help ExxonMobil Guyana achieve optimal production.

    OFSE continues to leverage the Company’s innovative solutions to help Petrobras unlock Brazil’s vast energy supply. In the quarter and following an open tender, Baker Hughes received a significant, multi-year fully integrated completions systems contract from Petrobras across multiple deepwater fields. A range of Baker Hughes’ technologies, including the new SureCONTROLTM Premium interval control valve, has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the country’s offshore developments.

    OFSE secured a multi-year contract with Dubai Petroleum Establishment, for and on behalf of Dubai Supply Authority, to provide integrated coiled-tubing drilling services for the Company’s Margham Gas storage project. This follows a third-quarter 2024 IET award for integrated compressor line units for the same project, demonstrating growing commercial synergies across Baker Hughes’ diverse portfolio.

    The Company drove growth in Mature Assets Solutions, signing a multi-year framework agreement with Equinor to help establish a new Center of Excellence for Plug & Abandonment work in the North Sea. Based within OFSE’s operations in Bergen and Stavanger, Norway, this hub will ensure economical, reliable solutions are implemented to responsibly abandon each well, allowing Equinor to maximize value of their assets and allocate more resources to exploration and discovery.

    On the digital front, OFSE received an award from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”) to expand deployment of Leucipa™ automated field production solution for all its wells, including those with non-Baker Hughes electric submersible pumps, in the Absheron and Gunseli fields. Leucipa also marked its first deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa through an agreement with the NNPC/FIRST E&P joint venture, which will utilize the platform across its offshore wells in the Niger Delta.

    Consolidated Financial Results

    Revenue for the quarter was $6,427 million, a decrease of 13% sequentially and up $9 million year-over-year. The increase in revenue year-over-year was driven by an increase in IET and partially offset by a decrease in OFSE.

    The Company’s total book-to-bill ratio in the first quarter of 2025 was 1.0; the IET book-to-bill ratio was 1.1.

    Net income as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), for the first quarter of 2025 was $402 million. Net income decreased $777 million sequentially and decreased $53 million year-over-year.

    Adjusted net income (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $509 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $108 million. A list of the adjusting items and associated reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2025 was down 27% sequentially and up 19% year-over-year.

    Depreciation and amortization for the first quarter of 2025 was $285 million.

    Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $1,037 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $140 million. See Table 1a in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was down 21% sequentially and up 10% year-over-year.

    The sequential decrease in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume in both segments, partially offset by productivity and structural cost-out initiatives. The year-over-year increase in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by increased volume in IET including higher proportionate growth in Gas Technology Equipment (“GTE”) and productivity, structural cost-out initiatives and higher pricing in both segments, partially offset by decreased volume and business mix in OFSE and cost inflation in both segments.

    Other Financial Items

    Remaining Performance Obligations (“RPO”) in the first quarter of 2025 ended at $33.2 billion, a decrease of $0.1 billion from the fourth quarter of 2024. OFSE RPO was $2.8 billion, down 7% sequentially, while IET RPO was $30.4 billion, up $300 million sequentially. Within IET RPO, GTE RPO was $11.9 billion and GTS RPO was $15.1 billion.

    Income tax expense in the first quarter of 2025 was $152 million.

    Other (income) expense, net in the first quarter of 2025 was $140 million, primarily related to changes in fair value for equity securities of $140 million.

    GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.40. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (a non-GAAP financial measure) was $0.51. Excluded from adjusted diluted earnings per share were all items listed in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Cash flow from operating activities was $709 million for the first quarter of 2025. Free cash flow (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the quarter was $454 million. A reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1c in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    Capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets, were $255 million for the first quarter of 2025, of which $158 million was for OFSE and $83 million was for IET.

    Results by Reporting Segment

    The following segment discussions and variance explanations are intended to reflect management’s view of the relevant comparisons of financial results on a sequential or year-over-year basis, depending on the business dynamics of the reporting segments.

    Oilfield Services & Equipment

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 3,281   $ 3,740   $ 3,624     (12 %) (9 %)
    Revenue $ 3,499   $ 3,871   $ 3,783     (10 %) (8 %)
    EBITDA $ 623   $ 755   $ 644     (18 %) (3 %)
    EBITDA margin   17.8 %   19.5 %   17.0 %   -1.7pts 0.8pts
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Well Construction $ 892 $ 943 $ 1,061   (5 %) (16 %)
    Completions, Intervention, and Measurements   925   1,022   1,006   (9 %) (8 %)
    Production Solutions   899   974   945   (8 %) (5 %)
    Subsea & Surface Pressure Systems   782   932   771   (16 %) 1 %
    Total Revenue $ 3,499 $ 3,871 $ 3,783   (10 %) (8 %)
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Geographic Region March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    North America $ 922 $ 971 $ 990   (5 %) (7 %)
    Latin America   568   661   637   (14 %) (11 %)
    Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa   580   740   750   (22 %) (23 %)
    Middle East/Asia   1,429   1,499   1,405   (5 %) 2 %
    Total Revenue $ 3,499 $ 3,871 $ 3,783   (10 %) (8 %)
                 
    North America $ 922 $ 971 $ 990   (5 %) (7 %)
    International $ 2,577 $ 2,900 $ 2,793   (11 %) (8 %)

    EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $226 million, $229 million, and $222 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    OFSE orders of $3,281 million for the first quarter of 2025 decreased by 12% sequentially. Subsea and Surface Pressure Systems orders were $532 million, down 34% sequentially, and down 16% year-over-year.

    OFSE revenue of $3,499 million for the first quarter of 2025 was down 10% sequentially, and down 8% year-over-year.

    North America revenue was $922 million, down 5% sequentially. International revenue was $2,577 million, down 11% sequentially, with declines across all regions.

    Segment EBITDA for the first quarter of 2025 was $623 million, a decrease of $132 million, or 18% sequentially. The sequential decrease in EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume, partially mitigated by productivity from structural cost-out initiatives.

    Industrial & Energy Technology

    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Segment results March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Orders $ 3,178   $ 3,756   $ 2,918     (15 %) 9 %
    Revenue $ 2,928   $ 3,492   $ 2,634     (16 %) 11 %
    EBITDA $ 501   $ 639   $ 386     (22 %) 30 %
    EBITDA margin   17.1 %   18.3 %   14.7 %   -1.2pts 2.4pts
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Orders by Product Line March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,335 $ 1,865 $ 1,230   (28 %) 9 %
    Gas Technology Services   913   902   692   1 % 32 %
    Total Gas Technology   2,248   2,767   1,922   (19 %) 17 %
    Industrial Products   501   515   546   (3 %) (8 %)
    Industrial Solutions   281   320   257   (12 %) 10 %
    Total Industrial Technology   782   835   803   (6 %) (3 %)
    Climate Technology Solutions   148   154   193   (4 %) (23 %)
    Total Orders $ 3,178 $ 3,756 $ 2,918   (15 %) 9 %
    (in millions) Three Months Ended   Variance
    Revenue by Product Line March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024    		   Sequential Year-over-
    year
    Gas Technology Equipment $ 1,456 $ 1,663 $ 1,210   (12 %) 20 %
    Gas Technology Services   592   796   614   (26 %) (4 %)
    Total Gas Technology   2,047   2,459   1,824   (17 %) 12 %
    Industrial Products   445   548   462   (19 %) (4 %)
    Industrial Solutions   258   282   265   (8 %) (2 %)
    Total Industrial Technology   703   830   727   (15 %) (3 %)
    Climate Technology Solutions   178   204   83   (13 %) 114 %
    Total Revenue $ 2,928 $ 3,492 $ 2,634   (16 %) 11 %

    EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $53 million, $56 million, and $56 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

    IET orders of $3,178 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased by $260 million, or 9% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by Gas Technology, up $326 million or 17% year-over-year.

    IET revenue of $2,928 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased $294 million, or 11% year-over-year. The increase was driven by Gas Technology Equipment, up $246 million or 20% year-over-year, and Climate Technology Solutions, up $95 million or 114% year-over-year.

    Segment EBITDA for the quarter was $501 million, an increase of $114 million, or 30% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase in segment EBITDA was driven by productivity, positive pricing and increased volume including higher proportionate growth in GTE, partially offset by cost inflation.

    Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Management provides non-GAAP financial measures because it believes such measures are widely accepted financial indicators used by investors and analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of operating performance (including adjusted EBITDA; adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes; and adjusted diluted earnings per share) and liquidity (free cash flow) and that these measures may be used by investors to make informed investment decisions. Management believes that the exclusion of certain identified items from several key operating performance measures enables us to evaluate our operations more effectively, to identify underlying trends in the business, and to establish operational goals for certain management compensation purposes. Management also believes that free cash flow is an important supplemental measure of our cash performance but should not be considered as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities presented in accordance with GAAP.

    Table 1a. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions) March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 402 $ 1,179   $ 455  
    Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   7   11     8  
    Provision (benefit) for income taxes   152   (398 )   178  
    Interest expense, net   51   54     41  
    Depreciation & amortization   285   291     283  
    Restructuring   —   258     —  
    Inventory impairment(1)   —   73     —  
    Change in fair value of equity securities(2)   140   (196 )   (52 )
    Other charges and credits(2)   —   38     30  
    Adjusted EBITDA (non-GAAP)   1,037   1,310     943  
    Corporate costs   85   84     88  
    Other income / (expense) not allocated to segments   1   —     —  
    Total Segment EBITDA (non-GAAP) $ 1,124 $ 1,394   $ 1,030  
    OFSE   623   755     644  
    IET   501   639     386  

    (1) Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

    (2) Change in fair value of equity securities and other charges and credits are reported in “Other (income) expense, net” on the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

    Table 1a reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA exclude the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1b. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions, except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP) $ 402   $ 1,179   $ 455  
    Restructuring   —     258     —  
    Inventory impairment   —     73     —  
    Change in fair value of equity securities   140     (196 )   (52 )
    Other adjustments   —     30     32  
    Tax adjustments(1)   (32 )   (650 )   (6 )
    Total adjustments, net of income tax   108     (485 )   (26 )
    Less: adjustments attributable to noncontrolling interests   —     —     —  
    Adjustments attributable to Baker Hughes   108     (485 )   (26 )
    Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes (non-GAAP) $ 509   $ 694   $ 429  
           
    Denominator:      
    Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding diluted   999     999     1,004  
    Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP) $ 0.51   $ 0.70   $ 0.43  

    (1) All periods reflect the tax associated with the other (income) loss adjustments.

    Table 1b reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes. Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes excludes the impact of certain identified items.

    Table 1c. Reconciliation of Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

      Three Months Ended
    (in millions) March 31,
    2025    		 December 31,
    2024    		 March 31,
    2024
    Net cash flows from operating activities (GAAP) $ 709   $ 1,189   $ 784  
    Add: cash used for capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets   (255 )   (295 )   (282 )
    Free cash flow (non-GAAP) $ 454   $ 894   $ 502  

    Table 1c reconciles net cash flows from operating activities, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to free cash flow. Free cash flow is defined as net cash flows from operating activities less expenditures for capital assets plus proceeds from disposal of assets.

     
    Financial Tables (GAAP)
     
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)
     
    (Unaudited)
     
      Three Months Ended March 31,
    (In millions, except per share amounts)   2025     2024  
    Revenue $ 6,427   $ 6,418  
    Costs and expenses:    
    Cost of revenue   4,952     4,976  
    Selling, general and administrative   577     618  
    Research and development costs   146     164  
    Other (income) expense, net   140     (22 )
    Interest expense, net   51     41  
    Income before income taxes   561     641  
    Provision for income taxes   (152 )   (178 )
    Net income   409     463  
    Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests   7     8  
    Net income attributable to Baker Hughes Company $ 402   $ 455  
         
    Per share amounts:  
    Basic income per Class A common stock $ 0.41   $ 0.46  
    Diluted income per Class A common stock $ 0.40   $ 0.45  
         
    Weighted average shares:    
    Class A basic   992     998  
    Class A diluted   999     1,004  
         
    Cash dividend per Class A common stock $ 0.23   $ 0.21  
         
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
     
    (Unaudited)
     
    (In millions) March 31, 2025 December 31, 2024
    ASSETS
    Current Assets:    
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,277 $ 3,364
    Current receivables, net   6,710   7,122
    Inventories, net   5,161   4,954
    All other current assets   1,693   1,771
    Total current assets   16,841   17,211
    Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated depreciation   5,168   5,127
    Goodwill   6,126   6,078
    Other intangible assets, net   3,927   3,951
    Contract and other deferred assets   1,680   1,730
    All other assets   4,368   4,266
    Total assets $ 38,110 $ 38,363
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
    Current Liabilities:    
    Accounts payable $ 4,465 $ 4,542
    Short-term debt   55   53
    Progress collections and deferred income   5,589   5,672
    All other current liabilities   2,485   2,724
    Total current liabilities   12,594   12,991
    Long-term debt   5,969   5,970
    Liabilities for pensions and other postretirement benefits   985   988
    All other liabilities   1,356   1,359
    Equity   17,206   17,055
    Total liabilities and equity $ 38,110 $ 38,363
         
    Outstanding Baker Hughes Company shares:    
    Class A common stock   990   990
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
     
    (Unaudited)
      Three Months Ended March 31,
    (In millions)   2025     2024  
    Cash flows from operating activities:    
    Net income $ 409   $ 463  
    Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:    
    Depreciation and amortization   285     283  
    Stock-based compensation cost   50     51  
    Change in fair value of equity securities   140     (52 )
    Benefit for deferred income taxes   (53 )   (24 )
    Working capital   218     209  
    Other operating items, net   (340 )   (146 )
    Net cash flows provided by operating activities   709     784  
    Cash flows from investing activities:    
    Expenditures for capital assets   (300 )   (333 )
    Proceeds from disposal of assets   45     51  
    Other investing items, net   (55 )   13  
    Net cash flows used in investing activities   (310 )   (269 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:    
    Dividends paid   (229 )   (210 )
    Repurchase of Class A common stock   (188 )   (158 )
    Other financing items, net   (85 )   (59 )
    Net cash flows used in financing activities   (502 )   (427 )
    Effect of currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents   16     (17 )
    Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   (87 )   71  
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period   3,364     2,646  
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 3,277   $ 2,717  
    Supplemental cash flows disclosures:    
    Income taxes paid, net of refunds $ 207   $ 108  
    Interest paid $ 50   $ 48  

    Supplemental Financial Information

    Supplemental financial information can be found on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com in the Financial Information section under Quarterly Results.

    Conference Call and Webcast

    The Company has scheduled an investor conference call to discuss management’s outlook and the results reported in today’s earnings announcement. The call will begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, 8:30 a.m. Central time on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, the content of which is not part of this earnings release. The conference call will be broadcast live via a webcast and can be accessed by visiting the Events and Presentations page on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available on the website for one month following the webcast.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release (and oral statements made regarding the subjects of this release) may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (each a “forward-looking statement”). Forward-looking statements concern future circumstances and results and other statements that are not historical facts and are sometimes identified by the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “would,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “target,” “goal” or other similar words or expressions. There are many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2024 and those set forth from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The documents are available through the Company’s website at: www.investors.bakerhughes.com or through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering and Analysis Retrieval system at: www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements.

    Our expectations regarding our business outlook and business plans; the business plans of our customers; oil and natural gas market conditions; cost and availability of resources; economic, legal and regulatory conditions, and other matters are only our forecasts regarding these matters.

    These forward-looking statements, including forecasts, may be substantially different from actual results, which are affected by many risks, along with the following risk factors and the timing of any of these risk factors:

    • Economic and political conditions – the impact of worldwide economic conditions and rising inflation; the impact of tariffs and the potential for significant increases thereto; the impact of global trade policy and the potential for significant changes thereto; the effect that declines in credit availability may have on worldwide economic growth and demand for hydrocarbons; foreign currency exchange fluctuations and changes in the capital markets in locations where we operate; and the impact of government disruptions and sanctions.
    • Orders and RPO – our ability to execute on orders and RPO in accordance with agreed specifications, terms and conditions and convert those orders and RPO to revenue and cash.
    • Oil and gas market conditions – the level of petroleum industry exploration, development and production expenditures; the price of, volatility in pricing of, and the demand for crude oil and natural gas; drilling activity; drilling permits for and regulation of the shelf and the deepwater drilling; excess productive capacity; crude and product inventories; liquefied natural gas supply and demand; seasonal and other adverse weather conditions that affect the demand for energy; severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, that affect exploration and production activities; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) policy and the adherence by OPEC nations to their OPEC production quotas.
    • Terrorism and geopolitical risks – war, military action, terrorist activities or extended periods of international conflict, particularly involving any petroleum-producing or consuming regions, including Russia and Ukraine; and the recent conflict in the Middle East; labor disruptions, civil unrest or security conditions where we operate; potentially burdensome taxation, expropriation of assets by governmental action; cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents or attacks; epidemic outbreaks.

    About Baker Hughes:

    Baker Hughes (Nasdaq: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions to energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com.

    For more information, please contact:

    Investor Relations

    Chase Mulvehill
    +1 346-297-2561
    investor.relations@bakerhughes.com 

    Media Relations

    Adrienne Lynch
    +1 713-906-8407 
    adrienne.lynch@bakerhughes.com 

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Willis Lease Finance Corporation Announces Timing of First Quarter 2025 Earnings and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    COCONUT CREEK, Fla., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Willis Lease Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: WLFC) (“WLFC”) plans to announce its financial results for the first quarter of 2025 on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

    WLFC plans to hold a conference call led by members of WLFC’s executive management team on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time to discuss its first quarter 2025 results. Individuals wishing to participate in the conference call should dial: US and Canada (800) 289-0459, International +1 (646) 828-8082, wait for the conference operator and provide the operator with the Conference ID 578662. The conference call may also be accessed by registering via the following link: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1716437&tp_key=f56060bee8. A digital replay will be available two hours after the completion of the conference call. To access the replay, please visit our website at www.wlfc.global under the Investor Relations section for details.

    A copy of this press release will be posted to the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website, www.wlfc.global, prior to the call.

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation

    Willis Lease Finance Corporation leases large and regional spare commercial aircraft engines, auxiliary power units and aircraft to airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers and maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers worldwide. These leasing activities are integrated with engine and aircraft trading, engine lease pools and asset management services through Willis Asset Management Limited, as well as various end-of-life solutions for engines and aviation materials provided through Willis Aeronautical Services, Inc. Additionally, through Willis Engine Repair Center®, Jet Centre by Willis, and Willis Aviation Services Limited, the Company’s service offerings include Part 145 engine maintenance, aircraft line and base maintenance, aircraft disassembly, parking and storage, airport FBO and ground and cargo handling services.

    CONTACT: Scott B. Flaherty
      Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
      sflaherty@willislease.com
      561.413.0112

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: More than 325 people attended CanREA’s Operators Summit 2025

    Source: – Press Release/Statement:

    Headline: More than 325 people attended CanREA’s Operators Summit 2025

    More than 325 people assembled in Toronto this week for the fifth annual Operators Summit, Canada’s largest conference and exhibition devoted to the operation of renewable energy and energy storage sites, presented by the Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA). Read more!
    The post More than 325 people attended CanREA’s Operators Summit 2025 appeared first on Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-Evening Report: These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfie Chadwick, PhD Candidate, Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University

    Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.

    Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.

    This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action – creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.

    Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.

    Misinformation vs disinformation

    Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.

    However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.

    Disinformation is typically part of a coordinated
    campaign     to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.

    Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.

    Climate change misinformation in Australia

    In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia’s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.

    At the time, about 60 companies were responsible for one-third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government’s plan included measures to ensure these companies remained competitive while reducing their climate impact.

    Despite this, Australia’s resource industry began a concerted media campaign to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.

    This narrative persisted even when modelling repeatedly showed climate policies would have minimal economic impacts. The industry arguments eventually found their way into government policy.

    Momentum against climate action was also fuelled by a vocal group of climate change-denying individuals and organisations, often backed by multinational fossil fuel companies. These deniers variously claimed climate change wasn’t happening, it was caused by natural cycles, or wasn’t that a serious threat.

    These narratives were further exacerbated by false balance in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.

    Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.

    What’s happening in the federal election campaign?

    Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.

    1. Trumpet of Patriots

    Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an advertisement that claimed to expose “ the truth about climate change”. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has since said his comments are now outdated.

    The type of misinformation is cherry-picking – presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.

    Google removed the ad after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.

    2. Responsible Future Illawarra

    The Responsible Future campaign opposes wind turbines on various grounds, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.

    Scientific evidence indicates offshore wind farms are relatively safe for marine life and cause less harm than boats and fishing gear. Some studies also suggest the infrastructure can create new habitat for marine life.

    However, a general lack of research into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.

    It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life – however Sea Shepherd said its comments were misrepresented.

    The group also appears to have deliberately spread disinformation. This includes citing a purported research paper saying offshore wind turbines would kill up to 400 whales per year, when the paper does not exist.

    3. Australians for Natural Gas

    Australians for Natural Gas is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its advertising campaign promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia’s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.

    The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action – in this case, a shift to renewable energy – is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to Meta’s Ad Library, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.

    Gas is needed in Australia’s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was sufficiently increased and business and home electrification continues to rise.

    And of course, failing to tackle climate change will cause substantial harm across Australia’s economy.

    How to identify misinformation

    As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?

    One way is through “pre-bunking” – familiarising yourself with common claims made by climate change deniers to fortify yourself against misinformation

    Sources such as Skeptical Science offer in-depth analyses of specific claims.

    The SIFT method is another valuable tool. It comprises four steps:

    • Stop
    • Investigate the source
    • Find better coverage
    • Trace claims, quotes and media to their original sources.

    As the threat of climate change grows, a flow of accurate information is vital to garnering public and political support for vital policy change.

    Alfie Chadwick is a recipient of an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

    Libby Lester receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them – https://theconversation.com/these-3-climate-misinformation-campaigns-are-operating-during-the-election-run-up-heres-how-to-spot-them-253441

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Video: After the Brief: April 22, 2025

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

    Secretary Rubio’s plan to reorganize the State Department will make it more nimble, dynamic, and effective for the 21st century.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0tsPWdK0o

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SEC Charges PGI Global Founder with $198 Million Crypto Asset and Foreign Exchange Fraud Scheme

    Source: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ramil Palafox for orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that raised approximately $198 million from investors worldwide and for misappropriating more than $57 million of investor funds.

    According to the SEC’s complaint, Palafox’s company, known as PGI Global, claimed to be a crypto asset and foreign exchange trading company. From January 2020 through October 2021, Palafox offered and sold PGI Global “membership” packages, which he claimed guaranteed investors high returns from PGI Global’s supposed crypto asset and foreign exchange trading and offered members multi-level-marketing-like referral incentives to encourage them to recruit new investors. However, as the complaint alleges, Palafox misappropriated more than $57 million in investor funds to buy Lamborghinis, items from luxury retailers, and for other personal expenses. He also used the majority of the remaining investor funds to pay other investors their purported returns and referral rewards in a Ponzi-like scheme until its collapse in late 2021.

    “As alleged in our complaint, Palafox attracted investors with the allure of guaranteed profits from sophisticated crypto asset and foreign exchange trading, but instead of trading, Palafox bought himself and his family cars, watches, and homes using millions of dollars of investor funds,” said Scott Thompson, Associate Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. “We will continue to investigate and take action against bad actors who take advantage of investors with promises of guaranteed passive income and other lies and deceit.”

    “Palafox used the guise of innovation to lure investors into lining his pockets with millions of dollars while leaving many victims empty-handed,” said Laura D’Allaird, Chief of the Commission’s new Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit. “In reality, his false claims of crypto industry expertise and a supposed AI-powered auto-trading platform were just masking an international securities fraud.”

    The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, charges Palafox with violating the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, conduct-based injunctions preventing Palafox from participating in multi-level-marketing programs involving the offer or sale of securities and offerings of crypto assets bought or sold as a security, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The complaint also names BBMR Threshold LLC, Darvie Mendoza, Marissa Mendoza Palafox, and Linda Ventura as relief defendants and seeks disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest.

    In a parallel action, Palafox was arraigned in U.S. District Court on criminal charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    The SEC’s ongoing investigation is being conducted by Michael Cuff and Polly Hayes of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Assunta Vivolo of the SEC’s Market Abuse Unit. It is being supervised by Ms. D’Allaird and Mr. Thompson. The litigation will be conducted by Spencer Willig and Gregory Bockin of the Philadelphia Regional Office and Eugene Hansen of SEC Headquarters. The Commission appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the IRS.

    The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy directs investors to resources on detecting and avoiding pyramid schemes posing as multi-level marketing programs. Investors can find additional information at Investor.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: BROUSSARD MAN PLEADS GUILTY IN MULTI-STATE VEHICLE THEFT, FIREARM TRAFFICKING, AND IDENTITY THEFT CONSPIRACY IN MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL OPERATION

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Acting United States Attorney April M. Leon announced that Christopher Don Byerley, age 45, of Broussard, Louisiana, pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to conspiracy to transport a stolen motor vehicle; altering, removing and obliterating a vehicle identification number; possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices; conspiracy to trafficking a firearm and receipt of a trafficked firearm; receipt of a trafficked firearm; and possession of an unregistered silencer.

    According to admissions made as part of his guilty plea, between October 2021 and March 2022, Byerley and his co-conspirators, Robert Gregory Brazell, Adrienne Marie King, and Dennis Loyd Sizemore, carried out a coordinated and complex operation extending across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, in which the group stole, and subsequently used or sold the stolen and altered vehicles, including tractors, excavators, forklifts, and a pickup truck, with a total value of over $250,000.

    The scheme involved fraudulent documentation, a “chop shop” for equipment disassembly and tampering, a false business front such as “Hevyquip L.L.C.” to sell stolen equipment, altering   Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), and the use of surveillance evasion tools, such as GPS signal blockers, vehicle plate flippers, and fake driver’s licenses. To further conceal their activities, the conspirators utilized over 400 identities and access devices to evade detection.

    During the investigation, it was determined that Byerley, a convicted felon, used a third party to illegally purchase a firearm, which was later fitted with the unregistered silencer.

    In February 2022, an investigation of a shoplifting incident in the Juban Crossing Shopping Center led Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives to uncover items from a stolen pickup truck being operated by Byerley:

    • A functional, unregistered firearm silencer;
    • A FN Model 509 9mm pistol and ammunition;
    • Documentation detailing parts orders for silencers all in Byerley’s handwriting;
    • Multiple text messages and photographs pointing to intent to traffic firearms and circumvent federal regulations; and
    • Numerous documents, records, emails, text messages and photos that led law enforcement to uncover the conspiracy and far-reaching criminal enterprise.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Leon stated, “These guilty pleas reflect the commitment of our office and federal law enforcement in partnership with our state and local law enforcement agencies to dismantle sophisticated criminal organizations and hold accountable those who pose a significant threat to public safety. We commend the prosecutors and investigators for their hard work and relentless pursuit of the members of this criminal enterprise and are appreciative of their efforts in solving these crimes—even with many attempts at evasion—and returned the stolen equipment to their rightful owners.”

    “The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office is committed to conducting thorough investigations and to working with our local and federal agencies. This investigation is a great example of detectives working a shoplifting incident and that turning into a major investigation across this state and others,” said Livingston Parish Sheriff Jason Ard.

    “Homeland Security Investigations congratulates our law enforcement partners on this important outcome, which was supported by HSI Baton Rouge’s Louisiana Organized Retail Crime Task Force and its partner agencies. The investigations of these sophisticated crimes are most effectively accomplished through the coordination of multiple law enforcement agencies and across several jurisdictional boundaries, such as what occurred in this investigation. HSI remains committed to protecting the American consumer and safeguarding public safety by disrupting criminal networks that drive up prices and endanger our communities,” said Adam Parks, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Louisiana Division, Homeland Security Investigations.

    “The ATF is working closely with local and state police agencies to address firearm trafficking by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, such as this individual,” said ATF New Orleans Special Agent in Charge Joshua Jackson. “This guilty plea sends a message to the community that illegal possession of firearms will be held accountable as we work to keep our neighborhoods safe as a top priority to ensure public safety for ATF.”

    This matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Baton Rouge and Lafayette Field Divisions), Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, Louisiana State Police (Latent Print Section and the Bureau of Identification and Information), Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office, East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Saint Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, Saint Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, Iberia Sheriff’s Department, and Lafayette Police Department.

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lyman E. Thornton III from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana.  To address the firearm trafficking charges, AUSA Thornton was appointed as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Louisiana, where he worked in conjunction with Assistant United States Attorney John Nickel. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement from Governor Phil Scott Regarding Migrant Workers Apprehended in Franklin County

    Source: US State of Vermont

    Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Phil Scott today issued the following statement:

    “Earlier today, my team became aware of migrant workers in Franklin County who were apprehended by Border Patrol agents yesterday. We are continuing to collect information to better understand the circumstances and facts.

    “I have long been clear: migrant workers are an essential part of our communities. They are our neighbors and friends, have kids in our schools, shop at our businesses, and play an important role in our economy and workforce. 

    “It’s far past time for Congress and the President to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would allow pathways to citizenship and greater opportunities for law abiding, hardworking individuals to earn a living in our state, rather than being forced to live in the shadows. Vermont will continue to be a welcoming place for those who are seeking a better life and greater opportunities. It’s time for the federal government to put politics aside and truly make America the envy of the world once again.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Attorney’s Office Charges Multiple Defendants with Immigration-Related Violations

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)

    CLEVELAND – The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) has announced that federal grand juries in the Northern District of Ohio have returned indictments for the following individuals on charges of immigration-related law violations. These are separate cases and are not related.

    Ana Alvarez-Limonche, 20, a citizen of Venezuela, was indicted on two charges of fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents for having fraudulent permanent resident and Social Security cards. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

    Gildardo Alvarez-Rodriguez, 59, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Sept. 24, 2020. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Franklin Calix-Romero, 34, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person for possessing a Ruger 9mm semiautomatic pistol and 9mm ammunition. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

    Jose Cruz-Aguilar, 41, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 27, 2017. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

    Carlos Garcia-Garcia, 45, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 19, 2005. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Jhofran Andres Laya-Gutierrez, 28, a citizen of Venezuela, has been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer; destruction, alteration, or falsification or records; fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents; and misrepresentation of a Social Security number. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP and the FBI Toledo Field Office.

    Jeyson Martinez, aka, Jayson Martinez-Juarez, 32, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Nov. 23, 2018. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

    Jose Maximiliano Zepeda-Gutierrez, 45, a citizen of Guatemala, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being July 10, 2019. The defendant was previously convicted in 2018 for conspiracy to transport an undocumented alien. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by the FBI Toledo Field Office.

    An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.  Each defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal records, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation.  In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

    A team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the USAO’s criminal division are prosecuting these cases.

    These cases are 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, and protect communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Penfund Announces Final Close of Penfund Prime

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Penfund is pleased to announce the final close of its new senior debt fund, Penfund Prime (“Prime”). Prime will deploy $1.8 billion (USD) of investable capital into unitranche and senior term loans issued by North American borrowers. Seven investments have been completed to date and Prime is actively reviewing new opportunities to support market leading private equity firms and borrowers.

    Penfund will leverage 25+ years of experience investing in best-in-class businesses within sectors of expertise including the automotive aftermarket, financial services, healthcare, distribution and consumer staple sectors. Prime complements Penfund’s existing junior capital platform by expanding the range of capital solutions available to borrowers.

    “Prime enhances our ability to provide innovative and reliable capital solutions to meet the evolving needs of borrowers and investors. Prime will invest based upon Penfund’s disciplined, time-tested underwriting capability and credit philosophy. Our objective is to build a high quality, differentiated portfolio, to offer our founding partners exceptional reporting and to equitably share the benefits of scale as Prime grows. Prime was established as a true partnership and we thank each founding partner for their confidence and support.” stated Richard Bradlow, a Partner at Penfund.

    Matthew Lee, a Partner at Penfund, added, “Prime will be a trusted financing partner for our private equity sponsor and borrower relationships through all market conditions. We are excited to continue growing our relationships across our sectors of specialization.”

    Placemore Capital acted as placement agent for Penfund. Legal and tax advice was provided by Stikeman Elliott LLP and Goodwin Procter LLP, and KPMG LLP served as special tax adviser.

    About Penfund
    Penfund is a leading provider of capital to middle market companies throughout North America. The firm is actively investing both senior and junior capital through Prime and Penfund Capital Fund VII. Penfund manages funds sourced from pension funds, insurance companies, banks, family offices and high-net-worth individuals located in Canada, the United States, the Middle East, and Europe. Penfund has invested more than C$3.0 billion in over 225 companies since its establishment. Assets under management are approximately C$3.7 billion.

    For further information, please contact:

    Richard Bradlow
    Partner
    (416) 645-3794
    richard@penfund.com 

    Adam Breslin
    Partner
    (416) 645-3796
    abreslin@penfund.com 

    Joe Mattina
    Partner
    (905) 531-8725
    jmattina@penfund.com 

    Jeremy Thompson
    Partner
    (416) 645-3790
    jthompson@penfund.com 

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Iran’s government has weaponized sexual violence against women who dare to resist

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mina Fakhravar, PhD Candidate, Feminist and Gender Studies, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    In Iran’s 2022–2023 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising, women’s bodies quite literally became battlefields.

    The protest movement erupted after the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini, who was arrested by Iran’s morality police for improperly wearing a hijab.

    Her death became a powerful symbol of the government’s patriarchal control over women’s bodies, and ignited protests that exposed the regime’s use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression.

    Testimonies from survivors, shared despite stigma and fear, revealed harrowing abuses: women protesters were beaten, sexually assaulted, raped (including gang rape and rape with objects), stripped naked and tortured during their arrests, transfers and detention in both official and unofficial sites, and throughout interrogations.

    These were not isolated acts but calculated techniques to punish dissent and instil terror.

    An Iranian woman protests the death of Mahsa Amini, who died after being detained by the morality police in Tehran in September 2022. This photo was taken by an individual not employed by the Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran.
    (AP Photo/Middle East Images)

    Marking, punishing, controlling women

    One of the most chilling testimonies belongs to a young woman detained during the protests:

    “My friends and I removed our veils in public and we were chanting. The thought never crossed my mind that the security forces would arrest us… From the moment we were arrested, they beat us violently… They told us ‘There is no God here. We are your God.’”

    She was later subjected to a violent gang rape.

    The Iranian government apparently views women’s bodies as territories to be marked, disciplined and punished. Its patriarchal ideology reduces women to bearers of family honour and religious purity, legitimizing state control over their appearance, behaviour and movement.

    As French materialist feminist Colette Guillaumin theorized with the concept of “sexage”, patriarchal systems reduce women to “natural objects” — beings whose bodies, time and sexuality are appropriated and controlled. Nicole-Claude Mathieu further underlined how this appropriation operates across diverse contexts of domination.

    In Iran, these insights help explain how the state instrumentalizes women’s bodies as symbols of ideological domination and as resources to be regulated and exploited. Forcibly veiling or unveiling women, as Guillaumin argued, signifies public ownership over their bodies, transforming their visibility and autonomy into objects of state control.

    The politics of sexual violence

    The Iranian state seemingly perceives unveiled women not merely as disobedient citizens but as bodies that have escaped control and refused their assigned status of possession.

    For this transgression, punishment seeks to annihilate them: through humiliation, torture and rape. Media reports have indicate that security forces have deliberately targeted female protesters’ eyes and genitals, further exemplifying how women are reduced to mere sexual and reproductive objects.

    This targeted violence exposes how, in the eyes of the authorities, women’s identities are crudely reduced to their faces and genitals, symbols of their visibility and sexuality.

    Far from isolated acts, rapes and sexual violence committed by Iranian state forces during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising embody what feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon defines as a “system of sexual terrorism”, where sexual violence is neither private nor incidental but a methodical instrument of political domination.

    Rape allows the authorities to discipline women who have dissented, to humiliate them and to reassert control over those who dared reclaim their bodies and voices.

    Stigma, silence and legal abandonment

    But sexual violence never ends with the act itself. Its aftermath carves deep and lasting scars in survivors’ lives.

    In Iran, rape survivors endure not only trauma but also social exclusion, stigma and judicial abandonment. The Iranian legal system, which narrowly defines rape under “zina” (fornication), often punishes the victim if she cannot produce four male witnesses. This often silences survivors.

    As another survivor, interviewed by Amnesty International, declared:

    “I will never be the same person again… But I hope that my testimony will result in justice, and not just for me … so maybe we can prevent similar bitter events from happening again in the future.”

    The Iranian government’s obsession with controlling women extends beyond their bodies to systems of surveillance. In 2025, Tehran authorities have deployed 15,000 new AI-powered surveillance cameras, alongside drones and facial recognition technologies, explicitly to enforce compulsory hijab laws.

    In Iran, veiling is not only religious but profoundly political, a public sign of submission to patriarchal rule.

    Meanwhile, executions in Iran have surged to alarming levels, with at least 972 people executed in 2024 alone, the highest in eight years. Among those targeted are women activists, particularly from ethnic minority groups, facing death sentences for their resistance.

    The 2025 report by the United Nation’s Fact-Finding Mission highlights the ongoing cases of Pakhshan Azizi, Sharifeh Mohammadi and Varisheh Moradi, all sentenced to death.

    Their cases, alongside Iran’s skyrocketing execution rate, expose a terrifying pattern of state femicide: the execution of women who dare to fight for gender justice and human rights.

    Global responsibility

    These are not domestic Iranian matters — they are crimes against humanity.

    As MacKinnon reminds us, sexual violence is not private, it is a political weapon and a civil rights violation. The world must act by imposing targeted sanctions on perpetrators, offering asylum to survivors and supporting Iranian feminist movements demanding justice.

    To let these crimes go unanswered is to surrender women’s bodies to impunity. Iranian women have shown extraordinary courage. The global response must match their bravery with action.

    Mina Fakhravar 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. How Iran’s government has weaponized sexual violence against women who dare to resist – https://theconversation.com/how-irans-government-has-weaponized-sexual-violence-against-women-who-dare-to-resist-253791

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy announces $4.3 million in Hurricanes Laura, Ida aid for Jefferson, St. John the Baptist Parishes, Lake Charles

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)

    MADISONVILLE, La. – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today announced $4,287,667 in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants for Louisiana disaster aid.

    “Hurricanes Laura and Ida devastated important infrastructure across south Louisiana. This $4.3 million will help communities like Jefferson and St. John the Baptist Parishes restore education and sewerage facilities, and aid Lake Charles with Hurricane Laura repairs,” said Kennedy.

    The FEMA aid will fund the following:

    • $1,681,034 to the city of Lake Charles, La. for repairs to communications towers resulting from Hurricane Laura damage.
    • $1,598,591 to the Jefferson Parish School System for repairs to the Thomas Jefferson High School for Advanced Studies campus due to Hurricane Ida damage.
    • $1,008,042 to St. John the Baptist Parish for repairs to sewer lift stations due to Hurricane Ida damage.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER CELEBRATES CHOBANI INVESTING WHOPPING $1 BILLION IN MOHAWK VALLEY FOR NEW YOGURT FACTORY, CREATING 1,000 NEW GOOD-PAYING JOBS – LARGEST INVESTMENT IN NATURAL FOOD MAKING IN AMERICAN HISTORY

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer

    Schumer Pushed Chobani To Consider NY For Major Expansion & Has Worked With Company Since Day 1 Helping Chobani First Set Up Shop In Upstate NY And Grow By Helping Get Greek Yogurt Into National School Lunch Program

    Chobani Is America’s #1 Selling Greek Yogurt Brand And Purchases Most Of Its Dairy For NY Plants From New York Dairy Farms, Supporting Thousands Across Upstate NY

    Schumer: New Chobani Facility Is A Win-Win-Win For Chobani, NY Dairy Farmers, And Mohawk Valley Jobs & The Economy

    A longtime advocate for Chobani’s growth in Upstate NY, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer today celebrated Chobani’s announcement it will invest $1 billion to build a new Greek yogurt manufacturing facility at the Griffiss Triangle Site in the City of Rome, the largest investment in natural food making in American history, creating 1,000 new good paying jobs. Schumer, who has long helped Chobani grow including by helping to get their Greek yogurt in the national school lunch program, said this massive new investment will help boost Upstate NY’s dairy farmers and will establish the region as a leader in yogurt production for the entire country

    “Today, Chobani makes Upstate New York the #1 Greek yogurt producer in America. Chobani’s $1 billion investment – the largest investment in natural food making in American history – is a win-win-win for Chobani, NY dairy farmers, and the Mohawk Valley economy and jobs. I’ve fought to help Chobani grow since the very beginning to lay the foundation for a day like today. When Chobani wanted to expand the reach of their delicious and nutritious Greek yogurt, I helped get them included in the national school lunch program to be enjoyed by children across the country. With this new factory, more people will be able to enjoy their ‘Made In NY’ Greek yogurt than ever before,” said Senator Schumer. “Dairy farmers are the beating heart of Upstate NY and this massive new facility and 1,000 new jobs will help support so many family farms across the state. I sincerely thank Chobani’s amazing CEO, and my very good friend, Hamdi Ulukaya for continuing his commitment to our state. I also thank Governor Hochul: without her leadership, today would not be possible. New York is proud that Chobani calls it home and more people will be enjoying their yogurt that comes from NY dairy farms made here in the Mohawk Valley than ever before.”

    Chobani, which is America’s No. 1-selling Greek yogurt brand and the second largest overall yogurt manufacturer, calls New York State home. Currently, Chobani employs over 1300 people at its Chenango County and New York City offices, and purchases 95% of its dairy from New York farmers for its products made in New York State.

    Schumer has long supported the Greek yogurt industry in Upstate New York, previously ensuring that it was included in the USDA’s school lunch program with Chobani and the broader Greek yogurt industry in mind. Schumer explained that Greek yogurt is a highly nutritious product that has become a popular and healthy food staple for millions of Americans, including students across the country who take part in the USDA Child Nutrition programs. Schumer said that starting in the fall of 2015, after his push, the USDA added Greek yogurt to its list of items available in the National School Lunch Program. Schumer has additionally called on the USDA to update its protein crediting system to ensure that Greek yogurt is given credit for the protein it contributes and is continuing his advocacy to ensure that the crediting system will ultimately reflect the nutritional quality of Greek yogurt, making it a cost-competitive option for schools to purchase.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan Joins Multi-Jurisdictional Settlement With GSB Gold Standard & GS Partners, Enabling Investor Refund Claims

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on April 22, 2025

    The Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (FCAA), in collaboration with other provincial and U.S. state securities regulators has signed onto a multi-jurisdictional settlement with GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG, GSB Gold Standard Bank LTD, and affiliated entities known collectively as GS Partners, along with the group’s principal, Josip Heit. 

    The settlement was led by regulators in jurisdictions with a higher number of affected investors. The FCAA aims to protect the interests of Saskatchewan investors who made investments with GS Partners, as the agreement allows them to file claims for refunds of their investments. Under the terms of the settlement, GS Partners has agreed to cease trading in Saskatchewan unless it fully complies with securities laws. 

    Many of the investment products offered included digital assets and metaverse-related investments, such as: 

    • Certificates (or “Metacertificates”), including the Olympus, Elemental, and Success series, which allegedly encouraged purchasers to increase their value in order to unlock potential returns. 
    • G999 token – a digital asset deployed on a proprietary blockchain.
    • XLT Vouchers – digital assets representing ownership interests in a skyscraper.
    • Staking pool investments within a metaverse known as World.

    The entities, brands and platforms included in the agreement are: GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG; GSB Gold Standard Banking Corporation AG; GSB Gold Standard Corporation USA; GSB Gold Standard Pay LTD (brand name GSDeFi operating g999main.net); GSB Gold Standard Bank LTD dba GS Smart Finance, Gold Standard Partners, GSPartners, GS Partners, and GSP (marketing arm of the metaverse Lydian.World); GSB Gold Standard Banking Corporation PLC; GSB Gold Standard Pay Kommanditbolag aka GSB Gold Standard Pay KB; GS Trade; GSB Gold Standard Trade (virtual digital-asset platform for storing, transferring, obtaining, and exchanging digital assets); GS Digital Partners LLC; GSB Gold Standard B Corporation; GSB Premier Exchange Corporation LTD; GSB Gold Standard PLC; and GSB Money LTD. 

    How to File a Claim:

    As part of the settlement, GS Partners will compensate eligible investors through a claims process managed by AlixPartners LP. 

    Investors must file their claim no later than May 22, 2025. 

    When filing a claim, please be prepared to supply supporting documents and information. According to AlixPartners’ webpage, to file a claim, you will need the following information:

    • Proof of identity (name, address, valid ID).
    • Any Know Your Customer (KYC) materials provided to GS Partners.
    • Contact information (email and phone number).
    • Your GS Partners Account ID or username.
    • Claim amount, including:
      GS Partners account statements.
      Proof of deposits, withdrawals, and other transactions.
    • Wallet addresses used to interact with GS Partners.
    • Information about any previous compensation received from GS Partners.

    For questions or inquiries about the settlement or claims process, contact Brett Wawro of the FCAA.

    For details on how to submit a claim, visit gsbsettlement.com. (https://gsbsettlement.com.) 

    The FCAA acknowledges the efforts of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) working group, led by U.S. state securities regulators from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, as well as the British Columbia Securities Commission, who conducted the investigation and negotiated the settlement terms.

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: AUSA Hot Topic highlights strategic vision for transforming Army installations

    Source: United States Army

    1 / 2 Show Caption + Hide Caption – Mr. David Dentino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Installations Housing and Partnerships, participates on a panel discussion on building, maintaining, and restoring infrastructure to enable warfighter readiness. (Photo Credit: Leroy Council Jr.) VIEW ORIGINAL
    2 / 2 Show Caption + Hide Caption – Mr. Brandon Cockrell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, participates on a panel discussion on transforming at pace of emerging operation requirements. (Photo Credit: Leroy Council Jr.) VIEW ORIGINAL

    ARLINGTON, Va. — Top Army officials and key stakeholders from across the Department of Defense and industry gathered last week for the Association of the United States Army’s “Hot Topic” forum, focusing on one of the Army’s most critical priorities: transforming installations to support the future force.

    Hosted at AUSA’s General Gordon R. Sullivan Conference and Events Center, the event — themed “Transforming Army Installations: Our Foundations of Warfighter Readiness and Lethality” — brought together over 130 participants. Attendees engaged in discussions aimed at modernizing, maintaining and operating the Army’s installations to ensure they meet the needs of Soldiers and their families. The conference highlighted the critical role installation transformation plays in strengthening national security, deterring adversaries and ensuring the Army’s readiness to fight and win future conflicts.

    The forum opened with remarks from Lt. Gen. David Wilson, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-9, who set the tone for the day’s discussions by underscoring the strategic importance of installations by enabling readiness and operational reach.

    Throughout the event, senior leaders laid out a clear vision of how Army installations must evolve to meet the demands of multidomain operations and a rapidly shifting threat environment. Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael Weimer focused on just that by participating on a panel discussion on operationalizing installations to support the missions of today and tomorrow.

    Mr. David H. Dentino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Housing and Partnerships, participated in a panel discussion on the Army’s roadmap to build, maintain and restore infrastructure to enable warfighter readiness. He pointed to a need for more adaptive, responsive and efficient installations that are capable of supporting the full spectrum of military operations.

    Mr. Brandon C. Cockrell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability, participated in a panel discussion on transforming at the pace of emerging operational requirements.

    “Installations must be capable of becoming an island in a contested environment,” he said. “We must leverage technology and innovation to transform installations to meet current and emerging threats. This transformation will directly lead to increased lethality and resilience across the Army. Our goal is to create modern installations that are self-sufficient and capable of projecting power, all while providing top-notch facilities and services for our Soldiers, civilians and their families.”

    Lt. Gen. Omar J. Jones IV, commanding general of U.S. Army Installation Management Command, talked about IMCOM’s mission to ensure Army readiness at 104 installations in 13 countries around the globe. IMCOM, whose motto is “We are the Army’s home,” works tirelessly to deliver programs and services, Jones said, and to maintain infrastructure for the Soldiers, families and civilians who live, work and train on Army installations.

    The event provided a venue for military leaders, policymakers and industry to align around shared goals and to chart actionable paths forward.

    As the Army continues to confront the demands of large-scale combat operations and great power competition, leaders at the event were united in their message: transforming Army installations is not just a facilities issue — it’s a strategic imperative.

    “This is about readiness, lethality and ensuring our Soldiers have what they need — not just to fight, but to win,” said Dentino. “And it starts at home, on the installations that support them every day.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Eliminates Disastrous Biden-Era Underwriting Standards

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced it will eliminate a package of Biden-era policies which dramatically reduced underwriting standards within the 7(a) loan program, sacrificing its financial integrity and driving up taxpayer liability. Under the leadership of Administrator Kelly Loeffler, the SBA is restoring robust rules to end the era of reckless lending – preserving access to capital for America’s small business owners and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.

    “The last Administration inherited a thriving 7(a) loan program but left it in critical condition – dismantling every common-sense guardrail that kept it solvent and self-sustaining,” Administrator Loeffler said. “From slashing lender fees to destroying underwriting standards, Biden’s reckless policies have triggered a surge in defaults which now threatens the viability of the program along with its risk to taxpayers. Therefore, the SBA is taking immediate action to restore prudent lending criteria, rein in risk, and save the 7(a) program before it collapses under the weight of bad policy.”

    As the flagship SBA loan, the 7(a) loan guaranty provides government-backed capital through private lenders for qualified small businesses unable to borrow elsewhere. By statute, it is required to operate at “zero-subsidy,” or zero cost – and historically pays for itself through lender fees, which cover the costs of any borrower defaults.

    Despite this mandate, the Biden Administration eliminated lender fees. It simultaneously adopted an underwriting standard known as “Do What You Do,” which erased longstanding lending criteria within the 7(a) loan program and enabled lenders to approve underqualified borrowers for government-guaranteed loans. Predictably, the program saw a massive rise in defaults and delinquencies – which the agency was unable to cover due to decreased fee income. By 2024, the 7(a) loan program had a negative cash flow of about $397 million – the first instance of negative cashflow in 13 years.

    Last month, the SBA took aggressive action to stop the bleeding and restore lender fees within the 7(a) loan program. The new SOP 50.10.8, announced today, will reject the “Do What You Do” underwriting rules and revert lending criteria to the heightened pre-Biden standards. Additionally, the new rule will reinstate and streamline the Franchise Directory to help lenders determine whether certain businesses are eligible to receive an SBA loan.

    # # #

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration
    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of entrepreneurship. As the leading voice for small businesses within the federal government, the SBA empowers job creators with the resources and support they need to start, grow, and expand their businesses or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein Celebrates Earth Day at Eno River Park

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein Celebrates Earth Day at Eno River Park

    Governor Stein Celebrates Earth Day at Eno River Park
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Today, Governor Josh Stein, North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) Secretary Pam Cashwell, and North Carolina Department of Enviornmental Quality (DEQ) Secretary Reid Wilson celebrated Earth Day at Eno River State Park in Durham. Governor Stein toured the park with Eno River Superintendent Kimberly Radewicz and spoke with park rangers to learn about the park’s economic and cultural impact. 

    “From the Blue Ridge Mountains to the barrier islands and everywhere in between, like Eno River State Park, North Carolina’s natural beauty enriches our quality of life and attracts millions of visitors each year,” said Governor Josh Stein. “I am proud to celebrate Earth Day on the Eno alongside some of our dedicated state park rangers. We must all work together to preserve North Carolina’s natural beauty.”  

    “Earth Day is a chance for us to celebrate North Carolina’s 41 state parks and recreational areas, and the team that keeps them beautiful for the millions of visitors each year,” said Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Secretary Pamela B. Cashwell. “It also serves as a reminder that we all have a role to play in keeping our state’s parks and trails in good order.”

    “I admire the people across North Carolina who are spending Earth Day working and volunteering within their communities to build a healthier environment,” said Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson. “We’re all in this together as we work to create a future with clean water, clean air, and healthy lands for everyone in our beautiful state.”

    As Attorney General, Stein held polluters accountable for dumping forever chemicals into the Cape Fear River and won a $1.1 billion settlement for coal ash cleanup that helped North Carolinians save on their energy bills. Now, Governor Stein is committed to ensuring that all North Carolinians have access to clean air and water and that the state maintains its natural beauty and its leadership in the clean energy economy. 

    Apr 22, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NC Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai Visits Cherry Hospital

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: NC Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai Visits Cherry Hospital

    NC Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai Visits Cherry Hospital
    stonizzo

    North Carolina Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai today visited Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro, one of three psychiatric hospitals operated by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Cherry Hospital serves 38 counties in the eastern region of the state with a mission to provide excellent psychiatric care to individuals with the greatest need and the fewest resources. 

    The Secretary was joined by Chief Deputy Secretary Dr. ClarLynda Williams-Devane, Deputy   Secretary for Health Karen Burkes, Assistant Director of State Psychiatric Hospitals Heather Brewer and Cherry Hospital leadership and staff to tour the treatment mall, patient units and the on-site Riverbend Middle/ High School. 

    During the visit, NCDHHS leadership and Cherry Hospital staff discussed successes and challenges the state-operated facility faces. Some of the challenges include recruiting full-time healthcare staff and the dire need for an updated budget that reflects an increase in staff cost, food and utilities. Currently, the staffing vacancy rate is more than 21% with nearly 200 open positions.

    The staffing challenge limits Cherry Hospital’s operating capacity to 178 beds, although the facility has the physical capacity for 259 beds. The Senate budget proposal eliminates hundreds of NCDHHS positions, including many at the state psychiatric hospitals, which would limit the ability to staff and operate more beds. If the position eliminations in the Senate Budget proposal become law, this cut would permanently reduce the number of patients the facilities can serve.  

    “Workers who care for and ensure the health of North Carolinians are the backbone of our ability to prosper as a state,” said NC Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai. “We need to retain these positions and funding for the Department to attract and maintain staff in critical positions.”  

    Leadership at Cherry Hospital shared their priority to implement electronic health records which is expected to launch this year at state health facilities to modernize records, improve healthcare quality and increase efficiency. They also discussed Cherry Hospital’s enhanced support for community and jail-based capacity restoration services for patients determined to be Incapable to Proceed to trial. Last week, NCDHHS announced the launch of capacity restoration services at the Wake County Detention Center, which followed the success of expanded services in Mecklenburg and Pitt Counties. Pitt County covers the catchment area for Cherry Hospital.

    Apr 22, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –