NewzIntel.com

Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library and Salford City Council aim to inspire children to love reading

    Source: City of Salford

    Salford children have helped to launch a Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library at Little Hulton Library today and have also enjoyed a fun storytelling session.
     
    Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library and Salford City Council are inviting parents of children born in 2024 in Little Hulton, Salford to sign up to enrol in the programme.
     
    Councillor Jim Cammell, Councillor Mishal Saeed, Councillor Teresa Pepper and Councillor Hannah Robinson Smith have also helped to launch the scheme.

    Salford City Council is funding the latest book gifting programme in the city which is devoted to inspiring a love of reading in children.
     
    Inspired by her father’s inability to read or write, country music icon Dolly started her Imagination Library in 1995 for children in her home county. 
     
    Today, her programme spans five countries and gifts over three million free books each month to children, regardless of the family’s income. 

    Last year, Dolly celebrated her 200 millionth book gifted milestone since inception, with over six million of those going to families in the UK.
     
    The programme posts an age-appropriate book each month to children from birth to age five. The books are specially wrapped and addressed to the child and delivered, at no cost to the family. When children turn five, they receive a graduation book and a special letter to mark the end of the scheme.  

    The Little Hulton scheme will provide books for local children, with Salford City Council providing additional funding to run the scheme. 
     
    Councillor Jim Cammell, Lead Member for Children’s and Young People’s Services at Salford City Council, said: “It’s great news that we are able to launch another Dolly Parton Imagination Library in Salford. This will add to our work to improve educational outcomes and literacy for early years children in the city. This is particularly important as there continues to be a gap in Salford’s outcomes compared to 2019 pre-pandemic levels.
     
    “We are committed to working in partnership with all our communities to ensure Salford is a great place, where children get the best start in life, and can learn and develop the skills they need to thrive. We have recently launched a gold standard literacy hub with the National Literacy Trust, and Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library will support the work of the hub by promoting reading from the early years of a child’s life.”
     
    Meg Fletcher, Regional Director at The Dollywood Foundation from Dolly Parton Imagination Library, said: “We are delighted to be working in partnership with Salford City Council to reach even more children in the community. We’re building on a strong history of programmes in the city thanks to the tireless efforts of our champions and hope that families enjoy receiving the books each month!”
     
    The council’s Starting Life Well service, which works with all early years settings and schools, and the 0 to 19 years team in Little Hulton will promote and support the programme. 

    Little Hulton Family Hub staff will be promoting the scheme and also using the books in their sessions with families.
     
    The local library team in Little Hulton will also be supporting the programme, working with local families to promote literacy, and reading for pleasure more widely. There will be a set of books in each early years setting, school, the library and family hub as practical support for the project. 
     
    Currently there are seven Dolly Parton Imagination Libraries based within Salford, operated through various community organisations such as schools and charities. 
     
    Working towards Salford becoming a UNICEF Child-Friendly City is a priority in the council’s corporate plan, to ensure Salford is a great place for children and young people to grow up and feel safe, cared for, heard and have quality opportunities to play, learn and work. This will take the council on the next stage of its journey to improve education outcomes, support children to have positive and successful futures, and champion the voices and rights of children and young people in the city.
     
    Salford is the 18th most deprived area in the country. Figures from 2022 and 2023 have shown that children’s starting points from early years have been below national average and by the time the children leave primary school Key Stage 2 outcomes are below national levels.
     
    The Dollywood Foundation UK reports there are more than 680 children currently registered in Salford. Since 2013 2,000 children have been impacted by the programme and over 36,500 books sent to children in Salford. The enrolment does not involve means testing, all children in the area can be enrolled and receive the same books regardless of background.
     
    Families with babies born in Little Hulton in 2024 or 2025 can enrol by emailing West.Locality@salford.gov.uk for more information.

    Share this

    Date published
    Monday 27 January 2025

    Press and media enquiries

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Yuri Trutnev: We are proud of our fighters on the front lines

    Translation. Region: Russian Federation –

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Deputy Prime Minister and Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative in the Far Eastern Federal District Yuri Trutnev met in Kursk Oblast with a team of volunteers – employees of the Far Eastern Federal District Plenipotentiary Representative’s office, the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East, the Far East and Arctic Development Corporation, as well as with soldiers of the 155th Guards Marine Brigade.

     

    “Kursk is a special territory. Part of our Russian land, the Kursk region, has been captured by enemies – Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries. Today, our Motherland is being defended by the fighters of the already legendary 155th Guards Marine Brigade and our colleagues, volunteer civil servants. It is very important for all of us that everything that the fighters on the front line need to protect and liberate the territory of the Kursk region is delivered to them immediately after receiving the request. We are bringing everything and doing this together with the Russian Ministry of Defense and thousands of caring citizens of the country,” said Yuri Trutnev.

     

    On the instructions of Yuri Trutnev, another batch of weapons, uniforms, and vehicles were delivered to commanders and servicemen of the Russian army at the front line in the special military operation zone.

     

    “Our fighters need common support. The contribution of all those who remain in the rear to our common victory. Some deliver humanitarian aid and equipment to the front line, others restore the territories of new regions, and others volunteer to help the families of those who fight on the front line. I will say honestly, today we are preparing another, already the fourth group of volunteers. The future of our Russia depends on every personal contribution,” emphasized Yuri Trutnev.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Kidnapper of Alexandria, Virginia, Couple Sentenced to 108 Months in Federal Prison

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime News

               WASHINGTON – Robbie Terrell Clark, 27, of Washington D.C., was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 108 months in federal prison for his role in the September 2022 kidnapping and robbery of a pair of victims in Alexandria, Virginia. 

               The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. for the District of Columbia and FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ryan of the Washington Field Office Criminal and Cyber Division. 

               Clark pleaded guilty on May 21, 2024, before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, to one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping. In addition to the 108-month prison-term, Judge Berman Jackson ordered Clark to serve four years of supervised release. 

               According to court documents, Clark and his co-conspirators stalked their intended victims before kidnapping and robbing them at gunpoint inside their Alexandria, Virginia apartment building. On September 2, 2022, the co-conspirators planted a GPS tracking device on one of the victim’s Mercedes, which they used to monitor the victims’ locations.  

               On September 3, 2022, the victims attended a family gathering in Maryland. Seizing the opportunity to catch their victims unaware, Clark and his co-conspirators traveled from Washington, D.C. to Virginia in a stolen white Kia and to the victim’s home, where they laid in wait, armed with guns and carrying zip ties. Clark and his co-conspirators were wearing dark clothing, masks, and latex gloves.

               When the victims returned home later that night, Clark and his co-conspirators ambushed them in their parking garage at gunpoint, stealing two Audemars Piguet watches worth $120,000, another $63,500 worth of jewelry, other clothing, and the keys to a victim’s Mercedes.

               After robbing them, and pistol-whipping them with their guns, Clark and the co-conspirators led the victim couple to one of the victim’s apartments. Inside, the co-conspirators continued to hold the victims at gunpoint and ransacked the residence, demanding money. The co-conspirators were unable to locate any money before a security alarm was triggered and the co-conspirators fled, leaving behind several plastic zip ties. 

               Clark and his co-conspirators fled the apartment building shortly before 2 a.m. on September 4, 2022, in the stolen white Kia and the victims’ Mercedes and returned to the District. Law enforcement found the stolen Mercedes hours later in Maryland with the GPS tracking device still attached. Following a lengthy investigation, Clark was identified as a participant and arrested on August 16, 2023, in Washington, D.C. He has been held since.

               At the time of the incident, Clark had a felony conviction in Maryland for possessing a handgun in a vehicle. 

               Clark’s co-conspirator, Tyree McCombs, pleaded guilty on August 14, 2024, to conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery in connection with this offense as well as to a separate kidnapping committed two months later. McCombs is awaiting sentencing.

               This case was investigated by FBI Washington Field Office’s Violent Crimes Task Force. The Fairfax County Police Department assisted with the investigation. The matter is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones for the District of Columbia.

    22cr377

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Veterans and personnel uncover Iron Age treasures at RAF airfield

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Artefacts from a Celtic chariot found at RAF Valley have been officially declared treasure.

    Horse bridle-bit from c60AD found at RAF Valley. Copyright: Photography by Harvey Mills.

    • 2,000-year-old Iron Age artefacts declared national treasure
    • Historic finds discovered by military personnel and veterans
    • Treasures from RAF Valley will now be gifted to the Museum of Wales

    Long-lost Iron Age artefacts discovered by military personnel and veterans have been declared as treasure.

    Parts of a Celtic chariot, thought to be around 2,000 years old, were discovered underneath the airfield at RAF Valley in Anglesey during an excavation by military personnel and veterans.

    The Senior Coroner for North Wales (West) has now declared these discoveries as treasure. They will now be gifted to Amgueddfa Cymru – Museum Wales, which is home to several items from the initial Llyn Cerrig Bach hoard.

    The archaeological excavations took place in April 2024 and were led by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO). The investigation also included personnel and veterans from Operation Nightingale, a DIO initiative which supports the health and wellbeing of military personnel and veterans.

    Minister for Veterans and People Alistair Carns DSO OBE MC MP said:

    Operation Nightingale is an innovative and award-winning programme that consistently shows the benefits that archaeology can offer to military personnel and veterans.

    Congratulations to those who carried out the excavation and made this exciting discovery.  Through their hard work, we are uncovering and preserving our history for future generations.

    The scheme sees injured and sick personnel and veterans taking part in archaeological investigations across the defence estate, providing unique experiences within the field. The finds are believed to form part of the famed Llyn Cerrig Bach hoard, originally uncovered in the 1940s during work to extend the airfield at RAF Valley for American bombers during the Allied war effort. The hoard is one of the most important collections of Iron Age artefacts discovered in the UK, comprising over 150 bronze and iron objects deposited between 300BC and 100AD.

    Among the new finds was a terret ring which would have been used to guide the reins of a Celtic chariot, featuring a red decorative inlay. The ring, found by retired RAF Squadron Leader David Ulke, is one of just 3 found with this particular decoration in Wales. A horse bridle-bit thought to date to c60AD was also found by serving RAF Flight Sergeant Graham Moore. Similar to those from the Polden Hill hoard found in Somerset, the bridle-bit would have been worn by horses pulling Iron Age chariots.

    DIO’s Senior Archaeologist, Richard Osgood, said:

    These finds at RAF Valley are extremely exciting for all involved; the Llyn Cerrig Bach hoard is of national importance for Wales, and the United Kingdom as a whole. These new discoveries have confirmed the suspicions of earlier archaeologists that there was more to be found from this particular hoard.

    It’s great that the personnel and veterans who take part in Operation Nightingale continue to be rewarded with finds of such historical importance. I am proud that the initiative plays a part in supporting personnel and veterans in their recovery and it’s fantastic to see the wonderful impact of this project.

    The Operation Nightingale team was given special permissions to carry out the excavation by RAF Valley ahead of refurbishment works on the site’s airfield. Construction for these improvements began in September 2024.

    Sqn Ldr (Ret’d) David Ulke, finder of the terret ring, said:

    We’d been briefed on the sort of things we could expect to find, so when I uncovered the piece, I was pretty sure it was an Iron Age terret ring. To say I was the over the moon is probably an understatement! I’ve been involved in archaeology for many years and this was by far the most significant recovery I have ever made.

    The fact that Operation Nightingale can bring together service personnel through archaeological digs shows how healing and helpful archaeology can be. It’s by no means a silver bullet, but many have benefitted, and I for one am one of those grateful beneficiaries.

    Flt Sgt Graham Moore, finder of the bridle-bit, said:

    The search for the lost hoard was hard work and we had a huge area to cover. It wasn’t until the final day – with just 10 minutes to go – that I discovered the horse bridle-bit. At first the team thought I was joking, but quickly realised I’d found something special. Words could not explain how I felt in that moment, but it was a wonderful experience.

    I’ve been involved in lots of Operation Nightingale digs now, and the experience truly is priceless for the veterans and service personnel taking part.

    Station Commander at RAF Valley, Group Captain Gez Currie OBE, said:

    It is incredible that we are again reminded of the significance of the site on the doorstep of RAF Valley and the importance it has in Welsh history. It was the preparation of RAF Valley in the 1940s to help prevent invasion, that brought to light the significance of this location and its links to an earlier invasion by the Romans.

    The importance of RAF Valley to UK Defence today is beyond question, but this is a reminder that we are part of a continuum spanning over 2,000 years and we must be responsible stewards of this land. We are immensely proud to be part of efforts to discover and conserve these important artefacts from Welsh history and equally delighted that our own service personnel have been so intimately involved in these efforts.

    Senior Curator of Prehistory at Amgueddfa Cymru – Museum Wales, Adam Gwilt, said:

    It is amazing to think that these 2,000 year old artefacts have remained so complete and well-preserved within a shallow peat deposit, previously moved and dragged onto the airfield over 80 years ago from a nearby ancient lake! The bridle-bit and terret are both of styles which are not represented amongst the original collection. They add important new information on the religious gifting of prized objects into the lake at the end of the Iron Age, a little before, or at around the time when the Roman Army invaded Anglesey.

    It is great that these artefacts will be made accessible for display and public benefit at Oriel Môn. I look forward to working collaboratively in coming years with the museum, the heritage centre at RAF Valley and the Operation Nightingale team, so this great story can be celebrated and shared by all.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK applies fresh sanctions following sham election in Belarus

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    The UK has sanctioned 9 individuals and defence sector entities in Belarus in coordination with Canada.

    • UK sanctions 6 individuals and 3 entities in coordinated action with alongside Canada, in an immediate response to rigged presidential election in Belarus.
    • Sanctions target leaders of institutions responsible for serious human rights violations and companies in the Belarusian defence sector supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine.
    • Action demonstrates Government’s commitment to working internationally to deter threats and protect national security, a foundation in the government’s Plan for Change.

    The Chairman of the Belarusian Central Election Commission is among 9 individuals and entities designated by the UK today (Monday 27 January) in a fresh wave of sanctions in response to yesterday’s sham election in Belarus.

    Following Lukashenko’s brutal crackdown in which critical voices within Belarus have been silenced, yesterday’s sham election failed to meet international standards and has been condemned by international partners .

    Alongside sanctioning leaders of institutions responsible for serious human rights violations in the country, the UK has excluded Belarusian defence companies from the UK economy– a sector of strategic importance to Lukashenko’s regime which is helping to facilitate Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Working with international partners to protect UK national security is essential to deliver the foundations of the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.

    Foreign Secretary David Lammy said:

    The world has become well-accustomed to Lukashenko’s cynical pretence of democracy in Belarus, while in reality he brutally represses civil society and opposition voices to strengthen his grip on power.

    The UK, alongside our partners, will continue to stand by the people of Belarus and expose those who deny them their legitimate right to freedom and democracy.

    According to the Viasna Human Rights Centre, a Belarusian non-governmental organisation in exile, over 1250 political prisoners are incarcerated in Belarus, including civil society representatives, human rights defenders, journalists, political opponents, religious leaders,  and trade unionists. Many political prisoners are held in shocking conditions, facing isolation, mistreatment and a lack of medical care.

    Today’s designations include Heads of ‘GUBOPiK’; one of the main security forces responsible for political persecution in Belarus. Individuals sanctioned today are:

    1. Igor Vasilyevich KARPENKO – Chairman of the Belarusian Central Election Commission.
    2. Viktor Alexandrovich DUBROVKA – Head of the Belarusian correctional institution Penal Colony No11, Vaukavysk
    3. Pavel Ivanovich KAZAKOV – Head of the Belarusian correctional institution Prison No 1, Hrodno.
    4. Andrey Mikhailovich TSEDRIK – Commanding Officer of Pre-trial Detention Centre (SIZO) No 1, Minsk.
    5. Andrei Valerievich ANANENKO – Head of GUBOPiK.
    6. Mikhail Petrovitch BEDUNKEVICH – Deputy Head of GUBOPiK.

    Belarus has provided support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, allowing the use of its territory and airspace to launch attacks and provided kit and logistical support.

    The three entities from Belarus’ defence sector sanctioned today are:

    1. ALEVKURP OJSC – a company affiliated to the Government of Belarus specialising in research and development and manufacturing of radar systems and weapon control systems.
    2. Legmash Plant JSC – a Belarusian company producing ammunition for the Belarusian defence sector.
    3. KB Unmanned Helicopters (UAVHeli) – a Belarusian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) developer and manufacturer.

    Media enquiries

    Email newsdesk@fcdo.gov.uk

    Telephone 020 7008 3100

    Contact the FCDO Communication Team via email (monitored 24 hours a day) in the first instance, and we will respond as soon as possible.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Leader Thanks Workers for City Storm Response

    Source: Scotland – City of Dundee

    Dundee City Council Leader Cllr Mark Flynn has today thanked and praised workers for their response and continued efforts as the city recovers following Storm Éowyn.

    Cllr Flynn is thanking all council staff, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Scottish Ambulance Service, NHS, Health & Social Care Partnership staff and all others involved in supporting Dundee communities.

    The Met Office issued an amber weather warning for the area on Friday in which very strong winds caused a day of disruption across the city.

    Council Leader Mark Flynn said: “I would like to send a big message of thanks on behalf of the city to all of the workers and emergency responders who were involved in the immediate wake of Storm Éowyn and the subsequent clean-up and response following Friday’s weather events.

    “Working in such environments will have been tremendously challenging and I want to express the city’s gratitude for their efforts in supporting our communities throughout this extreme weather period.”

    Council services responded to a number of issues caused by the storm.

    • Over Friday and Saturday, the council’s Building Standards service responded to 26 calls about dangerous buildings.
    • Seventy-five tree incidents have been recorded, with the vast majority inspected and made safe over the weekend.
    • Over 200 calls were received by the council housing line and construction services responded to all reports including storm-related repairs
    • Thousands of meals distributed across the city on behalf of the Dundee Health and Social Care Partnership
    • Involvement in multi-agency response to Gourlay Yard incident 

    Cllr Flynn added: “The city’s support services have worked jointly and incredibly well in order to continue providing vital services as well as maintain the safety of Dundee’s residents.

    “Workers from the Council, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Scottish Ambulance Service, NHS, Health & Social Care Partnership, as well as volunteers, community groups and many more individuals help to make a real difference to the city’s resilience in the face of events such as Friday’s storm.

    “I can’t speak highly enough of their efforts.”

    For the latest updates on Council services following the storm, please visit our Storm Éowyn webpage.

    Any further updates will also be posted on our social media channels, including Facebook and X. 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    Shutterstock/The Conversation

    Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

    This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

    Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

    From left to alt-right

    Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

    Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

    Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

    Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

    Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

    After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

    He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

    However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

    Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

    The political science, explained

    Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

    Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

    By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

    Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

    The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

    The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

    The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

    Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

    Making sense of Musk

    While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

    In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

    His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

    Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

    Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

    On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

    For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

    More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

    Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

    Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

    Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

    Theory vs practice

    Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

    For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

    Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

    The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

    Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

    However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

    Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

    These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

    An unsteady alliance

    So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

    Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

    Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

    Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

    Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

    Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

    Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

    If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

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

    – ref. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Belarus Presidential Election: Joint Statement, January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Australia, Canada, the EU, New Zealand and the UK have released a joint statement following Belarus’ sham presidential elections on 26 January 2025.

    Joint statement from the Commonwealth of Australia, Canada, The European Union, New Zealand, and The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland:

    We are united in our condemnation of the sham presidential elections in Belarus on 26 January and the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the Belarusian regime. Recently announced sanctions represent a coordinated, multilateral effort to hold the Lukashenko regime to account.

    No election can be considered free, fair or in line with international standards when it is held in a climate of ongoing repression, marked by a clampdown on civil society, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on genuine political participation. The regime’s decision to invite the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe / Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to observe only 10 days before the elections prevented ODIHR’s access to key stages of the election process. These actions are at odds with Belarus’ international commitments and demonstrate a clear desire to avoid transparency in the electoral process.

    We condemn the ongoing appalling human rights violations committed by the Lukashenko regime and call on them to release the over 1,250 political prisoners who remain unjustly detained. We urge Belarus to follow its international human rights obligations and OSCE commitments in all respects, including restoring an open civil society, to create an environment in which new elections which meet international standards can be held. We stand with the Belarusian people and recognise their right to determine their own future in a genuinely free and fair manner, without fear, oppression or external interference.

    We will continue to support the aspirations of the Belarusian people for a free, democratic and independent Belarus.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Morrisville, Vermont Man Sentenced to 18 Months of Incarceration in Firearm Possession Case

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Burlington, Vermont – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont stated that on January 23, 2025, Jordan Phelps, 36, of Morrisville, Vermont was sentenced by Chief United States District Judge Christina Reiss to 18 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Phelps previously pleaded guilty to being an unlawful user of controlled substances, specifically cocaine base, in possession of a firearm.

    According to court records, on March 11, 2024, Jordan Phelps called the Morristown Police Department on four occasions and threatened to go to the home of a sworn member of law enforcement. The threatening phone calls were recorded, and law enforcement investigated Phelps. The investigation demonstrated that Phelps sought to go to the officer’s home in response to what Phelps considered was unlawful surveillance of his activities. On March 13, 2024, law enforcement executed a state search warrant at Phelps’ residence that led to the seizure of a loaded Marlin Model 336 .30-30 Caliber Rifle from Phelps’ bedroom. Further investigation into Phelps revealed that he was an unlawful user of controlled substances.

    Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher commended the collaborative investigatory efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Morristown Police Department, the Stowe Police Department, the Lamoille County Sheriff’s Department, and the Vermont State Police.

    The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary Stendig. Phelps was represented by Chandler Matson, Esq.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit Justice.gov/PSN. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Press release: PM call with Taoiseach Martin of Ireland: 27 January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning.

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning to congratulate him on his election.

    The leaders agreed that the UK – Ireland relationship was going from strength to strength, and it was vital to continue that in such a volatile geopolitical context.

    Discussing devastating Storm Éowyn at the weekend, the leaders paid tribute to the work of first responders and engineers to restore electricity to thousands of homes. The Prime Minister said that he had also spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and that the UK stood by to offer further support, as required.

    The Prime Minister also updated on his EU reset, and the leaders underscored the importance of a close and constructive relationship with the EU to boost prosperity and security.

    Looking ahead to the upcoming UK-Ireland summit, both agreed that the meeting would offer a chance to deepen collaboration across all areas of the bilateral relationship, including business, innovation, and energy.

    Turning to Ukraine, the Prime Minister reflected on his visit earlier this month and reiterated his view that it was vital to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

    The leaders also discussed Holocaust Memorial Day today. The Prime Minister said he had been deeply moved by his visit to Auschwitz earlier this month, and the leaders agreed the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau was a poignant reminder on the need to defeat antisemitism and hatred. 

    They looked forward to meeting soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Shelley and Lyn’s story of helping over 100 foster children

    Source: City of Derby

    Have you ever thought about what it’s like to welcome someone new into your family? That’s exactly what Shelley and Lyn have been doing for years—they’ve been foster carers for a very long time, helping over 100 children feel safe and cared for in their home.

    Lyn says, “We started fostering because we wanted to help children feel loved and safe. It’s like being a big family, where everyone is welcome.”

    Shelley and Lyn have taken care of children of all ages, from tiny babies to teenagers. They’ve even helped teenagers learn how to live on their own when they grow up. One of their favourite memories is taking a child to the seaside for the first time.

    “Seeing their excitement when they felt the sand and saw the sea was magical,” says Lyn. Shelley adds, “Even small things, like giving a child a Christmas present or a party dress, can mean the world to them. It shows them they matter.”

    Shelley and Lyn believe fostering is all about helping children feel like they belong. They’ve stayed close to many of the children they fostered, and some even see them as grandparents now.

    “It’s so special to know we’ve made a difference,” Shelley says.

    Anyone considering fostering is encouraged by Shelley and Lyn to gather as much information as possible and ask plenty of questions. While fostering can be incredibly rewarding, it comes with challenges such as increased training, paperwork, and the need for flexibility. They stress the importance of family support, explaining that having loved ones to lean on during tough times is essential. Confidentiality is key in fostering, so having a trusted support system makes all the difference.

    Shelley and Lyn also emphasise that fostering is open to everyone, regardless of gender, background, or family structure. Single mums, single dads, same-sex couples, and traditional families can all provide the loving and safe environment children need. What truly matters is a big heart, a sense of humour, and the ability to adapt to unexpected situations.

    Despite the challenges, they say fostering is one of the most worthwhile things you can do, as it offers a chance to make a life-changing impact on a child’s future.

    Cllr Hardyal Dhindsa, representing the Lead Council’s Cabinet Member for Foster East Midlands said:

    “Shelley and Lyn have dedicated their lives to fostering, providing love, care, and a safe home to over 100 children. Their commitment shows how fostering can truly transform lives, from helping babies and teenagers feel secure to guiding young adults toward independence. Their story proves that a big heart and a welcoming home can change a child’s future forever. The council is deeply grateful for their unwavering dedication and the incredible support they’ve given to so many children.”

    If you’ve been inspired by Shelley and Lyn’s story and want to make a difference in a child’s life, why not take the first step towards fostering? Contact Foster for East Midlands, your local council fostering team for Nottingham City, Nottinghamshire, Derby City, and Derbyshire. Call 03033 132 950 or visit the website at fosterforeastmidlands.org.uk to learn more. 

    A warm, safe, and loving home could change a child’s future – and it starts with you.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM call with Taoiseach Martin of Ireland: 27 January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning.

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning to congratulate him on his election.

    The leaders agreed that the UK – Ireland relationship was going from strength to strength, and it was vital to continue that in such a volatile geopolitical context.

    Discussing devastating Storm Éowyn at the weekend, the leaders paid tribute to the work of first responders and engineers to restore electricity to thousands of homes. The Prime Minister said that he had also spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and that the UK stood by to offer further support, as required.

    The Prime Minister also updated on his EU reset, and the leaders underscored the importance of a close and constructive relationship with the EU to boost prosperity and security.

    Looking ahead to the upcoming UK-Ireland summit, both agreed that the meeting would offer a chance to deepen collaboration across all areas of the bilateral relationship, including business, innovation, and energy.

    Turning to Ukraine, the Prime Minister reflected on his visit earlier this month and reiterated his view that it was vital to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

    The leaders also discussed Holocaust Memorial Day today. The Prime Minister said he had been deeply moved by his visit to Auschwitz earlier this month, and the leaders agreed the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau was a poignant reminder on the need to defeat antisemitism and hatred. 

    They looked forward to meeting soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Officials celebrate with the grassroots

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    Chief Secretary Chan Kwok-ki and other principal officials of the Government met different families on the third day of their year-end caring visits across Hong Kong’s 18 districts in celebration of the upcoming Lunar New Year.
     
    While visiting elderly singleton and doubleton grassroots families living in Po Lam Estate, Mr Chan chatted with them and celebrated the festive joy together.
     
    Over in Kennedy Town, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam visited seniors living there to learn about their daily lives and needs and presented them with Chinese New Year blessing bags.
     
    Deputy Financial Secretary Michael Wong visited elderly couples, grassroots and ethnic-minority households living in Lei Muk Shue Estate.
     
    Meantime, other principal officials toured Kwun Tong, Yuen Long, Sham Shui Po, Eastern, North, Wan Chai and Tai Po districts to meet grassroots families, seniors and people with disabilities.
     
    Secretary for Environment & Ecology Tse Chin-wan, Secretary for Commerce & Economic Development Algernon Yau, Secretary for Housing Winnie Ho, Secretary for the Civil Service Ingrid Yeung, Secretary for Transport & Logistics Mable Chan, Secretary for Culture, Sports & Tourism Rosanna Law and Acting Secretary for Labour & Welfare Ho Kai-ming also joined the event.
     
    They were accompanied by the district council members and representatives from the District Services & Community Care Team.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI: Eos Energy Secures Cerberus Delayed Draw Term Loan Full Funding, Continuing U.S. Manufacturing Capacity to Strengthen America’s Energy Independence

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TURTLE CREEK, Pa., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE) (“Eos” or the “Company”), America’s leading innovator in designing, manufacturing, and providing zinc-based long duration energy storage systems sourced and manufactured in the United States, today announced the successful achievement of the third set of performance milestones previously agreed upon between Eos and an affiliate of Cerberus Capital Management LP (“Cerberus”) as part of Cerberus’s strategic investment in the Company. Successfully meeting these performance milestones allowed the Company to access the final $40.5 million of the Delayed Draw Term Loan (DDTL), fueling ongoing operations, U.S. production expansion, and the creation of an American energy storage powerhouse.

    “The Eos team is making measurable progress, consistently meeting critical operational targets and positioning the Company for profitable growth,” said Nathan Kroeker, Eos Chief Financial Officer. “With the term loan fully funded, combined with Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee first disbursement in December, Eos has a strong foundation and sufficient capital to continue implementing Project AMAZE. We’re executing our strategy to scale production into strong customer demand for long duration energy storage. Cash from customer projects now play an important role in funding working capital and our American-made system can play a critical role in America achieving energy independence.”

    The $210.5 million DDTL announced in June 2024 is now fully funded, driven by the Company consistently achieving key operational milestones related to the Company’s state-of-the-art manufacturing line, raw materials cost-out, Z3 technology performance improvement and orders backlog cash conversion. The Company surpassed its January raw materials cost-out target by 6% while delivering manufacturing cycle times below 10 seconds to further demonstrate continued operational efficiency and progress towards profitable growth.

    “Cerberus is ecstatic about the incredible progress made since our initial investment last year. Joe and team continue to fire on all cylinders, and Cerberus will continue to be all-in, helping Eos execute on their rapidly growing global pipeline and backlog,” said Nick Robinson, Cerberus Senior Managing Director and Eos Board Member. “With all the pieces now firmly in place to scale, 2025 and beyond is all about revenue growth, profitability and acceleration of global manufacturing capacity to meet exponential global demand. This demand is driven by a critical need for a long duration, non-flammable alternative to lithium at a time when the national security imperative could not be more important. With President Trump’s recent Executive Order, emphasizing American-made, and American-sourced, manufacturing to supporting America’s energy independence, Cerberus could not be more excited about partnering with Eos to build a large global platform. Cerberus views Eos as the “First Solar” of the battery space, further highlighting America’s ability to lead, innovate, and reclaim our energy independence.”

    About Eos Energy Enterprises

    Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. is accelerating the shift to American energy independence with positively ingenious solutions that transform how the world stores power. Our breakthrough Znyth™ aqueous zinc battery was designed to overcome the limitations of conventional lithium-ion technology. It is safe, scalable, efficient, sustainable, manufactured in the U.S., and the core of our innovative systems that today provides utility, industrial, and commercial customers with a proven, reliable energy storage alternative for 3 to 12-hour applications. Eos was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Edison, New Jersey. For more information about Eos (NASDAQ: EOSE), visit eose.com.


    Forward Looking Statements

    Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in this press release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our path to profitability and strategic outlook, statements regarding our capital needs to support project AMAZE, statements regarding the anticipated use of proceeds from the delayed draw term loan with Cerberus, and statements that refer to outlook, projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, them. Because such statements are based on expectations as to future financial and operating results and are not statements of fact, actual results may differ materially from those projected.

    Factors which may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to: changes adversely affecting the business in which we are engaged; our ability to forecast trends accurately; our ability to generate cash, service indebtedness and incur additional indebtedness; our ability to achieve the operational milestones on the delayed draw term loan; our ability to raise financing in the future, including the discretionary revolving facility from Cerberus; risks associated with the credit agreement with Cerberus, including risks of default, dilution of outstanding Common Stock, consequences for failure to meet milestones and contractual lockup of shares; our customers’ ability to secure project financing; the amount of final tax credits available to our customers or to Eos pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act; uncertainties around our ability to meet the applicable conditions precedent to funding under the DOE loan; our ability to continue to develop efficient manufacturing processes to scale and to forecast related costs and efficiencies accurately; fluctuations in our revenue and operating results; competition from existing or new competitors; our ability to convert firm order backlog and pipeline to revenue; risks associated with security breaches in our information technology systems; risks related to legal proceedings or claims; risks associated with evolving energy policies in the United States and other countries and the potential costs of regulatory compliance; risks associated with changes to the U.S. trade environment; risks resulting from the impact of global pandemics, including the novel coronavirus, Covid-19; our ability to maintain the listing of our shares of common stock on NASDAQ; our ability to grow our business and manage growth profitably, maintain relationships with customers and suppliers and retain our management and key employees; risks related to the adverse changes in general economic conditions, including inflationary pressures and increased interest rates; risk from supply chain disruptions and other impacts of geopolitical conflict; changes in applicable laws or regulations; the possibility that Eos may be adversely affected by other economic, business, and/or competitive factors; other factors beyond our control; risks related to adverse changes in general economic conditions; and other risks and uncertainties.

    The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are also subject to additional risks, uncertainties, and factors, including those more fully described in the Company’s most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K. Further information on potential risks that could affect actual results will be included in the subsequent periodic and current reports and other filings that the Company makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. Moreover, the Company operates in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks and uncertainties may emerge that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.

    Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and, except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Northrim BanCorp, Inc. Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.64 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Northrim BanCorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: NRIM) today announced that the Board of Directors declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.64 per share. The dividend will be payable on March 14, 2025, to shareholders of record at the close of business on March 6, 2025.

    “We are pleased to announce a quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share, as we continue to provide returns to our shareholders,” said Mike Huston, President and CEO. At the stock price of $78.80 per share at the close of the market on January 23, 2025, the current dividend equates to a yield of 3.25% on an annualized basis.

    On January 24, 2025, Northrim reported net income of $10.9 million, or $1.95 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $8.8 million, or $1.57 per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2024, and $6.6 million, or $1.19 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter a year ago.

    About Northrim BanCorp

    Northrim BanCorp, Inc. is the holding company of Northrim Bank, an Alaska-based community bank with 20 branches throughout the state and differentiates itself with its detailed knowledge of Alaska’s economy and its “Customer First Service” philosophy. The bank has two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Sallyport Commercial Finance, LLC, a specialty finance company and Residential Mortgage Holding Company, LLC, a regional home mortgage company. Pacific Wealth Advisors, LLC is an affiliated company.

    www.northrim.com

    Contact:   Mike Huston, President, CEO, and COO
      (907) 261-8750
      Jed Ballard, Chief Financial Officer
      (907) 261-3539

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul O’Neill, Assistant Clinical Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

    The Philadelphia region is home to over 90 craft breweries. sutiporn somnam/Moment Collection via Getty Images

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    The Fundamentals of Beer

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    After 25 years of working in professional kitchens and as a server in fine dining, I became an adjunct professor and then director of special projects in the Food and Hospitality Management department at Drexel University. Lynn Hoffman, the founder of the school’s culinary program and the author of “The Short Course in Beer,” suggested we create a 10-week beer course.

    It seemed like a no-brainer, given beer’s popularity with college students. But it was also an opportunity to help our students appreciate beer’s dizzying array of styles, as well as its deep cultural and historical significance – including right here in Philadelphia.

    What does the course explore?

    The course explores the history of brewing and how different societies – specifically Sumerian, German, English and Belgian – influenced the ingredients and brewing techniques used to make different styles of beers.

    Some styles are named after their city of origin – for example, pilsners originated in Pilzen, Czech Republic. Others are derived from the brewing procedure. “Lager,” for example, is German for “to stock or store.” These beers are stored at refrigerated temperatures for months after they’re brewed in order for residual flavors to subside, making way for a cleaner, crisper and more refreshing profile. Meanwhile, “porters” are named after the London working-class longshoremen – those who loaded and unloaded cargo at ports – who commonly consumed them.

    After studying the foundational aspects of beer, students learn about its evolution in America, with a focus on the Philadelphia region.

    For example, Yuengling, originally named Eagle Brewery, was established in 1829 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, about 100 miles outside Philadelphia, and is credited with being America’s oldest continuously operating brewery. And in the city itself, local brewer Robert Hare Jr. made what George Washington referred to as “the best porter in Philadelphia,” just down the street from where America’s first lager was purportedly brewed by Bavarian expat John Wagner around 1840.

    We also discuss current Philadelphia-area brewers such as the Philadelphia Brewing Company, Dock Street and Yards, and their impact on the city’s craft beer industry.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beer and other alcoholic beverages have a significant financial impact on the restaurant industry, where many businesses operate on thin margins. Restaurants can attract diners with a dynamic beverage offering. A good beer program requires an informed staff, locally brewed options and an array of diverse styles. They might showcase classic lagers and ales alongside popular contemporary favorites such as New England IPAs and Italian pilsners, and off-the-wall experiments like Fruity Pebbles kettle sour ales.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Beer appreciation is not inebriation.

    There is a proper way to analyze beer through sight, aroma, palate texture and flavor. We use a tasting grid to guide students through this process. First we assess the beer’s color, clarity and foam, which gives us our initial ideas regarding the beer’s character. We then evaluate the beer’s aroma, which is derived from the grains, hops and fermentation. Then we sip and focus on the texture of the beer to determine the weight of it on the palate, the quality of the carbonation and the mouthfeel – whether it is thin, full or silky. Last, we assess the flavor profile.

    Students get the opportunity to distinguish the various malt and hop characters present in many popular beer styles – from the crisp, biscuit or cracker flavor and light green bitterness of a pilsner, to the dried fruit and dark caramel-laden quality of doppelbocks, to the cold-brew coffee style of dry stouts.

    “Tasting” and not simply “drinking” beer enables students to understand and appreciate what is in their glass. It is also important to note that when analyzing a beer, the glass must be clean, clear and of a certain shape – tulip. Having a globe to swirl the beer allows tasters to judge the viscosity, test the carbonation and open up the aromas.

    What materials does the course feature?

    • Lynn Hoffman’s “Short Course in Beer” offers a digestible summation of beer styles, history and how beer can be enjoyed in settings ranging from tailgates to fine dining.

    • Joshua Bernstein’s “The Complete Beer Course” illustrates the beer family tree in great detail, includes interviews with prominent brewers and provides textbook examples of various beer styles.

    • The Brewers Association’s Style Guidelines
      and Tasting Grid are go-to guides for how beer styles are delineated using a scale of color, bitterness and flavor attributes.

    • Six 1-oz. weekly samples allow students to taste historical representations and current iterations of a particular beer style, such as Bohemian pilsners, German hefeweizens, English bitters and Belgian tripels.

    • We also do a guided tour and tasting at one of Philadelphia’s larger independent craft beer brewers, Yards brewery.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    Students learn about the history of beer production and its cultural relevance, and develop an understanding of tasting notes and profiles for various beer styles so they can distinguish between ale and lager family styles. By the end of the course, they should also be able to design their own beer menu for a restaurant.

    Paul O’Neill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining – https://theconversation.com/college-course-teaches-philly-students-to-appreciate-beer-whether-theyre-tailgating-or-fine-dining-244476

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

    Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.

    One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

    Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

    With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump now looks set to turn to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

    During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders. Trump also promised to impose a new set of tariffs against China if it doesn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters, “We’re thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in.”

    Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

    Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

    In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

    But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

    The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

    This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

    President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

    These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

    In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

    Why tariffs won’t work

    America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

    Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

    The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

    This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

    A question of supply and demand

    Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

    The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

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

    – ref. Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-tariffs-cant-solve-americas-fentanyl-crisis-245978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI China: Spring Festival gala held in Houston

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    Themed “Dancing into the Year of the Snake,” the Greater Houston Spring Festival Gala was held Sunday night in the fourth largest U.S. city.

    “This gala conveys the auspiciousness and hope of the Year of the Snake to the world, promotes Chinese wisdom and the spirit of progress, and builds a bridge for cultural exchange between the East and the West,” the organizer said.

    The gala featured vibrant performances ranging from classical Chinese dances and traditional music to a Texas-style cowboy dance and popular songs.

    The night reached its peak when a singer and the audience joined together to sing “Go back home often,” with the crowd illuminating the hall with phone lights, celebrating the joy of the Chinese New Year.

    The event was organized by the Houston Chinese Civic Center.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Destruction of life and homes leaves people unable to return safely to Rafah Gaza

    Source: Médecins Sans Frontières –

    After 15 months of Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestine, and the implementation of the ceasefire on 19 January 2025, displaced Palestinians are attempting to return home to the southern city of Rafah. According to the United Nations, nearly 70 percent of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) continues to call for an immediate massive scale-up of humanitarian aid.

    “Health services, including the rest of humanitarian aid, and rebuilding of the city is needed for life to be able to come back to Rafah, but it’s still too dangerous for people to return in most areas,” says Pascale Coissard, MSF’s emergency coordinator support . “As we were going to visit the former MSF Shabboura clinic in Rafah, we saw a child playing with a shell in Mawasi area. Although we cannot hear the bombs anymore, there are still dangers.”

    People are trying to rebuild from the rubble. Rafah is destroyed, with homes, shops, streets and healthcare facilities in ruins and electricity and water systems damaged. The area is also unsafe due to scattered unexploded artillery in the remnants of buildings, which will take years to clean.

    An ambulances moves through the ruins of Rafah. Gaza, Palestine, 22 January 2025. 
    MSF

    In May 2024, Rafah had the largest concentration of displaced Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, with an estimated 1.5 million people living in tents and makeshift shelters. In these inhumane conditions, people faced disease outbreaks, malnutrition, and the psychological impact of being forcibly displaced multiple times.

    MSF teams working in Rafah had been providing basic healthcare and mental health support in the Shabboura clinic and supporting paediatric and maternity care in the Ministry of Health’s Emirati hospital. But were forced to close activities and evacuate the area after continuous bombings and evacuations orders from Israeli forces. The looming threat of a ground invasion by Israeli forces materialised on 6 May 2024.

    The military operations by Israeli forces led to the emptying of Rafah, mass destruction of the city, and to the closure of the Rafah crossing, which severely hindered the delivery of humanitarian aid into the entire Strip. Rafah was also the home to many MSF colleagues, who were forced to flee to other parts of the Gaza Strip.

    “It’s extremely difficult to come back to the same place that used to be full of life,” says Nadia Abo Mallouh, MSF medical coordinator support who used to work in the Emirati hospital. “We couldn’t even recognise the streets where Emirati hospital was. It’s sad seeing the hospital that used to bring life to earth totally empty, no signs of life, everything is destroyed.”

    As a result of destroyed infrastructure, healthcare and other basic services are lacking. Many people are trying to return to Rafah but are unable to, as they find their homes destroyed – sometimes their neighbourhoods are unrecognisable.  It will take a long time before people can safely return to Rafah.

    “Honestly, the sights [of Rafah] were horrifying; so much destruction,” says Hadi Abo-Eneen, and MSF watchmen who was displaced from Rafah city in May 2024 and visited the area after the ceasefire. “I kept walking, hoping to find something from my house. It was completely destroyed. It was a huge shock, because this was my whole life: my home. My family’s, wife’s and children’s memories are there. My belongings, clothes, dishes, my wedding memories: everything.”

    In the meantime, people continue surviving in makeshift tents mainly in the coastal area of Mawasi. There, they have no proper shelter, nor access to food and water and limited access to healthcare services. At the same time, Palestinians in the north of Gaza are facing similar conditions, after the recent brutal Israeli military siege, which left the area completely destroyed.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Schaffner, Professor of preventive medicine, health policy, infectious diseses, Vanderbilt University

    Norovirus is accompanied by abdominal pain, diarrhea and explosive vomiting. Alla Bielikova/Moment via Getty Images

    The highly contagious norovirus – popularly known as “stomach flu” or the “winter vomiting bug” – is now surging through the U.S.. The number of outbreaks is up significantly over previous years, possibly due in part to a new strain of the virus. Outbreaks can occur after direct contact with someone who is infected. Food and household surfaces can also become contaminated.

    William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the symptoms of norovirus, how best to treat it, and the populations most vulnerable to this illness.

    Dr. William Schaffner discusses the norovirus.

    The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.

    What are the symptoms of a norovirus infection?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus is an intestinal virus that can make you very, very sick. It is indelicately called winter vomiting disease, and it begins suddenly, often with an explosive vomit that then repeats itself.

    Norovirus can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time, along with a fever. It will probably make you feel miserable for two or three days – but then everybody pretty much recovers.

    How should norovirus be treated?

    William Schaffner: The major problem norovirus causes is dehydration from all that vomiting and diarrhea. So you have to stay hydrated. Do this with little sips of clear liquids, because if you take too much, it’ll come right back up. Sports drinks are very good.

    Most people who get into trouble are either very young or older and more frail. They may have to go to the hospital to get rehydrated with an IV. When the occasional death occurs due to this dehydrating infection, it’s in those vulnerable populations.

    Why does norovirus tend to surge during the winter?

    William Schaffner: You can get it any time of the year, but there is a seasonal increase in the winter for reasons that scientists are not quite sure of. But people spend a lot of time indoors with each other in wintertime, so that makes it easier for the virus to get from one place to another. All that travel over the holidays, as well as family gatherings and parties, can spread the virus.

    How can people protect themselves from the norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The most important thing is good hand hygiene. Washing with soap and water works the best. Those hand hygiene gels and wipes – the hand sanitizers – that people tend to use aren’t as effective against norovirus, so just wash frequently with good old soap and water. And then, of course, avoid people who are sick.

    Also, remember that the virus can survive on environmental surfaces, like counters, doorknobs and tables. You don’t want to pick up those viruses on your fingers. If you get a little bit of virus on your fingertips and then touch your lips, you can get an infection because it just takes a small dose of the virus to make you sick.

    Who’s particularly vulnerable to norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The people who are more susceptible to catching it are those living in semi-enclosed or enclosed populations. For example, people in nursing homes, schools and prisons – essentially any circumstance where people are together for a long period of time.

    Another place where the virus can spread is cruise ships, which is why norovirus is also called the cruise ship virus. When people are confined on a ship for days and days, these outbreaks can run through most of the passengers.

    Interestingly enough – and this has never been well explained – the crew is usually less affected.

    But again, the most serious illness occurs in older, frail and immune-compromised people, or in the very young, where dehydration can be more serious.

    Where’s the research on developing a norovirus vaccine?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus has presented some scientific challenges. It’s actually rather difficult to grow in the laboratory, and so that has delayed the development of a vaccine. But researchers are working on it.

    Are there other infectious diseases going around right now?

    William Schaffner: Along with norovirus, respiratory viruses are still out there: influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. They’re all perking up at the same time. It looks as though we’re having a very brisk winter viral season.

    Watch the full interview to hear more.

    SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

    William Schaffner receives funding from the CDC-sponsored Emerging Infections Program Collaborative Agreement.

    – ref. Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/norovirus-aka-the-winter-vomiting-bug-is-on-the-rise-an-infectious-disease-expert-explains-the-best-ways-to-stay-safe-247667

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yenisel Cruz-Almeida, Associate Professor & Associate Director, Pain Research & Intervention Center Of Excellence, University of Florida

    Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

    “How come you feel pain when you fall and get a scrape?” – Tillman, age 9, Asheville, North Carolina

    Nobody likes to feel pain, but it’s something every person will experience at some point in their life.

    But why is that?

    I am a neuroscientist, and my job is to research why and how people feel pain in order to help doctors understand how to treat it better.

    What is pain?

    To understand why people feel pain, it helps first to understand what pain is. Pain is the unpleasant sensation you feel when your body is experiencing harm, or thinks it is.

    Not everyone experiences pain the same way. Pain is a highly personal experience influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and social factors. For example, research has shown differences in the pain experiences of women and men, young and older people, and even across people from different cultures.

    It’s important for kids to communicate with a trusted adult if they’re experiencing pain.

    Danger signals

    A network of nerves similar to wires runs all through the human body, from the tips of your fingers and toes, through your back inside the spinal cord and up to your brain. Specialized pain receptors called nociceptors can be found at the end of the nerves on your skin, muscles, joints and internal organs.

    Each nociceptor is designed to activate its nerve if it detects a danger signal. One way scientists classify nociceptors is based on the type of danger signal that activates them.

    Mechanical nociceptors respond to physical damage, such as cuts or pressure, while thermal nociceptors react to extreme temperatures. Chemical nociceptors are triggered by chemicals that the body’s own tissues release when they are damaged. These receptors may also be triggered by external irritants, such as the chemical capsaicin, which gives chili peppers their heat. This is why eating spicy food can cause you pain.

    Finally, there are the nociceptors that are activated by a combination of various triggers. For example, one of these receptors in your skin could be activated by the poke of a sharp object, the cold of an ice pack, the heat from a mug of cocoa, a chemical burn from household bleach, or a combination of all three kinds of stimulation.

    Nerves run from various parts of the body through the spinal cord and up into the brain.
    Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    How pain travels though the body

    When you fall and get a scrape, the mechanical nociceptors in your skin spring into action. As soon as you hit the ground, they activate an electrical signal that travels through the nearby nerves to the spinal cord and up to your brain. Your brain interprets these signals to locate the place in your body that is hurting and determine how intense the pain is.

    Your brain knows that a pain signal is an SOS message from your body that something isn’t right. So it activates multiple systems all at once to get you out of danger and help you survive.

    Your brain may call on other parts of your nervous system to release chemicals called endorphins that will reduce your pain. It may tell your endocrine system to release hormones that prepare your body to handle the stress of your fall by increasing your heart rate, for example. And it may order your immune system to send special immune cells to the site of your scrape to help manage swelling and heal your skin.

    As all of this is happening, your brain takes in information about where you are in the world so that you can respond accordingly. Do you need to move away from something hurting you? Did you fall in the middle of the road and now need to get out of the way of moving cars?

    Not only is your brain working to keep you safe in the moments after your fall, it also is looking ahead to how it can prevent this scenario from happening again. The pain signals from your fall activate parts of your brain called the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex that process memory and emotions. They will help you remember how bad falling made you feel so that you will learn how to avoid it in the future.

    But why do we need to feel pain?

    As this example shows, pain is like a warning signal from your body. It helps protect you by telling you when something is wrong so that you can stop doing it and avoid getting hurt more.

    In fact, it’s a problem if you can’t feel pain. Some people have a genetic mutation that changes the way their nociceptors function and do not feel pain at all. This can be very dangerous, because they won’t know when they’re hurt.

    Ultimately, feeling that scrape and the pain sensation from it helps keep you safe from harm.

    Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

    And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

    Yenisel Cruz-Almeida receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Pain and serves as Treasurer on the US Association for the Study of Pain.

    – ref. Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain – https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-hurt-when-you-get-a-scrape-a-neuroscientist-explains-the-science-of-pain-238499

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Chrisinger, Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University

    More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to buy groceries. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s pick for director of the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has announced a bold plan. He wants to “Make America Healthy Again.”

    Kennedy’s strategy has gotten a lot of attention for its oddities, such as his opposition to vaccine mandates and support for raw milk. But it includes some concepts that many public health experts consider sensible, such as calling for a stronger focus on chronic disease prevention and seeking more restrictions on prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers.

    But he’s also demanding a ban on junk food from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Banning junk food from SNAP is something that has divided public health experts for years.

    As public health researchers, we’ve devoted our careers to helping reduce chronic diseases. We agree with Kennedy that a healthy diet and sound nutrition are important ways to improve the nation’s health. We also know from our own research that safety net programs, including SNAP benefits – which are still sometimes called food stamps – are staving off hunger and food insecurity for millions of Americans.

    And we’re certain that adding to the restrictions that already limit access to SNAP benefits do little to make Americans healthier.

    What is SNAP?

    Over 42.1 million Americans, about 13% of all families, receive SNAP benefits. More than 1 in 4 of the households enrolled in the program include someone who is earning at least some income.

    More than 4 in 5 families getting SNAP benefits include a child, someone over 65 or someone with a disability. These benefits are distributed on a monthly basis through an electronic benefits transfer card that looks and works like a credit or debit card and can be used at supermarkets and other approved retailers. The federal government has spent more than US$110 billion annually on this program in recent years.

    Benefits help get food on the table but typically don’t cover everything a family needs to eat. The average monthly benefit is $195 per person.

    Americans who earn less than 130% of the poverty line are eligible for SNAP. In the 2025 fiscal year, a family of three can’t make more than $2,152 a month in net income or have assets of more than $4,500 if a household includes someone over 60, and $3,000 if it doesn’t.

    Adults without children or disabilities can’t get these benefits for more than three months every three years unless they meet the program’s work requirements by being employed or spending at least 20 hours weekly in a training program. People who are on strike and foreigners living in the U.S. without authorization are ineligible. People with prior drug-related felony convictions are federally banned from SNAP for life, but states can waive this rule. This program is federally funded but administered by the states, which have some leeway in determining eligibility.

    People enrolled in SNAP already face some restrictions on what they can buy with their benefits. They can’t use SNAP to purchase premade or restaurant meals, alcohol, tobacco, or things such as diapers, vitamins and toilet paper.

    Why restrict SNAP?

    Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kennedy would have very little power to change SNAP’s rules should the Senate approve his nomination following the controversial politician’s upcoming confirmation hearing on Jan. 29, 2025.

    Still, we’re concerned that his support for new restrictions could help sway the authorities who would be responsible for such a policy change.

    Proposals to ban particular foods from SNAP have been floated many times by state legislators and members of Congress over the years.

    These bills have generally been designed to exclude supposedly luxury items, such as steak and seafood, or aimed at barring purchases from a different supermarket aisle: candy, soda and other junk foods.

    States can’t make this kind of modification without the USDA’s authorization. And so far, the USDA has rebuffed calls for it to allow such measures. Even without the agency’s support, Congress can make changes to these policies in the Farm Bill, which could in the future force the USDA to allow these restrictions in states that ask for them.

    The Trump administration, including Kennedy, has signaled its interest in these kinds of restrictions.

    Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

    While improving the American diet is a worthy goal, research that we and other scholars have done makes it clear that adding new restrictions to SNAP will do little to help us become a healthier nation.

    First, many studies have found that nearly all Americans could eat healthier.

    The rich and the poor alike consume unhealthy food in the U.S.

    Studies show that while lower-income Americans often spend more of their food budget on unhealthy stuff than more affluent people do, families in the middle and at the top of the income ladder still purchase lots of junk food.

    Unsurprisingly, those purchases reflect what we’re eating: Americans at all income levels have diets that don’t satisfy federal dietary guidelines. Spotlighting the poor food choices of SNAP participants would be a distraction from these facts and would risk further stigmatizing a successful anti-hunger program.

    Maintaining a good diet is not cheap or straightforward, especially on a low income. The poorest communities have far more inexpensive fast-food chains and dollar stores than their wealthier neighbors, as well as more ads for unhealthy products. Even when they get SNAP benefits, many Americans still struggle to make ends meet, and studies show how this negatively affects the quality of their diets.

    Another reason SNAP restrictions wouldn’t make America healthier is that diet is just one of many contributors to chronic diseases. Your level of physical activity, exposure to pollution, stress and genetics, among other things, shape your risk of getting heart disease, diabetes or other chronic diseases.

    Flexible but don’t cover all needs

    SNAP benefits are fairly flexible, covering just about anything people might want to eat, even if they have dietary restrictions due to their culture or health conditions. The program helps Americans afford most of their basic necessities, although it fails to pay for all the groceries most people who rely on the program need to buy in the course of a month.

    SNAP’s main function is preventing the worst effects of hunger and food insecurity for the more than 41 million people relying on it.

    There are other ways for the government to help make Americans healthier besides the imposition of stigmatizing restrictions on SNAP. For example, it can create matching programs for SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, which would give retailers incentives to offer more produce and make it easier for people who get SNAP benefits to buy more healthy food. The USDA has begun to support this kind of effort in several states.

    Benjamin Chrisinger receives funding from The Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership.

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

    – ref. Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-government-cant-make-america-healthier-by-micromanaging-groceries-purchased-with-snap-benefits-246462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Statement by President Meloni on Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

    Source: Government of Italy (English)

    Eighty years ago, the horror of the Shoah was revealed to the world in all its terrifying force.

    On 27 January 1945, the gates of Auschwitz were torn down and, with them, the wall which had prevented the world from clearly seeing the Nazis’ abominable plan to persecute and exterminate the Jewish people crumbled too.

    Men, women, children and elderly people ripped from their homes, forced to leave everything behind, and taken to death camps, where they were killed just because they were Jewish. The premeditated brutality of that plan makes the Shoah a tragedy unparalleled in history. 

    The plan carried out by Hitler’s regime also had the complicity of the fascist regime in Italy, with its disgraceful racial laws and involvement in rounding up and deporting people.

    There were many Righteous who bravely stood up against that abyss, and did not hesitate to disobey and risk their own lives in order to save thousands of innocent people.

    Today, we commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, we remember the names and surnames of the victims and we revive the memory of what happened, also through the first-hand accounts of survivors and their descendants. Living witnesses to a horrific chapter of our past, to whom we extend our gratitude once again, for it is above all thanks to them that today we know what happened. Sami Modiano said: “I am alive to bear witness. There was a bigger plan for me, and I will keep on remembering for as long as I live”. This is an extraordinary lesson, and one we must embrace in order to cultivate remembrance and increasingly raise awareness among the younger generations.

    Anti-Semitism was not defeated when the gates of Auschwitz were pulled down. It is a scourge that survived the Holocaust and has taken on different forms, spreading through new means and channels. Combatting anti-Semitism in all its forms, old and new, is a priority for this Government. 

    We have never wavered in this commitment and we intend to pursue it with strength and determination, also by developing a new national strategy for the fight against anti-Semitism, a detailed and scenario-based document that establishes concrete goals and actions to counter a despicable phenomenon that has no place in our societies.

    [Courtesy translation]

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI: PSB Holdings, Inc. Reports Earnings of $0.73 Per Share for Q4 2024; Twelve Month 2024 Earnings up 10% to $2.37 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WAUSAU, Wis., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PSB Holdings, Inc. (“PSB”) (OTCQX: PSBQ), the holding company for Peoples State Bank (“Peoples”) serving Northcentral and Southeastern Wisconsin reported fourth quarter earnings ending December 31, 2024 of $0.73 per common share on net income of $3.0 million, compared to $0.69 per common share on net income of $2.9 million during the third quarter ending September 30, 2024, and $0.55 per common share on net income of $2.3 million during the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2023. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, PSB reported earnings of $2.37 per common share on net income of $9.8 million compared to $2.16 per common share on earnings of $9.1 million for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

    PSB’s fourth quarter 2024 operating results reflected the following changes from the third quarter of 2024: (1) higher net interest income supported by a net interest margin increase of six basis points; (2) lower non-interest income due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities; (3) slightly lower non-interest expenses due to lower salaries and employee benefit expenses; and (4) loan growth of 2% during the quarter.

    “We are pleased with our results for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2024. We continue to maintain strong asset quality and controlled expenses, and expect to see continued expansion in our net interest margin as loan products continue to reset to higher yields and funding costs stabilize or decline. Additionally, we expect to see stronger loan growth in fiscal 2025. We are focused on delivering strong returns to shareholders through capital growth, payment of dividends and supporting our stock price through stock repurchases, when economically appropriate,” stated Scott Cattanach, President and CEO.

    December 31, 2024, Highlights:

    • Net interest income increased to $10.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $9.9 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024. Asset and loan yields increased while funding costs declined slightly.
    • Noninterest income decreased $566,000 to $1.3 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $1.8 million the prior quarter due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities.
    • Noninterest expenses decreased to $8.0 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024 from $8.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, reflecting lower salary and benefit expenses.
    • Loans increased $20.2 million, or 2% in the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.08 billion largely due to new commercial real estate and construction and development loans. Allowance for credit losses was 1.13% of gross loans.
    • Non-performing assets remained unchanged at $10.4 million, or 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 compared to the previous quarter.
    • Total deposits increased slightly to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024 from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024, with the increase largely consisting of interest-bearing demand and savings deposits.
    • Return on average tangible common equity was 11.07% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 10.96% the prior quarter and 9.64% in the year ago quarter.
    • Tangible book value per common share was up 9.0% over the past year to $25.98 at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 at December 31, 2023. Additionally, PSB paid dividends totaling $0.64 per share during 2024, up 6.7% over the prior year.
    • On January 21, 2025, the Bank acquired Larson Financial Group, LLC, a financial advisory company based in Wausau, WI.

    Balance Sheet and Asset Quality Review

    Total assets decreased $10.0 million during the fourth quarter to $1.47 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to September 30, 2024. Cash and cash equivalents decreased $46.6 million to $40.5 million at December 31, 2024 from $87.1 million at September 30, 2024 as funds were used to originate new loans and pay down FHLB advances. Cash and cash equivalents increased $12.7 million from one year earlier. Investment securities available for sale increased $14.2 million to $189.1 million at December 31, 2024, from $174.9 million one quarter earlier. Total collateralized liquidity available to meet cash demands was approximately $349 million at December 31, 2024, with an additional $354 million that could be raised in a short time frame from the brokered CDs market.

    Total loans receivable increased $20.2 million to $1.08 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier, due primarily to increased commercial non-real estate, commercial real estate and construction lending. Commercial non-real estate loans increased $5.1 million to $144.2 million at December 31, 2024, from $139.0 million one quarter earlier. Commercial real estate loans increased $10.1 million to $551.6 million at December 31, 2024 and construction and development lending increased $18.4 million to $79.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier. Offsetting gross loan growth, loans in process of disbursement increased $10.0 million to $27.8 million as new construction and development loans have not been fully funded. Residential real estate loans decreased $3.9 million from the prior quarter to $337.5 million. The loan portfolio remains well diversified with commercial real estate and construction loans totaling 56.5% of gross loans, followed by residential real estate loans at 30.2% of gross loans, commercial non-real estate loans at 12.9% and consumer loans at 0.4%.

    The allowance for credit losses decreased slightly to 1.13% of gross loans at December 31, 2024, from 1.18% the prior quarter. Annualized net charge-offs to average loans were 0.02% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. Non-performing assets remained at 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 and totaled $10.4 million. Approximately 71% of the non-performing assets consisted of three loan relationships. For the eighth consecutive quarter, the Bank did not own any foreclosed real estate.

    Total deposits increased $8.2 million to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024, from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase in deposits reflects a $12.9 million increase in interest-bearing demand and savings deposits and a $3.3 million increase in retail and local time deposits greater than $250,000, offset by a $1.5 million decrease in money market deposits, a $5.6 million decrease in non-interest bearing deposits and a $0.9 million decrease in retail and local time deposits less than $250,000.

    At December 31, 2024, non-interest bearing demand deposits decreased to 22.6% of total deposits from 23.3% the prior quarter, while interest-bearing demand and savings deposits increased to 29.4% of deposits, compared to 28.4% at September 30, 2024. Uninsured and uncollateralized deposits decreased to 21.6% of total deposits at December 31, 2024, from 21.7% of total deposits at September 30, 2024.

    FHLB advances decreased $19.0 million to $162.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $181.3 million at September 30, 2024.

    Tangible stockholder equity as a percent of total tangible assets was 7.76% at December 31, 2024, compared to 7.85% at September 30, 2024, and 7.49% at December 31, 2023.

    Tangible net book value per common share increased $2.14 to $25.98, at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 one year earlier, an increase of 9.0% after dividends of $0.64 were paid to shareholders. Relative to the prior quarter’s tangible book value per common share of $26.41, tangible net book value per common share decreased primarily due to a fair market value decrease in the investment portfolios and payment of dividends. The accumulated other comprehensive loss on the investment portfolio was $19.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $15.8 million one quarter earlier.

    Operations Review

    Net interest income increased to $10.4 million (on a net margin of 2.96%) for the fourth quarter of 2024, from $9.9 million (on a net margin of 2.90%) for the third quarter of 2024, and $9.6 million (on a net margin of 2.88%) for the fourth quarter of 2023. Earning asset yields remained flat at 5.29% during the fourth quarter of 2024, while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs decreased seven basis points to 3.06% compared to 3.13% during the third quarter of 2024. Relative to one year earlier, earning asset yields were up 30 basis points while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs increased 27 basis points.

    The increase in earning asset yields was primarily due to higher yields on loan originations and renewals. Loan yields increased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 5.80% from 5.78% for the third quarter of 2024. Taxable security yields were 3.16% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 3.01% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, while tax-exempt security yields were flat at 3.31% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. The increase in taxable security yields reflect the rise in interest rates and security restructuring activity from security sales.

    The cost of all deposits declined to 2.08% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.11% the prior quarter, while the overall cost of funds decreased seven basis points to 3.06% from 3.13% during the same time period. Deposit costs for all deposit categories decreased during the fourth quarter with time deposits decreasing two basis points to 4.02%, money market deposits decreasing 13 basis points to 2.56% and savings and demand deposits decreasing two basis points to 2.56%. FHLB advances also declined four basis points to 4.40% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024.

    Total noninterest income decreased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to $1.28 million, from $1.84 million for the third quarter of 2024 due primarily to a net loss on sale of securities. Mortgage banking income decreased slightly to $414,000 in the fourth quarter from $433,000 the prior quarter while various decreases in nominal revenue sources accounted for the remaining decline in noninterest income. At December 31, 2024, the Bank serviced $373.5 million in secondary market residential mortgage loans for others which provide fee income.

    Noninterest expenses decreased $149,000 to $8.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $8.2 million for the third quarter of 2024 and increased $644,000 from $7.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2023. Relative to one year earlier, salary and benefit cost increased $447,000, or 10.5% to $4.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $4.2 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    Taxes decreased $69,000 during the fourth quarter to $524,000, from $593,000 one quarter earlier. The effective tax rate for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, was 14.4% compared to 16.6% for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 26.7% for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    About PSB Holdings, Inc.

    PSB Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Peoples State Bank. Peoples is a community bank headquartered in Wausau, Wisconsin, serving northcentral and southeastern Wisconsin from twelve full-service banking locations in Marathon, Oneida, Vilas, Portage, Milwaukee and Waukesha counties and a loan production office in Dane County. Peoples also provides investment and insurance products, along with retirement planning services, through Peoples Wealth Management, a division of Peoples. PSB Holdings, Inc. is traded under the stock symbol PSBQ on the OTCQX Market. More information about PSB, its management, and its financial performance may be found at www.psbholdingsinc.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about PSB’s business based, in part, on assumptions made by management and include, without limitation, statements with respect to the potential growth of PSB, its future profits, expected stock repurchase levels, future dividend rates, future interest rates, and the adequacy of its capital position. Forward-looking statements can be affected by known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, including, but not limited to, strength of the economy, the effects of government policies, including interest rate policies, risks associated with the execution of PSB’s vision and growth strategy, including with respect to current and future M&A activity, and risks associated with global economic instability. The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date on which they are made and PSB does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this release.

               
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.     
    Consolidated Balance Sheets     
    December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2024, unaudited, December 31, 2023 derived from audited financial statements 
               
      Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
               
    Assets          
               
    Cash and due from banks $ 21,414   $ 23,554   $ 16,475   $ 13,340   $ 20,887  
    Interest-bearing deposits   3,724     5,126     251     105     1,431  
    Federal funds sold   15,360     58,434     69,249     2,439     5,462  
               
    Cash and cash equivalents   40,498     87,114     85,975     15,884     27,780  
    Securities available for sale (at fair value)   189,086     174,911     165,177     165,566     164,024  
    Securities held to maturity (fair values of $79,654, $82,389, $79,993, $81,234 and        
      $82,514 respectively)   86,748     86,847     86,825     87,104     87,081  
    Equity securities   2,782     1,752     1,661     1,474     1,474  
    Loans held for sale   217     –     2,268     865     230  
    Loans receivable, net (allowance for credit losses of $12,342, $12,598, $12,597,        
     $12,494 and $12,302 respectively)   1,078,204     1,057,974     1,074,844     1,081,394     1,078,475  
    Accrued interest receivable   5,042     4,837     5,046     5,467     5,136  
    Foreclosed assets   –     –     –     –     –  
    Premises and equipment, net   13,805     14,065     14,048     13,427     13,098  
    Mortgage servicing rights, net   1,742     1,727     1,688     1,657     1,664  
    Federal Home Loan Bank stock (at cost)   8,825     8,825     8,825     7,006     6,373  
    Cash surrender value of bank-owned life insurance   24,732     24,565     24,401     24,242     24,085  
    Core deposit intangible   195     212     229     249     273  
    Goodwill   2,541     2,541     2,541     2,541     2,541  
    Other assets   11,539     10,598     12,111     11,682     11,866  
               
    TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,465,956   $ 1,475,968   $ 1,485,639   $ 1,418,558   $ 1,424,100  
               
    Liabilities          
               
    Non-interest-bearing deposits $ 259,515   $ 265,078   $ 250,435   $ 247,608   $ 266,829  
    Interest-bearing deposits   887,834     874,035     901,886     865,744     874,973  
               
       Total deposits   1,147,349     1,139,113     1,152,321     1,113,352     1,141,802  
               
    Federal Home Loan Bank advances   162,250     181,250     184,900     158,250     134,000  
    Other borrowings   6,872     6,128     5,775     8,096     8,058  
    Senior subordinated notes   4,781     4,779     4,778     4,776     4,774  
    Junior subordinated debentures   13,023     12,998     12,972     12,947     12,921  
    Allowance for credit losses on unfunded commitments   672     477     477     477     577  
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities   14,723     12,850     13,069     10,247     12,681  
               
       Total liabilities   1,349,670     1,357,595     1,374,292     1,308,145     1,314,813  
               
    Stockholders’ equity          
               
    Preferred stock – no par value:          
       Authorized – 30,000 shares; no shares issued or outstanding          
       Outstanding – 7,200 shares, respectively   7,200     7,200     7,200     7,200     7,200  
    Common stock – no par value with a stated value of $1.00 per share:          
       Authorized – 18,000,000 shares; Issued – 5,490,798 shares          
       Outstanding – 4,092,977, 4,105,594, 4,128,382, 4,147,649 and          
         4,164,735 shares, respectively   1,830     1,830     1,830     1,830     1,830  
    Additional paid-in capital   8,610     8,567     8,527     8,466     8,460  
    Retained earnings   139,838     138,142     135,276     134,271     132,666  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax   (19,314 )   (15,814 )   (20,503 )   (20,775 )   (20,689 )
    Treasury stock, at cost – 1,397,821, 1,385,204, 1,362,416, 1,343,149 and          
      1,326,063 shares, respectively   (21,878 )   (21,552 )   (20,983 )   (20,579 )   (20,180 )
               
       Total stockholders’ equity   116,286     118,373     111,347     110,413     109,287  
               
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 1,465,956   $ 1,475,968   $ 1,485,639   $ 1,418,558   $ 1,424,100  
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.        
    Consolidated Statements of Income            
                            Quarter Ended     Years Ended
    (dollars in thousands, Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,   December
    except per share data – unaudited)   2024     2024   2024   2024     2023       2024     2023  
                       
    Interest and dividend income:                
       Loans, including fees $ 15,646   $ 15,634 $ 15,433 $ 15,109   $ 14,888     $ 61,822   $ 53,633  
       Securities:                
          Taxable   1,545     1,345   1,295   1,197     1,147       5,382     4,919  
          Tax-exempt   522     522   521   526     532       2,091     2,137  
       Other interest and dividends   948     699   265   343     320       2,255     851  
                       
             Total interest and dividend income   18,661     18,200   17,514   17,175     16,887       71,550     61,540  
                       
    Interest expense:                
       Deposits   6,027     5,905   5,838   6,082     5,526       23,852     16,993  
       FHLB advances   1,890     2,038   1,860   1,450     1,349       7,238     4,417  
       Other borrowings   57     57   58   60     54       232     215  
       Senior subordinated notes   59     59   58   59     59       235     238  
       Junior subordinated debentures   252     252   255   251     254       1,010     985  
                       
             Total interest expense   8,285     8,311   8,069   7,902     7,242       32,567     22,848  
                       
    Net interest income   10,376     9,889   9,445   9,273     9,645       38,983     38,692  
    Provision for credit losses   –     –   100   95     100       195     450  
                       
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     10,376     9,889   9,345   9,178     9,545       38,788     38,242  
                       
    Noninterest income:                
       Service fees   362     367   350   336     360       1,415     1,448  
       Mortgage banking income   414     433   433   308     247       1,588     1,228  
       Investment and insurance sales commissions   226     230   222   121     100       799     910  
       Net loss on sale of securities   (511 )   –   –   (495 )   (297 )     (1,006 )   (576 )
       Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance     166     165   159   157     154       647     615  
       Life insurance death benefit   –     –   –   –     –       –     533  
       Other noninterest income   620     648   742   617     540       2,627     2,562  
                       
             Total noninterest income   1,277     1,843   1,906   1,044     1,104       6,070     6,720  
                       
    Noninterest expense:                
       Salaries and employee benefits   4,691     4,771   5,167   5,123     4,244       19,752     18,648  
       Occupancy and facilities   691     757   733   721     675       2,902     2,761  
       Loss (gain) on foreclosed assets   –     1   –   –     1       1     (45 )
       Data processing and other office operations   1,111     1,104   1,047   1,022     1,001       4,284     3,785  
       Advertising and promotion   141     164   171   129     244       605     733  
       Core deposit intangible amortization   17     17   20   24     24       78     109  
       Other noninterest expenses   1,351     1,337   1,257   1,306     1,169       5,251     4,557  
                       
            Total noninterest expense   8,002     8,151   8,395   8,325     7,358       32,873     30,548  
                       
    Income before provision for income taxes   3,651     3,581   2,856   1,897     3,291       11,985     14,414  
    Provision for income taxes   524     593   410   169     878       1,696     4,845  
                       
    Net income $ 3,127   $ 2,988 $ 2,446 $ 1,728   $ 2,413     $ 10,289   $ 9,569  
    Preferred stock dividends declared $ 122   $ 122 $ 122 $ 122   $ 122     $ 486   $ 486  
                       
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 3,005   $ 2,866 $ 2,324 $ 1,606   $ 2,291     $ 9,803   $ 9,083  
    Basic earnings per common share $ 0.73   $ 0.69 $ 0.56 $ 0.39   $ 0.55     $ 2.37   $ 2.16  
    Diluted earnings per common share $ 0.73   $ 0.69 $ 0.56 $ 0.39   $ 0.55     $ 2.37   $ 2.16  
                       
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    Quarterly Financial Summary
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data) Quarter ended
          Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    Earnings and dividends:     2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
                   
      Interest income   $ 18,661   $ 18,200   $ 17,514   $ 17,175   $ 16,887  
      Interest expense   $ 8,285   $ 8,311   $ 8,069   $ 7,902   $ 7,242  
      Net interest income   $ 10,376   $ 9,889   $ 9,445   $ 9,273   $ 9,645  
      Provision for credit losses   $ –   $ –   $ 100   $ 95   $ 100  
      Other noninterest income   $ 1,277   $ 1,843   $ 1,906   $ 1,044   $ 1,104  
      Other noninterest expense   $ 8,002   $ 8,151   $ 8,395   $ 8,325   $ 7,358  
      Net income available to common shareholders $ 3,005   $ 2,866   $ 2,324   $ 1,606   $ 2,291  
                   
      Basic earnings per common share (3) $ 0.73   $ 0.69   $ 0.56   $ 0.39   $ 0.55  
      Diluted earnings per common share (3) $ 0.73   $ 0.69   $ 0.56   $ 0.39   $ 0.55  
      Dividends declared per common share (3) $ 0.32   $ –   $ 0.32   $ –   $ 0.30  
      Tangible net book value per common share (4) $ 25.98   $ 26.41   $ 24.55   $ 24.21   $ 23.84  
                   
      Semi-annual dividend payout ratio     23.27 %   n/a     33.61 %   n/a     38.14 %
      Average common shares outstanding   4,094,360     4,132,218     4,139,456     4,154,702     4,168,924  
                   
                   
    Balance sheet – average balances:            
      Loans receivable, net of allowances for credit loss   $ 1,064,619   $ 1,066,795   $ 1,088,013   $ 1,081,936   $ 1,081,851  
      Assets   $ 1,479,812   $ 1,445,613   $ 1,433,749   $ 1,429,437   $ 1,424,240  
      Deposits   $ 1,151,450   $ 1,110,854   $ 1,111,240   $ 1,138,010   $ 1,148,399  
      Stockholders’ equity   $ 118,396   $ 114,458   $ 110,726   $ 109,473   $ 105,060  
                   
                   
    Performance ratios:            
      Return on average assets (1)     0.84 %   0.82 %   0.69 %   0.49 %   0.67 %
      Return on average common stockholders’ equity (1)     10.75 %   10.63 %   9.03 %   6.32 %   9.29 %
      Return on average tangible common          
        stockholders’ equity (1)(4)     11.07 %   10.96 %   9.34 %   6.57 %   9.64 %
      Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)   0.02 %   0.00 %   0.00 %   0.00 %   0.00 %
      Nonperforming loans to gross loans     0.95 %   0.97 %   1.15 %   1.08 %   0.54 %
      Nonperforming assets to total assets     0.71 %   0.71 %   0.84 %   0.83 %   0.42 %
      Allowance for credit losses to gross loans   1.13 %   1.18 %   1.16 %   1.14 %   1.13 %
      Nonperforming assets to tangible equity          
        plus the allowance for credit losses (4)   8.85 %   8.71 %   11.09 %   10.59 %   5.38 %
      Net interest rate margin (1)(2)     2.96 %   2.90 %   2.84 %   2.80 %   2.88 %
      Net interest rate spread (1)(2)     2.23 %   2.16 %   2.15 %   2.12 %   2.20 %
      Service fee revenue as a percent of            
        average demand deposits (1)     0.53 %   0.56 %   0.56 %   0.54 %   0.52 %
      Noninterest income as a percent            
        of gross revenue     6.40 %   9.20 %   9.81 %   5.73 %   6.14 %
      Efficiency ratio (2)     67.59 %   68.43 %   72.52 %   78.93 %   67.04 %
      Noninterest expenses to average assets (1)   2.15 %   2.24 %   2.35 %   2.34 %   2.05 %
      Average stockholders’ equity less accumulated          
        other comprehensive income (loss) to          
        average assets     9.08 %   9.06 %   9.03 %   8.98 %   8.88 %
      Tangible equity to tangible assets (4)   7.76 %   7.85 %   7.32 %   7.60 %   7.49 %
                   
    Stock price information:            
                   
      High   $ 27.90   $ 25.00   $ 21.40   $ 22.50   $ 22.30  
      Low   $ 25.00   $ 20.30   $ 19.75   $ 20.05   $ 20.10  
      Last trade value at quarter-end   $ 26.50   $ 25.00   $ 20.40   $ 21.25   $ 22.11  
                   
    (1) Annualized            
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.
    (3) Due to rounding, cumulative quarterly per share performance may not equal annual per share totals.  
    (4) Tangible stockholders’ equity excludes goodwill and core deposit intangibles.      
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.          
    Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income        
                   
          Quarter Ended
          Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    (dollars in thousands – unaudited)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
                   
    Net income $ 3,127   $ 2,988   $ 2,446   $ 1,728   $ 2,413  
                   
    Other comprehensive income:          
                   
      Unrealized gain (loss) on securities available for sale, net of tax      (3,955 )   4,738     184     (615 )   5,278  
                 
      Reclassification adjustment for security  loss included in net income, net of tax     404     –     –     391     280  
                   
      Accretion of unrealized loss included in net  income on securities available for sale deferred tax adjustment for Wisconsin Act 19     (76 )   –     –     (35 )   –  
                   
      Amortization of unrealized loss included in net  income on securities available for sale transferred to securities held to maturity, net of tax     90     90     89     91     91  
                   
      Unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap, net of tax     65     (101 )   39     122     (109 )
                   
      Reclassification adjustment of interest rate swap settlements included in earnings, net of tax     (27 )   (38 )   (40 )   (41 )   (39 )
                   
                   
    Other comprehensive income (loss)   (3,499 )   4,689     272     (87 )   5,501  
                   
    Comprehensive income (loss) $ (372 ) $ 7,677   $ 2,718   $ 1,641   $ 7,914  
                   
    PSB Holdings, Inc.        
    Nonperforming Assets as of:        
      Dec 31, Sep 30, Jun 30, Mar 31, Dec 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
               
    Nonaccrual loans (excluding restructured loans) $ 10,109   $ 10,116   $ 12,184   $ 11,498   $ 5,596  
    Nonaccrual restructured loans   18     25     28     30     34  
    Restructured loans not on nonaccrual   286     292     299     304     310  
    Accruing loans past due 90 days or more   –     –     –     –     –  
               
    Total nonperforming loans   10,413     10,433     12,511     11,832     5,940  
    Other real estate owned   –     –     –     –     –  
               
    Total nonperforming assets $ 10,413   $ 10,433   $ 12,511   $ 11,832   $ 5,940  
               
    Nonperforming loans as a % of gross loans receivable   0.95 %   0.97 %   1.15 %   1.08 %   0.54 %
    Total nonperforming assets as a % of total assets   0.71 %   0.71 %   0.84 %   0.83 %   0.42 %
    Allowance for credit losses as a % of nonperforming loans   118.52 %   120.75 %   100.69 %   105.59 %   207.10 %
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.     
    Nonperforming Assets >= $500,000 net book value before specific reserves    
    At December 31, 2024     
    (dollars in thousands)     
        Gross Specific
    Collateral Description Asset Type Principal Reserves
           
    Real estate – Recreational Facility Nonaccrual $ 4,126   $ 151  
    Real estate – Independent Auto Repair Nonaccrual   538     –  
    Real estate – Dealership Nonaccrual   2,708     560  
           
           
    Total listed nonperforming assets   $ 7,372   $ 711  
    Total bank wide nonperforming assets   $ 10,413   $ 1,043  
    Listed assets as a % of total nonperforming assets     71 %   68 %
           
    PSB Holding, Inc.          
    Loan Composition by Collateral Type          
    Quarter-ended (dollars in thousands) Dec 31,
    2024    		 Sep 30,
    2024    		 Jun 30,
    2024    		 Mar 31,
    2024    		 Dec 31,
    2023
               
    Commercial:          
    Commercial and industrial $ 116,864   $ 115,234   $ 125,508   $ 118,821   $ 117,207  
    Agriculture   11,568     11,203     11,480     12,081     12,304  
    Municipal   15,733     12,596     11,190     28,842     31,530  
               
    Total Commercial   144,165     139,033     148,178     159,744     161,041  
               
    Commercial Real Estate:          
    Commercial real estate   551,641     541,577     544,171     546,257     536,209  
    Construction and development   79,377     60,952     70,540     63,375     81,701  
               
    Total Commercial Real Estate   631,018     602,529     614,711     609,632     617,910  
               
    Residential real estate:          
    Residential   271,643     269,954     270,944     274,300     274,453  
    Construction and development   28,959     34,655     36,129     34,158     33,960  
    HELOC   36,887     36,734     33,838     31,357     29,766  
               
    Total Residential Real Estate   337,489     341,343     340,911     339,815     338,179  
               
    Consumer installment   5,060     4,770     4,423     4,867     4,357  
               
    Subtotals – Gross loans   1,117,732     1,087,675     1,108,223     1,114,058     1,121,487  
    Loans in process of disbursement   (27,791 )   (17,836 )   (21,484 )   (20,839 )   (31,359 )
               
    Subtotals – Disbursed loans   1,089,941     1,069,839     1,086,739     1,093,219     1,090,128  
    Net deferred loan costs   605     733     702     669     649  
    Allowance for credit losses   (12,342 )   (12,598 )   (12,597 )   (12,494 )   (12,302 )
               
    Total loans receivable $ 1,078,204   $ 1,057,974   $ 1,074,844   $ 1,081,394   $ 1,078,475  
               
    PSB Holding, Inc.                       
    Selected Commercial Real Estate Loans by Purpose                  
      Dec 31,   Sept 30,   June 30,   Mar 31,   Dec 31,
     (dollars in thousands)  2024     2024     2024     2024     2023 
                                 
      Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)
    Multi Family $ 140,087 14.0 %   $ 140,307 14.7 %   $ 146,873 15.2 %   $ 142,001 14.4 %   $ 132,386 13.2 %
    Industrial and Warehousing   88,297 8.8       86,818 9.1       86,025 8.9       85,409 8.6       83,817 8.3  
    Retail   33,991 3.4       33,020 3.5       34,846 3.6       33,177 3.4       35,419 3.5  
    Hotels   31,101 3.1       31,611 3.3       34,613 3.6       35,105 3.6       36,100 3.6  
    Office   6,234 0.6       6,378 0.7       6,518 0.7       6,655 0.7       6,701 0.7  
                                 
    (1) Percentage of commercial and commercial real estate portfolio and commitments.              
                   
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Insured and Collateralized Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 204,167 17.8 % $ 210,534 18.5 % $ 202,343 17.5 % $ 199,076 17.8 % $ 197,571 17.3 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   315,900 27.6 %   305,631 26.8 %   304,392 26.5 %   318,673 28.7 %   317,984 27.8 %
    Money market deposits   141,024 12.3 %   138,376 12.2 %   137,637 12.0 %   143,167 12.9 %   142,887 12.5 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   155,099 13.5 %   155,988 13.7 %   149,298 13.0 %   148,404 13.3 %   149,145 13.1 %
                         
    Total core deposits   816,190 71.2 %   810,529 71.2 %   793,670 69.0 %   809,320 72.7 %   807,587 70.7 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   25,500 2.2 %   23,500 2.1 %   22,500 2.0 %   24,508 2.3 %   23,000 2.0 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   1,241 0.1 %   1,241 0.1 %   1,490 0.1 %   2,229 0.2 %   3,470 0.3 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   56,164 4.9 %   56,164 4.9 %   56,328 4.9 %   61,752 5.5 %   70,020 6.1 %
                         
    Totals $ 899,095 78.4 % $ 891,434 78.3 % $ 873,988 76.0 % $ 897,809 80.7 % $ 904,077 79.1 %
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Uninsured Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 55,348 4.8 % $ 54,544 4.8 % $ 48,092 4.1 % $ 48,532 4.4 % $ 69,258 6.1 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   20,934 1.8 %   18,317 1.6 %   32,674 2.8 %   20,535 1.8 %   20,316 1.8 %
    Money market deposits   153,334 13.4 %   157,489 13.8 %   177,954 15.4 %   124,766 11.2 %   124,518 10.9 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
                         
    Total core deposits   229,616 20.0 %   230,350 20.2 %   258,720 22.3 %   193,833 17.4 %   214,092 18.8 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   18,638 1.6 %   17,329 1.5 %   19,613 1.7 %   21,710 1.9 %   23,633 2.1 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
                         
    Totals $ 248,254 21.6 % $ 247,679 21.7 % $ 278,333 24.0 % $ 215,543 19.3 % $ 237,725 20.9 %
                         
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Total Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 259,515 22.6 % $ 265,078 23.3 % $ 250,435 21.6 % $ 247,608 22.2 % $ 266,829 23.4 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   336,834 29.4 %   323,948 28.4 %   337,066 29.3 %   339,208 30.5 %   338,300 29.6 %
    Money market deposits   294,358 25.7 %   295,865 26.0 %   315,591 27.4 %   267,933 24.1 %   267,405 23.4 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   155,099 13.5 %   155,988 13.7 %   149,298 13.0 %   148,404 13.3 %   149,145 13.1 %
                         
    Total core deposits   1,045,806 91.2 %   1,040,879 91.4 %   1,052,390 91.3 %   1,003,153 90.1 %   1,021,679 89.5 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   44,138 3.8 %   40,829 3.6 %   42,113 3.7 %   46,218 4.2 %   46,633 4.1 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   1,241 0.1 %   1,241 0.1 %   1,490 0.1 %   2,229 0.2 %   3,470 0.3 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   56,164 4.9 %   56,164 4.9 %   56,328 4.9 %   61,752 5.5 %   70,020 6.1 %
                         
    Totals $ 1,147,349 100.0 % $ 1,139,113 100.0 % $ 1,152,321 100.0 % $ 1,113,352 100.0 % $ 1,141,802 100.0 %
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc. 
    Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates         
    (dollars in thousands)           
                           
                           
      Quarter ended December 31, 2024   Quarter ended September 30, 2024   Quarter ended December 31, 2023
      Average   Yield /   Average   Yield /   Average   Yield /
      Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate
    Assets                      
    Interest-earning assets:                      
       Loans (1)(2) $ 1,077,242   $ 15,693 5.80 %   $ 1,079,393   $ 15,674 5.78 %   $ 1,094,152   $ 14,974 5.43 %
       Taxable securities   194,272     1,545 3.16 %     177,520     1,345 3.01 %     167,366     1,147 2.72 %
       Tax-exempt securities (2)   79,475     661 3.31 %     79,472     661 3.31 %     80,922     673 3.30 %
       FHLB stock   8,825     227 10.23 %     8,825     176 7.93 %     6,373     158 9.84 %
       Other   58,405     721 4.91 %     36,680     523 5.67 %     11,846     162 5.43 %
                           
       Total (2)   1,418,219     18,847 5.29 %     1,381,890     18,379 5.29 %     1,360,659     17,114 4.99 %
                           
    Non-interest-earning assets:                    
       Cash and due from banks   15,500           17,162           16,243      
       Premises and equipment,                    
          net   14,001           14,216           13,243      
       Cash surrender value ins   24,625           24,458           23,990      
       Other assets   20,090           20,485           22,406      
       Allowance for credit                      
          losses   (12,623 )         (12,598 )         (12,301 )    
                           
       Total $ 1,479,812           $ 1,445,613           $ 1,424,240        
                           
    Liabilities & stockholders’ equity                    
    Interest-bearing liabilities:                    
       Savings and demand                      
          deposits $ 319,777   $ 1,479 1.84 %   $ 323,841   $ 1,515 1.86 %   $ 327,036   $ 1,296 1.57 %
       Money market deposits   304,897     1,961 2.56 %     277,884     1,876 2.69 %     272,087     1,820 2.65 %
       Time deposits   256,201     2,587 4.02 %     247,296     2,514 4.04 %     273,332     2,410 3.50 %
       FHLB borrowings   170,701     1,890 4.40 %     182,414     2,038 4.44 %     133,560     1,349 4.01 %
       Other borrowings   6,848     57 3.31 %     6,702     57 3.38 %     6,999     54 3.06 %
       Senior sub. notes    4,780     59 4.91 %     4,779     59 4.91 %     4,773     59 4.90 %
       Junior sub. debentures   13,011     252 7.71 %     12,985     252 7.72 %     12,909     254 7.81 %
                           
       Total   1,076,215     8,285 3.06 %     1,055,901     8,311 3.13 %     1,030,696     7,242 2.79 %
                           
    Non-interest-bearing liabilities:                    
       Demand deposits   270,575           261,833           275,944      
       Other liabilities   14,626           13,421           12,540      
       Stockholders’ equity   118,396           114,458           105,060      
                           
       Total $ 1,479,812           $ 1,445,613           $ 1,424,240        
                           
    Net interest income   $ 10,562       $ 10,068       $ 9,872  
    Rate spread     2.23 %       2.16 %       2.20 %
    Net yield on interest-earning assets   2.96 %       2.90 %       2.88 %
                           
    (1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.     
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%. 
                           
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates
    (dollars in thousands)       
          Year ended December 31, 2024   Year ended December 31, 2023
          Average   Yield/   Average   Yield/
          Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate
    Assets                
    Interest-earning assets:              
       Loans (1)(2) $ 1,087,816   $ 62,085 5.71 %   $ 1,043,144   $ 53,824 5.16 %
       Taxable securities   179,074     5,382 3.01 %     183,984     4,919 2.67 %
       Tax-exempt securities (2)   79,735     2,647 3.32 %     81,481     2,705 3.32 %
       FHLB stock   8,024     750 9.35 %     5,304     386 7.28 %
       Other     29,153     1,505 5.16 %     9,073     465 5.13 %
                       
       Total (2)     1,383,802     72,369 5.23 %     1,322,986     62,299 4.71 %
                       
    Non-interest-earning assets:              
       Cash and due from banks   16,841           17,110      
       Premises and equipment, net     13,834           13,294      
       Cash surrender value ins   24,382           24,331      
       Other assets   20,911           23,136      
                     
       Allowance for credit losses     (12,528 )         (12,079 )    
                       
       Total   $ 1,447,242           $ 1,388,778        
                       
    Liabilities & stockholders’ equity            
    Interest-bearing liabilities:              
       Savings and demand deposits   $ 331,411   $ 6,133 1.85 %   $ 344,906   $ 4,582 1.33 %
       Money market deposits   281,828     7,569 2.69 %     249,079     5,328 2.14 %
       Time deposits   256,265     10,150 3.96 %     261,595     7,083 2.71 %
       FHLB borrowings   167,708     7,238 4.32 %     116,282     4,417 3.80 %
       Other borrowings   7,241     232 3.20 %     7,061     215 3.04 %
       Senior sub. notes      4,778     235 4.92 %     4,927     238 4.83 %
       Junior sub. debentures   12,972     1,010 7.79 %     12,870     985 7.65 %
                       
       Total     1,062,203     32,567 3.07 %     996,720     22,848 2.29 %
                       
    Non-interest-bearing liabilities:            
       Demand deposits   258,173           274,273      
       Other liabilities   13,475           12,397      
       Stockholders’ equity   113,391           105,388      
                       
       Total   $ 1,447,242           $ 1,388,778        
                       
    Net interest income   $ 39,802       $ 39,451  
    Rate spread       2.16 %       2.42 %
    Net yield on interest-earning assets   2.88 %       2.98 %
                       
    (1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.  
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.
                       

    Investor Relations Contact
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    1905 Stewart Avenue
    Wausau, WI 54401
    888.929.9902
    InvestorRelations@bankpeoples.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings of $0.27 Per Share and Twelve Month 2024 Earnings of $1.34 Per Share; Board of Directors Increases Annual Dividend by 12.5% to $0.36 Per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    EAU CLAIRE, Wis., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) (Nasdaq: CZWI), the parent company of Citizens Community Federal N.A. (the “Bank” or “CCFBank”), today reported earnings of $2.7 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.27 for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $3.3 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.32 for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $3.7 million and $0.35 earnings per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, respectively.

    The Company’s fourth quarter 2024 operating results reflected the following changes from the third quarter of 2024: (1) increase in net interest income of $0.4 million with net interest margin increased by 16 basis points; (2) a $0.05 million increase in negative provision for credit losses to $0.45 million in the fourth quarter; (3) lower non-interest income of $0.9 million primarily due to $0.5 million lower gain on sale of loans and $0.2 million higher net losses on sale of equity securities in the fourth quarter of 2024; and (4) higher non-interest expense primarily due to higher REO expenses of $0.2 million and higher professional fees of $0.2 million.

    Book value per share improved to $17.94 at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.88 at September 30, 2024, and $16.60 at December 31, 2023. Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)1 was $14.69 at December 31, 2024, compared to $14.64 at September 30, 2024, and a 9.5% increase from $13.42 at December 31, 2023. For the fourth quarter of 2024, tangible book value was positively influenced by net income and intangible amortization which was mostly offset by the impact of higher long-term interest rates which increased the net unrealized loss on the available for sale securities portfolio. Stockholders’ equity as a percentage of total assets was 10.24% at December 31, 2024, compared to 10.01% at September 30, 2024. Tangible common equity (“TCE”) as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)1 increased to 8.54% at December 31, 2024, compared to 8.35% at September 30, 2024, largely due to the impact of asset shrinkage.

    “As we closed 2024, I am pleased with the execution on our strategic objectives, continuing to strengthen franchise value. The quarter reflected our balance sheet optimization efforts, which increased the net interest margin 6%, and increased the tangible common equity ratio for the continued repurchase of shares at prices that were accretive to earnings per share and tangible book value. The TCE ratio increased to 8.54%, from 8.35% in the prior quarter which provides flexibility to grow the loan portfolio and potentially repurchase shares in 2025. Deposits, net of the decrease in wholesale deposits, increased $27 million. Loans decreased $56 million during the quarter, primarily in non-strategic relationships, but we forecast modest loan growth of one to three percent in 2025. Credit metrics improved and we continue to maintain a healthy reserve for credit losses to total loans at 1.50%,” stated Stephen Bianchi, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer.

    December 31, 2024, Highlights:

    • Quarterly earnings were $2.7 million, or $0.27 per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, a decrease compared to earnings of $3.3 million, or $0.32 per diluted share for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $3.7 million, or $0.35 per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.
    • Net interest income increased $0.4 million to $11.7 million for the current quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $11.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and flat with $11.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The increase in net interest income from the third quarter of 2024 was primarily due to an increase in net interest margin of 16 basis points.
    • The net interest margin increased to 2.79%, primarily due to lower deposit costs, for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.63% for the previous quarter, and 2.69% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The net interest margin increase in the fourth quarter of 2024, was also favorably impacted by accelerated deferred fee accretion on loan payoffs of 3 basis points.
    • Negative provision for credit losses of $0.45 million, $0.40 million, and $0.65 million were recorded during the quarters ended December 31, 2024, September 30, 2024, and December 31, 2023, respectively. The fourth quarter’s negative provision was due to decreases in on-balance sheet allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) of $0.324 million and a $0.126 million decrease in off-balance sheet ACL due to a reduction in unfunded loan commitments.
    • Non-interest income decreased $0.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, due to $0.5 million in lower gain on sale of loans, $0.2 million of higher net losses on equity securities and lower loan servicing income and service charges on deposit accounts. Non-interest income decreased by $0.5 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2023, due to higher net losses on equity securities.
    • Non-interest expense increased $0.4 million to $10.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from $10.4 million for the previous quarter and increased $0.6 million from $10.2 million in the fourth quarter one year earlier. The $0.4 million increase in non-interest expense from the third quarter was largely due to $0.2 million increase in professional fees and $0.2 million in losses on repossessed assets. The $0.6 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2023 was due to: (1) a $0.7 million increase in compensation expenses, due to higher incentive compensation and annual merit increases; (2) an increase of $0.2 million on losses on repossessed assets; and (3) higher data processing of $0.2 million, partially offset by lower other expenses of $0.5 million primarily due to 2023 branch closure costs.
    • Loans receivable decreased $55.8 million during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.369 billion compared to the prior quarter end, due to pay offs of non-strategic relationships as part of the balance sheet optimization plan.
    • Total deposits decreased $32.5 million during the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to three months earlier, as wholesale deposits were reduced with brokered deposits decreasing $47.5 million to $19.1 million at December 31, 2024, compared to three months earlier.
    • Federal Home Loan Bank advances decreased $16.0 million to $5.0 million at December 31, 2024, from $21.0 million at September 30, 2024.
    • The effective tax rate was 19.5% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 21.5% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 20.9% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.
    • Nonperforming assets decreased to $14.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.1 million at September 30, 2024. The decrease was largely due to a partial paydown on one agricultural real estate loan relationship in forestry services that was placed on nonaccrual status in the third quarter.
    • Net charge-offs remain minimal and were 0.009% of average loans during the fourth quarter and 0.007% over the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024.
    • Common stock totaling 94 thousand shares were repurchased in the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2024, at an average price of $14.55 per share. For the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024, approximately 476 thousand shares of common stock were repurchased at an average price of $12.76 per share.
    • In November 2024, the Company notified its customers that it would be closing the Faribault, Minnesota branch on February 3, 2025, with account balances transferred to the nearest branch which is 39 miles away. The branch closure costs recognized in the fourth quarter were minimal.
    • The efficiency ratio was 76% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 72% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024.
    • On January 23, 2025, the Board of Directors declared a $0.36 per share annual dividend, an increase of 12.5%, to shareholders of record as of February 7, 2025, and payable February 21, 2025.

    Balance Sheet and Asset Quality

    Total assets decreased by $50.6 million during the quarter to $1.749 billion at December 31, 2024.

    Securities available for sale (AFS”) decreased $6.6 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $142.8 million from $149.4 million at September 30, 2024. The decrease was due to higher pre-tax unrealized losses of $3.3 million and principal repayments of $3.3 million.

    Securities held to maturity (“HTM”) decreased $1.5 million to $85.5 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $87.0 million at September 30, 2024, due to principal repayments.

    The on-balance sheet liquidity ratio, which is defined as the fair market value of AFS and HTM securities that are not pledged and cash on deposit with other financial institutions, was 11.75% of total assets at December 31, 2024, compared to 11.46% at September 30, 2024. On-balance sheet liquidity collateralized new borrowing capacity and uncommitted federal funds borrowing availability was $725 million, or 273%, of uninsured and uncollateralized deposits at December 31, 2024, and $718 million, or 269%, at September 30, 2024.

    Continued balance sheet optimization resulted in loans decreasing by $55.8 million during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.372 billion, compared to September 30, 2024. A large level of non-strategic relationships were repaid during the quarter as well as a $4.9 million reduction in criticized loans.

    The office loan portfolio consisting of 71 loans totaled $28 million at December 31, 2024, and decreased $3 million from $31 million at September 30, 2024. Criticized loans in the office loan portfolio for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, totaled $0.5 million and there have been no charge-offs in the trailing twelve months.

    The allowance for credit losses on loans decreased by $0.45 million to $20.5 million at December 31, 2024, representing 1.50% of total loans receivable compared to 1.47% of total loans receivable at September 30, 2024. For the quarter ended December 31, 2024, the Bank recorded a negative provision of $0.45 million which included a negative provision on ACL for loans of $0.32 million and a negative provision of $0.13 million on ACL for unfunded commitments.

    Allowance for Credit Losses (“ACL”) – Loans Percentage

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Loans, end of period   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  
    Allowance for credit losses – Loans   $ 20,549     $ 21,000     $ 21,178     $ 22,908  
    ACL – Loans as a percentage of loans, end of period     1.50 %     1.47 %     1.48 %     1.57 %

    In addition to the ACL – Loans, the Company has established an ACL – Unfunded Commitments of $0.334 million at December 31, 2024, $0.460 million at September 30, 2024, and $1.250 million at December 31, 2023, classified in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
    Allowance for Credit Losses – Unfunded Commitments:
    (in thousands)

        December 31, 2024 and Three Months Ended   December 31, 2023 and Three Months Ended   December 31, 2024 and Twelve Months Ended   December 31, 2023 and Twelve Months Ended
    ACL – Unfunded commitments – beginning of period   $ 460     $ 1,571     $ 1,250     $ —  
    Cumulative effect of ASU 2016-13 adoption     —       —       —       1,537  
    (Reductions) additions to ACL – Unfunded commitments via provision for credit losses charged to operations     (126 )     (321 )     (916 )     (287 )
    ACL – Unfunded commitments – end of period   $ 334     $ 1,250     $ 334     $ 1,250  

    Special mention loans decreased by $2.5 million to $8.5 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $11.0 million at September 30, 2024. Over the past 12 months, special mention loans have declined $9.9 million from $18.4 million at December 31, 2023.

    Substandard loans decreased by $2.3 million to $18.9 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $21.2 million at September 30, 2024, primarily due to a $1.6 million reduction in a nonperforming loan, classified as substandard, agricultural real estate forestry services loan.

    Nonperforming assets decreased $2.8 million to $14.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.1 million at September 30, 2024, primarily due to the $1.6 million reduction in nonperforming assets discussed above and the sale of a real estate owned property.

        (in thousands)
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Special mention loan balances   $ 8,480   $ 11,047   $ 8,848   $ 13,737   $ 18,392
    Substandard loan balances     18,891     21,202     14,420     14,733     19,596
    Criticized loans, end of period   $ 27,371   $ 32,249   $ 23,268   $ 28,470   $ 37,988

    Total deposits decreased $32.5 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.49 billion as $59.7 million of wholesale brokered deposits were repaid. Brokered deposits declined $47.5 million to $19.1 million at December 31, 2024, from $66.6 million at September 30, 2024, and declined $79.1 million from $98.2 million at December 31, 2023.

    Deposit Portfolio Composition
    (in thousands)

        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   June 30,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
    Consumer deposits   $ 852,083   $ 844,808   $ 822,665   $ 827,290   $ 814,899
    Commercial deposits     412,355     406,095     395,148     400,910     415,715
    Public deposits     190,460     176,844     187,698     202,175     182,172
    Wholesale deposits     33,250     92,920     114,033     97,114     106,306
    Total deposits   $ 1,488,148   $ 1,520,667   $ 1,519,544   $ 1,527,489   $ 1,519,092

    At December 31, 2024, the deposit portfolio composition was 57% consumer, 28% commercial, 13% public, and 2% wholesale deposits compared to 55% consumer, 27% commercial, 12% public, and 6% wholesale deposits at September 30, 2024.

    Deposit Composition By Type
    (in thousands)

        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   June 30,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
    Non-interest-bearing demand deposits   $ 252,656   $ 256,840   $ 255,703   $ 248,537   $ 265,704
    Interest-bearing demand deposits     355,750     346,971     353,477     361,278     343,276
    Savings accounts     159,821     169,096     170,946     177,595     176,548
    Money market accounts     369,534     366,067     370,164     387,879     374,055
    Certificate accounts     350,387     381,693     369,254     352,200     359,509
    Total deposits   $ 1,488,148   $ 1,520,667   $ 1,519,544     1,527,489   $ 1,519,092

    Uninsured and uncollateralized deposits were $265.4 million, or 18% of total deposits, at December 31, 2024, and $267.1 million, or 18% of total deposits, at September 30, 2024. Uninsured deposits alone at December 31, 2024, were $428.0 million, or 29% of total deposits, and $413.6 million, or 27% of total deposits at September 30, 2024.

    As part of the balance sheet optimization plan, $16.0 million in Federal Home Loan Bank advances were repaid during the fourth quarter and totaled $5.0 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $21.0 million one quarter earlier.

    Common stock totaling approximately 94 thousand shares were repurchased in the fourth quarter of 2024 at an average price of $14.55 per share. For the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024, approximately 476 thousand shares of common stock were repurchased at an average price of $12.76 per share. There are 238 thousand shares remaining under the July 2024 Board of Director repurchase authorization plan.

    Review of Operations

    Net interest income increased $0.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $11.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and flat from $11.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The increase in net interest income compared to the third quarter of 2024 was primarily due to an increase in net interest margin, partially offsetting the impact of asset shrinkage. The net interest margin increase was favorably impacted by 3 basis points due to deferred fee accretion on loan payoffs.

    Net interest income and net interest margin analysis:
    (in thousands, except yields and rates)

        Three months ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
        Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin
    As reported   $ 11,708     2.79 %   $ 11,285     2.63 %   $ 11,576     2.72 %   $ 11,905     2.77 %   $ 11,747     2.69 %
    Less accretion for PCD loans     (42 )   (0.01)%     (45 )   (0.01)%     (62 )   (0.01)%     (75 )   (0.02)%     (37 )   (0.01)%
    Less scheduled accretion interest     (33 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%     (32 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%
    Without loan purchase accretion   $ 11,633     2.77 %   $ 11,207     2.61 %   $ 11,482     2.70 %   $ 11,797     2.74 %   $ 11,677     2.67 %

    The table below shows the impact of certificate, loan and securities contractual fixed rate maturing and repricing.

    Portfolio Contractual Repricing:
    (in millions, except yields)

        Q1 2025   Q2 2025   Q3 2025   Q4 2025   FY 2026
    Maturing Certificate Accounts:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 95     $ 177     $ 43     $ 14     $ 13  
    Contractual Interest Rate     4.63 %     4.68 %     4.25 %     3.07 %     3.36 %
    Maturing or Repricing Loans:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 46     $ 97     $ 18     $ 55     $ 322  
    Contractual Interest Rate     5.27 %     7.10 %     6.15 %     4.79 %     3.85 %
    Maturing or Repricing Securities:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 4     $ 3     $ 3     $ 4     $ 19  
    Contractual Interest Rate     6.15 %     5.12 %     4.07 %     4.31 %     3.49 %

    Non-interest income decreased $0.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 to $2.0 million from $2.9 million the prior quarter due to $0.5 million of lower gain on sale of loans, $0.2 million of higher net losses on equity securities and lower loan servicing income and service charges on deposit accounts. Total non-interest income for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, was higher at $2.5 million due to an increase in net losses on equity securities in 4Q 2024.

    Non-interest expense increased $0.4 million to $10.8 million from $10.4 million for the previous quarter and increased $0.6 million from $10.2 million one year earlier. The $0.4 million increase in non-interest expense compared to the linked quarter was largely due to the $0.2 million increase in professional fees and $0.2 million in losses on repossessed assets. The $0.6 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2023 is due to: (1) a $0.7 million increase in compensation expenses, due to higher incentive compensation and annual merit increases; (2) an increase in the current quarter of $0.2 million on losses on repossessed assets; (3) higher data processing of $0.2 million partially offset by lower other expenses $0.5 million primarily due to 2023 branch closure costs.

    Provision for income taxes decreased to $0.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from $0.9 million in the third quarter of 2024 largely due to lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate was 19.5% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, 21.5% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 20.9% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    These financial results are preliminary until Form 10-K is filed in March 2025.
    About the Company

    Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: “CZWI”) is the holding company of the Bank, a national bank based in Altoona, Wisconsin, currently serving customers primarily in Wisconsin and Minnesota through 22 branch locations. Its primary markets include the Chippewa Valley Region in Wisconsin, the Twin Cities and Mankato markets in Minnesota, and various rural communities around these areas. The Bank offers traditional community banking services to businesses, ag operators and consumers, including residential mortgage loans.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

    Certain statements contained in this release are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified using forward-looking words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “expect,” “estimates,” “intend,” “may,” “on pace,” “preliminary,” “planned,” “potential,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms or other words of similar meaning. Such forward-looking statements in this release are inherently subject to many uncertainties arising in the operations and business environment of the Company and the Bank. These uncertainties include: conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally; the impact of inflation on our business and our customers; geopolitical tensions, including current or anticipated impact of military conflicts; higher lending risks associated with our commercial and agricultural banking activities; future pandemics (including new variants of COVID-19); cybersecurity risks; adverse impacts on the regional banking industry and the business environment in which it operates; interest rate risk; lending risk; changes in the fair value or ratings downgrades of our securities; the sufficiency of allowance for credit losses; competitive pressures among depository and other financial institutions; disintermediation risk; our ability to maintain our reputation; our ability to maintain or increase our market share; our ability to realize the benefits of net deferred tax assets; our inability to obtain needed liquidity; our ability to raise capital needed to fund growth or meet regulatory requirements; our ability to attract and retain key personnel; our ability to keep pace with technological change; prevalence of fraud and other financial crimes; the possibility that our internal controls and procedures could fail or be circumvented; our ability to successfully execute our acquisition growth strategy; risks posed by acquisitions and other expansion opportunities, including difficulties and delays in integrating the acquired business operations or fully realizing the cost savings and other benefits; restrictions on our ability to pay dividends; the potential volatility of our stock price; accounting standards for credit losses; legislative or regulatory changes or actions, or significant litigation, adversely affecting the Company or Bank; public company reporting obligations; changes in federal or state tax laws; and changes in accounting principles, policies or guidelines and their impact on financial performance. Stockholders, potential investors, and other readers are urged to consider these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements and are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Such uncertainties and other risks that may affect the Company’s performance are discussed further in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in the Company’s Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 5, 2024 and the Company’s subsequent filings with the SEC. The Company undertakes no obligation to make any revisions to the forward-looking statements contained in this news release or to update them to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this release.

    1Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    This press release contains non-GAAP financial measures, such as net income as adjusted, net income as adjusted per share, tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets and return on average tangible common equity, which management believes may be helpful in understanding the Company’s results of operations or financial position and comparing results over different periods.

    Net income as adjusted and net income as adjusted per share are non-GAAP measures that eliminate the impact of certain expenses such as branch closure costs and related severance pay, accelerated depreciation expense and lease termination fees, and the gain on sale of branch deposits and fixed assets. Tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percentage of tangible assets and return on average tangible common equity are non-GAAP measures that eliminate the impact of goodwill and intangible assets on our financial position. Management believes these measures are useful in assessing the strength of our financial position.

    Where non-GAAP financial measures are used, the comparable GAAP financial measure, as well as the reconciliation to the comparable GAAP financial measure, can be found in this press release. These disclosures should not be viewed as a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other banks and financial institutions.

    Contact: Steve Bianchi, CEO
    (715)-836-9994

    (CZWI-ER)

    CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (in thousands, except shares and per share data)
        December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   September 30, 2024 (unaudited)   June 30, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (audited)
    Assets                
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 50,172     $ 36,632     $ 36,886     $ 37,138  
    Securities available for sale “AFS”     142,851       149,432       146,438       155,743  
    Securities held to maturity “HTM”     85,504       87,033       88,605       91,229  
    Equity investments     4,702       5,096       5,023       3,284  
    Other investments     12,500       12,311       13,878       15,725  
    Loans receivable     1,368,981       1,424,828       1,428,588       1,460,792  
    Allowance for credit losses     (20,549 )     (21,000 )     (21,178 )     (22,908 )
    Loans receivable, net     1,348,432       1,403,828       1,407,410       1,437,884  
    Loans held for sale     1,329       697       275       5,773  
    Mortgage servicing rights, net     3,663       3,696       3,731       3,865  
    Office properties and equipment, net     17,075       17,365       17,774       18,373  
    Accrued interest receivable     5,653       6,235       6,289       5,409  
    Intangible assets     979       1,158       1,336       1,694  
    Goodwill     31,498       31,498       31,498       31,498  
    Foreclosed and repossessed assets, net     915       1,572       1,662       1,795  
    Bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”)     26,102       25,901       25,708       25,647  
    Other assets     17,144       16,683       15,794       16,334  
    TOTAL ASSETS   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                
    Liabilities:                
    Deposits   $ 1,488,148     $ 1,520,667     $ 1,519,544     $ 1,519,092  
    Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances     5,000       21,000       31,500       79,530  
    Other borrowings     61,606       61,548       61,498       67,465  
    Other liabilities     14,681       15,773       13,720       11,970  
    Total liabilities     1,569,435       1,618,988       1,626,262       1,678,057  
    Stockholders’ equity:                
    Common stock— $0.01 par value, authorized 30,000,000; 9,981,996, 10,074,136, 10,297,341, and 10,440,591 shares issued and outstanding, respectively     100       101       103       104  
    Additional paid-in capital     114,564       115,455       117,838       119,441  
    Retained earnings     80,840       78,438       75,501       71,117  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (16,420 )     (13,845 )     (17,397 )     (17,328 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     179,084       180,149       176,045       173,334  
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  

                    Note: Certain items previously reported were reclassified for consistency with the current presentation.

    CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (in thousands, except per share data)
        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   September 30, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (unaudited)   December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (audited)
    Interest and dividend income:                    
    Interest and fees on loans   $ 19,534     $ 20,115     $ 19,408     $ 79,738     $ 73,577  
    Interest on investments     2,427       2,397       2,618       9,877       10,671  
    Total interest and dividend income     21,961       22,512       22,026       89,615       84,248  
    Interest expense:                    
    Interest on deposits     9,273       10,165       7,851       37,985       25,749  
    Interest on FHLB borrowed funds     65       128       1,371       1,281       5,966  
    Interest on other borrowed funds     915       934       1,057       3,875       4,184  
    Total interest expense     10,253       11,227       10,279       43,141       35,899  
    Net interest income before provision for credit losses     11,708       11,285       11,747       46,474       48,349  
    (Negative) provision for credit losses     (450 )     (400 )     (650 )     (3,175 )     (475 )
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     12,158       11,685       12,397       49,649       48,824  
    Non-interest income:                    
    Service charges on deposit accounts     450       513       485       1,924       1,949  
    Interchange income     550       577       581       2,247       2,324  
    Loan servicing income     520       643       539       2,271       2,218  
    Gain on sale of loans     218       752       191       2,216       1,692  
    Loan fees and service charges     292       165       124       996       432  
    Net realized gains on debt securities     —       —       —       —       12  
    Net (losses) gains on equity securities     (287 )     (78 )     277       (856 )     447  
    Bank Owned Life Insurance (BOLI) death benefit     —       —       —       184       —  
    Other     266       349       283       1,125       1,176  
    Total non-interest income     2,009       2,921       2,480       10,107       10,250  
    Non-interest expense:                    
    Compensation and related benefits     5,840       5,743       5,139       22,741       21,106  
    Occupancy     1,217       1,242       1,314       5,159       5,431  
    Data processing     1,743       1,665       1,511       6,530       5,951  
    Amortization of intangible assets     179       178       179       715       755  
    Mortgage servicing rights expense, net     107       163       159       534       615  
    Advertising, marketing and public relations     218       225       262       793       734  
    FDIC premium assessment     192       201       204       798       812  
    Professional services     514       336       371       1,763       1,524  
    Losses (gains) on repossessed assets, net     247       65       —       294       62  
    Other     552       603       1,067       2,979       3,152  
    Total non-interest expense     10,809       10,421       10,206       42,306       40,142  
    Income before provision for income taxes     3,358       4,185       4,671       17,450       18,932  
    Provision for income taxes     656       899       978       3,699       5,873  
    Net income attributable to common stockholders   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Per share information:                    
    Basic earnings   $ 0.27     $ 0.32     $ 0.35     $ 1.34     $ 1.25  
    Diluted earnings   $ 0.27     $ 0.32     $ 0.35     $ 1.34     $ 1.25  
    Cash dividends paid   $ —     $ —     $ —     $ 0.32     $ 0.29  
    Book value per share at end of period   $ 17.94     $ 17.88     $ 16.60     $ 17.94     $ 16.60  
    Tangible book value per share at end of period (non-GAAP)   $ 14.69     $ 14.64     $ 13.42     $ 14.69     $ 13.42  

    Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except per share data)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023    		   December 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
                       
    GAAP pretax income   $ 3,358   $ 4,185   $ 4,671   $ 17,450   $ 18,932
    Branch closure costs (1)     —     —     380     168     380
    Pretax income as adjusted (2)   $ 3,358   $ 4,185   $ 5,051   $ 17,618   $ 19,312
    Provision for income tax on net income as adjusted (3)     656     899     1,058     3,735     5,991
    Net income as adjusted (non-GAAP) (2)   $ 2,702   $ 3,286   $ 3,993   $ 13,883   $ 13,321
    GAAP diluted earnings per share, net of tax   $ 0.27   $ 0.32   $ 0.35   $ 1.34   $ 1.25
    Branch closure costs, net of tax     —     —     0.03     0.01     0.03
    Diluted earnings per share, as adjusted, net of tax (non-GAAP)   $ 0.27   $ 0.32   $ 0.38   $ 1.35   $ 1.28
                         
    Average diluted shares outstanding     10,033,957     10,204,195     10,457,184     10,262,710     10,470,298

    (1) Branch closure costs include severance pay recorded in compensation and benefits and depreciation and right of use lease asset accelerated expense included in other non-interest expense in the consolidated statement of operations.
    (2) Pretax income as adjusted and net income as adjusted are non-GAAP measures that management believes enhances the market’s ability to assess the underlying business performance and trends related to core business activities.
    (3) Provision for income tax on net income as adjusted is calculated at our effective tax rate for each respective period presented.

    Loan Composition

    (in thousands)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total Loans:                
    Commercial/Agricultural real estate:                
    Commercial real estate   $ 709,018     $ 730,459     $ 729,236     $ 750,531  
    Agricultural real estate     73,130       76,043       78,248       83,350  
    Multi-family real estate     220,805       239,191       234,758       228,095  
    Construction and land development     78,489       87,875       87,898       110,941  
    C&I/Agricultural operating:                
    Commercial and industrial     115,657       119,619       127,386       121,666  
    Agricultural operating     31,000       27,550       27,409       25,691  
    Residential mortgage:                
    Residential mortgage     132,341       134,944       133,503       129,021  
    Purchased HELOC loans     2,956       2,932       2,915       2,880  
    Consumer installment:                
    Originated indirect paper     3,970       4,405       5,110       6,535  
    Other consumer     5,012       5,438       5,860       6,187  
    Gross loans   $ 1,372,378     $ 1,428,456     $ 1,432,323     $ 1,464,897  
    Unearned net deferred fees and costs and loans in process     (2,547 )     (2,703 )     (2,733 )     (2,900 )
    Unamortized discount on acquired loans     (850 )     (925 )     (1,002 )     (1,205 )
    Total loans receivable   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  

    Nonperforming Assets
    Loan Balances at Amortized Cost

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Nonperforming assets:                
    Nonaccrual loans                
    Commercial real estate   $ 4,594     $ 4,778     $ 5,350     $ 10,359  
    Agricultural real estate     6,222       6,193       382       391  
    Construction and land development     103       106       —       54  
    Commercial and industrial (“C&I”)     597       1,956       422       —  
    Agricultural operating     793       901       1,017       1,180  
    Residential mortgage     858       1,088       1,145       1,167  
    Consumer installment     1       20       36       33  
    Total nonaccrual loans   $ 13,168     $ 15,042     $ 8,352     $ 13,184  
    Accruing loans past due 90 days or more     186       530       256       389  
    Total nonperforming loans (“NPLs”) at amortized cost     13,354       15,572       8,608       13,573  
    Foreclosed and repossessed assets, net     915       1,572       1,662       1,795  
    Total nonperforming assets (“NPAs”)   $ 14,269     $ 17,144     $ 10,270     $ 15,368  
    Loans, end of period   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  
    Total assets, end of period   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Ratios:                
    NPLs to total loans     0.98 %     1.09 %     0.60 %     0.93 %
    NPAs to total assets     0.82 %     0.95 %     0.57 %     0.83 %

    Average Balances, Interest Yields and Rates

    (in thousands, except yields and rates)

        Three Months Ended
    December 31, 2024    		   Three Months Ended
    September 30, 2024    		   Three Months Ended
    December 31, 2023
        Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate
    Average interest earning assets:                                    
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 26,197   $ 327   4.97 %   $ 25,187   $ 360   5.69 %   $ 16,699   $ 241   5.73 %
    Loans receivable     1,396,854     19,534   5.56 %     1,429,928     20,115   5.60 %     1,458,558     19,408   5.28 %
    Investment securities     235,268     1,940   3.28 %     236,960     1,966   3.30 %     243,705     2,102   3.42 %
    Other investments     12,318     160   5.17 %     12,553     71   2.25 %     15,760     275   6.92 %
    Total interest earning assets   $ 1,670,637   $ 21,961   5.23 %   $ 1,704,628   $ 22,512   5.25 %   $ 1,734,722   $ 22,026   5.04 %
    Average interest-bearing liabilities:                                    
    Savings accounts   $ 162,501   $ 383   0.94 %   $ 170,777   $ 450   1.05 %   $ 175,281   $ 323   0.73 %
    Demand deposits     346,411     1,891   2.17 %     357,201     2,152   2.40 %     329,096     1,680   2.03 %
    Money market accounts     351,566     2,720   3.08 %     381,369     3,126   3.26 %     326,981     2,217   2.69 %
    CD’s     374,087     4,279   4.55 %     379,722     4,437   4.65 %     368,110     3,631   3.91 %
    Total deposits   $ 1,234,565   $ 9,273   2.99 %   $ 1,289,069   $ 10,165   3.14 %   $ 1,199,468   $ 7,851   2.60 %
    FHLB advances and other borrowings     72,431     980   5.38 %     80,338     1,062   5.26 %     191,575     2,428   5.03 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   $ 1,306,996   $ 10,253   3.12 %   $ 1,369,407   $ 11,227   3.26 %   $ 1,391,043   $ 10,279   2.93 %
    Net interest income       $ 11,708           $ 11,285           $ 11,747    
    Interest rate spread           2.11 %           1.99 %           2.11 %
    Net interest margin           2.79 %           2.63 %           2.69 %
    Average interest earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities           1.28             1.24             1.25  
        Twelve Months Ended
    December 31, 2024    		   Twelve Months Ended
    December, 2023
        Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate
    Average interest earning assets:                        
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 20,864   $ 1,150   5.51 %   $ 18,469   $ 1,010   5.47 %
    Loans receivable     1,430,631     79,738   5.57 %     1,430,035     73,577   5.15 %
    Interest bearing deposits     —     —   — %     63     1   1.59 %
    Investment securities     238,851     7,977   3.34 %     257,020     8,606   3.35 %
    Other investments     12,816     750   5.85 %     16,274     1,054   6.48 %
    Total interest earning assets   $ 1,703,162   $ 89,615   5.26 %   $ 1,721,861   $ 84,248   4.89 %
    Average interest-bearing liabilities:                        
    Savings accounts   $ 171,069   $ 1,684   0.98 %   $ 200,087   $ 1,427   0.71 %
    Demand deposits     353,107     8,083   2.29 %     359,866     6,727   1.87 %
    Money market accounts     371,909     11,725   3.15 %     306,020     6,976   2.28 %
    CD’s     366,634     16,493   4.50 %     317,376     10,619   3.35 %
    Total deposits   $ 1,262,719   $ 37,985   3.01 %   $ 1,183,349   $ 25,749   2.18 %
    FHLB advances and other borrowings     99,731     5,156   5.17 %     208,373     10,150   4.87 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   $ 1,362,450   $ 43,141   3.17 %   $ 1,391,722   $ 35,899   2.58 %
    Net interest income       $ 46,474           $ 48,349    
    Interest rate spread           2.09 %           2.31 %
    Net interest margin           2.73 %           2.81 %
    Average interest earning assets to average interest bearing liabilities           1.25             1.24  

    Wholesale Deposits
    (in thousands)

        Quarter Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Brokered certificate accounts   $ 14,123   $ 48,578   $ 54,123   $ 43,507   $ 58,209
    Brokered money market accounts     5,002     18,076     42,673     40,429     40,050
    Third party originated reciprocal deposits     14,125     26,266     17,237     13,178     8,047
    Total   $ 33,250   $ 92,920   $ 114,033   $ 97,114   $ 106,306

    Key Financial Metric Ratios:

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Ratios based on net income:                    
    Return on average assets (annualized)   0.61 %   0.72 %   0.79 %   0.76 %   0.71 %
    Return on average equity (annualized)   6.00 %   7.34 %   8.72 %   7.84 %   7.87 %
    Return on average tangible common equity4 (annualized)   7.72 %   9.38 %   11.29 %   10.03 %   10.26 %
    Efficiency ratio   76 %   72 %   72 %   72 %   68 %
    Net interest margin with loan purchase accretion   2.79 %   2.63 %   2.69 %   2.73 %   2.81 %
    Net interest margin without loan purchase accretion   2.77 %   2.61 %   2.67 %   2.69 %   2.78 %
    Ratios based on net income as adjusted (non-GAAP)                    
    Return on average assets as adjusted2 (annualized)   0.61 %   0.72 %   0.86 %   0.77 %   0.73 %
    Return on average equity as adjusted3 (annualized)   6.00 %   7.34 %   9.43 %   7.91 %   8.03 %

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Assets

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
           
    GAAP earnings after income taxes   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Net income as adjusted after income taxes (non-GAAP) (1)   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,993     $ 13,883     $ 13,321  
    Average assets   $ 1,771,351     $ 1,810,826     $ 1,843,789     $ 1,808,256     $ 1,836,337  
    Return on average assets (annualized)     0.61 %     0.72 %     0.79 %     0.76 %     0.71 %
    Return on average assets as adjusted (non-GAAP) (annualized)     0.61 %     0.72 %     0.86 %     0.77 %     0.73 %

    (1) See Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Equity

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    GAAP earnings after income taxes   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Net income as adjusted after income taxes (non-GAAP) (1)   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,993     $ 13,883     $ 13,321  
    Average equity   $ 179,242     $ 178,050     $ 168,058     $ 175,475     $ 165,968  
    Return on average equity (annualized)     6.00 %     7.34 %     8.72 %     7.84 %     7.87 %
    Return on average equity as adjusted (non-GAAP) (annualized)     6.00 %     7.34 %     9.43 %     7.91 %     8.03 %

    (1) See Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    Reconciliation of tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except per share data)

    Tangible book value per share at end of period   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 176,045     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 143,211     $ 140,142  
    Ending common shares outstanding     9,981,996       10,074,136       10,297,341       10,440,591  
    Book value per share   $ 17.94     $ 17.88     $ 17.10     $ 16.60  
    Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)   $ 14.69     $ 14.64     $ 13.91     $ 13.42  

    Reconciliation of tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except ratios)

    Tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets at end of period   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 176,045     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )   $ (31,498 )   $ (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )   $ (1,158 )   $ (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 143,211     $ 140,142  
    Total Assets   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible Assets (non-GAAP)   $ 1,716,042     $ 1,766,481     $ 1,769,473     $ 1,818,199  
    Total stockholders’ equity to total assets ratio     10.24 %     10.01 %     9.77 %     9.36 %
    Tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)     8.54 %     8.35 %     8.09 %     7.71 %

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Tangible Common Equity (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 173,334     $ 179,084     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,694 )     (979 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 140,142     $ 146,607     $ 140,142  
    Average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,676     $ 145,305     $ 134,776     $ 142,641     $ 132,409  
    GAAP earnings after income taxes     2,702       3,286       3,693       13,751       13,059  
    Amortization of intangible assets, net of tax     144       140       142       563       521  
    Tangible net income   $ 2,846     $ 3,426     $ 3,835     $ 14,314     $ 13,580  
    Return on average tangible common equity (annualized)     7.72 %     9.38 %     11.29 %     10.03 %     10.26 %

    Reconciliation of Efficiency Ratio

    (in thousands, except ratios)

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Non-interest expense (GAAP) $ 10,809     $ 10,421     $ 10,206     $ 42,306     $ 40,142  
    Less amortization of intangibles   (179 )     (178 )     (179 )     (715 )     (755 )
    Efficiency ratio numerator (GAAP) $ 10,630     $ 10,243     $ 10,027     $ 41,591     $ 39,387  
                       
    Non-interest income $ 2,009     $ 2,921     $ 2,480     $ 10,107     $ 10,250  
    Add back net losses on debt and equity securities   (287 )     (78 )     —       (856 )     —  
    Subtract net gains on debt and equity securities   —       —       277       —       459  
    Net interest income   11,708       11,285       11,747       46,474       48,349  
    Efficiency ratio denominator (GAAP) $ 14,004     $ 14,284     $ 13,950     $ 57,437     $ 58,140  
    Efficiency ratio (GAAP)   76 %     72 %     72 %     72 %     68 %

    1Net income as adjusted and net income as adjusted per share are non-GAAP financial measures that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends related to core business activities. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    2Return on average assets as adjusted is a non-GAAP measure that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends relative to average assets. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of Return on Average Assets as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    3Return on average equity as adjusted is a non-GAAP measure that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends relative to average equity. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of Return on Average Equity as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    4Tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets and return on tangible common equity are non-GAAP measures that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the Company’s financial position. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)”, “Reconciliation of tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)”, and “Reconciliation of return on average tangible common equity)”.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: ConnectM Acquires MHz Invensys, Enhancing Wireless Communication Solutions

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Company Expected to Generate an Additional $15M of Revenue from the AMI Vertical by the End of 2027

    Acquisition Bolsters ConnectM’s Wireless Solutions for Smart Metering and Allows Expansion into Key Adjacent Markets

    TAM for the Global Advanced Metering Infrastructure Market Predicted to be North of $47 Billion by 2030

    MARLBOROUGH, Mass., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ConnectM Technology Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNTM) (“ConnectM” or the “Company”), a leader in the electrification economy, today announced the recent acquisition of MHz Invensys, a renowned developer of high-performing wireless communication products and solutions. ConnectM has entered an all-stock transaction in exchange for all of MHz Invensys’ assets, comprised primarily of intellectual property. The two founders, Kiran Kumar and Mahesh Oni, will stay on as employees of ConnectM. This strategic acquisition aims to bolster ConnectM’s capabilities in effectively delivering wireless communication, particularly in the smart metering/Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”) vertical. AMI enables two-way communication between smart meters and utility companies. This infrastructure collects, stores, analyzes, and presents energy usage data in real-time, allowing for more efficient and accurate monitoring of electricity, gas, and water consumption.

    MHz Invensys has established technology leadership in the energy sector, addressing the complexities of traditional energy metering protocols with its advanced RF mesh-based product and solution designs. This proven technology architecture enables multi-billion scale meter readings every half hour and supports millions of smart meters with bidirectional communication for pre-payment systems.

    Stellar Market Research predicts the global AMI market size to reach $47.5 billion by 2030, with a CAGR of 16.1% from 2024-2030.1 The acquisition of MHz Invensys strengthens ConnectM’s ability to provide comprehensive, end-to-end wireless solutions. ConnectM expects to generate an additional $15M of revenue from the AMI vertical alone over the next three years. Integrating MHz Invensys’s technology allows ConnectM to serve not only its existing markets but also rapidly growing sectors such as solar grid monitoring, IoT/Industrial IoT, Renewables, and water and gas AMI. This strategic acquisition will allow ConnectM to achieve economies of scale and meet the rising demand for reliable, secure, and efficient communication solutions across a broader range of industries.

    “We are excited to welcome Kiran and Mahesh, the founders of MHz Invensys, to the ConnectM family,” said Bhaskar Panigrahi, CEO and Chairman of ConnectM. “Their company’s innovative solutions and expertise in the Smart Metering domain coupled with ConnectM’s AI-powered platform will significantly enhance the offerings in our Building Electrification segment and enable us to deliver even greater value to our customers.”

    About ConnectM Technology Solutions, Inc.
    ConnectM is a pioneer in the electrification economy, integrating energy assets with its AI-driven technology platform. Focused on delivering solutions that drive efficiency, affordability, and sustainability, ConnectM serves home, facility, and fleet across three major segments: Building Electrification, Distributed Energy, and Transportation and Logistics. The company’s vertically integrated approach combines technology, service/distribution networks, and strategic partnerships to accelerate the transition to an all-electric energy economy.

    For more information, please visit: www.connectm.com. Stockholders looking to receive Company updates directly to their inbox should sign up here.

    About Mhz Invensys
    Mhz Invensys was established by a team with extensive experience in deploying large IoT networks globally. The team at Mhz Invensys understands the unique challenges of last-mile connectivity. Mhz Invensys offers its innovative technology to device manufacturers, communication platform providers, backhaul service enablers, and business-specific application providers such as HES (Head-End Systems), MDMS (Meter Data Management Systems), and analytics platforms.

    Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. All statements, other than statements of present or historical fact included in this press release, regarding our future financial performance and our strategy, expansion plans, future operations, future operating results, estimated revenues, losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “continue,” “project” or the negative of such terms or other similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions about us that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we disclaim any duty to update any forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release. We caution you that the forward-looking statements contained herein are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. In addition, we caution you that the forward-looking statements regarding the Company contained in this press release are subject to the risks and uncertainties described in the “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” section of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2024. Such filing identifies and addresses other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and ConnectM is under no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

    Contact:
    MZ North America
    (203) 741-8811
    ConnectM@mzgroup.us

    1 “Advanced Metering Infrastructure Market: Global Industry Analysis and Forecast (2024-2030) Trends, Statistics, Dynamics, and Region,” Stellar Market Research (2024).

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

    For more than a decade, Syrians have been the world’s largest refugee population.

    More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.

    How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholars like ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.

    Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.

    But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.

    The risk of return

    In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.

    First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.

    Similarly, initial fears about restrictions on women’s participation in public life have mostly been assuaged, despite the transitional government appointing only two women to office.

    Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.

    Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.

    In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

    But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.

    The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.

    Continued welcome in Europe?

    Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.

    Syria’s 13-year civil war reduced many homes to rubble.
    Ercin Erturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.

    Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.

    For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.

    Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”

    Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

    A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.

    In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.

    And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.

    Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.

    Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.

    Testing the water

    Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.

    The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision – https://theconversation.com/assads-fall-opens-window-for-syrian-refugees-to-head-home-but-for-many-it-wont-be-an-easy-decision-247051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katie Scofield, Assistant Instructional Professor in Political Science, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

    Everything is bigger in Texas, except maybe its democracy. Luis Diaz Devesa/Moment via Getty

    While concerns about the future of American democracy dominate headlines worldwide, millions of Texans are already seeing a rapid decline in democratic standards.

    In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.

    Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

    Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.

    Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.

    On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.

    Are Texas elections free and fair?

    Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.

    Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.

    The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.

    Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.

    Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.

    Money in politics

    Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.

    This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.

    Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.

    An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.

    Freedom of expression

    Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.

    Texas passed a law in 2023 requiring public universities to close their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, offices, depriving the most vulnerable student communities of resources such as scholarships, mental health programs and career workshops.

    The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”

    The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.

    On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.

    Human rights at the border

    Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rights groups about civil rights in the state.

    In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.

    Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.

    The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.

    Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023.
    Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images

    Women’s freedoms

    Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.

    At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.

    The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.

    And a handful of rural Texas counties have made it illegal to transport women seeking out-of-state abortions on their roads.

    As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

    The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.

    Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”

    The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.

    Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.

    But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”

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

    – ref. I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties – https://theconversation.com/i-study-democracy-worldwide-heres-how-texas-is-eroding-human-rights-free-expression-and-civil-liberties-246936

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University

    Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed “raw water,” is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don’t enjoy the taste or believe it’s unsafe and depleted of vital minerals.

    On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants.

    I’m a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases.

    A short history of public drinking water

    Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal.

    Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London’s Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens.

    Physician John Snow’s 1854 map of cholera cases in London, highlighted in black, clustered around a contaminated pump.
    John Snow/Wellcome Collection

    These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe.

    Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health.

    The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.

    Is raw water healthier than tap water?

    People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let’s unpack each of these claims.

    Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface.

    The mineral content of water largely depends on its source and location.
    Sergii Zyskо/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water.

    Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved.

    There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.

    Risks of drinking raw water

    Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens.

    Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy.

    Tap water undergoes several treatment steps before it reaches your faucet.
    CDC

    Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else.

    Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system.

    Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases.

    How safe is tap water in the US?

    Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders.

    Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area.

    The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants.

    Bill Sullivan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    – ref. How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits – https://theconversation.com/how-does-raw-water-compare-to-tap-water-a-microbiologist-explains-why-the-risks-outweigh-the-benefits-246866

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Schumer, Murphy, Kim Lead 46 Senators in Introducing Resolution Condemning Pardons of Individuals Found Guilty of Assaulting Capitol Police Officers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Resolution comes after Trump pardons 1,500 Jan 6 insurrectionists—including those convicted of violently assaulted police officers

    Murray will seek unanimous consent to pass the resolution this week

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) will lead a group of 46 senators in introducing a new resolution condemning the pardons of individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers. The resolution follows the move by President Trump, on the first day of his second term, to grant full, complete, and unconditional pardons to over 1,500 people charged with committing crimes in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and to commute the sentences of 14 others, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, far-right militias. Among those pardoned by Trump were 169 people who pled guilty to assaulting police officers on January 6th.  During the siege of the Capitol that day, over 80 U.S. Capitol Police Officers were assaulted, as well as over 60 officers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

    The senators’ resolution, Condemning the pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers, simply states: “Resolved, That the Senate disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.” This week, Senator Murray will seek unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the resolution.

    In addition to Murray, Schumer, Murphy, and Kim, Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) also cosponsored the resolution. In total, 46 senators signed onto the resolution. A PDF of the resolution is HERE.


    “I refuse to allow President Trump to rewrite what happened on January 6th—armed insurrectionists, incited by Trump himself, broke into the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted Capitol Police officers in their attempt to overthrow a free and fair election,”     said Senator Murray. “Insurrectionists cracked the ribs of police officers and smashed spinal disks. Donald Trump’s pardons are a wholesale endorsement of political violence—as long as it serves Donald Trump. Affirming that U.S. Senators condemn unconditional pardons for people who were found guilty of violently assaulting Capitol Police officers should be the easiest thing in the world. If Republicans care even the tiniest bit about law enforcement, they should be outraged by these pardons. I hope and expect my Republican colleagues will allow this very simple resolution to pass as a show of support for the officers who put their lives on the line to keep senators safe.”

    “The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6th, whether they committed violence or not, broke the law and attempted to thwart democracy. What they did is a serious crime. There’s no gray area here,” said Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “Donald Trump’s made it clear he’s more interested in rewarding lawbreakers and pardoning lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol, than standing up for law and order. Senate Republicans who experienced the same mayhem on January 6 should join us in condemning this dangerous signal to lawbreakers, so we can make clear that political violence of any kind is unacceptable.”

    “Trump’s pardons of January 6th rioters who viciously assaulted law enforcement officers send a dangerous message: if you’re willing to commit violence in his name, there are no consequences,” said Senator Murphy. “This endorsement of political violence not only undermines our justice system, but it also makes our nation less safe and emboldens those who would attack our democracy.”

    “On January 6th 2021, we witnessed an attack against our sacred Capitol and a brutal assault on police officers upholding their sworn duty. It is shameful for President Trump to issue the pardons and exalt political violence. We all resoundingly condemned the assassination attempts on Trump only to see him bless the violence against a different branch of government. Never should political violence be acceptable,” said Senator Kim.  

    “President Trump’s blanket pardons of armed insurrectionists, who were convicted by juries of everyday Americans, is the ultimate disrespect for police officers who were brutally assaulted on January 6,” said Senator Blumenthal. “These sickening pardons are a clear endorsement of political violence and discredit justice and the rule of law. I urge my Republican colleagues who were protected that terrible day—and who now stay silent—to join in condemning the violence that occurred and standing with the officers who put their lives on the line for their safety.”

    “By attacking law enforcement and trying to block the peaceful transfer of power, the people being pardoned did serious damage to our Capitol and democracy. Some of them attacked and hurt police officers, all received their day in court and were convicted of their crimes. These pardons are a mistake that I strongly disagree with,” said Senator Cantwell.

    “By putting hundreds of violent criminals back on the streets as one of his first acts back in office, President Trump is sending a clear message: it’s open season on law enforcement officers, as long as you’re committing a crime he approves of,” said Senator Coons, co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. “I pray that none of these criminals go on to commit further acts of violence, but President Trump’s pardons have made our police officers and our streets less safe.”

    “President Trump is pardoning violent criminals who assaulted police officers and attempted to overturn a fair and free election,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This is an insult to law enforcement across the country and an endorsement of political violence. The very least my Republican colleagues can do to back law enforcement is to support this resolution.”

    “On day one in office—after years of pushing the false narrative that Democrats are ‘soft on crime’ and Republicans truly ‘back the blue’— Donald Trump pardoned over 1,500 violent insurrectionists who assaulted law enforcement officers and stormed our nation’s Capitol in an effort to overturn a free and fair election,” said Senator Duckworth. “Not only are these pardons a gross endorsement of political violence, they’re also an insult to the heroic law enforcement officers who defended our democracy and those who died as a result of that fateful day. If Republicans really cared about upholding democracy and the rule of law, then they’d join us in supporting this simple resolution to condemn President Trump’s pardons.”

    “On January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump-inspired insurrectionists  descended on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, wielding unspeakable violence against law enforcement officers.  A ‘full, complete, and unconditional’ pardon dishonors the lives of the five law enforcement officers who died as a result of this day, as well as those who are left with life-altering injuries inflicted by these thugs,” said Senator Durbin.  “This resolution ensures that what truly happened that day – the violent, egregious assault on law enforcement officers and the undermining of a Constitutional proceeding – will not be forgotten, even if President Trump has tried to absolve insurrectionists of their crimes.”

    “I was on the House floor, preparing myself and my colleagues for the mob to overrun the Capitol. President Trump’s pardons of these rioters, many of whom attacked policemen—my friends—is a gross misuse of power,” said Senator Gallego. “We must support law enforcement, not the ones who attacked them and tried to take our democracy.”

    “These criminals used flagpoles, fire extinguishers and bear spray to assault the police securing the Capitol on January 6. No one who assaults a police officer should be given a ‘get out of jail free card’ from the President,” said Senator Heinrich.

    “Instead of focusing on steps to strengthen our economy, lower costs, or make communities safer, Donald Trump’s day one priority was pardoning over 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in an attempt to overturn an election, including those convicted of assaulting police officers,” said Senator Kaine. “These deeply offensive pardons are a slap in the face of the law enforcement community—including five Virginians who died after protecting the Capitol that day—the Constitution, the rule of law, and our democracy. I’m joining together with my colleagues to introduce legislation to formally condemn these shameful pardons.”

    “We will never forget the truth of what happened on January 6: A violent mob attacked our democracy, our Capitol, and the brave men and women of the Capitol Police who were defending it, ” said Senator Klobuchar. “These officers deserve our respect, not the release and pardoning of those who assaulted them. Over the last four years, I have led hearings to examine the events leading up to the attack and have worked with Democrats and Republicans to ensure Capitol Police officers have our full support moving forward. The release of and pardons for those who assaulted them is simply wrong.”

    “The pardons that President Trump granted to insurrectionists who desecrated our Capitol and threatened our democracy on January 6 are not only condemnable – they are disrespectful of the law enforcement who show up every day to protect and serve us. When Republicans say they ‘back the blue,’ they are lauding the very violent criminals who left our officers back and blue on that day. Anyone who supports these pardons is supporting crime and violence,” said Senator Markey. 

    “I condemn in the strongest terms President Trump’s disgraceful pardon of more than 1,000 criminals, many of them violent, who overran the U.S. Capitol, desecrated the seat of our democracy, and assaulted law enforcement in their failed attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Senator Ossoff said.

    “President Trump’s decision to pardon the people who attacked the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted law enforcement officers, in an effort to overturn a free and fair election, is a clear abuse of power. A President’s allies should never receive special treatment when they’ve committed serious, violent crimes – crimes intended to undermine our democracy. To give these attackers a clean slate not only undermines the rule of law, it emboldens their extreme ideological views and it further erodes Americans’ trust in our government,” said Senator Peters.

    “These pardons were a slap in the face of the Capitol Police who stand up everyday to protect members of Congress.  They have our back; we should have theirs.  Failing to condemn the pardons of the criminals who attacked the Capitol would be a shameful betrayal of these dedicated officers,” said Senator Reed.

    “It’s unconscionable that one of President Trump’s first actions in office was to pardon criminals who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021,” said Senator Rosen. “A number of these convicted felons attacked police officers and injured them. It should not be a partisan issue to fully condemn these actions and President Trump’s pardons.”

    “Pardoning those who were convicted of assaulting police officers who were doing their duty during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is reckless and dangerous,” said Senator Shaheen. “No elected official, especially the President of the United States, should ever do anything that would justify, condone or excuse politically motivated violence. I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting this resolution to condemn pardons for those found guilty of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021.”

    “President Trump’s day one agenda was letting violent criminals who beat police officers out of prison. These are people who planned an insurrection, assaulted police officers with metal batons, fire extinguishers, wooden planks, and even admitted to these crimes and pled guilty in court. The brave Capitol Police officers who put themselves in danger to protect our democracy deserve better. We can’t let what actually happened on January 6th, 2021 be rewritten and whitewashed,” said Senator Smith.

    “On January 6, many rioters attacked our Capitol and assaulted, bludgeoned, and bloodied Capitol Police officers and officers from the District of Columbia. Donald Trump’s pardons of these convicted criminals are sickening – they are a gross insult to the brave officers who did their duty and a betrayal of all of law enforcement. I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in sending a simple message: celebrating criminals convicted of beating police officers is unacceptable,” said Senator Van Hollen.

    According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, approximately 1,572 defendants have been federally charged with crimes associated with the attack of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. This includes approximately 598 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers during a civil disorder, including approximately 171 defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. As proven in Court, the weapons used and carried on Capitol grounds during the January 6th attack include firearms; OC spray; tasers; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, such as destroyed office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping, and reinforced knuckle gloves.

    Among others, the individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers and were granted full, unconditional pardons by President Trump this week include:

    • Taylor James Johnatakis, of Kingston, Washington, was convicted of three felonies in November 2023, including assaulting officers. Prosecutors said that he “coordinated a violent assault on a line of police officers defending” the Capitol and that video shows he “used a metal barricade to attack officers head on and grabbed one officer to prevent him from defending himself against other attacking rioters.”
    • Julian Khater, who assaulted a U.S. police office—Brian Sicknick—and later pled guilty to assaulting a police officer with a dangerous weapon.
    • Robert Palmer, who attacked police with a fire extinguisher, a wooden plank, and a pole.
    • Tyler Bradley Dykes of Bluffton, South Carolina, who was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for stealing a police riot shield and twice using it against officers. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers.
    • Devlyn Thompson, who hit a police officer with a metal baton.
    • Andrew Taake, of Houston, Texas, who was sentenced to a little more than six years for assaulting law enforcement officers with bear spray and a metal whip.
    • Christopher Quaglin, who federal prosecutors said “viciously assaulted numerous officers” and was one of the most violent rioters, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison.
    • David Dempsey, who, according to prosecutors, “was one of the most violent rioters,” and received 20 years in prison. Prosecutors also said Dempsey had a “very significant history of arrests and convictions” prior to the January 6th attack.
    • Daniel Rodriguez, of Fontana, California, who plunged a stun gun into the neck of Washington Police Officer Michael Fanone multiple times.
    • Ryan Nichols, of Longview, Texas, who assaulted officers with pepper spray, and later on Jan. 6, at his hotel room, he called for additional violence.
    • Howard Richardson, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, who struck a police officer three times with a flagpole, hard enough to break the flagpole.
    • Robert Sanford, from Chester, Pennsylvania, who hit two police officers in the head with a fire extinguisher and threw a traffic cone at another officer.
    • Jonathan Munafo, of Albany, New York, who punched a police officer, stole the officer’s riot shield, and struck a Capitol office window with two poles.

    MIL OSI USA News –