NewzIntel.com

Category: Economy

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Issues Directive to Prevent the Unfair Exploitation of American Innovation

    US Senate News:

    Source: The White House
    SAFEGUARDING AMERICA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER ITS ECONOMY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum to defend American companies and innovators from overseas extortion.
    This Administration will consider responsive actions like tariffs to combat the digital service taxes (DSTs), fines, practices, and policies that foreign governments levy on American companies.
    DSTs allow foreign governments to collect tax revenue from American companies simply because they operate in foreign markets, even though those companies are generally not otherwise subject to foreign jurisdiction.

    President Trump will not allow foreign governments to appropriate America’s tax base for their own benefit.
    This memorandum directs the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to renew the DST investigations under Section 301 that were initiated during President Trump’s first term, and investigate any additional countries that use a DST to discriminate against U.S. companies. 
    The Administration will review whether any act, policy, or practice in the European Union or United Kingdom incentivizes U.S. companies to develop or use products and technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship.
    Foreign governments will invite responsive actions from the Administration if they take steps to coerce U.S. businesses to hand over their intellectual property.
    Regulations that dictate how American companies interact with consumers in the European Union, like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, will face scrutiny from the Administration.
    DEFENDING AMERICAN COMPANIES FROM EXTORTION: President Trump’s memorandum unveils a comprehensive approach to ensuring that U.S. products and services are governed by the United States of America, not foreign governments.
    Rather than position their own companies and workers for success, foreign governments have been taxing the success of America’s companies and workers.
    America’s economy will not be a source of revenue for countries that have failed to cultivate economic success of their own.  

    To the detriment of America’s economy, in recent years, a number of our trading partners began enacting DSTs to raise revenue for their own government spending.
    Foreign governments could collect billions in DSTs from U.S. companies annually.

    This exploitation goes beyond DSTs to other forms of unfair fines, practices, and penalties that undermine the ability of American companies to operate as intended and force them to incur additional compliance costs, lowering U.S. global economic competitiveness.
    In terms of GDP, the United States digital economy has been larger than most countries’ entire economy in recent years, including Australia, Canada, and most members of the European Union.
    America’s digital economic dominance is driven by cutting-edge American tech companies, and the American innovation and workers behind them.
    RESTORING THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT OF AMERICA: President Donald J. Trump has a track record of protecting American manufacturers and empowering American innovators and workers.
    During his first administration, President Trump initiated Section 301 cases against DSTs and negotiated platinum-standard rules for digital trade with Japan and separately through the USMCA.  
    President Trump demonstrated in his first term that punitive measures like tariffs strengthened the U.S. economy and brought back American industry.
    Just last week, President Trump announced the “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on trade to restore fairness in U.S. trade relationships and counter non-reciprocal trade agreements.    
    On Day One, President Trump initiated his America First Trade Policy to make America’s economy great again.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties

    US Senate News:

    Source: The White House
    class=”has-text-align-left”>MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
         THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
         THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
         THE SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT FOR TRADE
         AND MANUFACTURING
    SUBJECT:       Defending American Companies and Innovators From               Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties      Section 1.  Purpose.  In recent years, the gross domestic product of the United States’ digital economy alone, driven by cutting-edge American technology companies, has been bigger than the entire economy of Australia, Canada, or most members of the European Union.  Instead of empowering their own workers and economies, foreign governments have increasingly exerted extraterritorial authority over American companies, particularly in the technology sector, hindering these companies’ success and appropriating revenues that should contribute to our Nation’s well-being, not theirs.        Beginning in 2019, several trading partners enacted digital services taxes (DSTs) that could cost American companies billions of dollars and that foreign government officials openly admit are designed to plunder American companies.  Foreign countries have additionally adopted regulations governing digital services that are more burdensome and restrictive on United States companies than their own domestic companies.  Additional foreign legal regimes limit cross-border data flows, require American streaming services to fund local productions, and charge network usage and Internet termination fees.  All of these measures violate American sovereignty and offshore American jobs, limit American companies’ global competitiveness, and increase American operational costs while exposing our sensitive information to potentially hostile foreign regulators.      My Administration will not allow American companies and workers and American economic and national security interests to be compromised by one-sided, anti-competitive policies and practices of foreign governments.  American businesses will no longer prop up failed foreign economies through extortive fines and taxes.      Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration that where a foreign government, through its tax or regulatory structure, imposes a fine, penalty, tax, or other burden that is discriminatory, disproportionate, or designed to transfer significant funds or intellectual property from American companies to the foreign government or the foreign government’s favored domestic entities, my Administration will act, imposing tariffs and taking such other responsive actions necessary to mitigate the harm to the United States and to repair any resulting imbalance.      In taking such responsive action, my Administration shall consider:      (a)  taxes imposed on United States companies by foreign governments, including those that may discriminate against United States companies;      (b)  regulations imposed on United States companies by foreign governments that could inhibit the growth or intended operation of United States companies;      (c)  any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that could require a United States company to jeopardize its intellectual property; and      (d)  Any other act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that serves to undermine the global competitiveness of United States companies.   
         Sec. 3.  Agency Responsibilities.  (a)  The United States Trade Representative shall determine, in accordance with applicable law, whether to renew investigations under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411) of the DSTs of France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, which were initiated under my Administration on July 16, 2019, and June 5, 2020.  If the United States Trade Representative determines to renew such investigations, he shall take all appropriate and feasible action in response to those DSTs.
         (b)  The United States Trade Representative shall determine, consistent with section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)) (section 302(b)), whether to investigate the DST of any other country that may discriminate against United States companies or burden or restrict United States commerce.  He shall further determine whether to pursue a panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on the DST imposed by Canada and whether to investigate Canada’s DST under section 302(b).  In making these determinations, the United States Trade Representative shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate.      (c)  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative shall jointly identify trade and other regulatory practices by other countries, including, without limitation, those described in section 2 of this memorandum, that discriminate against, disproportionately affect, or otherwise undermine the global competitiveness or intended operation of United States companies, in the digital economy and more generally, and recommend to me appropriate actions to counter such practices under applicable authorities.  The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (America First Trade Policy) (America First Trade Policy Memorandum).      (d)  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative shall investigate whether any act, policy, or practice of any country in the European Union or the United Kingdom has the effect of requiring or incentivizing the use or development of United States companies’ products or services in ways that undermine freedom of speech and political engagement or otherwise moderate content, and recommend appropriate actions to counter such practices under applicable authorities.  The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the America First Trade Policy Memorandum.      (e)  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, shall determine whether any foreign country subjects United States citizens or companies, including, without limitation, in the digital economy, to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes, or has any tax measure in place that otherwise undermines the global competitiveness of United States companies, is inconsistent with any tax treaty of the United States, or is otherwise actionable under section 891 of title 26, United States Code, or other tax-related legal authority.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall include the results of this determination as part of the report required in section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal).      (f)  The United States Trade Representative shall identify tools the United States can use to secure among trading partners a permanent moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the America First Trade Policy Memorandum.      (g)  The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing, shall establish a process that allows American businesses to report to the United States Trade Representative foreign tax or regulatory practices that disproportionately harm United States companies.      Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:           (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or           (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.      (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.      (c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
         (d)  The United States Trade Representative is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Virginia Lawmakers to Trump Administration: Reverse Park Service Staffing Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine and U.S. Reps. Bobby Scott, Gerry Connolly, Don Beyer, Jennifer McClellan, Suhas Subramanyam and Eugene Vindman (all D-VA) pushed the Trump administration to reverse staffing cuts at the National Park Service (NPS), outlining the effect directives to eliminate employees and rescind and delay job offers will have on safety at Virginia’s 22 national park units, which serve 22 million visitors and contribute $1.5 billion to local economies each year.

    “We write today to express our deep concern over alarming directives issued to eliminate roughly one thousand full-time employees, rescind hundreds of offers for full-time positions, and delay thousands of offers for seasonal positions at the National Park Service (NPS). These roles are critical to protecting America’s treasured natural assets, maintaining public safety, and promoting exceptional standards expected at national parks across Virginia and the nation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “We urge you to reverse these directives and prevent additional cuts to existing staffing going forward given the critical role that the vast majority of NPS staff play in ensuring public safety. If these directives are not reversed, we fear it will significantly undermine the Park Service’s ability to protect both visitors and park resources, particularly as we approach peak visitation season.”

    The NPS  workforce plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth operation of our nation’s parks and the safety of the millions of visitors who explore them each year, and are also responsible for protecting the priceless natural, historic, and cultural resources that belong to the American people. However, recent staffing directives from the Trump administration – which included the dismissal of probationary employees and the rescinding of job offers at NPS with no input from park superintendents – are expected to make it significantly more difficult for NPS to carry out its mission, especially as peak visitor season approaches. Staff positions affected by the administration’s unilateral staffing directives include frontline park rangers responsible for ensuring visitor safety and protecting park assets, maintenance staff tasked with addressing the deferred maintenance backlog and reducing the risk of wildland fires, and support staff responsible for raising revenue for NPS through fee collections.

    “It has been reported that the only exemptions offered were for positions that respond to public safety incidents, including law enforcement rangers, public safety dispatchers, and wildland firefighters. However, public safety response is just part of the work that goes into protecting the public,” wrote the lawmakers. “Countless other positions from rangers to natural resource specialists to wastewater specialists to maintenance mechanics that are not covered under the exemptions have wide-ranging responsibilities for preventing public safety incidents in the first place. Eliminating these positions put our parks at greater risk of damage and make them less safe for visitors. We are particularly concerned about reports that NPS rescinded offers for positions directly responsible for fire safety at Shenandoah National Park – coinciding with the start of wildfire season.”

     

    Continued the members, “While it is encouraging that NPS recently walked back its decision to rescind offers for nearly 5,000 seasonal positions, park superintendents have received no guidance as to the next steps they can take to move forward with seasonal hiring. The late winter and early spring months are critical for ramping up seasonal staff in preparation for the summer visitation surge. Without clear guidance for superintendents on seasonal hiring, the continued delay in hiring could jeopardize the ability of these parks to safely accommodate millions of visitors this summer.”

    In the letter, the Virginia lawmakers also noted that the staffing directives threaten to undermine the progress Congress has made in recent years to invest in repairing and restoring our national parks.

    “For over one hundred years, NPS has been charged with safeguarding millions of acres of America’s irreplaceable natural, historic, and cultural resources. However, persistent underfunding of NPS resulted in the Service’s inability to properly staff park units and the growth of a multi-billion-dollar backlog of deferred maintenance projects. In recognition of the worsening situation at our national parks, bipartisan majorities in Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Great American Outdoors Act of 2020 (GAOA), one of the largest ever investments in conservation and public lands in our nation’s history. The GAOA gave NPS the resources it needed to dedicate billions of dollars for addressing deferred maintenance across the country, including over $470 million for projects in Virginia. As a result of these staffing directives, units will be forced to reallocate remaining staff to support regular operations at the expense of staff hours dedicated to reducing the deferred maintenance backlog,” they wrote.

    Concluded the lawmakers, “Significant disruptions to NPS staffing during the critical months prior to peak season threaten to harm the tourism economy associated with Virginia’s national parks that supports hundreds of small businesses and thousands of jobs. We urge you to swiftly reverse these directives and communicate clear guidance to park superintendents to ensure that NPS units in Virginia and across the country can move forward with hiring both seasonal and permanent positions that are critical to ensuring the safety of millions of park-goers.”

    A copy of the letter is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Labrador Letter – DOGE’ing the Collapse of our Republic

    Source: US State of Idaho

    Dear Friends,
    This past month has been a remarkable period in our national history.  The new Department of Government Efficiency, known colloquially as DOGE, has uncovered waste, inefficiency and corruption at unprecedented levels and in every agency examined so far.
    USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, has been at the center of this first round of audits. From DEI projects in Serbia to transgender operas and comic books in South America, to tourism promotion in Egypt and sex changes in Vietnam, the USAID projects appear to lack both fiscal restraint and accountability.  Tens of millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of taxpayer dollars are being carelessly thrown at projects around the globe without consideration for our national security, priorities, or strategic interests. USAID resources have even ended up in the hands of designated terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
    Other upcoming audits include FEMA, which recently sent $59 million to New York City to house illegal immigrants in luxury hotels instead of providing disaster relief in North Carolina.  Also being examined is the Pentagon, which failed its seventh straight audit last year.  Another essential audit will be the Department of the Treasury, which issues every government check.  Following the money is critical in any competent review.
    Those reviews recently uncovered that the Environmental Protection Agency recklessly distributed $20 billion to outside financial institutions in the final hours of the Biden Administration, just to get the money off the books.  Just this week, it was discovered that two billion of those dollars were given to an organization connected to die-hard Biden supporter and two-time failed Georgia democratic gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, for “climate change.”  One Biden-appointed bureaucrat confided that it was, “throwing gold bars off the Titanic.”
    These audits aren’t without controversy for some.  Seventy-seven million Americans who voted for President Trump may cheer the well-advertised reckoning that was promised daily in his campaign to root out government fraud and waste.  Others have expressed concerns that their private data may be accessed by enthusiastic auditors.
    Unsurprisingly, the oversight bureaucracies previously set up to find fraud appear to be disinterested, at best, and complicit, at worst. Instead of investigating the billions of dollars wasted, they repeat the talking points of the coordinated efforts opposing the Trump Administration’s in-depth review.  They say that unelected and “unvetted” bureaucrats, specifically Elon Musk and the DOGE team, might access their social security and tax data, and that unelected people just aren’t accountable.
    Having spent four terms in Congress representing Idaho, I can say confidently there are exactly 537 elected people in your entire federal government:  435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, the Vice-President, and the President.  That’s it!   Everyone else is an unelected bureaucrat — from the agency heads to the generals, all the way to the accountants who currently have access to your personal data — well over two million government workers in total.  I have to admit that I am amused by the Left’s newfound skepticism of unelected bureaucrats. Welcome to my side.  In reality, if these groups are concerned about DOGE, it’s because of what Elon Musk and his team are likely to uncover and not the fact they are unelected.
    This isn’t a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn’t be.  We as taxpayers have a very vested interest in where our money is going and why.  No single political party has a monopoly on improper spending.  Waste and corruption have occurred across many administrations, Republican and Democrat alike.  Those who have taken advantage of the system to enrich themselves or others need to be held accountable, regardless of any party affiliation.  I have confidence that accountability will happen under these audits, and it hints at why there was such unnaturally visceral opposition to President Trump, even before DOGE was a common term.
    As your Attorney General, my office is monitoring the situation closely in the interest of Idahoans.  While I am confident that no Idaho laws are being broken, I will stand up for the protection of Idahoans’ information and privacy.  At the same time, I will also stand up against the corruption and waste in our federal government.  Those two goals are not in conflict at all.  We absolutely can and should do both.
    President Trump was very clear about his promise to audit how the federal government spends money, and his appointed team is carrying that promise out.  Those weren’t just empty words on a campaign stage.  People aren’t used to politicians keeping promises and it likely shocks some people.
    But that shock is something we as a nation must work through.  Our Republic is strong enough to ask hard questions and demand hard answers, because that’s how we grow, adapt, and improve.  Change is uncomfortable, even painful.  But the slow decay of disinterest is terminal.  We need to see these audits through.  America’s best years are ahead of us, and we need to push forward to get there.
    Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish author and jurist, wrote:
    “A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [money] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefit from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
    We simply cannot allow the loose fiscal policy Tytler warned against to collapse our country.  Our nation must stand strong against the graft and self-interest of bureaucrats and technocrats and reclaim the authority of our national checkbook – not to vote ourselves money, but to ensure that money spent is in the very best interests of America and Americans.  This will require restraint, vigilance, and discipline.
    To avoid the dangers of a direct democracy and the temptation to vote ourselves money from the public treasury, our Founders wisely gifted us with a Constitutional Republic. As your Attorney General, I’ll fight with all my might to keep it and will support President Trump’s efforts to rein in government fraud, waste and abuse.

    Best regards,
    Not yet subscribed to the Labrador Letter?  Click HERE to get our weekly newsletter and updates.  Miss an issue?  Labrador Letters are archived on the Attorney General website.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Nevada Woman Indicted In Romance Scheme To Defraud Seniors

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas, Nevada, woman has been charged in a 21-count superseding indictment for allegedly luring older men she met through online dating services and stealing their monies for her personal benefit.

    Aurora Phelps, 43, with residences in Las Vegas and Guadalajara, Mexico, is charged with seven counts of wire fraud; three counts of mail fraud; six counts of bank fraud; three counts of identity theft; one count of kidnapping; and one count of kidnapping resulting in death. Phelps is currently in custody in Mexico.

    According to allegations contained in the superseding indictment, from July 1, 2021, to December 9, 2022, Phelps would meet older men on dating websites or services, then meet them in-person. It was part of her scheme to drug the older men to gain unauthorized access to and steal money from their financial accounts to personally benefit herself and her family members.

    The superseding indictment stems from a two-year investigation by the FBI Las Vegas Division. The superseding indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in September 2023.

    Photo of defendant Aurora Phelps, from court document in United States of America v. Aurora Phelps, number 2:23-cr-0167-CDS-DJA, in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

    In romance scams, the scammer gains an unsuspecting individual’s affection and trust, then uses the illusion of a romantic or close relationship to manipulate and/or steal from the victim. These schemes not only cause significant financial losses, but also deeply impact the lives of victims.

    If convicted on all counts, Phelps faces a maximum statutory penalty of life in prison.

    The charges were announced by Acting United States Attorney Sue Fahami for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Spencer L. Evans for the FBI Las Vegas Division.

    The investigation is a result of the close cooperation between the United States and Mexican authorities. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs is providing significant assistance in this case. Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel R. Schiess and Steven J. Rose are prosecuting the case.

    An FBI website has been established seeking to identify potential victims. Any individuals who believe they or someone they know may have been victimized by Phelps or otherwise have information related to the case are encouraged to contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or complete a survey via this website https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/victim-services/seeking-victim-information/seeking-victim-information-in-aurora-phelps-investigation.

    If you or someone you know is age 60 or older and has experienced financial fraud, experienced professionals are standing by at the National Elder Fraud Hotline 1-833-FRAUD-11 (1-833-372-8311). This Justice Department hotline, managed by the Office for Victims of Crime, can provide personalized support to callers by assessing the needs of the victim and identifying relevant next steps. Case managers will identify appropriate reporting agencies, provide information to callers to assist them in reporting, connect callers directly with appropriate agencies, and provide resources and referrals, on a case-by-case basis. Reporting is the first step. Reporting can help authorities identify those who commit fraud and reporting certain financial losses due to fraud as soon as possible can increase the likelihood of recovering losses. The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET. English, Spanish and other languages are available.

    More information about the department’s efforts to help older Americans is available at its Elder Justice Initiative webpage, which can be found at elderjustice.gov. For more information about the Consumer Protection Branch and its enforcement efforts, visit www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch. Elder fraud complaints can be filed with the FTC at www.reportfraud.ftc.gov/ or at 877-FTC-HELP. The Justice Department provides a variety of resources relating to elder fraud victimization through its Office for Victims of Crime, at www.ovc.gov.

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

    ###

     

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Lummis Votes to Promote Prosperity, Make America Safe Again

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wyoming Cynthia Lummis

    February 21, 2025

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) released the following statement after voting in support of the budget resolution.

    “Under President Biden’s failed leadership, hardworking families across Wyoming shelled out more of their hard-earned money than ever to keep up with record-breaking inflation and watched as Biden’s policies jeopardized our national security,” said Lummis. “This budget resolution isn’t perfect, but it is a first step towards securing our southern border, making our military strong again, and unleashing American energy. President Trump promised to deliver peace through strength, and we are ensuring he has the resources necessary to put hardworking Wyoming families first. This first step will be followed by making tax cuts permanent, cutting wasteful spending, and growing our economy.”

    Sen. Lummis also filed several amendments to address some of her key priorities:

    • Protecting traditional energy sources and grid reliability 
    • Addressing rising domestic energy consumption 
    • Enhancing forest management and wildfire prevention 
    • Streamlining federal permitting processes 
    • Strengthening multiple-use management of public lands 
    • Modernizing Endangered Species Act implementation 
    • Delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear and returning management to states

    The amendments include deficit-neutral reserve funds that would allow for legislation on these issues through fiscal year 2034. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Ninepoint Partners Announces February 2025 Cash Distributions for ETF Series Securities

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ninepoint Partners LP (“Ninepoint Partners”) today announced the February 2025 cash distributions for its ETF Series securities. The record date for the distributions is February 28, 2025. All distributions are payable on March 7, 2025.

    The per-unit February 2025 distributions are detailed below:

    About Ninepoint Partners

    Based in Toronto, Ninepoint Partners LP is one of Canada’s leading alternative investment management firms overseeing approximately $7 billion in assets under management and institutional contracts. Committed to helping investors explore innovative investment solutions that have the potential to enhance returns and manage portfolio risk, Ninepoint offers a diverse set of alternative strategies spanning Equities, Fixed Income, Alternative Income, Real Assets, F/X and Digital Assets.

    For more information on Ninepoint Partners LP, please visit www.ninepoint.com or for inquiries regarding the offering, please contact us at (416) 943-6707 or (866) 299-9906 or invest@ninepoint.com.

    Ninepoint Partners LP is the investment manager to the Ninepoint Funds (collectively, the “Funds”). Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, performance fees (if any), and other expenses all may be associated with investing in the Funds. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation by anyone in the United States or in any other jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation. Prospective investors who are not resident in Canada should contact their financial advisor to determine whether securities of the Fund may be lawfully sold in their jurisdiction.

    Please note that distribution factors (breakdown between income, capital gains and return of capital) can only be calculated when a fund has reached its year-end. Distribution information should not be relied upon for income tax reporting purposes as this is only a component of total distributions for the year. For accurate distribution amounts for the purpose of filing an income tax return, please refer to the appropriate T3/T5 slips for that particular taxation year. Please refer to the prospectus or offering memorandum of each Fund for details of the Fund’s distribution policy.

    The payment of distributions and distribution breakdown, if applicable, is not guaranteed and may fluctuate. The payment of distributions should not be confused with a Fund’s performance, rate of return, or yield. If distributions paid by the Fund are greater than the performance of the Fund, then an investor’s original investment will shrink. Distributions paid as a result of capital gains realized by a Fund and income and dividends earned by a Fund are taxable in the year they are paid. An investor’s adjusted cost base will be reduced by the amount of any returns of

    capital. If an investor’s adjusted cost base goes below zero, then capital gains tax will have to be paid on the amount below zero.

    Sales Inquiries:

    Ninepoint Partners LP
    Neil Ross
    416-945-6227
    nross@ninepoint.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Ninepoint Partners Announces Estimated February 2025 Cash Distributions for Ninepoint Cash Management Fund – ETF Series

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ninepoint Partners LP (“Ninepoint Partners”) today announced the estimated February 2025 cash distribution for the ETF Series of Ninepoint Cash Management Fund (the “Fund”). Ninepoint Partners expects to issue a press release on or about February 27, 2025, which will provide the final distribution rate. The record date for the cash distribution is February 28, 2025, payable on March 7, 2025.

    All estimates in this document are based on the accounting data as of February 21, 2025. Due to subscriptions and/or redemptions and/or other factors, the final February 2025 distribution may differ from these estimates and the difference could be material. The information included in this letter is for reference purposes only. Please reconcile all information against your official client statements. This is not intended to be a statement for official tax reporting purposes or any form of tax advice.

    The actual taxable amounts of distributions for 2025, including the tax characteristics of the distributions, will be reported to CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. in early 2026. Securityholders can contact their brokerage firm for this information.

    The per-unit estimated February 2025 distribution is detailed below:

    Ninepoint ETF Series Ticker Cash Distribution per
    unit    		 Notional Distribution
    per unit    		 CUSIP
    Ninepoint Cash Management Fund NSAV $0.11942 $0.00000 65443X105
             

    About Ninepoint Partners

    Based in Toronto, Ninepoint Partners LP is one of Canada’s leading alternative investment management firms overseeing approximately $7 billion in assets under management and institutional contracts. Committed to helping investors explore innovative investment solutions that have the potential to enhance returns and manage portfolio risk, Ninepoint offers a diverse set of alternative strategies spanning Equities, Fixed Income, Alternative Income, Real Assets, F/X and Digital Assets.

    For more information on Ninepoint Partners LP, please visit www.ninepoint.com or for inquiries regarding the offering, please contact us at (416) 943-6707 or (866) 299-9906 or invest@ninepoint.com.

    Ninepoint Partners LP is the investment manager to the Ninepoint Funds (collectively, the “Funds”). Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, performance fees (if any), and other expenses all may be associated with investing in the Funds. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation by anyone in the United States or in any other jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation. Prospective investors who are not resident in Canada should contact their financial advisor to determine whether securities of the Fund may be lawfully sold in their jurisdiction.

    Please note that distribution factors (breakdown between income, capital gains and return of capital) can only be calculated when a fund has reached its year-end. Distribution information should not be relied upon for income tax reporting purposes as this is only a component of total distributions for the year. For accurate distribution amounts for the purpose of filing an income tax return, please refer to the appropriate T3/T5 slips for that particular taxation year. Please refer to the prospectus or offering memorandum of each Fund for details of the Fund’s distribution policy.

    The payment of distributions and distribution breakdown, if applicable, is not guaranteed and may fluctuate. The payment of distributions should not be confused with a Fund’s performance, rate of return, or yield. If distributions paid by the Fund are greater than the performance of the Fund, then an investor’s original investment will shrink. Distributions paid as a result of capital gains realized by a Fund and income and dividends earned by a Fund are taxable in the year they are paid. An investor’s adjusted cost base will be reduced by the amount of any returns of capital. If an investor’s adjusted cost base goes below zero, then capital gains tax will have to be paid on the amount below zero.

    Sales Inquiries:

    Ninepoint Partners LP
    Neil Ross
    416-945-6227
    nross@ninepoint.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Africa – Scotland London Africa Week Celebrates Success as Dates Announced for 2025 Programme

    SOURCE: Scottish Africa Business Association (SABA)

    Scotland London Africa Week has quickly established itself as a pivotal event for increasing trade, collaboration and business opportunities between Scotland and African markets

    ABERDEEN, Scotland, February 21, 2025/ — Following the resounding success of Scotland London Africa Week 2024, the Scottish Africa Business Association (SABA) (www.AfricaScot.com) is delighted to announce that the business programme will return this year from 25th to 27th November 2025.

    Scotland London Africa Week has quickly established itself as a pivotal event for increasing trade, collaboration and business opportunities between Scotland and African markets. The 2024 programme brought together senior diplomats, government officials and business leaders to strengthen partnerships and unlock new opportunities for more than 20 delegates.

    The 2025 programme is already shaping up to build on this success, with confirmed highlights including a strategic meeting with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) Africa Team and a high-profile networking reception at Dover House, with kind permission of the Secretary of State for Scotland The Rt Hon Ian Murray MP.

    SABA is also working closely with High Commissioners and Ambassadors from across the African continent to ensure the event continues to offer Scottish businesses unrivalled access to African market insights, key decision-makers and potential partners within London’s thriving African business ecosystem.

    Frazer Lang, Chief Executive of SABA, said: “Scotland London Africa Week has proven to be an invaluable platform for Scottish businesses looking to expand into Africa. The engagement we saw last year from both African and UK stakeholders was fantastic and we are excited to bring an even more impactful programme to our participants in 2025.  As a result of last year’s programme, one of our success stories was the news that VG Energy and Norco signed a Memorandum of Understanding, binding the two companies in an exclusive partnership that will bring growth and technical innovation to Nigeria.”

    Commenting on the partnership, Frank Burns, Contract Support Engineer at Norco said: “We are extremely pleased to be able to declare our exclusive partnership with VG Energy via this Memorandum of Agreement. This is a new and exciting chapter for Norco as we expand our presence and service offering in Nigeria. Together with VG Energy, who bring significant experience in identifying and securing new business opportunities, we feel well-placed to unlock new growth opportunities in the energy sector and beyond.”

    This year’s Scotland London Africa Week will feature sector-specific briefings, market insights and networking opportunities designed to equip Scottish businesses with the tools and connections to thrive in African markets.

    Scottish businesses interested in participating are encouraged to register their interest early to secure a place.  

    About the Scottish Africa Business Association (SABA):
    SABA is the preeminent non-political, Africa focussed, members trade organisation with an unrivalled board of experienced directors which promotes trade, investment and knowledge sharing between Scotland’s world class expertise and Africa’s priority sectors including energy, agriculture, the blue economy, healthcare, skills training and education by leveraging extensive commercial, trade, political and government contacts across Scotland and Africa.

    As part of this, our team organises private meetings, round tables, seminars, conferences, global trade missions and offers market research, intelligence sharing and consultancy services.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI: James Altucher: ‘Trump’s Return Could Fast-Track America’s Biggest Tech IPO’

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a recent presentation, financial expert James Altucher predicts that Donald Trump’s return to the White House could accelerate the most significant IPO in American history: Elon Musk’s Starlink. With Musk’s satellite internet network already disrupting global telecommunications, Altucher believes Trump’s administration will create the perfect conditions for an expedited, high-impact IPO.

    “The Starlink IPO will be a defining moment for the stock market,” said Altucher. “Trump’s leadership is expected to streamline regulations and drive policies that favor major technological advancements.”

    How Starlink is Changing the Game

    Musk’s satellite network is already proving essential for emergency response, military applications, and global connectivity. Unlike traditional telecom providers, Starlink bypasses outdated infrastructure, offering high-speed internet anywhere on the planet.

    “Starlink isn’t just another tech company—it’s a total reinvention of how the world stays connected,” Altucher explained.

    With Trump’s expected policy shifts, Starlink could see unprecedented government support and funding, further solidifying its dominance in space-based communications.

    About James Altucher

    James Altucher is a bestselling author, entrepreneur, and financial expert known for spotting major market trends early. His insights have been featured in The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Bloomberg.

    Media Contact:
    Derek Warren
    Public Relations Manager
    Paradigm Press Group
    Email: dwarren@paradigmpressgroup.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Monroe Capital Corporation Schedules Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Earnings Release and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Monroe Capital Corporation (the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MRCC) announced today that it will file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 on Friday, February 28, 2025, after the close of the financial markets.

    The Company will announce its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024 in a press release prior to the market open on Monday, March 3, 2025 and will host a webcast and conference call to discuss these financial results on Monday, March 3, 2025 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The webcast will be hosted on a webcast link located in the Investor Relations section of our website at http://ir.monroebdc.com/events.cfm. To participate in the conference call, please dial (800) 715-9871 approximately 10 minutes prior to the call. Please reference conference ID # 7817000. For those unable to listen to the live broadcast, the webcast will be available for replay on the Company’s website approximately two hours after the event.

    About Monroe Capital Corporation

    Monroe Capital Corporation is a publicly-traded specialty finance company that principally invests in senior, unitranche and junior secured debt and, to a lesser extent, unsecured debt and equity investments in middle-market companies. The Company’s investment objective is to maximize the total return to its stockholders in the form of current income and capital appreciation. The Company’s investment activities are managed by its investment adviser, Monroe Capital BDC Advisors, LLC, which is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and an affiliate of Monroe Capital LLC. To learn more about Monroe Capital Corporation, visit www.monroebdc.com.

    About Monroe Capital LLC

    Monroe Capital LLC (including its subsidiaries and affiliates, together “Monroe”) is a premier asset management firm specializing in private credit markets across various strategies, including direct lending, technology finance, venture debt, alternative credit, structured credit, real estate and equity. Since 2004, the firm has been successfully providing capital solutions to clients in the U.S. and Canada. Monroe prides itself on being a value-added and user-friendly partner to business owners, management, and both private equity and independent sponsors. Monroe’s platform offers a wide variety of investment products for both institutional and high net worth investors with a focus on generating high quality “alpha” returns irrespective of business or economic cycles. The firm is headquartered in Chicago and maintains eleven offices throughout the United States, Asia and Australia.

    Monroe has been recognized by both its peers and investors with various awards including Inc.’s 2024 Founder-Friendly Investors List; Private Debt Investor as the 2023 Lower Mid-Market Lender of the Decade, 2023 Lower Mid-Market Lender of the Year, 2023 CLO Manager of the Year, Americas; Global M&A Network as the 2023 Lower Mid-Markets Lender of the Year, U.S.A.; DealCatalyst as the 2022 Best CLO Manager of the Year; Korean Economic Daily as the 2022 Best Performance in Private Debt – Mid Cap; Creditflux as the 2021 Best U.S. Direct Lending Fund; and Pension Bridge as the 2020 Private Credit Strategy of the Year. For more information and important disclaimers, please visit www.monroecap.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements. Any such statements, other than statements of historical fact, are likely to be affected by other unknowable future events and conditions, including elements of the future that are or are not under the Company’s control, and that the Company may or may not have considered; accordingly, such statements cannot be guarantees or assurances of any aspect of future performance. Actual developments and results are highly likely to vary materially from these estimates and projections of the future. Such statements speak only as of the time when made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update any such statement now or in the future.

    SOURCE:          Monroe Capital Corporation

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: There Must Be Some Way Out of Here

    Source: Securities and Exchange Commission

    [1]Five years ago, I remarked that “figuring out how to deal with the SEC on crypto issues [was] like a regulatory version of an escape room.”[2] Now it is time to help open the door. The Task Force, which is composed of exceptional Commission staff, is working on the unlock with other expert, dedicated staff across the Commission. Greater crypto clarity, however, requires the public’s input. We welcome input from anyone in the public with an interest in these topics, and a wide range of perspectives (including from skeptics) will make that input richer. This document invites such input by posing some of the questions with which the Task Force is wrestling. The Task Force is actively considering solutions to many of the issues presented. However, your input can significantly aid in that process.

    As always, let me start with several disclaimers. My views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners. These questions are not a roadmap to actions the Commission or its staff will take. They are not meant to limit the discussion, so feel free to pose and answer other questions and to address topics that we have not raised. The scope of this inquiry is expansive and calls on the particularized knowledge of a broad range of people. The Task Force welcomes your responses to as many of the questions as you would like to address, but do not feel compelled to swim outside your lane.

    To aid readers, we have drafted questions with a potential taxonomy in mind:

    • First, crypto assets that are securities because they have the intrinsic characteristics of securities;
    • Second, crypto assets that are offered and sold as part of an investment contract, which is a security, even though the crypto asset may not itself be a security;
    • Third, tokenized securities; and
    • Finally, all other crypto assets, which are not securities, in my view, and are currently the biggest category.

    The Task Force welcomes your thoughts as to the best paths to improve this taxonomy.

    The questions below identify some statutes and rules that may present challenges to firms seeking to innovate with crypto assets and blockchain technology, but please identify other federal laws, or state corporate or commercial laws, that present challenges to innovation by Commission registrants. We are looking for creative solutions that comport with the Commission’s statutory framework. The Commission’s three-part mission will guide our work: 1) protecting investors, 2) maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and 3) facilitating capital formation. Because we hope to make rapid progress and would like to foster a dynamic discussion among respondents, we would appreciate your timely responses but will welcome input at any time. We plan to continue making progress in the meantime, so the earlier we receive your input the more likely it is to inform the options for consideration. Thank you in advance for your help.

    Finally, as the Task Force works on the issues below, the Commission’s efforts continue unabated to combat fraud involving securities, including crypto assets that are securities or that were offered and sold as part of an investment contract, and tokenized securities. The Commission welcomes the public’s tips about securities violations.[3]

    Security Status

    Blockchain technology has given rise to novel assets that rely on cryptographic protocols for their existence (“crypto assets”). Market participants have expressed a reasonable desire to determine with ease whether such an asset is a security or is being offered or sold as part of an investment contract. When crypto assets that are sold along with promises of future work to develop the ecosystem within which those assets operate, analyzing them under Howey’s investment contract test can be difficult.[4] Market participants have expressed concern that the Howey test, as the Commission has applied it, is a complex analysis that can be difficult to apply consistently. One of the Task Force’s goals is to make it easier for investors, market participants, and the Commission to categorize crypto assets and crypto asset transactions. To that end, the Task Force is considering questions, including the following:

    1. What type of regulatory taxonomy would provide a predictable, legally precise, and economically rational approach to determining the security status of crypto assets and transactions in such assets without undermining settled approaches for evaluating the security status of non-crypto assets and transactions?
    2. Should the Commission address when crypto assets fall within any category of financial instruments, other than investment contracts, that are specifically listed in the definition of “security” in the federal securities laws?[5]
    3. Certain crypto assets are used in a variety of functions inherent to the operation of a blockchain network, such as mining or staking as part of a consensus mechanism or securing the network, validating transactions or other related activities on the network, and paying transaction or other fees on the network. These technology functions may be conducted directly or indirectly, such as through third-party service providers. What types of technology functions are inherent to the operation of a blockchain network? Should the Commission address the status of technology functions under the federal securities laws and, if so, what issues should be addressed?
    4. Users of liquid staking applications receive a so-called “liquid staking token.” This token represents their staked crypto asset, and the token can be used in other activities, all while continuing to participate in the proof-of-stake protocol. Should the Commission address the status of liquid staking tokens under the federal securities laws, and, if so, what issues should it address?

    Scoping Out

    The Commission may be able to provide greater clarity to investors and other market participants by identifying categories of crypto assets (and transactions) that do not fall within its authority. In some cases, these types of crypto assets may be within another regulator’s authority. In determining what falls outside the Commission’s authority, the Commission should look to the economic reality of what is being offered or sold. Simply saying something is not a security does not mean it is not a security.

    1. Should the security status of certain categories of crypto assets be addressed, such as stablecoins, wrapped tokens, and NFTs?
    2. How can the Commission establish a workable taxonomy while remaining merit- and technology-neutral?

    Public Offerings

    People who have conducted or attempted to conduct registered or qualified token offerings have expressed frustration about the cost and feasibility of registration. Tokens and their issuers can differ significantly in some aspects from traditional securities and their issuers. Allowing token issuers to use appropriately tailored registration regimes may protect investors better than insisting that they use registration forms and mechanisms that are designed for other types of securities offerings.

    1. Could disclosure guidance and/or targeted relief address the concern, or are new forms or other mechanisms needed?
    2. Should the Commission develop tailored disclosure requirements for offerings or classes of specific categories of crypto assets? What types of disclosures would be important for investor protection? Should disclosure occur both at the time of sale and on an ongoing basis? If so, what information should the ongoing disclosure contain and how should that disclosure occur?
    3. Does Regulation A under the Securities Act, including the disclosure and ongoing reporting requirements, provide a useful vehicle to conduct offerings of crypto assets? Would revising aspects of Regulation A make it more useful for crypto asset offerings?

    Safe Harbor from Registration

    I previously proposed that the Commission consider putting in place a non-exclusive safe harbor—provisionally called Rule 195—that would, among other things, provide a time-limited exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act for offers and sales of crypto assets during the development of a blockchain project.[6] My motivation for suggesting such a safe harbor was to enhance and encourage disclosure and provide network developers with a grace period within which, under certain conditions, they can facilitate broad participation in and the development of a functional or decentralized network. At the end of the safe harbor’s term, token transactions may not be securities transactions if the network had matured into a decentralized or functioning network that is not dependent on a single person or group to carry out the essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts. The safe harbor, which would include tailored disclosures subject to the antifraud provisions in the federal securities laws, is intended to respond to the concern that the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws applicable to registration and offering statements, as well as ongoing reporting, are not tailored for blockchain projects and crypto assets. To be clear, any safe harbor the Task Force recommends will not offer protection for perpetrators of securities fraud.

    1. Should the Commission consider a version of Rule 195, my proposed token safe harbor? Is the iteration on my proposed safe harbor known as “Safe Harbor X,”[7] or some other iteration, a better approach?
    2. Should the safe harbor be available retroactively for projects that comply with the disclosure requirements?
    3. If a safe harbor of some form is the right approach, what disclosure requirements would be feasible for early-stage projects to provide to token purchasers the material information regarding the blockchain project, crypto assets, and development team? What information should be required to be updated on an ongoing basis, and how should that information be provided?
    4. At the expiration of the safe harbor as envisioned, if the network were sufficiently decentralized or functional, registration of the tokens would not be required. If decentralization is used as an indicator of network maturity, should the Commission define objective quantitative thresholds (such as percentage thresholds for ownership and control) to provide greater clarity for issuers, developers, or minters of tokens regarding whether their networks and protocols are sufficiently decentralized and to allow third parties to verify decentralization?
      1. Is dispersion of control a better framework than decentralization? If so, how should ownership of governance tokens and voting rights be considered in assessing dispersion of control? How should the delegation of voting rights be taken into account?
      2. If an exit marker is achieved, who should be responsible for notifying the Commission?
    5. How should the decentralization of a deployed protocol best be evaluated? How should permissioned aspects of crypto-adjacent software or participant roles, such as validators, relayers, and sequencers, be considered? Are there tech-neutral thresholds that can be agreed upon for determining thresholds for decentralization?

    Trading

    Secondary market trading of crypto assets raises a variety of issues, some of which may fall within the Commission’s authority. The Commission’s authority in secondary markets generally is limited to assets that themselves are securities based on their intrinsic economic properties or rights, so we have to grapple with how to regulate platforms and market participants that trade securities alongside non-securities.

    1. Should the Commission create a new entity registration status with tailored registration requirements for any platform that trades crypto assets that are securities? Should the Commission use or adapt the existing requirements for national securities exchange registration or the alternative trading system exemption from such registration, and if so, how?
    2. What updates to the Commission rulebook are needed for side-by-side pairs trading of securities and non-security crypto assets to allow for enhanced interoperability and composability in finance?
    3. Does execution in offchain order books or on blockchain networks pose complexities for broker-dealers in satisfying any applicable best execution obligations? Does onchain execution pose complexities for broker-dealers in satisfying their best execution obligations, given onchain complexities such as transaction ordering and block construction? Should any rules, guidelines, or disclosures be modified to address broker-dealer execution reasonably available under the circumstances in offchain and onchain trading environments?
    4. The crypto markets are inherently transparent because they use open-source data, from public blockchains to open application programming interfaces (“APIs”). Are there programmatic/technological ways that crypto market participants, intermediaries, potential self-regulatory organizations, or regulators can monitor crypto markets using open-source data? How would this take into consideration nested accounts on centralized exchanges, given that this activity may not appear in public ledgers? Is open-source data sufficient for the market to monitor trading and therefore what non-public information might warrant mandatory disclosure? What sort of open-source tools can be used for enhanced transparency, such as proof of reserves, or proof of holdings? What are the limitations of such tools and such data?
    5. With the understanding that both APIs and public ledgers can provide order books, what would be a good strategy for regulators to efficiently ingest and analyze order book data? How can the regulators leverage publicly available data to become more efficient and alleviate regulatory burdens?
    6. How should Commission registrants assess Maximal Extractable Value (“MEV”) when they consider building or transacting in these environments? How best should Commission registrants delineate between the different types of MEV occurring onchain? In what ways is the market addressing the MEV in which MEV extractors order or re-order transactions to engage in front running, back running, or so-called “sandwich attacks”?

    Custody

    Market participants have broad and specific questions regarding custody requirements for Commission regulated entities—broker-dealers, investment advisers, and investment companies—including whether existing requirements suffice for custodying crypto assets. The Task Force is seeking input on answers to these questions so that individuals and organizations can safely, legally, and practicably custody client crypto assets themselves or with a third party.

    1. Should the Commission amend existing rules, propose new rules, or provide guidance to facilitate custody arrangements for crypto assets? If so, what rule amendments or new rules would be appropriate, and to which types of activities should they apply? Should the Commission propose any specific changes to its rules to accommodate the self-custody of crypto assets by entities registered with the Commission? If so, what conditions should apply to self-custody arrangements to mitigate any related risks? Should the requirements for crypto assets that are securities and those that are not differ?
    2. Public, permissionless blockchains are being used to tokenize permissioned assets. To the extent the custody rules for broker-dealers, investment advisers, and investment companies are implicated, how should the Commission differentiate between native crypto assets of permissionless blockchains and tokenized permissioned assets? Does either type of crypto asset present greater risks of theft or loss?
    3. Are there commonly accepted practices and standards for auditing and accounting for crypto asset investments and transactions, including those related to valuation? How about with respect to verifying the existence and valuation of crypto assets, both among auditors and attestation providers (including non-accountant providers)? Should the Commission propose additional or specific requirements to address the unique nature of crypto assets?

    Broker-Dealer Custody and Other Financial Responsibility Requirements

    1. Should the Commission modify its Special Purpose Broker-Dealer Statement (“SPBD Statement”) or formally withdraw it? If the former, what should those modifications be? For example, should the Commission expand the SPBD Statement to cover broker-dealers that custody crypto asset securities alongside crypto assets that are not securities? If the Commission decides to eliminate the SPBD Statement, should the Commission propose any modifications to the customer protection rule (17 CFR 240.15c3-3) to address crypto assets?
    2. The net capital rule (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) requires a broker-dealer to maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet all liabilities, including obligations to customers, counterparties, and other creditors and to have adequate additional resources to wind down its business in an orderly manner, without the need for a formal proceeding if the firm fails financially.
      1. Under the net capital rule, assets held by a broker-dealer must be readily convertible into cash to count as allowable for meeting minimum net capital requirements (e.g., intangible assets, furniture, fixtures, equipment, and most unsecured receivables are not readily convertible into cash under the rule and, therefore, do not qualify as allowable net capital). How should a given crypto asset be evaluated to assess whether it is readily convertible into cash?
      2. Under the net capital rule, securities and commodities are treated as readily convertible into cash. However, they are subject to deductions (known as haircuts) to account for the market, credit, liquidity, basis, and other risks inherent in the instrument. The haircuts range from 0 to 100 percent. For example, exchange-traded equity securities have a 15 percent haircut, while securities without a ready market (e.g., securities that are not exchange traded) are subject to haircuts as high as 100 percent. Commodities are subject to a 20 percent haircut. How should crypto assets be evaluated to determine the appropriate haircut to apply?
    3. The recordkeeping rules for broker-dealers (17 CFR 240.17a-3 and 17 CFR 240.17a-4) require the creation and maintenance of accounting and operational records designed to assist a firm in tracking and understanding its assets, liabilities, positions, and obligations to customers (e.g., cash owed to customers and securities held for customers).
      1. What challenges, if any, do the requirements of these recordkeeping rules present with respect to crypto assets that are not an issue for traditional securities? What modifications to the rules could address these challenges?
      2. Should crypto assets generally be treated as if they are traditional securities for purposes of these recordkeeping rules?

    Investment Adviser Custody and Other Requirements

    1. What challenges do registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) face in complying with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) as it relates to investments in crypto assets that are securities? What common practices, if any, have developed to address these challenges?
      1. Could best execution or recordkeeping obligations, or compliance with Form ADV or Form PF disclosure requirements, be clearer in the crypto asset context?
      2. Do any crypto asset characteristics or market structures place advisory client crypto assets at a greater or different risk of theft, loss, or misappropriation? If so, how can those risks be addressed?
    2. Can RIAs trade, stake, vote, or otherwise participate without moving crypto assets outside a qualified custodian? Should the Commission amend the existing RIA custody rule to provide an exception to allow RIAs to move client crypto assets temporarily out of qualified custodial arrangements to engage in staking, voting, or other novel participatory features of crypto assets? If so, should that exception be subject to time limits or other limitations or requirements?
    3. What clarifications, if any, are needed in the Advisers Act regulations to address the cold or hot storage of crypto assets held in custody on behalf of a client?
      1. What requirements, if any, should the Commission consider for the custody of crypto assets held in each type of wallet on behalf of a client? Should the requirements be the same for both types of wallets?
      2. How would a requirement to maintain custody of some or all crypto assets in either cold or hot storage affect an adviser’s ability to transact in those crypto assets or otherwise implement its investment strategy?
      3. What means are available to mitigate the risks related to maintaining crypto assets in hot storage?

    Investment Company Custody

    1. What challenges do registered investment companies (“funds”) face in complying with section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder (governing custody) with respect to investments in crypto assets? Are any specific requirements of section 17(f) or the rules thereunder categorically inconsistent with custody of crypto assets? Do funds anticipate that custodians currently eligible to act as fund custodians under the Investment Company Act and the custody rules (e.g., banks, foreign banks, broker-dealers) will offer fund custodial services for crypto assets?
    2. Can a fund comply with the requirements of section 17(f) and the rules thereunder when trading, staking, voting, or otherwise engaging with crypto assets in which it invests? Should the Commission consider any changes to rule 17f-2 (the self-custody rule) or any other rules to facilitate transactions in crypto assets, and if so, what tailored conditions should the Commission propose to mitigate any related risks?
    3. Should any provisions relating to investment company custody be revised to account for investment activities or other transactions that are unique to crypto assets (e.g., staking, mining, airdrops)? Do the existing custody rules present obstacles to such activities or transactions? How might these activities or transactions place a fund’s assets at risk of theft or loss?

    Crypto Lending

    Crypto platforms may offer custodial and noncustodial services through which people can lend their crypto assets in return for interest. Crypto lending concepts vary widely, challenging many traditional notions of financial products. I would welcome any input you have on these diverse products to ensure the Commission has an adequate understanding.

    1. How should the Commission approach various crypto lending concepts in a way that doesn’t stifle the potential opportunities they provide?
    2. Participation in traditional securities lending programs, such as fully paid securities lending programs offered by broker-dealers, generally does not represent a new securities transaction or implicate Investment Company Act registration requirements. How are crypto lending programs similar to or different from traditional securities lending programs?

    Crypto Exchange-Traded Products (“ETPs”)

    Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5) requires that an exchange’s rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. In reviewing listing applications for crypto asset-based ETPs, the Commission previously has considered whether the exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement (“SSA”) with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying or reference assets. How should the Commission address listing applications for crypto asset-based ETPs going forward?

    1. If the listing exchange does not have an SSA with a regulated market and no regulated market for the crypto asset underlying an ETP exists, could the listing exchange address concerns regarding fraud and manipulation based on the size and liquidity of the underlying spot market? What would be an appropriate measure of size and liquidity that would address these concerns? Are there more appropriate ways to address concerns regarding fraud and manipulation?
    2. How should the Commission consider market capitalization, unique number of wallets, trading volume, the number of spot markets, geographic distribution of spot markets, size and frequency of price divergences, or speed of price convergence/arbitrage?
    3. How should the Commission consider crypto asset-based ETPs that are investing in assets that are already referenced in crypto asset-based exchange-traded funds registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act?
    4. What factors should the Commission consider with respect to an SSA between an
      exchange listing an ETP on a crypto asset and a spot crypto market?
    5. How should the Commission weigh the reliability, frequency, and dissemination of pricing information on the crypto assets underlying the ETP in its consideration?

    Tokenized Securities

    Creating a digital representation of a security on a blockchain or issuing a security directly on a blockchain does not change the substance of the security but may benefit issuers and investors. Moreover, the use of a blockchain-based database may be more secure in some respects than using a centralized database with a single point of failure. Tokenization also may give rise to unique risks and challenges.

    1. Tokenization enables dematerialized securities to be mobilized (i.e., not held in and confined to a single centralized ledger). Are there any provisions under the federal securities laws that prevent these securities from being used in new blockchain-based transactions and applications, and, if so, what steps should the Commission consider taking to facilitate this innovation while mitigating any related risks? Are there amendments or new rules that the Commission should consider to ensure a merit- and technology-neutral approach to tokenization? Does the type of blockchain used (i.e., permissioned versus permissionless) bear on this risk assessment?
    2. How do the programmability and composability properties of blockchain technology and blockchain-based technologies, such as smart contracts, affect the role of a transfer agent? Are there provisions in the transfer agent rules that prevent transfer agents from using blockchain technology for this purpose to the fullest extent possible? Is an offchain record still needed as an official or a complementary record in a tokenization arrangement? Are there any legal or regulatory impediments to using onchain identity solutions?
    3. Does the tokenization of redeemable registered investment company securities, such as those of a mutual fund or money market fund, raise any unique issues under the Investment Company Act or the rules thereunder? Would secondary transactions in these securities (e.g., peer-to-peer transactions or transactions occurring on or through an ATS) require relief from any provisions of the Investment Company Act? If so, should the Commission propose any changes to facilitate tokenization of registered investment company securities, and what should any such conditions be?
    4. How should the Commission approach tokenized securities that seek to maintain a stable value and may be designed to be used as a means of payment or settlement? What are the challenges and impediments to the usability and transferability of these tokenized securities, particularly securities issued by offchain entities (e.g., registered investment companies)? Should transactions involving the use of these tokenized securities as a means of payment be treated differently from other security-based transactions?
    5. Do other federal laws, or state corporate or commercial laws present challenges to firms seeking to issue tokenized securities or engage in activities involving tokenized securities?
    6. The Commission recently adopted rule amendments to shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from “T+2” to “T+1,” subject to certain exceptions. Tokenization is often characterized as an innovation that facilitates instant or simultaneous settlement (“atomic settlement”) if all parts of a transaction are executed and settled on the same blockchain. What are the benefits of atomic settlement, and what are the risks? Should the Commission consider taking any actions that would encourage adoption of atomic settlement?
    7. What issues are raised by the tokenization of securities subject to National Market System (“NMS”) requirements? Should the Commission clarify any requirements or provide relief from any requirements under Regulation NMS? Are there any other SEC rules that should be clarified or amended to address the trading of tokenized equity or debt securities?

    Sandbox and Related International Issues

    Last year, I proposed the creation of a micro-innovation sandbox (“Sandbox”), which could be used for small-scale projects, including tokenization and blockchain projects.[8]

    1. Would the Sandbox help foster tokenization and blockchain innovation? What types of products and services across the fintech landscape would firms like to test in the Sandbox? What regulatory, technical, and operational barriers pose the biggest challenges to innovation in this space? Could the Sandbox mitigate those challenges?
    2. Could a cross-border Sandbox address challenges that U.S. and non-U.S. firms face when attempting to innovate in multiple jurisdictions? If so, how should the Commission structure it to operate globally? Do sandboxes in other jurisdictions serve as a good model?

    How to Provide Feedback

    Members of the public interested in providing input on these or other related matters may do so using the written submission form for input to the Crypto Task Force on the Commission’s website. Members of the public also may request a meeting to discuss their feedback on these and other related matters via the meeting request form on the Commission’s website.

    [1] Hat tip to Bob Dylan. See Bob Dylan, “All Along the Watchtower,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpphVwyLMQ. Dylan’s dialogue is between a joker and a thief. The lack of regulatory clarity has fostered an environment in which jokers and thieves thrive, while legitimate crypto projects struggle. This document is part of the effort to change that environment.

    [4] SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

    [5] Under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), the definition of “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security,” or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase any of the foregoing. The definition of “security” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is virtually identical.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Virginia Lawmakers to Interior Dept: Reverse Park Service Staffing Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine and U.S. Reps. Bobby Scott, Gerry Connolly, Don Beyer, Jennifer McClellan, Suhas Subramanyam and Eugene Vindman (all D-VA) pushed the Trump administration to reverse staffing cuts at the National Park Service (NPS), outlining the effect directives to eliminate employees and rescind and delay job offers will have on safety at Virginia’s 22 national park units, which serve 22 million visitors and contribute $1.5 billion to local economies each year.
    “We write today to express our deep concern over alarming directives issued to eliminate roughly one thousand full-time employees, rescind hundreds of offers for full-time positions, and delay thousands of offers for seasonal positions at the National Park Service (NPS). These roles are critical to protecting America’s treasured natural assets, maintaining public safety, and promoting exceptional standards expected at national parks across Virginia and the nation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “We urge you to reverse these directives and prevent additional cuts to existing staffing going forward given the critical role that the vast majority of NPS staff play in ensuring public safety. If these directives are not reversed, we fear it will significantly undermine the Park Service’s ability to protect both visitors and park resources, particularly as we approach peak visitation season.”
    The NPS workforce plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth operation of our nation’s parks and the safety of the millions of visitors who explore them each year, and are also responsible for protecting the priceless natural, historic, and cultural resources that belong to the American people. However, recent staffing directives from the Trump administration – which included the dismissal of probationary employees and the rescinding of job offers at NPS with no input from park superintendents – are expected to make it significantly more difficult for NPS to carry out its mission, especially as peak visitor season approaches. Staff positions affected by the administration’s unilateral staffing directives include frontline park rangers responsible for ensuring visitor safety and protecting park assets, maintenance staff tasked with addressing the deferred maintenance backlog and reducing the risk of wildland fires, and support staff responsible for raising revenue for NPS through fee collections.
    “It has been reported that the only exemptions offered were for positions that respond to public safety incidents, including law enforcement rangers, public safety dispatchers, and wildland firefighters. However, public safety response is just part of the work that goes into protecting the public,” wrote the lawmakers. “Countless other positions from rangers to natural resource specialists to wastewater specialists to maintenance mechanics that are not covered under the exemptions have wide-ranging responsibilities for preventing public safety incidents in the first place. Eliminating these positions put our parks at greater risk of damage and make them less safe for visitors. We are particularly concerned about reports that NPS rescinded offers for positions directly responsible for fire safety at Shenandoah National Park – coinciding with the start of wildfire season.”
    Continued the members, “While it is encouraging that NPS recently walked back its decision to rescind offers for nearly 5,000 seasonal positions, park superintendents have received no guidance as to the next steps they can take to move forward with seasonal hiring. The late winter and early spring months are critical for ramping up seasonal staff in preparation for the summer visitation surge. Without clear guidance for superintendents on seasonal hiring, the continued delay in hiring could jeopardize the ability of these parks to safely accommodate millions of visitors this summer.”
    In the letter, the Virginia lawmakers also noted that the staffing directives threaten to undermine the progress Congress has made in recent years to invest in repairing and restoring our national parks.
    “For over one hundred years, NPS has been charged with safeguarding millions of acres of America’s irreplaceable natural, historic, and cultural resources. However, persistent underfunding of NPS resulted in the Service’s inability to properly staff park units and the growth of a multi-billion-dollar backlog of deferred maintenance projects. In recognition of the worsening situation at our national parks, bipartisan majorities in Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Great American Outdoors Act of 2020 (GAOA), one of the largest ever investments in conservation and public lands in our nation’s history. The GAOA gave NPS the resources it needed to dedicate billions of dollars for addressing deferred maintenance across the country, including over $470 million for projects in Virginia. As a result of these staffing directives, units will be forced to reallocate remaining staff to support regular operations at the expense of staff hours dedicated to reducing the deferred maintenance backlog,” they wrote.
    Concluded the lawmakers, “Significant disruptions to NPS staffing during the critical months prior to peak season threaten to harm the tourism economy associated with Virginia’s national parks that supports hundreds of small businesses and thousands of jobs. We urge you to swiftly reverse these directives and communicate clear guidance to park superintendents to ensure that NPS units in Virginia and across the country can move forward with hiring both seasonal and permanent positions that are critical to ensuring the safety of millions of park-goers.”
    A copy of the letter is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: February 21st, 2025 Heinrich Demands Answers on Elon Musk and DOGE’s Access to VA Medical Records

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, is demanding answers from President Trump’s administration about Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) gaining access to veterans’ medical records.

    Following a recent report by Military.com that “DOGE” employees had accessed VA computer systems at the Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Heinrich joined his fellow Subcommittee members in writing a letter to U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Doug Collins pressing him to protect the sensitive medical information of veterans, their families, and VA staff from Elon Musk and “DOGE.”

    “We understand that personnel reporting to Mr. Musk have recently visited VA facilities,” the senators wrote. “Senators, veterans, and members of the public have serious concerns regarding Mr. Musk’s extraordinary and unprecedented activities and the lack of transparency surrounding them, including his potential access to and handling of sensitive or personal information.”

    “Accordingly, we seek specific information regarding VA’s engagement with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”),” they continued.

    The senators requested a list of “DOGE” personnel who have visited VA facilities, the systems they accessed, and whether veteran data — including medical and service records — may have been viewed, copied, or transferred. They also requested that Secretary Collins reveal the nature of the agreement that governs “DOGE” personnels engagement with the VA.

    Heinrich was joined by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Subcommittee Ranking Member Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and fellow Subcommittee members Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

    Full text of the senators’ letter can be found here and below.

    Dear Secretary Collins,

    During meetings in advance of your recent confirmation to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), you affirmed your commitment to transparency and to facilitating robust Congressional oversight of VA. As you know from your time in Congress, that oversight is essential to ensuring America’s veterans are well treated and supported.

    Accordingly, we seek specific information regarding VA’s engagement with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”). We understand that personnel reporting to Mr. Musk have recently visited VA facilities.

    Senators, veterans, and members of the public have serious concerns regarding Mr. Musk’s extraordinary and unprecedented activities and the lack of transparency surrounding them, including his potential access to and handling of sensitive or personal information.

    Please therefore provide written answers to the below questions by February 20, 2025-For the period beginning on January 20, 2025:

    1. Please list all personnel who report to Mr. Musk or are affiliated with “DOGE” who have visited VA facilities.

    a. For each individual, please report their position or title, organizational affiliation, and role, as well as the dates and times of their visit or visits and their activities while on VA premises.

    2. Please list all personnel who report to Mr. Musk or are affiliated with “DOGE” who have accessed or sought access to VA data, databases, or information technology systems (including servers, computers, networks, or devices), whether in-person or remotely.

    a. For each individual, please report their position or title, organizational affiliation, and role, as well as the dates, times, and nature of such accesses or attempts at access, including the specific data or IT systems accessed and the purpose and justification of access.

    3. Please list all VA data, databases, or information technology systems (including servers, computers, networks, or devices) that have been accessed, or to which access has been sought or requested, by Mr. Musk or personnel who report to Mr. Musk, or any personnel who are affiliated with “DOGE.”

    4. Please list all dates and periods of time this year during which Mr. Musk, personnel who report to Mr. Musk, or any personnel who are affiliated with “DOGE” have had access to, or the ability to access, whether in-person or remotely, VA data, databases, or information technology systems (including servers, computers, networks, or devices), up to and including the date of your response to this letter, if applicable.

    a. For these instances, please describe the individuals who have such access, the data or systems to which they have access, the nature of their access, and the purpose and justification for their access.

    5. Have any personnel who report to Mr. Musk or who are affiliated with “DOGE” sought or had access to, accessed, handled, copied, downloaded, or transferred any personally identifiable information (PII) of veterans, VA personnel, or other individuals whose PII is resident on VA systems? If so, please list the relevant personnel, the nature of their access to or engagement with such data, as well as the date, time, nature, and purpose of their activities. Please also specify the number of veterans, VA personnel, or non-VA individuals whose PII may have been accessed, copied, downloaded, or transferred.

    6. Have any personnel who report to Mr. Musk or who are affiliated with “DOGE” sought or had access to, accessed, handled, copied, downloaded, or transferred any veterans’ claims or medical records, non-VA medical records to which VA may have access, service records, or other files that contain veteran data? If so, please list the relevant personnel, the nature of their access to or engagement with such data, as well as the date, time, nature, and purpose of such activities. Please also specify the number of veterans whose records may have been accessed, copied, downloaded, or transferred.

    7. Have Mr. Musk, individuals who report to Mr. Musk, or individuals otherwise affiliated with “DOGE directly or remotely connected any computer, device, hardware, network, system, database, or software not wholly owned by the United States Government to any VA computer, server, device, hardware, network, or other information technology system since November 5, 2024?

    a. If so, please list each case, the relevant personnel, and the specific nature of the access or connection.

    8. Have Mr. Musk, individuals who report to Mr. Musk, or individuals otherwise affiliated with “DOGE” downloaded, copied, or transferred any VA data or data held on VA information technology systems to information technology systems or devices not wholly owned by or controlled by VA?

    a. If so, please specify the data downloaded, copied, or transferred; the nature of the system, device, or database to which it was transferred; and the purpose and justification of such transfer.

    9. Is “DOGE” engagement with VA governed by any Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement, or other similar document that specifies the nature, purpose, and terms of their access? If so, please provide such to the Subcommittee.

    10. Have Mr. Musk, individuals who report to Mr. Musk, or individuals who are otherwise affiliated with “DOGE” interviewed or otherwise engaged with any VA employees? If so, please provide the number of individuals interviewed, the job titles of the individuals interviewed, and the dates of the interviews.

    11. Please broadly characterize the interactions of the Department with Mr. Musk, personnel who report to Mr. Musk, and any personnel who are affiliated with “DOGE”, including the stated purpose and goals of their efforts at VA, the types of reviews they are conducting, and the timeline under which they will be concluding their work.

    12. Have Mr. Musk, individuals who report to Mr. Musk, or individuals otherwise affiliated with “DOGE” accessed financial, payment, or contracting systems at VA? If so, please specify the information accessed; and the purpose and justification of such access.

    13. Have VA’s Office of General Counsel or any personnel with responsibility for compliance, privacy, or ethics raised concerns regarding “DOGE” access to VA? If so, please specify the nature and form of such concern. If responsive information is in the form of written communication, please provide it to the Subcommittee.

    We look forward to receiving the information requested and wish you well on your mission at VA.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Q&A: Taxpayer Dollars Deserve Scrutiny

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley

    Q: Why did President Trump create the Department of Government Efficiency?

    A: The American people delivered a resounding message in November. They’re fed up with lawlessness at our southern border and sick and tired of being the bottomless piggybank for partisan spending sprees. President Trump won the popular vote for a historic second term and Republicans secured a congressional majority in both chambers of the people’s branch. The president wasted no time delivering on the electoral mandate. That includes strong fiscal stewardship. He created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comb the ledgers of the sprawling federal bureaucracy. As a taxpayer watchdog, I’ve worked to root out wasteful spending since my first term in the U.S. Senate, no matter who was in the White House.

    Holding government accountable is a tall order that previous administrations have tackled with limited success. During the Obama administration, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned: “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”  Fifteen years later, interest payments on the debt are now more than federal defense spending. Decades of deficit spending have saddled our children and grandchildren with a $36 trillion debt. The fiscal ramifications impact Americans every day. Burdensome debt service costs crowd out resources for other priorities, including tax relief and government services, as well as undermine the nation’s economic resiliency. High interest rates pinch private investment, job creation and prosperity from Wall Street to Main Street. We can’t afford to keep sweeping the nation’s debt under the rug from one year to the next.

    The federal government hasn’t balanced its budget since the Clinton administration. Back then, we had a three-year budget surplus from 1998-2001. President Clinton joined Republicans to tackle wasteful spending, “end welfare as we know it” and cut bloated government programs. Clinton campaigned on a platform to Reinvent Government (RIGO). After the Republican Revolution kicked Democrats out of the House majority for the first time in four decades, Clinton declared the “era of big government” is over. Between January 1993 and September 2000, the Clinton administration cut 426,200 jobs from the federal workforce. During that time, I led efforts to beef up customer service at the IRS and modernize its antiquated computer systems. During the Bush administration, I spearheaded reforms to cut rampant credit card abuse among federal agencies. Across administrations, I’ve hounded the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about improper payments. Just last year, I pressed the Biden administration to account for tens of billions of dollars in improper health care payments, including my oversight efforts to root out fraud and abuse in the Affordable Care Act.

    Taxpayers deserve stronger stewardship of their hard-earned money. The Trump administration is taking decisive action to cut wasteful spending. That’s what President Obama claimed he would do by launching “the Campaign to Cut Waste. Its stated mission: “to hunt down and eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.” President Trump is breaking through the bureaucratic inertia to root out wasteful spending and hold government accountable to the people it serves.

    Q: What about people facing uncertainty during the Trump administration’s top-to-bottom review of the federal bureaucracy?

    A: When I hear about people losing their jobs, whether from the federal government or in the private sector, I understand the financial stress and despair that job loss has on individuals and their families. During my years working in Iowa factories before getting elected to Congress, I was laid off from work on three different occasions, including from a job I’d held for 10 years before the company closed its doors. As the president’s team goes through its initial review of federal agencies, I’m keeping close tabs on the process to ensure the government continues to provide services to the American people and fulfills its responsibilities to keep the American people safe. As always, I’m keeping in touch with Iowans and sharing their concerns and questions with relevant federal agencies to advocate on their behalf.

    Since day one of his second term in the White House, the 47th president has made clear he intends to deliver on his promises. The review currently underway has delivered an undeniable message to Washington, D.C.: the era of business-as-usual is over. Contrary to what alarmists are saying, America is not in a constitutional crisis. Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in one person, the president of the United States. That means the power to hire and fire within the executive branch is constitutionally delegated to the president. Of course, our system of checks and balances empowers each branch to keep check on the others; the separation of powers reins in overreach to protect the fundamental rights of the people. My congressional oversight work is one example. These constitutional guardrails have endured for nearly 250 years to ensure government is of, by and for the people. The sky’s not falling, and neither is our republic.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Announces $970,000 in Grants to Fund Fair Housing Programs in the Capital Region

    Source: US State of New York

    NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced $970,000 in grants to support and expand fair housing testing and enforcement in New York’s Capital Region. This grant funding will be provided to United Tenants of Albany, Inc. (UTA) and the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) to develop and launch the region’s first fair housing testing and enforcement program and fund the program for a minimum of two years. The Capital Region is the most populous region of New York state that is not currently served by a Qualified Fair Housing Organization (QFHO). QFHOs, as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, operate fair housing enforcement programs and seek to protect families from housing discrimination. 

    Housing discrimination perpetuates racial discrimination and discrimination against protected classes, and without the sort of fair housing testing and enforcement program now made possible by these grants, the Capital Region faces greater risk of social and economic inequality, neighborhood disinvestment, increased childhood poverty, and widening homeownership disparities. These grants will bring critical and necessary services to the Capital Region and promote fair access to housing for thousands of New Yorkers. 

    “Access to housing is a basic human right, but too often, discriminatory practices and high prices prohibit countless New Yorkers from securing stable housing and further exacerbates the housing crisis,” said Attorney General James. “Investing in fair housing testing programs ensures we can create greater fair housing opportunities, protect tenants statewide, and hold landlords accountable. The new program supported by these grants will allow for an expansion of accessible and affordable housing across the Capital Region and help more New Yorkers find a place to call home.”

    Fair housing testing programs seek to identify and investigate housing discrimination in order to ensure fair access to housing for all. In 2021, the New York state Legislature established the Anti-Discrimination in Housing Fund, which collects licensing fees and discrimination fines from brokers and real estate agents to finance grants in support of fair housing testing and enforcement efforts. Grants from the Anti-Discrimination in Housing Fund are intended to benefit local non-profit organizations focused on preventing illegal discriminatory housing practices.

    The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) will award $520,000 to UTA to create a new fair housing enforcement program in the Capital Region and $450,000 to FHJC – a QFHO that is well-versed in fair housing testing and enforcement programs – to provide training and technical assistance while UTA develops and launches the program. The FHJC will be subcontracting with CNY Fair Housing, a Syracuse-based QFHO, to provide these services. The FHJC and CNY Fair Housing will also assist OAG in identifying additional regions in New York that could benefit from increased fair housing support.

    By utilizing fair housing testing and enforcement programs, Attorney General James has been able to reveal and eliminate housing discrimination practices at real estate brokerages on Long Island. In March 2023, Attorney General James took action against Coldwell Banker for discriminating against Black, Hispanic, and other potential homebuyers of color. As a result of Attorney General James’ intervention, Coldwell Banker was required to implement fair housing training for all real estate agents and to fund programs to promote enforcement of and compliance with fair housing laws in Suffolk County. In August 2022, Attorney General James took action against three other Long Island real estate brokerages that were discriminating against homebuyers of color. In some cases, agents at these brokerages were recorded showing preferential treatment to white homebuyers, disparaging neighborhoods of color, and only directing homebuyers of color to homes in neighborhoods where residents predominantly belonged to communities of color. In a fair housing settlement with Attorney General James, these brokerages contributed more than $115,000 to fix discriminatory practices and implement fair housing trainings. 

    “For over fifty years, UTA has specialized in advocating for tenants’ rights, and telling landlords what is and isn’t acceptable,” said Canyon Ryan, Executive Director of United Tenants of Albany. “But now, we are developing the capacity to go one step beyond advocacy: enforcement. With support from the Office of the Attorney General, the Fair Housing Justice Center, and others, UTA looks forward to ensuring landlords are held accountable when they violate fair housing laws.”

    “The Capital Region needs a full-service fair housing organization to address ongoing issues of illegal housing discrimination and residential racial segregation,” said Michele Cortese, Interim Executive Director, Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. “The Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) applauds the New York Office of Attorney General for recognizing this urgent need and making the necessary resources available to create an effective fair housing program in the Albany area. The FHJC is proud to have been selected by the Attorney General’s Office to provide extensive training, resources, and technical assistance to this emerging fair housing program.”  

    “Fair Housing is excited to be helping build fair housing capacity in the Capital Region, an area that has gone far too long without a fair housing organization,” said Sally Santangelo, Executive Director of CNY Fair Housing. “We know people in the region are experiencing housing discrimination and we are grateful that the Attorney General is investing in protecting their rights.”

    The OAG is allocating $970,000 to grantees over the program period of two years. Program continuation and grant renewal options will be evaluated and determined by OAG.

    This is the latest action taken by Attorney General James to root out discriminatory housing practices and expand fair housing support across the state. In September 2024, Attorney General James and New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) Commissioner RuthAnne Visnauskas announced the return of 263 apartments to rent stabilization and reduction of rent for an additional 43 apartments throughout New York City. In August 2024, Attorney General James stopped property owner and management company Shamco Management Corp. from illegally denying housing opportunities to low-income renters in New York City. In October 2023, she released a report detailing deep racial disparities in homeownership and access to home financing across the state. Also in October 2023, Attorney General James announced an agreement with Platzner International Group (PIG) and their various properties for denying housing to low-income residents in Westchester County. In May 2020, Attorney General James announced a $4.5 million grant to the Eliminating Barriers to Housing in New York (EBHNY) program which benefited existing QFHOs. This program set the framework for New York to continue funding these organizations through HCR under their Fair Housing Testing, Education and Networking Program. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein and NC Department of Commerce Bring Jobs to Rural and Small Town North Carolina

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein and NC Department of Commerce Bring Jobs to Rural and Small Town North Carolina

    Governor Stein and NC Department of Commerce Bring Jobs to Rural and Small Town North Carolina
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    This week, Governor Stein and the North Carolina Department of Commerce announced five different companies and the NC Rural Infrastructure Authority creating over 800 new jobs in rural North Carolina counties.

    “I am excited to see over 800 new jobs coming to small town North Carolina,” said Governor Josh Stein. “Rural North Carolina has a strong and talented manufacturing workforce, and I am pleased to see companies worldwide take advantage of what we have to offer. We want not only to continue to grow North Carolina’s economy but also to share that growth to every corner of the state.”

    “I was born and raised in rural North Carolina, so I know that there are great opportunities for companies to expand in every community in this state,” said North Carolina Secretary of Commerce Lee Lilley. “We will continue to pursue opportunities to create great jobs all across North Carolina.”

    Among the investments in North Carolina: 

    • Syntec Precision Technology Corporation will create 34 new jobs in Vance County and will invest $8 million to establish its first North American production and warehouse facility in Henderson.
    • Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, LLC will add 217 new jobs in Hoke County and invest more than $102.5 million to expand its manufacturing footprint in Raeford.
    • Chatsworth Products, Inc will add 45 new jobs in Craven County and invest $11 million to expand its facility in New Bern.
    • Provalus will establish a Center of Excellence in Edenton, creating 61 jobs and will invest $6.48 million to Chowan County.
    • Barrier Fencing Supply will establish a headquarters and manufacturing center in Columbus County, creating 151 jobs.
    • NC Rural Infrastructure Authority has approved 13 grant requests to local governments, which will create 785 jobs, 414 of which were previously announced

    Read more about the job announcements across North Carolina:

    Feb 21, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: COLUMN: Walker: Week Six Under the Gold Dome

    Source: US State of Georgia

    By: Sen. Larry Walker, III (R–Perry)

    With Legislative Day 20 behind us, we have officially reached the halfway mark of the 2025 Legislative Session.

    One of our biggest legislative priorities this session has been lawsuit reform. Reining in the costly legal environment that burdens small businesses, healthcare providers, and consumers has been long overdue, and I am proud to report that the Senate has taken a significant step forward with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 68. These commonsense reforms will help stabilize insurance costs, prevent frivolous litigation and ensure that businesses—especially small, family-owned operations—can operate without the constant threat of excessive verdicts. By curbing lawsuit abuse, we protect jobs and keep costs down for Georgia consumers. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House to send these bills to the Governor’s desk.

    This week, we also passed SB 52, the “Timberlands Recovery, Exemption, and Earnings Stability (TREES) Act,” which provides vital tax relief to timberland owners impacted by Hurricane Helene. The storm caused catastrophic damage, destroying an estimated $1.3 billion in standing timber across South Georgia. Many of these landowners depend on their timber harvest for income, and the economic impact has been devastating. This bill, sponsored by Sen. Russ Goodman (R–Cogdell), will help stabilize the market, ease the financial strain on affected families and support the long-term recovery of Georgia’s forestry industry—one of the largest in the nation.

    Another key legislative win this week was the passage of SB 89, which expands Georgia’s Child Tax Credit to provide direct financial relief to families with young children. Sponsored by Sen. Brian Strickland (R–McDonough), this bill builds on the recommendations of the Senate Study Committee on Access to Affordable Childcare, which spent months gathering input from working parents, childcare providers, and business leaders. The bill increases the state tax credit for childcare expenses to 40% of the federal level and creates a new tax credit for families with children under seven. Additionally, SB 89 incentivizes businesses to help employees with childcare costs by raising the employer tax credit cap from 50% to 75%. With the rising cost of childcare making it harder for parents—particularly mothers—to remain in the workforce, this legislation will provide real relief for Georgia families and help grow our state’s economy.

    In addition to these major policy advancements, I introduced SB 125 to address the arduous process that professional engineers face to obtain certification. SB 125 would decouple the current sequential order of experience and examination requirements, which would allow engineers to acquire their license more quickly. This reform would also help prepare engineers to enter the Georgia workforce and advance in their careers. SB 125 was passed out of the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities, and I look forward to bringing it to the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

    On a personal note, I was honored to celebrate Future Farmers of America (FFA) Day on Tuesday. Georgia is home to the third-largest chapter of this excellent organization, whose work is instrumental in directing young people to the forefront of agriculture and preparing them for career success. The future of farming depends on our youth, and with the help of FFA, Georgia agriculture will continue to be our state’s top industry.

    As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the 20th Senate District. Please don’t hesitate to ask any questions, concerns, or ideas. Your input helps shape the policies that impact our state, and I value your voice in this process.

    # # # #

    Sen. Larry Walker serves as Secretary of the Majority Caucus and Walker: Week Six Under the Gold DomeChairman of the Senate Committee on Insurance and Labor. He represents the 20th Senate District, which includes Bleckley, Dodge, Dooly, Laurens, Treutlen, Pulaski and Wilcox counties, as well as portions of Houston County.  He may be reached by phone at (404) 656-0095 or by email at Larry.Walker@senate.ga.gov.For all media inquiries, please reach out to SenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Announce $265M for Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects Statewide

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Announce $265M for Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects Statewide

    Governor Stein, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Announce $265M for Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects Statewide
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Governor Josh Stein announced today that communities statewide will receive more than $265 million in funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. These loans and grants will help to pay for 99 projects in 45 different counties. The awards include funding to address emerging contaminants (PFAS) and identify and replace lead pipes.

    “When we invest in our infrastructure, we build a stronger and safer state for every North Carolinian,” said Governor Josh Stein. “This funding will help ensure more North Carolinians have access to safe and clean drinking water and will strengthen our communities for decades to come.”

    “Every family expects and deserves clean water when they turn on the tap,” said DEQ Secretary Reid Wilson. “These investments will provide critical infrastructure to help improve public health and quality of life for North Carolinians in communities large and small across our state.” 

    Notable projects include:

    • Kings Mountain (Gaston County) will receive $2 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Drinking Water funds for a lead and copper service line replacement project.
    • The Town of Fair Bluff (Columbus County) will receive $1 million in Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds for construction of a well outside the 500-year floodplain, with connection to the water system via approximately 4,000 linear feet of waterline. This will replace a well that was damaged in Hurricanes Florence and Matthew.
    • The Town of Nags Head (Dare County) will receive $500,000 in Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds to finance repairs and replacements to approximately 400 malfunctioning residential septic systems. This is the first award from the Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System Pilot Program.
    • New Hanover County will receive $3 million in funding from the Community Development Block Grant-Infrastructure program to install 1.3 miles of water lines and connect 50 occupied residential units to the water system.
    • The Town of River Bend (Craven County) will receive $10.4 million in Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds to complete improvements to water treatment systems and water supply wells.
    • Columbus County Water District IV will receive $15 million in Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds to install one 250,000-gallon elevated water tank, a booster pump station, a deep-water supply well, and to extend waterlines to serve more than 500 residences in the Waccamaw Siouan Tribal Area.
    • Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (Halifax County) will receive $5 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding for Emerging Contaminants to begin work on constructing a post-filter granular activated carbon adsorption facility to remove PFAS from its drinking water.
    • Bessemer City (Gaston County) will receive $2.5 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – Lead Service Line Replacement funds to replace approximately 150 galvanized water service lines with new water service lines, from the water main to the homes.
    • A list of all projects selected for funding is available on the Department of Environmental Quality website.

    The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)’s Division of Water Infrastructure reviewed 203 eligible applications, which requested a total of $1.63 billion. The State Water Infrastructure Authority approved the awards during its Feb. 19 meeting. 

    Funding this round came from the Drinking Water (DWSRF) and Clean Water (CWSRF) State Revolving Loan Funds, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Emerging Contaminants funds, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Lead Service Line Replacement fund, the Drinking Water and Wastewater State Reserves, the Viable Utilities Reserve, and the Community Development Block Grant-Infrastructure (CDBG-I) program. Projects funded with Viable Utility Reserve funds are subject to approval by the Local Government Commission. The upcoming Spring 2025 funding applications for drinking water, wastewater, lead service line, and emerging contaminants projects opens on March 4 and ends on April 30 by 5 p.m. Funding application training for this round will be provided between March 4 and March 12 through four in-person statewide sessions and a recorded virtual option.

    The State Water Infrastructure Authority is an independent body with primary responsibility for awarding federal and state funding for water infrastructure projects. NCDEQ also administers emergency funding for communities in western North Carolina to repair and build resilience into drinking water and wastewater systems damaged by Tropical Storm Helene. Local governments can request emergency funding from the Division of Water Infrastructure directly by contacting Cathy.Akroyd@deq.nc.gov.

    Feb 21, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Grand jury indicts 4 separate cases involving immigration offenses

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    COLUMBUS, Ohio – A federal grand jury indicted four new immigration cases in Columbus this week.

    According to their court documents, two defendants have prior convictions for drug trafficking, one defendant’s prior convictions include a firearms crime and driving under the influence, and the final defendant was allegedly smuggling illegal aliens across the United States.

    Juan Carlos Garcia-Vasquez, 45, is a Mexican national who was charged with illegally reentering the United States. He was previous convicted in Franklin County for cocaine trafficking.

    Ricardo Martinez-Nunez, 29, has prior convictions in Franklin County for improperly handling a firearm in a vehicle and driving under the influence. Martinez-Nunez is also charged with illegally reentering the United States. He is a Mexican national.

    Previous convictions for Lino Mendiola-Vanegas, 45, include cocaine trafficking and forgery in Franklin County. He is charged with illegally reentering the United States and is a Mexican national.

    Finally, it is alleged that Adalberto Calixto Tolentino, 21, was transporting four illegal aliens across the United States for financial gain.

    According to his court documents, on Jan. 23, investigators with the Licking County Sheriff’s Office received information from Customs and Border Patrol located in Southern Arizona that a Toyota Highlander with an Arizona license plate was allegedly involved in human smuggling.

    Sheriff’s deputies stopped Tolentino in Licking County and discovered four individuals in the vehicle as well as an envelope with $8,000 cash. When interviewed by law enforcement, one passenger said he had paid $10,000 to be helped crossing the border of Mexico into the United States. He was picked up in the desert in Arizona and eventually transported by Tolentino.

    Tolentino was originally charged by criminal complaint and arrested on Jan. 24. He has remained in federal custody since that time. If convicted as charged, he faces up to 10 years in prison.

    Illegally reentering the United States is a federal crime punishable by up to two years in prison. If the offender has multiple prior misdemeanor charges, the penalty is increased to 10 years in prison, and if the offender has been previously convicted of an aggravated felony, the defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

    Kelly A. Norris, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio; Jared Murphey, acting Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Detroit, and Robert Lynch, Field Office Director, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detroit Field Office. Assistant United States Attorneys Kenneth F. Affeldt and Tyler J. Aagard are representing the United States in these cases.

    An indictment merely contains allegations, and defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

    These cases are being prosecuted as part of the Southern District of Ohio Immigration Enforcement Task Force, which dedicates agents, attorneys and other staff to investigating and prosecuting immigration violations.

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Navient finalizes sale of Government Services business

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HERNDON, Va., Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Navient (Nasdaq: NAVI) announced today that it has finalized the sale of its Government Services business to an affiliate of Gallant Capital Partners, LLC, a Los Angeles-based investment firm.

    Navient’s Government Services business includes Navient Business Processing Group, Duncan Solutions, Gila (D.B.A Municipal Services Bureau), Pioneer Credit Recovery and Navient BPO. Approximately 1,200 employees are transferring with those businesses as a part of the transaction, which allows Navient to fully exit the business processing solutions space.

    About Navient
    Navient (Nasdaq: NAVI) provides technology-enabled education finance solutions that simplify complex programs and help millions of people achieve success. Our customer-focused, data-driven services deliver exceptional results for clients. Learn more at navient.com.

    Contact:

    Media: Paul Hartwick, 302-283-4026, paul.hartwick@navient.com

    Investors: Jen Earyes, 703-984-6801, jen.earyes@navient.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Triumph Financial to Present at the Raymond James & Associates’ 46th Annual Institutional Investors Conference on March 5, in Orlando, Florida

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DALLAS, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Triumph Financial, Inc. (Nasdaq: TFIN) today announced that Aaron Graft, Vice Chairman and CEO, will present at the Raymond James & Associates’ 46th Annual Institutional Investors Conference on March 5, in Orlando, Florida. Triumph Financial, Inc.’s presentation is scheduled to begin at 11:35 a.m. ET. The presentation will be webcast live and may be accessed through this direct link, https://wsw.com/webcast/rj131/tfin/1599201 or via the Company’s website at tfin.com through the News & Events, Events & Presentations links.

    About Triumph

    Triumph Financial, Inc. (Nasdaq: TFIN) is a financial holding company focused on payments, factoring and banking. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, its diversified portfolio of brands includes TriumphPay, Triumph and TBK Bank.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Investors are cautioned that such statements are predictions and that actual events or results may differ materially. Triumph Financial’s expected financial results or other plans are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see “Risk Factors” and the forward-looking statement disclosure contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2025. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made and Triumph Financial undertakes no duty to update the information.

    Source: Triumph Financial, Inc.

    Investor Relations:
    Luke Wyse
    Senior Vice President, Head of Investor Relations
    lwyse@tfin.com
    214-365-6936

    Media Contact:
    Amanda Tavackoli
    Senior Vice President, Director of Corporate Communication
    atavackoli@tfin.com
    214-365-6930

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: United Community Banks, Inc. Announces Quarterly Cash Dividend on Common Stock

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    GREENVILLE, S.C., Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — United Community Banks, Inc. (NYSE: UCB) (“United”), reported that its Board of Directors approved a quarterly cash dividend of $0.24 per share on the Company’s common stock. The dividend is payable April 4, 2025 to shareholders of record as of March 14, 2025.

    About United Community Banks, Inc.
    United Community Banks, Inc. (NYSE: UCB) is the financial holding company for United Community, a top 100 U.S. financial institution that is committed to improving the financial health and well-being of its customers and the communities it serves. United Community provides a full range of banking, wealth management and mortgage services. As of December 31, 2024, United Community Banks, Inc. had $27.7 billion in assets, 199 offices across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, as well as a national SBA lending franchise and a national equipment lending subsidiary. In 2024, United Community became a 10-time winner of J.D. Power’s award for the best customer satisfaction among consumer banks in the Southeast region and was recognized as the most trusted bank in the Southeast. In 2024, United was named by American Banker as one of the “Best Banks to Work For” for the eighth consecutive year and was recognized in the Greenwich Excellence and Best Brands Awards, receiving 15 awards that included national honors for overall satisfaction in small business banking and middle market banking. Forbes has also consistently listed United Community as one of the World’s Best Banks and one of America’s Best Banks. Additional information about United can be found at ucbi.com.

    For more information:
    Jefferson Harralson
    Chief Financial Officer
    (864) 240-6208
    Jefferson_Harralson@ucbi.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Navient declares first quarter common stock dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HERNDON, Va., Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Navient (Nasdaq: NAVI) announced that its board of directors approved a 2025 first quarter dividend of $0.16 per share on the company’s common stock.

    The first quarter 2025 dividend will be paid on Mar. 21, 2025, to shareholders of record at the close of business on Mar. 7, 2025.

    About Navient
    Navient (Nasdaq: NAVI) provides technology-enabled education finance solutions that simplify complex programs and help millions of people achieve success. Our customer-focused, data-driven services deliver exceptional results for clients. Learn more at navient.com.

    Contact:
    Media: Paul Hartwick, 302-283-4026, paul.hartwick@navient.com

    Investors: Jen Earyes, 703-984-6801, jen.earyes@navient.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: United Fire Group, Inc. Declares a Common Stock Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.16 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Today, the Board of Directors of United Fire Group, Inc. (“UFG”) (Nasdaq: UFCS) declared a common stock quarterly cash dividend of $0.16 per share. This dividend will be payable March 21, 2025 to shareholders of record as of March 7, 2025.

    UFG has a long history of paying quarterly dividends, with the quarterly cash dividend declared today marking the 228th consecutive quarterly dividend paid, dating back to March 1968.

    About UFG

    Founded in 1946 as United Fire & Casualty Company, UFG, through its insurance company subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty insurance.

    The company is licensed as a property and casualty insurer in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and is represented by approximately 1,000 independent agencies. A.M. Best Company assigns a rating of “A-” (Excellent) for members of the United Fire & Casualty Group. For more information about UFG, visit www.ufginsurance.com.

    Contact:

    Investor Relations
    Email: ir@unitedfiregroup.com

    Media Inquiries
    Email: news@unitedfiregroup.com

    Disclosure of Forward-Looking Statements

    This release may contain forward-looking statements about our operations, anticipated performance and other similar matters. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are not historical facts and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those expected and/or projected. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about the Company, the industry in which we operate, and beliefs and assumptions made by management. Words such as “expect(s),” “anticipate(s),” “intend(s),” “plan(s),” “believe(s),” “continue(s),” “seek(s),” “estimate(s),” “goal(s),” “remain(s) optimistic,” “target(s),” “forecast(s),” “project(s),” “predict(s),” “should,” “could,” “may,” “will,” “might,” “hope,” “can” and other words and terms of similar meaning or expression in connection with a discussion of future operations, financial performance or financial condition, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed in such forward-looking statements. Information concerning factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements is contained in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on February 29, 2024. The risks identified in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other SEC filings are representative of the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from what is expressed in the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release or as of the date they are made. Except as required under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the SEC, we do not have any intention or obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Slams SecDef Hegseth’s Order to Cut Defense Budget by Eight Percent for the Next Five Years

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    February 20, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee—issued the following statement after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the military to reduce the defense budget by 8% for the next five years, jeopardizing our servicemembers, our national security and military readiness:

    “Abrupt far-reaching cuts to our defense budget won’t make Americans, our servicemembers and their families safer. I’m all for trimming waste and making our government more efficient, but the most unqualified, unprepared Secretary of Defense in history ramming through cuts to a budget that funds all our military training, defense technology and servicemembers’ salaries will hurt our national security, our military readiness and our economy by causing damage to our Armed Services that could take years to reverse.”

    Duckworth voted in support of the bipartisan FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorized a defense budget of roughly $850 billion.  If the Trump Administration implements an annual 8 percent cut over the next five years, it could mean approximately $300 billion less in military spending through fiscal year 2030. 

    If Secretary Hegseth’s dramatic 8 percent cut to the annual defense budget is enforced, it would also mean the U.S. would fall short of President Trump’s call for all NATO countries to spend at least 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. In order for the U.S. to meet that level of defense spending, it would have to allocate about $1 trillion annually on the U.S. military budget.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Average electricity supply in rural areas has increased from 12.5 hours in 2014 to 22.6 hours in 2025, and in urban areas to 23.4 hours in 2025: Shri Manohar Lal

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Average electricity supply in rural areas has increased from 12.5 hours in 2014 to 22.6 hours in 2025, and in urban areas to 23.4 hours in 2025: Shri Manohar Lal

    Non-fossil power capacity has increased by 180% compared to 2014: Shri Manohar Lal

    1 lakh EV charging stations will be installed by 2030:Shri Manohar Lal

    AT&C losses have reduced from 22.62% in 2014 to 15% in 2025: Shri Manohar Lal

    Posted On: 21 FEB 2025 7:54PM by PIB Delhi

    “It is our goal to make power accessible to everyone and all times and the government is aiming for 100% electrification of households across the country,” said Union Minister Shri Manohar Lal while addressing a press conference in New Delhi today.

    1. Power Accessibility and Special Focus on Tribal and Border Areas

    Union Minister informed that with the help of initiatives like  Deeen Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY) ,  PM Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (SAUBHAGYA), Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG ) the accessibility to power has increased significantly in the last 10 years.

    Shri Manohar Lal said that average electricity supply in rural areas has increased from 12.5 hours in 2014 to 22.6 hours in 2025 and in urban areas to 23.4 hours in 2025.

    2. Fossil and Non-Fossil Power Generation

    Union Minister informed that fossil based power capacity has increased from 168 GW in 2014 to 246 GW in Jan 2025 which shows an increase of around 46 percent.

    He also informed that the increase in non fossil capacity has increased from around 80GW in 2014 to around 220 GW in 2025 (as of 31 January 2025 ) which is around 180 percent increase .

    3. Transmission Growth and Projections

    Highlighting the addition and transmission network, Shri Manohar Lal informed that the Transmission Network has increased from 2.91 lakh ckm in 2014 to 4.92 lakh ckm in 2025.

    Transmission Network Expansion:

    Year

    Total Transmission Network (lakh ckm)

    2014

    2.91

    2024

    4.85

    2025

    4.92

    4. Power Import and Export: India as a Net Exporter

    Addressing the media, the Union Minister informed that India has become net exporter of power and the net export in 2025 amounts to 1625 MU. He also informed that in 2014 India was a net importer of power.

    Year

    Power Import (MU)

    Power Export (MU)

    Net Export (MU)

    2014

    5,555

    2,288

    -3,267 (Importing Nation)

    2024

    3,863

    8,576

    +4,713

    2025

    8,365

    9,980

    +1,625

    5. Power Distribution: Declining Shortage Gap

    The Union Minister informed that energy shortage has reduced from 4.2% in 2014 to 0.1% in 2025. He also said that the steps are being taken to overcome the current energy shortage.

    6. DISCOMs: Reduction in Losses

    AT&C losses have reduced from 22.62% in 2014 to 15% in 2025, and this will be further reduced to 10% by 2030.

    7. Smart Meters: Achievements and Targets

    Union Minister informed that around 2.13 Cr smart meters have been installed. He further informed that 19.8 Cr smart meters, 52.5 lakh DTRs and 2.1 lakh feeders have been sanctioned.

    8. Energy Efficiency and Carbon Reduction

    Shri Manohar Lal said that consistent efforts since 2014 have led to a savings in annual energy consumption of 53 MTOE in 2024 in the Indian economy.  The corresponding savings in emissions has been 321 Mn tons CO2. He also informed that government has launched sustainable building codes to improve energy efficiency of commercial and residential buildings.

    9 Transport Sector: Focus on Electric Vehicles

    Shri Manohar Lal said that the government is focused on promoting electric vehicles. He added that by 2030, 1 lakh EV charging stations will be installed to facilitate electric mobility.

    Click here for more details.

    Click here for more details.

    *******

    SK

    (Release ID: 2105394) Visitor Counter : 86

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Director-General of Investment Promotion concludes visit to Japan and Korea (with photos)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    Director-General of Investment Promotion concludes visit to Japan and Korea (with photos)
    Director-General of Investment Promotion concludes visit to Japan and Korea (with photos)
    *****************************************************************************************

         ​The Director-General of Investment Promotion at Invest Hong Kong, Ms Alpha Lau, today (February 21) concluded her visit to Japan and Korea, which was aimed at promoting Hong Kong’s business advantages and exploring new opportunities for collaboration.           During the trip, Ms Lau met with representatives from various corporations, including leading global enterprises, long-established trading companies, influential local businesses and industry associations, as well as entrepreneurs in both countries. The discussions focused on Hong Kong business opportunities in areas such as financial services, trade, innovation and technology, advanced manufacturing, as well as opportunities arising from the Northern Metropolis development. She also took the opportunity to meet with the local media to elaborate on the latest business advantages in Hong Kong.     Ms Lau said, “Both Japan and Korea are facing the issue of an aging population. For corporates looking for growth, they have to expand into overseas markets. Hong Kong, as a ‘super connector’ and a ‘super value-adder’, serves not only as a gateway to the Mainland market, but also as the perfect platform for Japanese and Korean companies to expand into the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) and the entire ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) market.           “The Hong Kong Government is committed to promoting the development of innovation and technology. With our sophisticated innovation and technology ecosystem, Hong Kong provides huge business opportunities for Japanese and Korean start-ups that want to expand overseas. At the same time, the city is actively promoting the silver economy, and Japan and Korea have solid experience in this area. We can further cooperate with Japan and Korea to address the issue of an aging population,” she added.           The President of the Hong Kong Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Kiichiro Takanami, said, “Hong Kong is the ideal platform for Japanese businesses to expand internationally. Apart from being the culinary and movie capital of Asia, the city also plays a vital role in the innovation development of the GBA, offering unmatched connectivity, a business-friendly environment and skilled talent. Japanese companies can leverage Hong Kong’s business advantages to scale their operations and tap into Mainland China and new markets across Asia.”           The Director General of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency in Hong Kong, Mr Jaesun Uh, said, “Hong Kong is an unparalleled gateway for Korean corporates and start-ups looking to expand globally. With its crucial role as an international financial centre, its investor-friendly policies and strategic access to the GBA, Hong Kong provides an ideal launchpad for innovation-driven businesses seeking international expansion.”           He added, “For Korean start-ups aiming to go global, Hong Kong presents an exceptional opportunity. With its vibrant start-up ecosystem, easy access to venture capital, deep connections to international markets, and a business-friendly regulatory environment, it is a strategic choice for scaling innovation.”           The visit culminated in a commitment to continue dialogues and explore further avenues for collaboration, reinforcing Hong Kong’s status as a premier business destination for corporates and entrepreneurs from Japan and Korea.

     
    Ends/Friday, February 21, 2025Issued at HKT 20:05

    NNNN

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Decisions taken by the Governing Council of the ECB (in addition to decisions setting interest rates)

    Source: European Central Bank

    February 2025

    21 February 2025

    Market operations

    Extension of liquidity lines until January 2027

    On 23 January 2025 the Governing Council approved the extension of the ECB repo lines with eight non-euro area central banks (Magyar Nemzeti Bank, Banca Națională a României, Bank of Albania, Andorran Financial Authority, National Bank of the Republic of North Macedonia, Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino, Central Bank of Montenegro and Central Bank of the Republic of Kosovo) until 31 January 2027. The decision was taken pursuant to the new framework for euro liquidity lines, which was adopted in 2023.

    Eurosystem climate stress test report

    On 13 February 2025 the Governing Council took note of the main findings of the 2024 climate stress test on the Eurosystem’s balance sheet, which will feed into the Eurosystem’s climate-related financial disclosures.

    Market infrastructure and payments

    Inclusion of provisions on the TARGET Analytical Environment in the T2 Currency Participation Agreement

    On 13 February 2025 the Governing Council approved the amendments to the agreement on the use of T2 services (T2 Currency Participation Agreement) to include the TARGET Analytical Environment as a standard feature offered to both current and future signatories of the T2 Currency Participation Agreement.

    Advice on legislation

    ECB Opinion on flood insurance

    On 4 February 2025 the Governing Council adopted Opinion CON/2025/3 at the request of the Chair of the Oireachtas (Irish National Parliament) Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister).

    ECB Opinion on indirect participants in, and access to, payment systems, and a new exemption from the cash rule

    On 5 February 2025 the Governing Council adopted Opinion ECB Recommendation on the external auditors of the European Central Bank for the financial years 2025 to 2029

    On 12 February 2025 the Governing Council adopted Recommendation ECB/2025/6 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the European Central Bank.

    Statistics

    Extension of the Integrated Reporting Framework and the Common Data Management investigation phases

    On 17 February 2025 the Governing Council approved the revised Quality Review Gate 1 documentation (including the Financial Envelopes and Project Charters), extending until the end of September 2025 the investigation phases of the ESCB and SSM Common Data Management and the ESCB Integrated Reporting Framework projects.

    Banknotes and coins

    Composition of the design contest jury for the new euro banknotes

    On 6 February 2025 the Governing Council took note of the composition of the design contest jury for the new euro banknotes. The jury will prepare a shortlist of designs to support the selection of the final design of the future euro banknotes by the Governing Council and is scheduled to start work in early 2025.

    ECB Banking Supervision

    Update of the 2025 Supervisory Examination Programme (SEP) for on-site inspections and internal model investigations at significant institutions

    On 30 January 2025 the Governing Council did not object to a proposal by the Supervisory Board for an update of the 2025 SEP for on-site inspections and internal model investigations at significant institutions and outsourcing service providers. The on-site SEP is based on SSM supervisory priorities for 2025-2027 published on the ECB’s banking supervision website.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: ECB announces changes to use of external ratings for private sector assets in Eurosystem collateral framework

    Source: European Central Bank

    21 February 2025

    • Second-best rating will apply for private sector assets
    • Changes will enter into force no earlier than 18 months from today to allow technical implementation
    • For euro area public sector assets, first-best rating will continue to apply

    On 19 February 2025 the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to change the rules on the use of credit ratings issued by external credit assessment institutions (ECAIs) to assess the eligibility of private sector assets for use as collateral under the Eurosystem collateral framework and to determine the haircuts to be applied to those assets. Accordingly, the second-best rating will apply for private sector assets such as unsecured bank bonds, covered bank bonds and assets issued by non-financial corporations. This decision also applies to the accepted non-euro area public sector and follows a thorough review of the rating aggregation rules aimed at making better use of all available credit rating information in the Eurosystem Credit Assessment Framework (ECAF). The review took account of the increased number of ECAIs accepted in the ECAF and the fact that the Eurosystem is open to accepting additional rating agencies once they comply with the ECAF acceptance criteria.

    Under the current rules, where multiple ECAI ratings exist, the Eurosystem selects the first-best rating for the purpose of assessing collateral credit quality (when it determines the eligibility of private and public sector assets for use as collateral and assigns the haircuts to be applied). This approach applies to all assets other than asset-backed securities, for which a second-best rating rule is already followed.

    Under the new rules, private sector assets will be assessed on the basis of the second-best rating among the ratings from accepted ECAIs. For assets with only one rating from an accepted ECAI, where the second-best rule therefore cannot be applied, a one-notch downgrade will be applied to the available rating to determine the rating relevant for collateral purposes.

    The Governing Council also decided that the rules will remain unchanged for assets issued or guaranteed by the euro area public sector (e.g. euro area central, regional and local governments; international and supranational issuers located in the euro area whose shareholders are located in the EU; and agencies recognised by the ECB). These assets, for which the Eurosystem makes regular use of all available credit quality information and applies enhanced due diligence procedures, will therefore continue to be assessed on the basis of their first-best rating.

    The Governing Council reserves the right to deviate from credit rating agencies’ ratings if warranted, in line with its discretion under the monetary policy framework, thereby avoiding mechanistic reliance on these ratings.

    The change to the rules on the use of external ratings for private sector assets will enter into force no earlier than 18 months from today to allow for an implementation in the Eurosystem IT infrastructure. The date will be announced well in advance, together with the technical details, on the ECB’s website.

    For media queries, please contact Carlijn Straathof, tel.: +49 69 1344 23419.

    Notes

    MIL OSI Economics –